i have a grandmother who's not much younger than the woman in the video and who nobody doubts will live to be 100. she worked her whole life as a bank teller and retired with a sufficient pension. however, inflation has eaten into the pension and she now also gets government money. she's doing ok right now, but the longer she lives the more likely she is to find herself in a situation where she has to choose between rent and food.
is it that out of the blue to think her son bought her the car but won't or can't give her a monthly check? well, the answer to that may actually lie in the accounting laws of the state - the "tough on welfare" laws that have become exceedingly strict since the late 90s. i live in ontario, which is ridiculously progressive with public subsidies compared to almost anywhere else on the continent, and i can tell you that, here, a monthly amount would be treated as income and deducted from assistance. however, a gift can get around that problem.
so, let's say she needs $1000 to pay her monthly expenses (rent, food, rx, utilities. etc) and only gets $700 from combined pension and government assistance. that scenario is extremely common and absolutely reasonable to assume is probably the cause of her panhandling. if her son were to give her $300 a month, they'd probably reduce the government part of her pension by almost as much. this is a result of the "tough on welfare" approach; the assumption is that if she's getting money from another source, she must be ripping off the system. in order for her to get the $1000, she'd basically have to get off assistance altogether. however, there's a huge difference between giving your elderly mother $300/month and giving her $1000/month. the latter could very well be outside of the son's actual budget.
a new car is probably over the yearly limit for gifts, which is probably less than $5000. however, buying a car and leaving it in the son's name and letting her drive it (and then maybe giving it to a teenager a few years down the road) is entirely legal.
i'm reading into things a lot, but this guy should have given her the opportunity to explain before he started yelling at her. the system that elderly people have to wade through to generate enough money to pay for the things they need is full of ridiculous amounts of bureaucracy (made far more restrictive by welfare reform) that are designed with the assumption that everybody is a cheat. she might be able to live comfortably with the state and her son splitting the cost, but the state makes it very difficult for that kind of arrangement to happen.
deathtokoalas
ok.
was there any specific reason they picked the performance to disrupt, though? were there specific authorities present?
generally, patrons of the arts tend to be rather liberal - and i mean liberal in the actual meaning of the word. even the self-identified conservatives in the audience would mostly fit any reasonable definition of the word "liberal" - and especially when it comes to the issue of race. so, it's kind of singing to the choir, if you see what i'm saying.
...unless they were targeting somebody, specifically, that they knew was in attendance. that's a different action.
if this is just a pr stunt...it's just a pr stunt. they'll get their ten minutes, think they're raising serious awareness and then be otherwise ignored.
if they're following somebody around, on the other hand, and there's going to be more of this, there's a chance it could get to that person.
Jimmy
I think they just saw an orchestral performance as something "white". And they've been twisted by the media into divisive action. If anyone sees this as brave or inspiring, they should do some research into real protest. This is a real-life extension of so-called 'hashtag activists'. In this age social protests last all of 15 minutes.
deathtokoalas
see, that's a big problem but i would recognize it as a corollary of the current dominance of identity politics on the so-called "left". it's really bogging things down very badly. i mean, if they were expecting to walk in there and find a bunch of racist big money white supremacist dixiecrats, i hope they were sorely disappointed. if that's what they were looking for, in st. louis, i'd suggest a strip club, not a place for the arts. despite maybe being a little irritated by the interruption, i'd suspect most people in the audience probably agree with them that black lives aren't worthless. the perception that a symphony is a place to find people that will disagree is strange and worrying, as it implies a lack of communication and understanding across a stratifying class divide.
my interpretation of socialism looks at symphonic music as something everybody should have the time and education to be able to enjoy, not something that should be vilified as a class marker. i'm not sure where, on the left, that kind of attitude would be coming from. like so much of what passes as leftism nowadays, that strikes me as something characteristic of the reactionary right.
on the other hand, nobody should be surprised about a return to gilded era economics producing a return to a gilded-era type of politics.
history doesn't end.
but if you repeat the same mistakes, you will produce the same consequences.
virgil
yeah they associate classical music with rich white people
deathtokoalas
again: that seems outlandish, but i've spent enough time with protest groups to realize that it's actually probably true. it's very sad, but it's reflective of our collective decision to stop funding public education.
