Facts, alternative facts & the psycho-ceramic-crackpot-in-chief

Facts, alternative facts & the psycho-ceramic-crackpot-in-chief

By Ranting Panda, 25 February 2020

Trump is a Psycho-Ceramic.

What are pyscho-ceramics? They are 'the cracked pots of mankind' ... as described in Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, which went on to observe that 'perhaps the more insane a man is, the more powerful he could become, Hitler for example'. Trump is testament to this. He is mentally deranged & morally derailed, yet holds the most powerful office in the world ... meanwhile, the increasingly desperate, delusional & degenerate right-wing continue making excuses for him, justifying him and completely ignore the truth.

Take Senator Lindsey Graham for instance, who bizarrely stated that Trump shouldn't be removed from office, because 'he did nothing wrong in his mind' (Moye 2020). So what if his mind is a cracked pot.

There's a lot wrong inside Trump's mind ... If the right tolerate this behaviour, what will they tolerate next?

Trump is a demagogue: he appeals to his voters through manipulating their fears and prejudices, rather than by making rational arguments. His speeches are devoid of facts, heavy on lies and barely more than an incoherent, rambling, alphabet soup of puerile insults and bigotry.

In One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Kesey goes on to observe, 'mental illness could have the aspect of power, power'. Now, this isn't an attack on people with mental illness, it is questioning whether Trump's particular mental illness makes him unsuitable to lead a nation. Psychologists from all ideological persuasions have determined that Trump has 'narcissistic personality disorder' (Psychology Today, n.d.).

This may explain some of his more concerning behaviours, such as gas-lighting, compulsive lying, distortion, disregard and denial of facts, erratic and contradictory statements, paranoia and his snowflake sensitivity to criticism. Most concerning is how this plays out in the lives of innocent people. He has not only imprisoned people seeking asylum in the United States, but torn their children from their arms and separated them from their families. There are at least 26,000 children, many of whom will never be reunited because Trump did not have plans for recording the children's details before separating them (Blitzer 2019). This is the man who represents 'family values' to his followers.

Trump was impeached for extorting Ukraine to provide dirt on one of his political opponents. The Republican-dominated Senate was so sure of his innocence that they refused to allow new witnesses and evidence to be presented. One of the religious nutters who supports Trump, called for an 'angelic army with flaming swords' to protect Trump  from impeachment (Hamilton 2020).

Trump was accused of colluding with Russia in fixing his 2016 election win. Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, is currently fighting extradition to the United States on espionage charges. In 2016, Wikileaks published emails that were damaging to Hillary Clinton's election campaign. The lawyer acting for Assange has asserted in court, that Trump offered Assange a presidential pardon if he stated that the emails were not leaked by Russia (Borger 2020).

These are not the actions of an innocent man.

It's not just that Trump is a crack-pot. He is a dangerous crack-pot. He has unbelievably managed to herd Christians behind his corrupt, bullying, abusive agenda. He has done this through the equivalent of slapping a 'fish' sticker on his car. In this case, the fish sticker is his abortion policy, which blind, unquestioning Christians think makes Trump a good Christian, while excusing every other immoral, amoral, corrupt, deceitful, bullying action. All these people defending Trump and claiming he is a Christian, claiming he has family morals and values. Yet would they really want their children behaving like Trump?

Even more disturbing is the correlation of increased hate crimes since Trump's election. The FBI reported attacks against Latinos was at a 16-year high (Hassan 2019). Furthermore, a study examining hate crime trends since 1992, concluded that not only was Trump's election win associated with a 'statistically significant surge in reported hate crimes across the United States, even when controlling for alternative explanations', but that this increase was most evident in counties that voted for Trump (Edwards & Rushin 2018). The report was comprehensive and concluded that it wasn't just Trump's 'inflammatory rhetoric throughout the political campaign that caused hate crimes to increase', but that Trump's election 'validated this rhetoric in the eyes of perpetrators and fuelled the hate crime surge'. Further to this, Trump's influence as holder of the most powerful office in the world, has normalised racism globally and legitimised the rise of far-right political parties and their policies of intolerance, prejudice and discrimination (Giani & Meon, 2019).

Then there's Trump's so-called 'peace plans' for Israel. This particularly appeals to Zionist Christians, and of course, Israel. Meanwhile, it legitimises Israel's war-crimes and ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Firstly, he relocated the US embassy from Tel Aviv to the contested area of Jerusalem. Trump stated, 'God decided Jerusalem was the capital of Israel more than 3,000 years ago during the time of King David' (Usher 2018). Meanwhile, Israeli soldiers were shooting Palestinian protesters, leaving more than 50 dead (Davis 2018). More recently, Trump proudly unveiled his 'peace plan', which has an uncanny resemblance to the apartheid of South Africa, of which Israel was the greatest contributing external party, providing diplomatic support, financial aid, military weapons, and other resources for building and maintaining the bantustans (Liel 2020). Trump's peace plan was developed without any Palestinian input. Instead of returning land to Palestinians, which had been illegally taken and occupied by Israel, Trump's plan will create enclaves in the West Bank for Palestinians. It is no different to the bantustans of South Africa. All of this plays into the hands of Israel and Zionist Christians who have white-washed Palestinians from history, claiming they don't exist and have no rights over the land. The very creation of modern Israel was based on the myth of a 'land without people for a people without a land'. The land did have people and they had occupied it for thousands of years (Brownfield 1998). Trump's rhetoric, actions and 'peace plan', legitimise the ethnic cleansing of Palestine from history and the land ... all in the name of God.

Trump claims to be a Christian, but the bible does state, 'by their fruits you shall know them'. Trump's fruit is racism, hate-speech, hate-crimes, apartheid, war-crimes and the justification of ethnic cleansing.

To quote the 1971 song 'One Tin Soldier':

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of heaven,
You can justify it in the end.

It is from the movie, Billy Jack. The song, One Tin Soldier, tells the story of an age-old battle for a buried treasure, and the blood spilled in pursuit of it. The song ends with the treasure being revealed. Rather than the treasure being gold, silver or jewels, it is simply a message: 'Peace on earth'.

This message reflects Carl Sagan's powerful, poignant, perceptive observation of the 'Pale Blue Dot'. Sagan describes the Earth as a 'mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam'. Sagan goes onto to poignantly observe:

'The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds'.

War has existed for millenia, with people fighting for power, for control, for land. Yet, underpinning the belief-systems of many of these warriors are religions that claim they want 'peace on earth'.

There are Christians who follow Trump, yet cheered him on as he took the world to the brink of war against Iran (Grant 2020). Christians supported President George W. Bush and the 'Coalition of the Willing' in their illegal invasion of Iraq that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Christians supported Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in their wars in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan. Christians supported the wars in Vietnam and Korea. Christians supported Adolf Hitler in the wars he waged and his persecution and genocide of Jews, communists, gypsies, unionists and many others.

Why is this so important? Because many of these same people will criticise Islam for being inherently violent because of terrorist attacks waged by Muslim extremists. Meanwhile, these Christians fail to understand that Christian-led wars have killed far more people than any other religion. This inability and unwillingness to self-critique provides a firm platform for Trump and his ilk to harvest votes from xenophobic messaging and politics.

These behaviours are described so eloquently by French philosopher, Blaise Pascall, when he stated, 'Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction'.

For many years, right-wing voters have been seduced by fear-mongering messages aimed at 'othering' to create division and hatred between people. The following message is similar to that presented by many right-wing parties across the globe. They create an enemy, they create fear, and then they use this to remove people's rights. It turns the people against each other, rather than against those people who promote hate and fear. And from this, war is justified, persecution of minorities is justified, authoritarianism is justified ... exactly what we are seeing with Trump.

'The streets of our country are in turmoil. The Universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might and the republic is in danger. Yes, danger from within and without. We need law and order. Yes, without law and order our nation cannot survive. Elect us and we shall restore law and order'.