Ishmael
It wasn't a PR stunt, it was a protest done to raise awareness and support for the cause. Protests have been held all across the city. Parks, government buildings, police stations, concerts, highways, sporting events and now the symphony. Most of the protesters at the symphony were white. The organizer is white. Yet many Youtube commenters claim they were racist for disturbing the nice people who paid money to see they symphony. There is a serious problem in America if somebody's right to watch a symphony in peace is more important that someone's right to live or right to due process from the legal system. The protest's organizers have never said or suggested they picked the symphony because "rich white people" would be there as +virgil starkwell and +Jimmy Kelly suggest. That's something the "conservatives" have made up to discredit the protest.
The protesters are saying "Black Lives Matter" not b/c white lives don't, but because if you look at statistics or the recently rash of videos showing unarmed black men being killed by police, or simply browse the comments left on this video, it's not clear that society believes this is true. If I say that McDonald's is delicious, does that mean I think Burger King is repulsive? Absolutely not. Then why should anybody believe that someone saying Black Lives Matter is insinuating that other lives don't? It's a foolish argument that people make to take our attention off the actual issue at hand. Don't fall into that trap.
deathtokoalas
well, there's not much danger i'm going to fall into that trap. that's not really what i'm concerned about.
i'm just wondering if you could build a causal relationship for me between disrupting a symphony and having your concerns taken seriously. was there somebody in attendance that you were hoping to gain the attention of? because, otherwise, i don't really grasp the tactic very well.
lednerg
The organizer and another woman had previously done a small protest at a Cardinals game, holding a couple signs, and they were shouted down by angry fans. The St Louis Symphony seemed to be a more welcoming venue and they were correct.
deathtokoalas
it's not really a question of trying to play off "listening rights" (and i guess there's a personal property rights argument hidden in there somewhere) against "the right to exist". that's the same kind of dumb argument as "black matters--->white doesn't".
it's more a question as to determining the relevancy of the target.
i have to be honest that i don't really see the relevancy of the target, and that the association of symphonies with white upper class music suggestion is the only thing that really does make sense to me - other than there not being much thought put into it at all.
i mean, while they were protesting the audience of the symphony, they could have been doing something more productive, right? that's obvious, right? so, why weren't they?
again: my time spent in protest movements suggests there is something to the idea of the symphony being targeted due to class and race concerns. it's not "racist", i'm not going to throw that around, it's more....stupid.
in the interview, she basically states she's going after the white upper class of st. louis, as if she honestly thinks that a bunch of doctors and engineers have any ability to stop police brutality, probably by all thinking positively together really hard. hey, did you hear about that experiment at the university that doesn't actually exist where a bunch of people thought positive thoughts and it actually happened?
stupidity is the right word. utter naivete; no systemic analysis. these people have no power. it doesn't matter if they know what's going on or not, you have to get to the systems of power. it's just disturbing the peace.
the civil rights movement wasn't half successful because it disrupted symphonies.
the civil rights movement was half successful because of open carry laws that had black people walking around the streets with assault rifles, which scared the fuck out of white people and got the feds to step in before another civil war happened.
here's an idea: instead of disrupting symphonies, why don't you interrupt a city hall meeting? crash a legislature? blockade a police station?
because you'd get arrested. exactly. the moment you do anything that disrupts any actual power, you end up in jail. so, instead, you go and waste your time pissing people off, thinking it's some kind of compromise.
but it's not a compromise. it's really simply a waste of time. it's counterproductive in the way that you're perceived. and, instead of grasping that, you further your isolation by attacking the dominant perspective.
it's not fucked up that people reacted badly. it was a stupid thing to do, and you're rightfully being called out for it. get it, learn from it, stop doing it, move on.
it's really remarkable. you do an action to try and influence public opinion, public opinion attacks you for it and then you say you're outraged by the public's reaction. if you really cared so much about the public opinion, you'd take the time to alter your behaviour when the public rejects your tactics. you'd actually do things that you think would influence the public opinion, rather than just irk people. yet, you don't. so, really, why don't you just tie yourself to a battering ram and slam yourself against a concrete wall over and over again, then? you might start to like it after a while, it just takes some time to get used to.
in order for anything to change on this continent, the most important realization that must be come to is that there is no democracy on this continent. the more you feed into this lie, the more you divide each other in ways that makes you easier to conquer, the more you uphold the status quo.
i don't expect you to get it, i've been over this ad nauseum, i know i'm talking to the wall.
like, honestly.
1. convince wealthy people racism is bad.
2. ?????
3. equality
that's basically what's going on.