By the way, that statement was made by Adolf Hitler, but it echoes the messages of politicians, such as Donald Trump and his ilk, which includes Australia's Scott Morrison. It is a message being reflected by right-wing parties across the globe, such as the German far-right party, Alternative for Germany, which has broken decades old laws about curtailing Nazism, in Spain there is the far-right Vox party, Austria's Freedom Party, France's National Front led by Marine Le Pen, the Sweden Democrats, Finland's Finns Party, the Conservative People's Party of Estonia, Poland's Confederation Party, Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban, the Slovenian Democratic Party led by former Prime Minister Janez Jansa, and in Greece there is the Greek Solution and the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn (BBC 2019). All of these parties and politicians have common messages and policies around anti-intellectualism, anti-socialism/communism, anti-unionism, anti-migration, stronger law and order. They do so through messages of fear that demonise Muslim refugees as terrorists and blame them for destroying the economy, or that socialism is infiltrating schools and universities through science, climate change, gender-fluidity, and political correctness.

Have we forgotten the lessons of Nazi Germany? The Germans in Nazi Germany did not realise just how far Hitler would take them, however, they embraced his message and did his bidding. We should be concerned when these parties are elected into positions of power.

In the United States, Trump ran a similar message in his electioneering and was installed into the highest office in the land. He is not articulate, his messages are rambling and irrational, but while they lack substance, they appeal to his supporters. This is not unlike Hitler, who was also rambling and irrational. In Australia, it is very similar with Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who has no substance to his policies, but continues the irrational and rambling messages of his predecessors, such as Tony Abbott and John Howard. The messages of each of these appeal to the masses because they invoke fear and hatred of the 'other'. They demonise minorities and blame them for economic ills, while providing greater freedom to the wealthy who continue to exploit minorities and the poor.



In the opening scene of the movie, Billy Jack, Billy confronts the sheriff for trying to shoot horses on Indian land. The sheriff declares 'We have the law here'. Billy Jack retorts, 'When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law; just a fight for survival'. This could be modernised to reflect Trump's approach to the law. He has consistently broken it, then criticises police for investigating it, while pardoning criminals with connections to him (Baker et al, 2020).

Ironically, those who support the idiocracy of Trump, claim they support democracy. They don't understand that democracy has died through the division of society, through turning the people against each other, through making some people less human or less deserving of rights than others. Dare I quote Padme from 'Star Wars - Revenge of the Sith', when she stated, 'So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause . . .'


The hate-speech of the far-right is often masked in neo-liberal economics, which argues for free-market trade, deregulation, privatisation, small government, user-pays systems for health and education, and no welfare. The victims of neo-liberalism are the poor, so it is inherent in neo-liberal strategies to turn the population, including the poor, against a common enemy. That common enemy should be the neo-liberal politicians and big businesses who are only interested in profit over people. However, the common enemy becomes minorities in western countries, such as refugees, LGBTIQ+ people, Muslims, and even the poor themselves. Neo-liberalism is intimately entwined with neo-fascism, neo-Nazism and racism.

Why are these simplistic messages of hate so powerful? Abbott and Morrison both used three-word slogans, such as 'stop the boats', 'lifters not leaners', 'debt and deficit', 'axe the tax'. (Quiggin 2015). These slogans had no substance, no explanation, and were aimed at spreading fear and division. Most people did not go beyond the superficial messaging. Trump is the same. He spreads a simple message of hate. He declared that all Mexicans are murderers and rapists (Jacobs 2018). He continues to wage prejudicial campaigns against Muslims, declaring that 'Islam hates us'. He banned all Muslims from entering the USA. Following the mosque terrorist attacks in New Zealand that killed 51 Muslims and injured many others, he tweeted a link to far-right site Breitbart that had declared Muslim refugees were 'rapefugees'. Trump has retweeted hate speech videos by neo-fascists who wage campaigns of violence against Muslims while claiming to be Christians (Klaas 2019). While Trump claims he isn't racist, his language and actions have empowered Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and white supremacists (Simon & Sidner 2019). Hitler also used these simplistic, rambling messages of hate, fear and division. Hitler claimed he was doing the 'work of the Lord' in attacking communists, Jews and others. Each of these leaders wrapped their messages in Christian beliefs to mask their terrible agendas while seducing Christians into thinking they are defending moral values.

The common theme in these simplistic messages of intolerance and fear is absolutism.

Right-wing politicians will deplore 'moral relativism'. Yet the opposite of relativism is absolutism. Relativism looks at context and nuance. Absolutism does not. Absolutism fails to recognise the differences in people, societies, cultures, perspective. It rejects science because science requires relativism. Absolutism finds fertile ground in religion, because it is easy to manipulate the religious into a superstitious fear of judgement and condemnation by their supreme being if they dare to question. For example, Trump appointed a spiritual adviser, Paula White-Cain, who proclaimed that 'To say no to President Trump would be saying no to God' (Thomas 2019). Wow! Talk about feeding the superstitious fears of the gullible.

Staying with the Star Wars quotes, Obi Wan Kenobi stated 'Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes. I will do what I must'. Ok, we don't have Sith Lords, but we do have powerful politicians claiming they are doing the work of the Lord. We have politicians dealing in absolutes, because that makes it easier to demonise and divide. It makes it easier to control the gullible to do their bidding. The key though is fear. Send the message that there is an attack on their freedoms, create an imaginary enemy, and the gullible are ripe for manipulation.

Truth and facts? Nah. What use are these when being told what to believe by Trump or other clowns.

Remember when Press Secretary Sean Spicer grossly inflated the attendance numbers for Trump's inauguration? Counsellor to the President, Kelly-Anne Conway decided to cover for him by declaring that these were 'alternative facts'. Chuck Todd, of Meet the Press, explained to Conway, 'Alternative facts are not facts. They are falsehoods' (Blake 2017).

For instance, when politicians or commentators are called out for racism or bigotry, they will either deny it or gaslight it. There may be video footage of the exact statement and they will say that they never said it. Or, they will indignantly declare that their freedom of speech is being attacked by politically correctness 'gone mad', by socialist snowflakes. It is reminiscent of Orwell's dystopian novel, 1984, 'The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command'.

Another great quote from Billy Jack, is when Billy states, 'It's funny isn't it? Only the white man wants everything put in writing. And only then, so he can use it against you in court. You know among the Indians, a promise is good enough'. 

Trump throws even this on its head. It doesn't matter whether it is in writing or there is video evidence of what he has said, he will blatantly lie and deny. It's not just that he is corrupt, but that he treats people with contempt and knows that his supporter base are so gullible, they will defend him no matter what he does. He is the embodiment of corruption and his supporters are complicit, easily-led and ... suckers.

Unbelievably, his supporters will deny facts simply because Trump tells them to. Speak to the brain-washed Trump fans and they will claim he is an amazing president who has turned the economy around. Many of the economic indicators show that Trump has just continued on Obama's trajectory without staging any miraculous economic recovery. For example, the following chart shows unemployment rate by racial and ethnic category. Apart from the dates, can anyone show when Trump took over and 'turned this around'? Of course not. Obama had already established policies that had reduced unemployment following the highs of the Global Financial Crisis which occurred under President George W. Bush.

Source: Jacobson 2020

Clearly, truth does not matter to Trump or many of the other right-wing politicians on the international stage. When people defend Trump or Morrison or any of the others who propagate a culture of deceit, hatred, fear, and division, they are taking their respective nations down a slippery slope that we have seen leads to fascism, authoritarianism and gross human rights abuses.

Trump is a crack-pot.

A dangerous neo-liberal, narcissistic crack-pot.

So how do we counter this threat to democracy?

The left-wing needs to mobilise and unite. Instead of factional in-fighting, it needs to fight against the horrid policies and behaviours of the intolerant right-wing. While Trump and many of those on the right-wing are sensitive to criticism, this shouldn't stop anyone challenging their racist, irrational, damaging politics. Realise that they will attempt to gas-light, they will claim they are victims of political correctness 'gone mad'. Hold them to account for their shallow policies, ask them to explain them and what evidence they have. Sadly, as we have seen, evidence and truth plays no part in their rationale, but they still must be challenged. Identify alternatives to their intolerance and absolutism that still address moral issues, such as caring for the persecuted, creating jobs and establishing living wages. This may be difficult, as many on the right have a warped sense of morality, thinking they are already defending family values and the morals of the bible, and sadly see any assistance for the poor or marginalised as socialism.

It can be discouraging and demoralising trying to hold a rational discussion with the irrational far-right. There could be a case for not holding these discussions. After all, as some anonymous pundit observed, 'Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. It'll just knock over all the pieces, shit on the board, and strut about like it's won anyway'.