Ishmael
Protesters have interrupted city hall meetings. They've also interrupted a city council meeting. They've marched in Clayton, which is where the St. Louis County government is located. They've also protested outside a police station...and Ferguson city hall.
The civil rights movement would not have been successful without white supporters (in both the public and in political office), without thousands marching in unity, without sit-ins, without the show of force you mentioned, etc. The movement would've been an abysmal failure.and black Americans would've continued to be attacked, killed, lynched, hung, fed to ravenous dogs, if it was just black Americans with guns. Hell, in Ferguson, the government showed they are willing to bring in the military to protect THE POLICE. When police were the aggressors in nearly every confrontation. So in order to foster any change, the protests have to come in several forms.
This can't simply a black/white issue. It's an issue for all Americans. Allow one group to have their rights and freedoms trampled, and it won't be very long before it expands to other groups. So yes, wealthy people need to be told that racism is bad b/c some are so comfortable in their own bubbles that they don't know what's going on. The protests are about awareness. Sure, plenty of irked and aggravated by the protests. But society rarely changes when everybody is comfortable and cozy.
deathtokoalas
that's right, and they'll bomb you from the sky if the military asks for it, too - whether people are aware of it or not. the way they think is that the more aware you are of the threat of being bombed, the more frightened you'll be of it. you probably know this, you're just not willing to come to terms with it. there were complex power relations in the civil rights struggle, but the reality is that white solidarity had almost nothing to do with it - unless you're talking about white solidarity in the north. dixiecrats, and whatnot.
there's no future in "building awareness" through the kinds of actions that isolate and marginalize your position, and you'd agree that this is obvious if you weren't so blinded by reactionary right-wing self-righteousness. i have to go back to the previous point, in pointing out that it's really curious how you can state that
1) The protests are about awareness.
2) Sure, plenty of irked and aggravated by the protests.
without realizing that you're contradicting yourself.
but, again, i've been through this enough to know there's no use....
dammit john, you're going to get the patriots all worked up in a way that's hard to argue with - because they'd be right if they were to point out that a revolution was fought to prevent pretty much exactly this.
deathtokoalas
this is really not surprising, unfortunately. it is just more glaring evidence that the united states has crossed the line and is now a culturally fascist nation. the time when we could speak of americans as peace-loving citizens trapped under the control of the american government is past us. the culture, the society, the prevailing norms, the system of morals - it's all become utterly fascist in character.
the fascist states of the past all collapsed (or were destroyed) before they got to this point.
i would tell america to take a good look in the mirror, but it's too late. america does not see itself as the monster that it is, it sees itself as a pinnacle of power that constructs the right to do as it pleases from it's immense strength.
Adolf
Agreed. The fact that we hero-worship murderers, rapists and thugs that are too naive to see what they are doing and instead just bow down to lick the boot of the politician, who in turn bows down to lick the boot of the CEO, is despicable. The United States has always been fairly fascistic in nature, but it is becoming more and more openly fascist.
deathtokoalas
fascism is notoriously difficult to define, but i think something that comes pretty clear from it's definition as a society that works like a corporation is that the body politic has to uphold it on some level. that is, because fascism is a total ordering of the state, a truly fascist society has to actually reflect fascist social values rather than merely be the enforcement of those values from the top down. none of the actual fascist states (and america was not organized as anything approaching fascism before the 1930s) were able to reach this point through gramscian conditioning. by unfolding it slowly over several generations, america has really reached the breaking point and tipped over to the other side.
Adolf
I'd have to agree, completely. To be legitimately fascist any given state has to uphold fascistic values. With the U.S you can clearly see corporate ownership of the media, the state meddling in religious affairs (perhaps not as much as the state would in say, Nazi Germany, but that's because the U.S has learnt to hide it's more fascistic elements under a bipartisan dichotomy meant to distract the public and consumerism), a near-militarized police force, an extremely ingrained nationalist mentality within the populace, we have to stand up and say the pledge in high schools, c'mon (this is another example of how the U.S's particular strand of fascism is more mental than overt; rather than having your head beat in whilst you are hauled off to jail for defacing "American values", you have an extremely propagandized society that will defend, tooth and nail, there corporate overlords), an institutionally racist police force (whether racism is or is not a facet of fascism in it's non Nazi forms is debatable, but that's a very serious point worth bringing up), propagandized school systems based off a model of schooling SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to make WORKING CLASS INDIVIDUALS NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY, so on and so forth.