Nonetheless, the less anonymous Martin Luther King provides an explanation of why it is so important to challenge the intolerance and harmful politics of neo-liberals, neo-fascists and the far-right. 'In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends'.

Let's not be silent in the face of fascism, intolerance, hatred, fear-mongering and bigotry.

Stand up against bullying by the likes of Trump and challenge the irrational claims of the far right.


References

Baker, P, Goodman, D, Rothfield, M, & Williamson, E 2020, 'The 11 Criminals Granted Clemency by Trump Had One Thing in Common: Connections', The New York Times, 19 February, viewed 22 February 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/19/us/politics/trump-pardons.html.

BBC 2019, 'Europe and right-wing nationalism: A country-by-country guide', BBC, 13 November, viewed 22 February 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36130006.

Blake, A 2017, 'Kellyanne Conway says Donald Trump’s team has ‘alternative facts.’ Which pretty much says it all', The Washington Post, 23 January, viewed 22 February 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/22/kellyanne-conway-says-donald-trumps-team-has-alternate-facts-which-pretty-much-says-it-all/.

Blitzer, J 2019, 'A new report on family separations shows the depths of Trump's negligence', The New Yorker, 6 December 2019, viewed 22 February 2020, https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-new-report-on-family-separations-shows-the-depths-of-trumps-negligence.

Borger, J 2020, 'Donald Trump 'offered Julian Assange a pardon if he denied Russia link to hack'', The Guardian, 20 February, viewed 22 February 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/19/donald-trump-offered-julian-assange-pardon-russia-hack-wikileaks.

Brownfield, AC 1998, 'Zionism at 100: The myth of Palestine as "a land without people"', Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March, viewed 29 February 2020, https://www.wrmea.org/1998-march/zionism-at-100-the-myth-of-palestine-as-a-land-without-people.html.

Davis, JH 2018, 'Jerusalem embassy is a victory for Trump, and a complication for Middle East peace', The New York Times, 14 May, viewed 22 February 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/us/politics/trump-jerusalem-embassy-middle-east-peace.html.

Edwards, GS & Rushin, S 2018, 'The effect of President Trump's election on hate crimes', SSRN, 14 January, viewed 22 February 2020, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3102652.

Giani, M & Meon, P 2019, Global racist contagion following Donald Trump's election, British Journal of Political Science, 11 July, viewed 22 February 2020, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/global-racist-contagion-following-donald-trumps-election/222D3AC82A8E3BD95880F262EB3F1F87.

Grant, 2020, 'Could tension between the US and Iran spark World War 3?', ABC News, 7 January, viewed 22 February 2020, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-07/world-war-3-qassem-soleimani-trump-us-and-iran/11841254.

Hamilton, M 2020, 'Christian prophetess calls on ‘angelic army with flaming swords’ to protect Trump from impeachment', DeadState, 23 January, viewed 22 February 2020, https://deadstate.org/christian-prophetess-calls-on-angelic-army-with-flaming-swords-to-protect-trump-from-impeachment/.

Hassan, A 2019, 'Hate-Crime violence hits 16-year high, F.B.I. reports', The New York Times, 12 November 2019, viewed 22 February 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/hate-crimes-fbi-report.html.

Jacobs, B 2018, 'Trump defends Mexican rapists claim during conspiracy-laden speech', The Guardian, 6 April, viewed 22 February 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/05/trump-mexico-caravan-voter-claims-speech-west-virginia.

Jacobson, L 2020, 'No, the economy didn't suddenly get strong under Donald Trump', Politifact, 6 February, viewed 23 February 2020, https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/06/donald-trump/no-economy-didnt-suddenly-get-strong-under-donald-/.

Klaas, B 2019, 'A short history of President Trump’s anti-Muslim bigotry', The Washington Post, 16 March, viewed 22 February 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/15/short-history-president-trumps-anti-muslim-bigotry/.

Liel, A 2020, 'Trump's plan for Palestine looks a lot like apartheid', Foreign Policy, 27 February 2020, viewed 29 February 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/27/trumps-plan-for-palestine-looks-a-lot-like-apartheid/.

Moye, D 2020, 'Lindsey Graham bizarrely defends Trump: 'He did nothing wrong in his mind'', Huffington Post, 24 January, viewed 23 February 2020, https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/lindsey-graham-trump-defense-twitter_n_5e29f14cc5b6779e9c2f8373

Psychology Today n.d., 'President Donald Trump', viewed 22 February 2020, https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/basics/president-donald-trump.

Quiggin, J 2015, 'Three-word slogans have left Abbott with an economic quandary', ABC News, 21 August, viewed 22 February 2020, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-21/quiggin-abbotts-economic-quandary/6714896.

Simon, M & Sidner, S 2019, 'Trump says he's not a racist. That's not how white nationalists see it', CNN, 16 July, viewed 22 February 2020, https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/12/politics/white-supremacists-cheer-midterms-trump/index.html.


Thomas, C 2019, 'Does Trump need spiritual adviser Paula White-Cain?', The Washington Times, 6 November, viewed 22 February 2020, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/6/does-trump-need-spiritual-adviser-paula-white-cain/.

Usher, BP 2018, 'Jerusalem embassy: Why Trump's move was not about peace', BBC News, 15 May, viewed 22 February 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44120428.

Updated 29 February 2020

In a world where opinions are valued more than fact, government is occupied by fools & narcissistic morons

In a world where opinions are valued more than fact, government is occupied by fools & narcissistic morons



Back in the day, people would vote for politicians based on policies and values. These days, we've seen people quite proudly declare that they vote for politicians such as Donald Trump or Pauline Hanson, because they 'speak their mind'. This indicates that many voters are more interested in a politician's opinion than in their competence or integrity. It also indicates, that when politicians do speak their mind, it will only reflect the populist opinion of the day in order to get elected.

Similarly, back in the day, people would read newspapers to get the facts on particular events. These days, many of the mainstream news services report opinion as though it was fact. Nek minnit, people are running around citing the rantings of Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and their ilk as being fact, when they are really just highly-paid, unqualified polemicists looking to stir division and controversy.

As author Toni Aleo once incisively reflected,  'opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and most of them are just full of shit'.

Harsh, but nailed it.

When real journalists report facts, provide context and question the claims, actions and double-standards of politicians, these pollies and their cortege of unquestioning devotees scream 'fake news' and blame 'post-modern, neo-Marxist relativism' for daring to provide evidence-based reporting.

Even Kelly-Anne Conway, counsellor to the puerile, maladroit and feckless US President Donald Trump, declared that falsehoods spoken within the Trump administration were simply 'alternative facts' ... so yeah ... this is where we're at ... the greatest empire the world has ever seen, is ruled by a feeble-minded fibber who transmogrifies rubbery opinions and blatant bullshit into 'alternative facts' to suit his narcissistic need for acceptance and popularity among small-minded people who can't accept the slightest challenge to their ignorant world view that often manifests in bigoted attacks on people who are not white, not Christian, not heterosexual, and not right-wing.

Way back in 1920, journo and satirist, Henry Louis Mencken made a blistering observation of what the ultimate fulfilment of democracy would be when the people get exactly what they want. In an era of post-truth Trumpism where opinion is more valued than fact, Mencken's words have proven disturbingly prophetic when he predicted that 'on some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and a complete narcissistic moron' ... but hey, at least Trump 'speaks his mind'!

Some of Trump's deluded and fanatical followers are Christians who blindly support him, overlooking his lies, indiscretions and infidelities, while claiming he is annointed of God. The only thing Trump is annointed with is golden showers from Russian hookers. As Willz, one of our guest bloggers recently remarked, it is more like Trump is the anti-Christ who banged the whore of Babylon.

In Australia, the Liberal Party which is currently dominated by extremist right-wing Christians, has dramatically slashed funding of the ABC and SBS. These publicly-funded networks have charters that require them to provide balanced reporting of fact rather than opinion. Yet the rabid right-wing attack ABC and SBS for being too left-wing ... apparently when you're so right-wing that reports of other views and facts that don't suit your little circle of ignorance, must be part of a neo-Marxist, left-wing agenda. With their benighted heads buried so deep in the right-wing paranoia of shock-jock vituperation, balanced reporting looks like a left-wing conspiracy to the rabid right.

The rabid right will claim that they stand for freedom, truth, Christian values, while accusing the left-wing of being snowflakes who are easily offended and who stand for political correctness and social justice (apparently this is an insult in the feeble-minded minds of the rabid right). Yet many on the extreme right curl into fetal positions when the cognitive dissonance between their ignorance and truth gets too much. They'll then revert to one of their comfortable positions: stop same-sex marriage, stop abortion, stop Islam, stop socialism ... yada, yada, yada.

Instead of trying to make the world a better place, to understand facts without going fetal when truth doesn't match their ignorance, they'll wrap themselves in their national flag and accuse the more enlightened of being elitists, traitors, do-gooders. Apparently nothing says patriotism like championing fascism, neo-Nazism and vilifying more moderate voices.

In a world dominated by social media, tweets and memes hold more weight than peer-reviewed, evidence-based dissertation. Even the fustian Trump fires off brash tweets that his minions are left having to justify and defend ... after all, truth is not important in the post-truth world of the Trump empire ... truth is whatever you're told and don't dare challenge it.

Here's some advice for those who get their news from tweets, memes and Fox:

Tweets do not necessarily equal truth ... and truth does not always equal fact, because truth can be based on interpretation rather than context. For example, two people looking at a symbol painted on the ground, one claims it is a 6, the other claims it is a 9.

Which person is correct? Are both correct? Are both wrong? What they have both said may be truth. It may be a 6 or a 9. However, the 'fact' will depend on a number of things. Did the artist intend on it being a 6 or 9. If so, then only one of them is correct, although the 'fact' was ambiguous because it looks like both a 6 and a 9. In this case, one of them needs to reorient their position to see the fact. Perhaps, the artist intended for it to be both a 6 and a 9, so in this case, both people are correct. Perhaps the artist had painted the letter 'g', in which case both people are wrong. What this shows, is that we can't just accept someone's opinion no matter how correct it looks. We should always question, we should always put things into context. This example demonstrates the inherent problem in dissing relativism, because the opposite of relativism is absolutism. An absolutist would defend to the death their view of this, whether it was a 6 or 9, yet they could have been incorrectly oriented or it may have been a 'g' and not a number at all.

The problem is that for a lot of people, their narrow world-view needs to be boiled down to its most simplistic. Former Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, realised this and reduced his policy statements to three-word slogans, such as 'stop the boats' and 'axe the tax'. These resonated with his fans, however, it completely ignored the complexity of the issues that underpinned the situations that he was talking about.

Canadian professor and philosopher, Marshall McLuhan (1911 to 1980) summed up the situation well, 'a point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted or insight and understanding'.

Interestingly, McLuhan also astutely observed that 'Politics will eventually be replaced by imagery. The politician will be only too happy to abdicate in favor of his image, because the image will be much more powerful than he could ever be'. Politicians are not interested in fact, truth and what's good for society, but merely in twisting facts and truth for their own self-serving desires.

In a world of alternative facts, opinionated shysters, deceitful politicians and a gullible public, who needs critical thought when it can't fit into a meme or a slogan?

From Nanny State to Police State

For years, the Liberal Party and its supporters have accused the Labor Party of running a nanny state. Every time that legislation was introduced with the aim of protecting people from themselves or others, the 'nanny state, nanny state' squeals from the right-wing were deafening. Whether it was workplace health and safety laws, anti-discrimination laws, anti-vilification laws, even anti-fat laws which now require restaurants to state the calorie content of its food, the right wing accused Labor of wrapping society in cotton-wool.

The extreme right-wing Liberal National Party that now rules Queensland under Premier Campbell Newman, claimed that it was going to reduce red and green tape because Queensland was over-governed, over-regulated, over-legislated.

To de-nannify Queensland, Newman and his side-kick, Attorney-General Jarrid Bleije, introduced new laws:

• Name and shame juvenile offenders who commit a second offence ⁽¹⁾
• Sex offender law amendments which removed power of the courts to decide whether a sex offender should be freed, and gave it to the Attorney-General ⁽²⁾, in breach of the Westminster Convention. The Court of Appeal has rejected these amendments as invalid. Bleije is considering challenging the Court of Appeal ⁽³⁾.
• 'Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment' Act, which outlaws dozens of motorcycle gangs, makes it a crime for three or more people to be gathered together and allows for an additional 15 to 25 years jail on top of the head sentence, for a member of an outlaw gang who is convicted of a violent crime ⁽⁴⁾. Persons convicted under the VLAD Act may be sentenced to a dedicated prison, spend 23 hours per day in a cell and wear a pink jumpsuit ⁽⁵⁾. The legislation is very broad and doesn't just apply to bikers ⁽⁶⁾.
• There also anti-Union and anti-democracy laws, aimed at weakening the rights of workers, including banning Unions from using membership funds to undertake advertising campaigns without a referendum ⁽⁷⁾⁽⁸⁾, and banning employers from deducting union membership fees from their wages ⁽⁹⁾.

Anyone who doubts the danger of Newman's fascist laws or who believe that it only targets the worst of the worst biker gangs, should take a look at what happened in Queensland on 14 December 2013. Every year bikers hold a toy run, in which they deliver toys to needy children. Newman and Bleije unleashed the Queensland Police on the charity toy run which was being conducted by Christian biker group, the Tribe of Judah. Unconfirmed reports on Facebook and Twitter claim that more than 700 bikers were stopped under the VLAD Act. Channel 10 reported that there were 300 charity bikers stopped ⁽¹⁰⁾.

Either way, this is an incredible abuse of police power. If the bikers were distributing drugs, weapons or other contraband that would be understandable, but they were distributing toys to the most needy children in Queensland society. Children who likely will have a very bleak Christmas. Children who may well be desperate and destitute. Merry Christmas kids. Your government is just waiting for an excuse to send you to jail, so don't load up on toys or other things that you might enjoy.

Instead of the Newman government attempting to fix social problems, they target the most needy. Even the 'name and shame' laws are not aimed at rehabilitating, but at victimising the victims of poverty.

Labor may have run a Nanny State according to right-wingers, but the LNP is blatantly and boldly operating a fascist Police State; one in which the liberties of all citizens are under threat.

What's next? Ban freedom of speech? Ban the media, or bloggers, or Facebook, Twitter and other social media users from making comment?

Newman and his cohorts are operating a fascist government which is getting more and more extreme.

At risk of invoking Godwin's Law, it isn't too much of a stretch to remember the words of the German Baptist preacher, Martin Niemöller who stated,  'When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent, I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent, I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak up, because I was not a trade unionist. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out'.

All Queenslanders should be concerned and speaking up against these draconian and totalitarian laws. 

References

1. Marissa Calligeros, Brisbane Times, 'Queensland to name and shame young offenders', 26 September 2013, http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-to-name-and-shame-young-offenders-20130926-2uexk.html. Last accessed 15 December 2013.

2. Amy Remeikis, Brisbane Times, 'Bleije bypasses courts on state's worst sex offenders', 16 October 2013, http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-to-name-and-shame-young-offenders-20130926-2uexk.html. Last accessed 15 December 2013.

3. Brisbane Time, 'Jarrid Bleije announces review of dangerous prisoner laws', 8 December 2013, http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/jarrod-bleijie-announces-review-of-dangerous-prisoner-laws-20131208-2yyyf.html. Last accessed 15 December 2013.

4. Queensland Government, Queensland Cabinet and Ministerial Directory, Media Statements, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice The Honourable Jarrid Bleije, Tuesday, October 15, 2013, 'Tough penalties for criminal gang members', http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2013/10/15/tough-penalties-for-criminal-gang-members. Last accessed 15 December 2013.

5. The Guardian, 'Pink for punks: Queensland plan to embarrass bikies in jail', 21 October 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/21/pink-for-punks-queensland-bikies. Last accessed 15 December 2013.

6. Anna Capellano, Independent Australia, 'Are you a vicious lawless associate?', 8 November 2103, http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/are-you-a-vicious-lawless-associate,5876. Last accessed 15 December 2013.

7. Stand for Qld, 'Fact sheet on Newman LNP Government extreme anti-Democracy Bill', http://standforqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Q-Watch-Fact-sheet-on-LNP-Bill-V2-BY1.pdf. Last accessed 15 December 2013.

8. Amy Remeikis, Brisbane Times, 'Newman government rachets up 'war' on unions', 8 August 2013, http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/newman-government-ratchets-up-war-on-unions-20130807-2rgw7.html. Last accessed 15 December 2013.