As for the U.S not approaching fascism until the 1930's. I also agree with that. My "it has always been fascistic in nature" comment was painting with a broad brush.
West Kagle
IDK........I think I'll take Cultural Fascism over the Cultural Marxism we've been being force feed the last 20 years.
deathtokoalas
the perverted vulgar marxism of converted troskyite neo-conservatism that you're referring to is fascism. it was vulgar marxism in germany, and it was vulgar marxism underlying the new deal.
vulgar marxism, as i'm using the term, means "capital using marxist insights into class analysis to further it's own aims". i'm roughly pulling it out of sutton, as it's where i first saw the idea. it's been demonstrated that the bolsheviks were also essentially vulgar marxists. further, various socialists of the period predicted the phenomenon.
the idea of fascism is actually older than this - hobbes describes it pretty much perfectly in leviathan, and he may have been drawing on italian renaissance sources that i'm not aware of. it's not a twentieth century idea, although the technology and economic organization required to actually construct such a system is a product of the industrial era, much as marxism, itself, is.
as an intellectual thing, socialism is largely the exact opposite of fascism. but, in practice, both "fascist" and "socialist" states (with few exceptions) have followed this kind of hegelian path of perverted marxism in seeking absolute state dominance. trying to separate them into distinct strains of thought is likely to produce more confusion than trying to properly understand them as two expressions of the same set of ideas.
but in terms of these colloquial discussions? we're talking about the same thing.
Daniel
you should try decaf, and probably lay off the halucinagens.
deathtokoalas
i only just woke up. i haven't even finished my first cup yet.
"cultural marxism" is a weird term that misunderstands the situation. it comes out of some kind of john birch society penned narrative of the world being secretly run by communists, which is probably the most ridiculous conspiracy theory out there. it's pretty obvious that jfk wasn't shot by a lone nut, even if we're not entirely sure who actually did it. aliens? more likely than not, really. but, the idea that the world is secretly run by communists is just patently ridiculous, as we watch these superpowers butcher millions of people in competition for control over natural resources. it's not cognitive dissonance, it's pure fantasy.
you're not dealing with actual egalitarians, you're dealing with smart capitalists that realize that marx was a smart guy himself and that he made a lot of valid observations that could be used against the working class. engels himself was arguably the first person that realized this. it's led them to engaging in a conscious class war from the top. there's been plenty written about this.
"vulgar marxism" gets the idea across better.
.....but, again, we're talking about the same thing.
West Kagle
Not really. Simply put, I'm referring to the Cultural Marxism that is prevalent in every corner of our society in this country at the present. It's just an out growth of the dialogue killing political correctness that has held this country hostage for most of my adult life. ........unless that's what you are calling Cultural Fascism. Then we're on the same page and just differ in what we're calling it (as you refer to at the end of your comment).
deathtokoalas
it's a small part of it. i've spent some time in activist circles, and i'm willing to concede that there's some valid points brought up by right-wing criticisms of what you're calling "political correctness", although i'm not sure if you're aware of the actual extent this runs to nowadays on the ground in terms of a set of ideas that can be roughly grouped together under the term "critical race theory". there's plenty of like-minded criticism on the left, but it's fighting against something that's becoming rather engrained and borderline systemic. in the sense that it's an idea that is intellectually rooted on the left, but in practice used to uphold a right-wing agenda, it's a type of "vulgar socialism".
the way i've interacted with the term "cultural marxism" (and that i'd prefer be called "vulgar marxism") is a lot bigger than this, though. you're talking of a limited, specific aspect of it.
forzaazzurri101
You look like a fucking pelican, bitch.
deathtokoalas
careful, i might bite your head off.
Adolf
Define political correctness? There's a difference between being socially conscious and supporting liberation movements and being an upright reactionary liberal perpetuating systematic violence with "politically correct" dialogue (that, in a stroke of sadistically hilarious irony actually worsens the conditions of the people they have a savior-complex over) and typical bullshittery. (Note, I'm using the contemporary American definition of liberal, obviously, not talking about an economic liberal.)
deathtokoalas
what i said was this:
i've spent some time in activist circles, and i'm willing to concede that there's some valid points brought up by right-wing criticisms of what you're calling "political correctness", although i'm not sure if you're aware of the actual extent this runs to nowadays on the ground in terms of a set of ideas that can be roughly grouped together under the term "critical race theory".
it's often used to stifle debate. it's a trump card. but, that's just the obvious part. i'd argue the problem runs much deeper.
the way activists seem to want to construct organizing is to immediately introduce a racial and gender hierarchy (class is mostly invisible in these situations, except in some extreme cases, like the homeless guy that wants to take part in the assembly) and then actively police it. so you begin by assuming the thing you claim to not want to exist exists, and then go about trying to compensate for it. the problem that creates is that, in context, the assumption that it exists is what actually creates it. once it's created, it does exist, and people start falling in line to it. i mean, you're dealing with a bunch of egalitarian anarchists that explicitly define themselves in opposition to these sorts of things. that hierarchy wouldn't exist if the organizers didn't create it - but they do create it, and then it does end up existing.
all of a sudden, the black woman is defined by her race and gender. she is identifiable that way. she speaks uniquely for other people of her race and gender. she represents her race and gender in the assembly. she needs white men to speak to her more carefully, or even to speak on her behalf, because the system of white oppression makes her unable to speak for herself. it is her identity, and she cannot escape it.
the muslim is defined by his religion. the indigenous activist is defined by her ethnicity. the transgendered person is defined by their gender identification. all represent and speak for their groups analogously.
people become segmented into racial and gender types, expected to express the characteristics of their groups (i.e., hold up to stereotypes), expected to organize with their own because they "share experiences" (self-segregation) and expected to display the weaknesses that the hierarchy places upon them.
that is, it is the enforcement of white hetero-patriarchy on a movement that has come together to combat and abolish it.
of course, when you point that out, you're accused of being blind to privilege. the more cogent and rational your points are, the more blind you are.
the error is of course in constructing a hierarchy of systemic oppression out of a bunch of 20 year-olds that have known each other for a matter of hours and decided to meet in a park to talk about things. that structure doesn't naturally exist, it has to be created and enforced. dude that calls a ga isn't holding a salary or a gun over anybody's head. but, pointing that out is, again, merely denying that it exists.
after you've been through these kafkaesque debates enough, you start to realize you're really dealing with a belief system and you'd might as well be talking to yourself.
it's a problem. a big problem. and it needs some serious academic discourse, because that's where these ideas are ultimately coming from.
Tico o
Death-to-Koalas ? Anything else you want killed ?
deathtokoalas
it'd be nice to get rid of bon jovi once and for all.
John A
are you on acid?
deathtokoalas
it's been a very long time since i've done hallucinogens. it's the kind of thing you mostly grow out of - or become a vegetable on, i suppose.
i'm just going to state the obvious: if you want to respect people that were fighting for freedom (and ultimately lost), you should be spitting in the face of these soldiers (fighting for the interests of the upper classes) and standing on the side of the union activists they slaughtered.
it's true throughout history. workers and soldiers are never on the same side. they can't be.
the soldiers aren't there to protect your freedom, they're there to make sure you never win it.
Timothy
Sport and war have always been connected in some sense. The stadium is the new coliseum. Team sports particularly are ideal screening stations for soldiers. Every cog has a role within the unit, and they drill extensively and create an environment conducive to that soldierly mentality that does as it is commanded without hesitation and eagerly pursues the "honors" and benefits attached to obedience.
deathtokoalas
i think that sports (or games) have historically been more of an alternative to conflict. one could argue that this is the basis of the british parliamentary system.
Timothy
I certainly agree that they may have often been an alternative, or that at least it could be a medium that those same aggressive, competitive energies could be channeled through without bloodshed, but the parallels of say, American football to war are difficult to ignore. They appeal to martial values (regimentation, physical toughness and courage, dogged determination in the face of superior opposition, sacrifice of the self for the benefit of the group, etc. etc.)
I'm not suggesting that team sports are causally linked to war making, but the the correlation of values and psychology is readily observable.
deathtokoalas
on some level. i remember watching a niners game in the fall of '01 with my dad and having D-FENCE, D-FENCE take on some disturbingly jingoist connotations.
but, might the parallels possibly be used to the advantage of peoples seeking peaceful conflict resolution?
i mean, even the basic historical example of the reds and the blues back in the days of the roman empire is able to demonstrate the possibilities of using sports to diffuse tensions. once in a while, they ended up rioting. but, overall, it kept a level of peace. this is often presented as a distraction tactic, and it's no doubt true that it was, but it's not clear to me that civil war over icons or some other triviality is a better outcome than letting the bastards work it out over kick ball.