9. Alex Scott, Together Union, 'New industrial legislation by the Newman government', 11 June 2013, http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3854365.htm. Last accessed 15 December 2013.

10. Sarah Greenhalgh, Channel 10, 'Bikies spread Christmas cheer', 14 December 2013, http://tenplay.com.au/news/brisbane/2013/12/14/bikies-spread-christmas-cheer. Last accessed 15 December 2013.

Name a successful socialist country!

One question that every Socialist will be asked at some point in time is "name one successful Socialist country".  The question will be smugly asked as though the answer "none" is a fait accompli.

Of course, rather than being the nail in the coffin of any pro-Socialist argument, it merely shows the sheer lack of knowledge of the person posing the question. The question displays the ignorant arrogance of the "talk-show" educated right wing.

The answer is a comprehensive list of Socialist successes and a testimony to the malevolent and genocidal policies of capitalism.  Many Socialist countries, whilst economically successful, were overthrown, not because of the failure of Socialism, but because the bastion of freedom and democracy, the United States, ensured that even democratically elected Socialists would fail through one right wing coup after another. Coups which often installed blood-thirsty tyrants, such as Pinochet or Suharto.  At times it wasn't a coup that was sponsored, but an existing tyrant to ensure that Socialism or Communism would not take over, such as the US sponsoring of Pol Pot and his killing fields.

This article is not just constrained to answering the question regarding successful socialist countries.  It also provides a critique of the effectiveness of "Democracy" as implemented by the United States. The reason for this is that the USA had a systematic and deliberate policy of undermining Socialism.  That coupled with the exploitation of Socialism by despots who were anything but Socialist, ensured that Socialism would not operate to the extent that it should have.  Sadly, most people believe the mass media reports regarding the munificence of the United States and the evil of Socialism.  The truth is that both the USA and the USSR were evil and their "Cold War" resulted in the deaths of millions of people, not in the name of Democracy or Socialism, but for the purposes of Power, Hegemony and Capitalism.  Both nations were determined to suppress dissidents, exploit workers, keep wages low and profits high - not for the benefit of their citizens, but the benefit of their leaders and, particularly in the case of the USA, their own corporations.

What is Socialism?

Socialism places responsibility for production in the hands of workers and it ensures that wealth is not accumulated in isolated pockets but is distributed for the benefit of all members of society.  For instance, it may be distributed through public health, education, security.

For Socialism to succeed, it requires that ALL members work for the benefit of ALL.

Socialism is not about creating a welfare state.

Socialism is not about placing power in the hands of the FEW to exploit ALL, which is what Leninism and Stalinism did.  The Soviet Union may have called itself Socialist. However, it was anything but Socialist.  It opposed the true virtues of Marxism.  Lenin, Stalin and the rest of the Soviet exploited the workers uprising to introduce a repressive regime that benefited no citizen, let alone the workers.

What is Capitalism?

Capitalism requires government control over the market - even in a so called "free" market. For instance, if it wasn't for "Free Trade Agreements" and the "General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs", most USA corporations would actually have to compete fairly with smaller traders in weaker economies.  Instead, the US government has ensured that strength and growth of their corporations whilst allowing them to exploit weaker economies and markets.

Essentially, Capitalism is redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich.

For Capitalism to succeed, it requires that ALL members of society work for the benefit of the FEW.  It places power in the hands of the FEW to exploit ALL.

Note, the rhetoric by the right wing, in which they will accuse left wing parties of being Socialist when a government funds health, education, police, defence and so on. They will accuse the left of creating a welfare state.  Yet, when the government funds big business that is called democracy, free trade - capitalism!

Measuring Success

But first, how do we measure success?  As the United States has established itself as the bastion of democracy and capitalism, it should be used to compare to Socialist states.  The USA certainly has been a strong economy and has dominated the world militarily. In fact, the USA has spent far more on its military and military interventions in other countries, than it has on the welfare of its own people.  Any suggestion of government being responsible for the welfare of its citizens is met with derision and accusations of socialism or communism.  As a measure of success, the USA's GDP certainly exceeded that of any other country, whether capitalist, socialist or other. This wealth was built on a series of violent, international interventions which established US corporations in many countries and ensured that the wealth of those countries was redistributed to the USA. However, compared to Socialist states, USA levels of unemployment were much higher and it lacked any ability to provide health care for its poorest citizens.

Is success having wealth in the hands of the few whilst the majority earn minimum wage?  Is success having the strongest military and no public health system?  Is success having the biggest house and a mortgage that can't be serviced?  Is success measured by "he who has the most toys wins"?  Yet, this is the mentality of the United States.

To achieve this "success", the government has marketed an unattainable dream to the populace whilst exploiting fears that the dream will not be realised if "Socialism" undermines the power of corporations to sell this dream.

Failure(?)

Socialism did not fail.   It was overthrown through aggressive, extremist Capitalism, implemented through genocide and economic blackmail, which destroyed lives, economies, political systems and democracy in many countries. Socialist states in Europe suffered the ignominy of the betrayal of Marxism by those who claimed to represent it, in particular Stalin and his legacy of aggression, suppression and oppression enforced by the Soviet Union.  For instance, the operation of Gulags, human rights abuses targetting loosely defined "enemies of the State", and the invasions of nations, such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia.  None of these actions are compatible with Socialism and they undermined the benefits of Marxism.

The USA's strong capitalistic stance has resulted in it's citizens being responsible for obtaining their own private health care, and without a welfare safety net, many unemployed do not have the means to house or feed themselves.  No economy is perfect. Every nation can be criticised for failures in various areas.  These failures do not mean that the dominant political preference is a failure.  Often it is the politicians who fail, not the politics.

In his book, "How the World Works", Noam Chomsky points out that one of the reasons that Eastern European nations have higher health and educational standards than Latin American nations is because of the differing economic policies in the region.  Chomsky cites US intelligence figures, which indicate that during the 1970s, the Soviet Union injected around $80 billion dollars into Eastern Europe, while between 1982 and 1988 the USA and other western nations extracted around $150 billion from Latin America.

Interventions

The USA is without doubt the world's most powerful nation; but power should not be abused. Since the Second World War, the USA has intervened in the sovereignty of over 70 nations, not for the benefit of those nations, but for the benefit of US corporations.  Capitalism was the religion that defined the extremist, foreign relations policies of the United States.

The USA has claimed these interventions were for democracy, freedom and human rights.  Yet, USA interventions have resulted in democratic elections being corrupted, democratically elected governments overthrown, tyrants with no respect for human rights installed and millions of people massacred as a result.

The western media demonised the Soviet Union yet the USSR never intervened as often or as violently as the USA in the sovereignty of other nations.  Instead of criticising USA foreign policy, the media glorified it.  The USA has constantly portrayed socialism or communism as being incompatible with democracy. Yet, this is not the case.  There have been instances of democratically elected Socialist leaders.  There is nothing in Socialism that prevents democracy.  Further, is democracy the pinnacle of politics? Democracy itself has its failings.  Rule by the majority often means that the minority is left out.  This was recognised by the founding fathers of the United States, who did not found America as a democracy because of this very threat; to avoid the "tyranny of majority".

Politicians should govern for the benefit of the entire nation, not to simply meet the wishes of the majority or the wealthiest.

Is Socialism incompatible with Human Rights?

Not all countries which have been labelled "Socialist" are truly that.  The USSR could hardly have been called "Socialist".  It was not run by the workers and the redistribution of wealth did not benefit its citizens. It was run by despots who were only interested in bolstering their own power and wealth.  This is a perverted form of Capitalism.  Stalin did not conduct pogroms, gulags and violent suppression of free speech in order to protect Soviet citizens or Socialism, but in order to protect himself.  Karl Marx never called for genocide.  Marxism is not Stalinism.

Similarly, brutality in China was not about Communism, but about power.

The brutality and oppression of the USSR was generally confined to its own borders and at times to countries behind the Iron Curtain.  China's brutality was confined to its own borders and on the occasion it extended beyond that, was usually because of its interpretation of what was Chinese territory, for example, Tibet and Taiwan.