ZedNova
We're not fascists, we're warmongers.
This is just typical a sporting event, the stadium is full of rednecks so it's not surprising that they're disturbingly "Patriotic".
deathtokoalas
dammit. you used to be warmongers, now you're fascists...
Adolf
"it's often used to stifle debate. it's a trump card. but, that's just the obvious part. i'd argue the problem runs much deeper."
I agree completely. It seems that in most political conversations I have people get on my case and call me a "social justice warrior," or "over-sensitive freak preaching political correctness," in the U.S being "politically correct" is apparently a bad thing, which is why I tried to distance myself from it in that statement; it seems, like you said, phrases such as "social justice warrior," or "political correctness," are just one size fits all phrases used to throw individuals into convenient little boxes and stifle any and all debate about serious systematic problems; "socially constructed hierarchies and their systematic violence getting on your nerves? you must be a social justice warrior! go back to Tumblr, ya' stupid hipster!"
deathtokoalas
well, no. what happens - often - is that somebody of colour pulls "privilege" as a trump card to reverse a debate they're losing when they're otherwise obviously wrong, and everybody in attendance realizes it. i've seen it used to silence homeless whites, on a class basis - i've seen homeless whites told by upper class asians that could be hanging out on a golf course to be quiet because they're taking up too much time with their white privilege. it sounds absurd, but racism isn't white; when you give people that kind of power, you shouldn't be surprised when they abuse it.
there's a kernel of ideas in there that have limited applicability in isolated areas, but, like any other tool of power based on characteristics, it gets badly abused in practice.
humans are going to make errors, and we're going to need to learn from them as we do.
what bothers me about the organizing approaches coming out of crt is how obviously predictable the abuses of power that have come out of them should have been. this should have never taken off.
Connor O
im assuming you are from England...
deathtokoalas
canada.
Connor O
Basically the same ideals though... We love guns, and we openly display our love for so. If YOU want to get America to give up its aggressive ways then get Russia and China and the terrorist factions out of the picture. We then will have no need to be so blunt and "cold"
deathtokoalas
in actuality, america always was and still remains the aggressor. i think you've got the right idea, though: america will not stop trying to take over the world until it is conquered and dismantled.
Connor O
not necessarily conquered, but either not aggressing or in a state of indefinite truce. I can assure you that the media portrays all Americans as fat, gun toting Republicans that cant point out Africa on a map. BUT, the majority of us actually don't want war, we just are naturally entertained by the prospect. If we are attacked due to the actions of the few foolish in power, then that is their fault, yet to preserve the way of life that I have today I will do what many seem as a warmongering move to protect MY country.
deathtokoalas
i wouldn't deny you the legitimate right to self defense. unfortunately, if you reciprocate, you're justifying the world's right to gang up on you and tear you down.
there's a certain point where you can't just withdraw and say "ok. you're right. i'm sorry. i'll behave.".
Connor O
The U.S does have an ego, but with certain conflicts in the Middle East etc. Canada, Brittan, France and the majority of NATO did the exact same. The only reason I have guns is to defend myself from the 250 lb. black bears that are on my front porch. The only reason the U.S has guns is to defend its self from the "Black Bears" in our society today. We do not want to be aggressive, but it seems that nobody wants to stop after it has started. Because the train of thought is "then what was all that for?" (By the way, in case you were wondering I am of no political party. I am a Christian Conservative in morals)
deathtokoalas
i don't think the facts support the idea that the united states acts anywhere out of self defense. rather, the united states is an aggressive and militaristic nation that seeks to control the rest of the world for it's own interest, and lashes out at anything that questions it's hegemony.
Connor O
I don't think that the U.S has any intentions of conquering the world :)
deathtokoalas
it's pretty hard to look at their foreign policy and conclude otherwise. it's willful ignorance - in front of you, clear as day, but you choose to ignore it.