Whilst the USA never waged such brutality against its own citizens, it did directly sponsor brutal despots and provided material support, training and supervision of death squads in order to suppress political dissent throughout the globe. The USA's brutality was global with no respect for borders, democracy or human rights; it was all about money and hegemony.


Modern capitalists will demonise Socialism by saying it is undemocratic and that it opposes free speech, however, the examples that they use are not exemplary of socialism.  Free speech, democracy, liberty are compatible with socialism.  Despotism and brutality are not the sole bastion of left-wing tyrants, but have been used by many capitalist nations over the years, most often by the United States, either directly or by material support, resulting in the deaths of millions of people across the globe. Stalin also sponsored massacres of people he did not like.

Noam Chomsky (How the World Works) reports that a journalist who worked for the Guatemalan newspaper La Epoca (which had been forced to close as a result of US pressure) stated, "while the Moscow-imposed government in Prague would degrade and humiliate reformers, the Washington-made government in Guatemala would kill them.  It still does, in a virtual genocide that has taken more than 150,000 victims (in what Amnesty International) calls a 'government program of political murder' ". 

As with any political system "nationalism" is the danger (refer to my blog "Nationalism Rising").  Coupled with Nationalism is fear - fear of different cultural, ethnic or religious groups and this is used to justify violence, racism, jingoism.


"Name one successful Socialist country"

Now, to answer the question "name one successful Socialist country".

The following is a list of a few of the successes of socialism, in no particular order:

China (apart from the unnecessary human rights violations of course).  Certainly Mao Tse Tung is not the poster boy of tolerance and understanding, however, economically China has prospered under Communism and now has one of the strongest economies in the world.

Chile under the democratically elected Marxist, President Allende, had successfully implemented public health schemes and reduced food and housing shortages and increased housing standards.  He nationalised more than 90 industries, including the copper industry, banking and credit, which assisted in redistributing wealth equitably. His land reforms saw previously unused land used for food production, greatly assisting in reducing malnutrition.  These Socialist measures were of course, unacceptable to the United States so the Chilean economy was blatantly sabotaged through USA interference and withholding of aid, manipulation of media through fear campaigns and false propaganda, and influencing the military.  This interference culminated in Allende being murdered in a bloody CIA backed coup on 11 September 1973 in order to install a right-wing, pro-American military dictator in the form of General Pinochet, who then went on to massacre thousands of his own people. Of course, the massacres were for the Chileans own benefit in order to protect them from the evils of Socialism and allow them to enjoy economic rape by American corporations.

Indonesia under President Sukarno had proven Socialist reform to be so successful that their economy was booming, there were greater job prospects, people were better educated than ever before. Sukarno founded the Republic of Indonesia after centuries of Dutch colonial rule and Japanese occupation.  He peacefully united the multitude of cultures and religions. Sukarno had shown that not only was his pro-Socialist policies effective, but that he was not going to kowtow to United States imperialism.  This was unacceptable to the United States, who then backed a bloody coup in 1965 to install the blood-thirsty dictator, President Suharto who then went on to massacre over 1 million of his own country-men - but at least they weren't ruled by a Socialist.  The USA was so involved in the massacres that US embassy officers in Jakarta were handing out lists to the Indonesian Army which detailed the names of left wing suspects, many of whom were members of unions, peasant groups, political parties (such as the PKI - Communist Party of Indonesia) and even student organisations. The USA knowingly provided material support to facilitate the massacres through the supply of military equipment, including jeeps, aircraft, radios, weapons and ammunition.  The USA's pro-democracy, pro-human rights policies strike again.  Suharto went on to invade East Timor after Portugal withdrew and it appeared a Socialist government could come to power if East Timor gained independence.  The invasion and occupation took place with the benefit of financial and military aid from the UK, USA and Australia, resulting in the deaths of approximately one third of the population (more than 200,000 people) - but at least the country wasn't socialist. Margaret Thatcher even lauded Suharto as 'one of our very best and most valuable friends'.

Cuba under Fidel Castro, who introduced universal health care (something which the USA still does not have), literacy programs and nationalised industry to better the lives of his people.  Castro constantly resisted US influence and survived numerous assassination attempts by the CIA, many of which would have been comical had they not actually occurred (including the infamous exploding cigars and deadly flowers). The USA waged chemical and biological warfare against Cuba through the spraying of crops with pesticides and releasing millions of mosquitoes containing dengue fever. The economy of Cuba was undermined through these criminal actions along with US sponsored trade embargoes and the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, which resulted in Cuba losing a significant source of aid.

Nicaragua under the Sandinistas, a Marxist group who finally overthrew the US sponsored despotic regime of Somoza and introduced educational, health, agrarian and other industrial reform and signnificantly, they introduced political reform through the installation of democratic processes.  The Sandinistas increased the living standards, improved agriculture, education, health, housing and employment, benefitting all Nicaraguans.  Again the US was not happy about a successful, democratic Socialist economy so they exerted their considerable influence to ensure that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund ceased all aid to Nicaragua.  The USA also collaborated with former Nazis operating in Argentina to establish the "Contras" who unleashed a rein of terror and violence against the Sandanistas.  This violence employed similar techniques that the Nazis had used during their reign under Hitler. President Reagan was responsible for the Iran-Contra scandal in which the USA sold weapons illegally through Israel to Iran (an officially declared terrorist nation which western countries were banned from selling weapons to) and then used the profits to fund the Contras savage insurgency activity in Nicaragua, Honduras and other Central and South American countries.  Under Reagan, US government agencies assisted Columbian drug cartels to transport drugs into the United States with the profits being used to fund the Contras brutal attacks on Nicaragua, which included destroying schools, hospitals, crops and massacring civilians.  But that was ok, because the Contras were fighting Marxists who had the temerity to govern with the welfare of their own people as a priority, rather than giving priority to US corporations.

Venezuela
Hugo Chavez was democratically elected as the President of Venezuela in 1998. He was a socialist, initially a proponent of Bolivarianism, later democratic socialism. Chavez inherited an economy racked with corruption and poverty. Through his presidency, Chavez improved the human rights issues in Venezuela and managed to reduce poverty. (http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7513). While there is much to be done to further reduce poverty, the gains made by Chavez wouldn't have happened had it not been him nationalising the oil industry, which helped ensure that money earnt from Venezualan resources was kept in and used for Venezuela. He also spent significant sums on repair government buildings, schools, churches and so on. Millions of people were finally treated in public hospitals, millions of children were vaccinations. Under Chavez, Venezuela's 'human development index' increased significantly.

Vietnam has improved economically since the end of the Vietnam War.  Initially it had problems with its government giving priority to military supremacy in the region for some years which negatively impacted its citizens.  It has since focussed more on production and trade, making it one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

Eastern Europe

Eastern European countries including Yugoslavia, Romania and Czechoslovakia suffered at the hands of brutal despots who, like the Soviets abused their own citizens.  Interestingly, there were brief flirtations with Marxism in the politics of these nations.  At those times, their economies improved.  Whilst they focussed on power and genocide, their economies suffered.  The below precis does not seek to glorify the murderous rule of tyrants, it seeks to show that when the tyrants actually focussed on Marxist reform there were significant improvements.  These countries would have benefitted from Socialism - had it actually been implemented properly.

Yugoslavia under Tito saw significant industrial reform which increased productivity and employment.  Tito broke away from the Soviet Union and was subject to various attempts to subvert his leadership and to undermine the Yugoslav economy. For a brief period, Tito even relinquished some of the central control of the population, allowing citizens greater say and rights.  Tito was able to unite the many fractured groups within Yugoslavia.   Tito's government had held the fragile, nationalistic fabric of Yugoslavian society together, but following his death, the country splintered into ancient rivalries, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Romania under Ceauşescu saw an increase in industrialisation and production, improvements in housing, education and infrastructure, such as public transport.

Czechoslovakia from 1948 to 1968 was run effectively by a Communist government, however, in 1968 the government became increasingly capitalist and so the Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc countries invaded, reverting it back to a communist state.

Kibbutzim - whilst not a nation, the socialist operation of the Israeli kibbutz gives an ideal model for socialism, in which all residents worked for the betterment of each other and society in general.

Social democracies
Many successful modern economies combine a blend of socialism and capitalism through Social Democracy, which has been far more effective than the extreme capitalism of the United States.  These countries include:

Australia
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Denmark
Sweden
Germany
Finland
France
Switzerland
Portugal
Italy

"Which country would you prefer to live in?"

Another question, that will often be asked of any defence of Socialism, or any criticism of the United States, is "which country would you prefer to live in?"   Another smug question, yet this is one which assumes that the answer will be the United States. When asking this question, is the person asking the question imagining life in a white and wealthy neighbourhood, with a good job and health care paid by the employer, or imagining life in a lower class suburb, with high unemployment, high illiteracy, low school attendance and no health cover.

If one imagines the USA pictured in sit-coms and Hollywood, then certainly it all looks rosy.  However, for a significant number of Americans, the reality is vastly different from this idealistic image.  Their reality is not much different to the average citizen in many developing nations.

The answer is that I'd be happy to live in any of the above countries when being run by Socialists, as long as they weren't being attacked  by either their leaders or insurgents.  Sadly many of the insurgents (and some of the despotic leaders) were funded by the United States.

The question that should be asked is "would you live in Nicaragua or Guatemala as they are being subjected to massacre after massacre at the hands of US funded Contras? Would you like to live in Indonesia, as your family is being massacred at the hands of the capitalist, US funded Suharto? Would you like to live in Chile under the capitalist, US funded Pinochet?"  Perhaps another question that could be asked is, "would you like to live in a country that the USA has 'brought democracy' to?"

Perhaps, people don't wish to live in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Indonesia regardless of the political system.  So would you like to live in the USA in a neighbourhood that is not white and wealthy?

Personally, I would not like to live in the United States.  I would chose to live in a Social Democracy because most do not have human rights violations and most provide a better form of wealth redistribution to ensure that the poor have the opportunity for education, health and employment.  The USA economy is a basket case, the politicians are more interested in power than their own poor.  Social Democracies, whilst not necessarily Marxist, have at least embraced the best of Socialism without the perversion of Stalinism or Capitalistic greed.

Socialism in its purest form is egalitarian, fairer and provides the best chance for all citizens to participate in and contribute to their nation, than the selfish, exploitative policies of Capitalism.

--0--

Related articles on RantingPanda.com:

1. Name a successful Communist country - Marxism didn't fail, but it was betrayed!  

https://thepandarant.blogspot.com/2019/11/name-successful-communist-country.html

2. Animal Farm - an allegory of greed, power and exploitation

     http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/animal-farm-allegory-of-greed-power-and.html

3. The fruit of capitalism - rotten to the core

     http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/the-fruit-of-capitalism-rotten-to-core.html

4. Socialism versus Capitalism

    http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/socialism-versus-capitalism.html

Big Brother, Doublethink & the Memory Hole - Politics in the Modern World

Big Brother, Doublethink & the Memory Hole - Politics in the Modern World

Cold War, War on Drugs, War on Terror ... more than 70 years of continuous warfare.

Is this the realisation of the "Perpetual War" that George Orwell wrote of in his novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four?

These wars had to be fought to ensure the continuation of democracy and capitalism - so we've been told.  We feared communism and socialism, we feared the insidious and subversive nature of drugs and now we fear Islamic extremists.  We fear people who are not like us, outnumbering us in "our own" land.

Our modern western society has eerily disturbing similarities to the world portrayed by Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

The purpose of "Perpetual War" was to artificially create fear in the minds of the population to believe that they were at war with an enemy who was ill-defined, yet identified as the source of many of society's ills; without any logical argument or proof behind the accusations.  In Orwell's perpetual war citizens had to swear undying allegiance to "Big Brother" and the State without question.  This was not that different to George W. Bush declaring that "you are either for us or against us".  Big Brother employed "thought police" to monitor the behaviour, reactions and opinions of citizens to weed out those who were traitors to society.  President Bush passed the Patriot Act which restricted media and free speech and gave law enforcement unprecedented powers of monitoring, censorship and arrest.  Journalists were "embedded" in military operations so the media would only report "authorised" information.

Orwell's Big Brother would often change the enemy.  One day an ally would be an enemy and an enemy would be an ally and citizens were expected to forget the previous status of the relationship as history was rewritten and contrary evidence destroyed in the "memory hole".   The enemy being fought today may not be the enemy being fought tomorrow.  We have seen parallels with this in modern society. During the 1980's Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, the Mujahideen were all supported, financed and armed by the United States.

However, during the 1990's Saddam Hussein became the enemy.  Osama bin Laden formed Al Qaeda and became the enemy.  From the Mujahideen, the Taliban was formed and following 9/11 became the enemy because they were harbouring Osama bin Laden.  Histories were rewritten and denials issued of the support that the USA gave to these groups. Lies were manufactured to justify the invasion of Iraq; for instance the blatant lie that Hussein and bin Laden were cooperating with each other, the lie that Hussein still held weapons of mass destruction in 2003 and denial of the original reasons for invading Iraq to fit the latest propaganda.  In a purely Orwellian act, the USA buried these histories in the "memory hole" and continued on as though the history never existed whilst their citizens were left wondering "why do our enemies hate us so much".   The reason given by George W. Bush was that "they hate our freedoms"; this could not have been further from the truth.

Two prime examples of this "memory hole" include Colin Powell stating in February 2001 "[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.  He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbours of Iraq".

Then in July 2001, Condeleeza Rice stated "We are able to keep his arms from him.  His military forces have not been rebuilt".

In August 2002, Dick Cheney stated "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction".   The United States government from Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell and others commenced declaring that Iraq clearly was in possession of WMD and had to be disarmed.  He was given warning after warning and in Monty Pythonesque logic Ari Fleischer declared that "If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world".  So if he weighs the same as a duck then he must be made of wood ...

In March 2003, the United States and its "Coalition of the Willing" (a Newspeak euphemism if there ever was one), invaded Iraq on the basis of disarming Saddam Hussein who was allegedly in possession of vast amounts of WMD.   President George W. Bush declared on 17 March 2003, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised".

In March 2003, Donald Rumsfeld stated "we know where they are, they are around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat".

On 28 May 2003, Lt Gen James Conway "...we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites.  Believe me, it's not through lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there".

On 30 May 2003, President Bush continued with his lies by stating "but for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them".

The Coalition of the Willing never found any of these banned weapons or manufacturing plants.

In May 2003, Paul Wolfowitz stated "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on".

In Nineteen Eighty-Four the "memory hole" was used to rewrite history by destroying evidence and manipulating the memory of the population.  The use of the modern "memory hole" has resulted in ongoing cleansing of history and as a result many have forgotten the reasons for the USSR invading Afghanistan, they  have forgotten the role that the USA played in this.  Because of this memory lapse we are now at risk of the United States being brought down by the very strategy that they used to bring down the Soviet Union.

In the late 70s, the strategy was for the USA to fund and arm dissidents (the Mujaheddin) to wage terrorist attacks against the Soviets, in order to drag the USSR into a prolonged and expensive war.   The USSR invaded Afghanistan and the USA continued funding Islamic extremists to fight a "jihad" against the Soviets. Eventually this war drained the economy so much that it contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union.

In 1986, the leader of the Mujaheddin warned America that the jihadists were going to look for another enemy once the USSR was out of Afghanistan and that the enemy would be the USA. Most of the Jihadists did not know that they were being recruited and funded by the USA.

Since 9/11, Al Qaeda has engaged the USA in a protracted, expensive war which has seen America and her allies invade both Iraq and Afghanistan and wage wars that can't be won and which the USA can't afford.  The War on Terror has cost the USA close to $1 trillion. This money has been borrowed from China.  The Global Financial Crisis, whilst also caused by the greed of the banks, was not helped by the American debt owed to China.  If America is not careful, it may very well suffer the fate of the Soviet Union.

Greed has blinded successive US governments to the potential threat of over-committing to war zones and trouble spots.  The concept of Perpetual War is seen as profitable, after all not only is there an entire industry built around the manufacture of products and services consumed in war, for instance ammunition, weapons, armour, security, but there is also an entire industry around the rebuilding following war.  The US markets this under the banners of "security" and "democracy", yet the locals in those countries often see it for what it is: power, hegemony and money-making for multi-national companies who have no concern for the local economy or local citizens.

Again to quote Orwell's 1984, when asked why the party clings to power, the answer given was not that it was for the good of the people but "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake.  We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power ... Power is not a means, it is an end ... One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship".   In this case, "the Party" is not a particular political party it is the government.