Connor O
It may not be ignorance as it is insensitivity to foreign opinion. America doesn't like to change, but when it does it will be groundbreaking. Unfortunately, with the Second Cold War starting the only way for us to make our foreign policy less aggravating is to seclude ourselves from the world. Frankly when it comes to foreign policy America is edgy and may seem to be immoral sometimes and lenient other times. America has ALWAYS had a tendency of "Invading to prevent invasion" It is not that we don't care or have no concern for those that the foreign policy applies to, but as most nations do, the American government prioritizes its own countries security over that of foreign powers. this is seen as an obtrusive, insensitive act but it needed/needs to happen so that America can continue. It is a problem that ignorance is almost guaranteed in American foreign policy and nobody has changed it. But it is a bigger problem as to what removing all foreign interaction.
deathtokoalas
preemptive invasion has always happened, now. interesting.
american military action has always been expansionist: imperialist. the slave trade and genocide of natives weren't defensive. they weren't defending themselves when they attacked canada, or mexico, with the intent of annexation. their policies in central and south america have never been defensive, but have always been imperialistic. and so it goes in africa, east asia, the middle east - all of it designed to control resources (including humans) and none of it designed as defense.
the cold war was really never about ideology, it was the extension of an anglo-british conflict that went past the great game and crimea all the way back to the napoleonic era, and even further. years and years ago, british writers referred to the issue as "russophobia", which was defined as the fear that the barbaric (translation: half-mongolian) russians would conquer all of europe and send it back to the asiatic dark ages. but, the cold war itself was a conflict over independence, rather than one over ideology. on one side, you had a lot of countries seeking autonomy and sovereignty, and a russian state willing to aid them - sometimes for nefarious reasons, but nonetheless. on the other side, you had an american state willing to use extreme force to uphold it's empire, even while it's allies were moving away from that and accepting the collapse of their empires.
when the soviet union collapsed, the american elite never saw it as the end of anything. they immediately saw it as an opportunity to attack and destroy it's enemy. and, nobody should have expected otherwise - although yeltsin did, to his great discredit and naive foolishness. a pack of wolves does not see the collapsing caribou as the end of the conflict; rather, this is seen as the beginning of the feast.
but, they did not act quickly enough or with enough violence to complete the mission in the time they had before russia could get back on it's feet. worse, they managed to demonstrate that the barbarians are, in fact, they themselves. america is heading towards isolation whether they like it or not. their outbursts on russia are the desperate attempts of an angry mother to scold a teenage son that is much larger than her.
but, america will not accept parity. they will not be merely another voice in a multipolar world. so, they will continue to be excluded from the things that matter as a result of it - which will just further resort them to the use of force.
Connor O
It sounds like you are saying the Russians are going to win the eventual war and that they are better and just. Am I wrong?
deathtokoalas
that's not what i'm saying at all. what i'm saying is that nobody else wants this war that you claim is inevitable, and wouldn't be if it weren't for america's insistence on global domination.
Connor O
America does not want war or global domination. We do want peace but somehow through events things escalate into war.
deathtokoalas
see, this is clearly the point we disagree on, but i don't think it's a point of opinion. the american strategy is quite clearly to dominate areas it can and create divisions in the areas it can't. it's been the strategy all along. and, i find it hard to believe informed observers can't see it - the orwellian conversion of the department of war to the department of peace is truly mostly wilful ignorance.
the examples are too many to cite, but one of the most obvious ones is this missile shield pointing missiles at moscow. a country truly interested in peace doesn't build offensive weapons directed at the capitals of it's rivals. at best, this system is designed to intimidate; in truth, it's preparation for invasion and dismantlement.
regarding the russians. for a while, it seemed like their certain future was a two way american backed invasion - a nato attack through the ukraine on one side, and a delayed chinese invasion from the other. russian-chinese trade is quite strong. but, it seemed more likely that china would take advantage of a russian collapse than come to it's aid. why trade for oil when you can take it?
the calculation has shifted with the "pacific pivot", which played american cards too quickly. arrogance can be devastating. china has understandably grown distant, and india has rejected plans for it to be a us military base, instead shifting closer to the sco. even australia is uncomfortable with these plans to contain the chinese. and, the us-pushed rearming of japan is a pretty big problem - not just for the chinese, but also for the koreans.
unfortunately, barring an extreme shift in american thinking, this is going to lead to strengthening anti-american alliances. even the germans seem to want out, now. and america is likely to respond the only way it seems to know how to, to ensure it's continued dominance.
the only way out is for america to accept a less dominant position - to reform institutions to be more democratic, to integrate further with the un, etc. but, the elite has been doing the exact opposite, and has shown absolutely no signs of stepping back.
it's come to the point where the russians have enough confidence to step in and stand up for iran. that would have been unthinkable even five years ago. but, they have nobody to blame but their own short-sighted, overly aggressive policies...