Of course this quote, does not solely apply to the US government, it could equally apply to any number of governments across the globe, particularly those established following a revolution, e.g. the Soviets,  Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Suharto, the theocratic rule established following the Iranian revolution.  Some governments were established by more surreptitious "revolution" or by blatant force, for instance Israel, the Taliban, Gaddafi.  All the while the big players, such as the US or the USSR were there funding and establishing their own influences in these revolutions so that they were the beneficiaries. One doesn't have to be the ruler to hold the power.

Western nations were quick to publish and remind citizens of the genocides perpetrated by Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse Tung, among others.  What wasn't publicised was the complicity and support that the west, in particular the USA, gave to genocides and gross human rights abuses throughout the world.  Declassified White House and CIA documents show that the USA funded, trained and were directly involved in the overthrow of many governments across the globe.  This included overthrowing the socialist-leaning President Sukarno and replacing him with President Suharto.  The CIA then provided names of left-wing sympathisers to Indonesian forces in order for those people to be arrested, tortured and executed.  Suharto was responsible for over a million deaths in Indonesia.   Suharto's troops received training from the British Army.  Former UK Prime Minister Thatcher described him as "one of our best and most valuable friends".  Former US President Bill Clinton described him as "our kind of guy".  This was at a time when Suharto's crimes were well known.  Imagine Thatcher and Clinton saying the same about Hitler or Stalin, yet he massacred over a million of his own people.

The USA will often boast of its democracy and its plan to bring democracy to the world.  In 1973, Chile was under the leadership of socialist President Allende who had been democratically elected.  The USA valued capitalism above democracy and sponsored a military coup which resulted in the death of Allende and the establishment of General Pinochet as Supreme Leader.  It also resulted in right wing death squads hunting down left wing sympathisers and imprisoning, torturing and murdering them.  The torture techniques were taught to them by the USA in their infamous "School of the Americas".  All of this in the name of capitalism.  It wasn't in the name of democracy and Allende was not a terrorist, he was not a despot: he's crime was to be a Socialist.

The USA funded the overthrow of numerous socialist or left wing governments across the globe using bloody revolutions, torture, murder to install US friendly despots who often were abetted by the USA to undertake genocides against their own citizens, particularly those of a socialist persuasion.

The main difference between the USSR and USA in their support of genocide is that the USA tended to not shit in their own backyard - they did it in other people's backyards and in the name of democracy.  However, it was not democratic but pure, unadulterated hegemony and extremist capitalism.

There is a danger in blindly following one ideology whilst criminalising another.  Rather than defend the indefensible, we should be standing up against tryanny, terrorism and human rights abuses regardless of who is perpetrating them.   GK Chesterton summed it up when he stated " 'My country right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'my mother, drunk or sober' ". 

In a piece of Orwellian "doublethink", the world's biggest arms dealers are the United States, United Kingdom, France, China and Russia, who also just happen to be the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.  In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the concept of doublethink was "to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies" or "the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them".

So to reiterate, the five permanent members of the UN "Security" Council are also the world's largest arms dealers.  To quote Orwell's doublespeak, "War is Peace".

President George W. Bush popularised the term "Compassionate Conservative" as a description of his extreme right wing conservatism.  "Compassionate Conservatives" claim that they use old-fashioned conservatism to compassionately address the problems of society.  Effectively, it is about divesting government of the responsibility to deliver social service programs, by funding their delivery through religious organisations and big businesses. "Compassionate Conservative" is pure Orwellian doublespeak. There is no compassion in the conservatism of the extreme religious right in the United States.

Former President Bill Clinton described "Compassionate Conservatism" as "I want to help you. I really do. But you know.  I just can't".  Compassionate Conservatives are generally of the extreme Christian Right Wing and have shown themselves to be pro-big business, pro-war, support low tax for the rich and higher tax of the poor, bigoted, opposed to human rights, opposed to the Bill of Rights, opposed to government social welfare programs which aim to assist the poorest people in society, opposed to public schooling and public health.

They are Compassionate in name only and have completely ignored the compassionate message of Jesus, whom they claim to so fervently follow.

They want free speech, or more accurately the freedom to criticise non-Christians, but are often the first to complain about outspoken Muslims or other non-Christians.  They want freedom of worship, or more accurately, freedom for Christians to worship however and wherever they want, but not for non-Christians; often waging anti-Islamic campaigns.

"Compassionate Conservatism" is a doublespeak which has duped many Christians and conservative voters, appealing to their xenophobia with catchy, dumbed-down slogans of hate and fear.

Australia has not been immune from this destructive and duplicitous Orwellian politics.  We have seen the rise of the religious right influencing government and religious "values" used in political campaigns.  Then in a form of doublethink, these same "values" were used to justify war as community dialogue and public debates often became hate filled diatribes against refugees, asylum seekers and anyone who did not have the "same values as us".

The Australian Government made great use of the "memory hole" following the debacle over asylum seekers in 2001, firstly with the issues around the Tampa affair, then the fabricated "Children Overboard" affair, the denials and accusations over SIEV-X and the dehumanising policies of giving no voice to the asylum seekers and denying the media access to them or the military.  In a prime piece of doublethink an immigration issue was turned into a military one by unfairly linking asylum seekers to terrorists and unleashing the SAS on the refugees rescued by the Tampa.  The Navy was subsequently used to police our waters in order to "stop the boats".

This global and ongoing distortion of truth, manipulation of the population and misreporting of history was summed up in one of Big Brother's slogans:

"Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past".

Orwell is often seen as the poster-boy of the right wing, portrayed as anti-socialist.  Yet, Orwell was a Socialist and detested imperialism, totalitarianism and fascism. He described himself as a Democratic Socialist who supported free speech and free elections. He believed that Stalin had betrayed Socialism.  He fought with the republicans against the Fascist government in the Spanish Civil War.   He chose to become a Socialist because he saw the squalor and poverty that people in Britain were living in and blamed this on the greed and failure of Capitalism.

His books, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four warned against the tyranny of government regardless of whether the government claimed to be Socialist, Fascist or Capitalist.  Some people have used these two books as an attack on Socialism, yet they were critical of the hypocrisy of Stalin who claimed to be a socialist, yet was a mass-murdering capitalist and Adolph Hitler who claimed to be a National Socialist (or Fascist) and showed himself to also be a mass-murdering dictator who oppressed and killed any who dare speak out or who was of a race or social group that he either feared or hated.

Over the last few decades we've seen the Alvin Toffler "Future Shock" vision come to pass where global corporations rule the world.  Now, instead of simply government's controlling the masses it is often a hybrid beast of government outsourcing to big business in order to effect social change.  As Naomi Klein has described in her book "Shock Doctrine", the rise of disaster capitalism has seen government and big business take advantage of disasters such as September 11 and Hurricane Katrina to implement policies which would have been more difficult prior to the disaster.  After Hurricane Katrina, "charter schooling" was introduced to replace public schooling at a greater cost to taxpayers but a great fiscal benefit to business.  After September 11, the opportunity was taken by the US government and private organisations such as Halliburton and Black Water to remodel Afghanistan, Iraq and potentially the entire Middle East into "democratic" (read "Capitalist") states at great expense to the US economy (trillions in debt) but at great profit to big business. Whose side is the US government on when it reduces public housing, Medicaid, Medicare, public education at the cost of boosting big business and an expanded military presence.

The fear of socialism and communism was used to manipulate the masses into accepting whatever lie the government required.   Yet following the Global Financial Crisis which was brought on by years of unrestrained military expenditure and unfettered laissez-faire capitalism which made Big Business even bigger and crippled many of the world's national economies, corporations were then forced to return to Government with cap in hand asking for a bail-out.  In the economic wars, the left-wing Keynes was shown to be victorious over the amoral capitalism of Milton Friedman; however, economic histories were also rewritten in order for extreme capitalism to appear victorious in the midst of its moral and fiscal bankruptcy.

As Orwell said "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act".

It also may serve to save us from ourselves.

With all of the hysteria around patriotism and nationalism, around fighting terrorism and invading Iraq and Afghanistan, we really should remember our history, remember our own contribution to the world as it is, whether that contribution is good, bad or ugly.

Orwell summed up the danger of this hysterical nationalism in a statement that serves as a warning to all of us:

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them".