Visit ArabTopics.com

Reality-Denial Among America’s Democratic Party Faithful

I used to be a Democrat, until the majority of Democrats in the U.S. Senate voted in 2002 for George W. Bush’s 2003 catastrophic invasion of Iraq, even though everything that Bush and his Administration were alleging the invasion to be based on were mere lies, by him and his Administration. A Senator or Representative is supposed to represent the interests of the American public, not of the billionaires who control Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil and Halliburton, etc., but those Democrats (and virtually all Republicans also) represented those billionaires, and certainly NOT the American public. Among the 29 Democratic Senators who, on that fateful day of 11 October 2002, voted to authorize Bush to invade Iraq, were the Party’s 2004 Presidential nominee John Kerry, and its 2016 Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and its likely 2020 nominee Joe Biden. (Barack Obama wasn’t yet a member of Congress in 2002.) In other words: the Senators who did, included the ones whom Democrats chose (and still are expected to choose) as their Presidential nominees.

There is no apology for such treachery as those Senators (and 68% of the House, too) perpetrated by authorizing that criminal invasion, other than to say “I made a mistake,” but if I could see, even at that time, that it was all mere lies, then were they, our most successful Senators (and Representatives), really such nitwits that they could not — they, who are surrounded by lobbyists and not actually by the people they are supposed to represent? They joined in with George W. Bush’s lies, because they chose to be surrounded by such lobbyists, even though all of Bush’s efforts to get the U.N. to endorse an invasion of Iraq turned out to be fruitless. And, then, on 17 March 2003, he, our American President, suddenly warned the U.N. weapons-inspectors to leave Iraq immediately so Bush could invade that country, which had never invaded, nor even threatened to invade, the United States. This was a clear case of international aggression, just like what Justice Robert Jackson, who headed the U.S. prosecution team at the Nuremberg Tribunal after WW II, charged Hitler’s top henchmen for having done, and for which those men became executed.

Why not Bush, now, for Iraq; why not Obama, now, for Libya; why not Obama, now, for Syria; why not Trump, now, for Syria; why not Trump, also, for Venezuela, if he also invades there? Fascists, all of them, but in today’s America, the public are unconcerned about that, and respond only as political partisans, supporting Democratic Party billionaires’ candidates against Republican Party billionaires’ candidates, or vice-versa, and not even giving a damn about the millions of senselessly slaughtered in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere, for which America’s top responsible officials should therefore be internationally prosecuted, and perhaps hung (like at Nuremberg). So, the only reason, now, to have any loyalty to either of America’s Parties is a mixture of stupidity and psychopathy. And that describes today’s Democrats, just as much as it does today’s Republicans.

The leading political news-site for Democratic-Party operatives and loyal followers is politicalwire.com, and their reader-comments display starkly the mentality that — on this Party’s side — guides the Party’s electorate. Those reader-comments display a Party that’s a dream for the Democratic Party’s billionaires, because the mentality they display is slavish — not physically slavish, but mentally slavish, the slavery of people who hug their prejudices, and who hate anyone (even fellow-Democrats) that challenges their prejudices (tries to help free them from their mental slavery). So: Democratic Party voters’ prejudices have become locked-in, and those people refuse to allow any way out of their existing prejudices. These operatives and voters insist upon retaining their prejudices, exactly as they are. For the Democratic Party’s billionaires’ lobbyists, and media, and think tanks, to have their way with those people, is so easy — it’s like dealing with a slave who says, “Whip me again, Mas’r.” It’s a pathetic political form of self-flagellation, which views the master as being rightfully superior to one’s self — to one’s own mental faculties — handing the whip to that ‘superior’ or master. Is this what American politics has now come down to? It’s what has caused the Democratic Party to be as neoconservative — American imperialist — as is the Republican Party.

On August 8th, Political Wire headlined “Russian Interference Likely Did Not Affect 2016 Result,” and summarized, and linked to, an extremely careful and well-planned and executed, thoroughly scientific, study, which concluded that, “I find no evidence that Russian attempts to target voters in key swing states had any effect on the election results in those states. Instead, the results were almost totally predictable based on the political and demographic characteristics of those states, especially their past voting tendencies, ideological leanings, and demographics.” He found absolutely “no evidence” that it “had any effect” upon the electoral outcome.  Anyone who would have clicked through there to the actual study itself would have seen that it was definitive on its subject, and that there is no reasonable basis for accepting Hillary Clinton’s distorting insinuations that she had lost the election because of Russian interference. This study’s author accepted unquestioningly the Mueller Report in its allegation (on its page 19) that Russia’s Government “sought to influence [American] public opinion through online media and forums … as early as 2014.”

However, even the Mueller Report doesn’t anywhere allege that Russia “tried to” or “attempted to” cause America’s voters to prefer one candidate over another candidate in the election. Even an allegation like that  would have been devoid of even that Report’s own shabby evidentiary standard to become cited. In other words: even the Mueller Report doesn’t play so fast-and-loose with truth for it to allege anything that is at all contradictory to anything in this scientific analysis and conclusion about the matter: that Hillary Clinton’s defeat cannot rationally be even hypothetically blamed on ‘Russian interference’. If there was such interference, no one has yet nailed it. Insinuations have replaced it. Anyone who believes such an allegation is a willing mental slave. How common are such slaves, actually?

A good indication of how common they are is the Disqus thread (the reader-comments) to that Political Wire summary of the scientific study’s findings.

As was earlier noted, readers at that site are Democratic Party operatives, and extremely loyal Democratic Party voters. Overwhelmingly, those readers are sloughing off that scientific study and analysis of the data. Some do so by attacking its author, as being just “one person with one opinion,” and referring (mainly) to the extremely partisan Democratic Party propaganda-organ the New Yorker, and its rabidly partisan Jane Mayer’s 24 July 2018 “How Russia Helped Swing the Election for Trump,” which summarizes Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s book, Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President — What We Don’t, Can’t, and Do Know, which book was effectively and accurately destroyed in a two-star review of it at Amazon, by a “B. Wilson,” titled, appropriately, “Little if any real proof is established that the Russians swung the election. A top 10 list.” Looking at the Jamieson book itself, one sees no consideration whatsoever of the data and issues which were dealt with — quantitatively, and on the basis of high quality empirical facts — in the scientific study. Instead, Jamieson’s work is a non-quantitative ‘analysis’ that’s actually loaded with, and built upon, hedged assertions, such as “We can surmise the probable although not certain impact Russian shenanigans had on the balance of messages between the two major party campaigns” — and no data, and no counts, but pure hypothesization, without clear derivation from specific instances of anything. Her book is even less trustworthy than the Mueller Report that it cites so frequently. In short: it’s trash. But that’s good enough to override science, in the minds of believing partisans — mental slaves: people who ignore proven truth, in order to sustain their existing prejudices.

Jane Mayer said of Jamieson’s book, “In two hundred and twenty-four pages of extremely dry prose, with four appendixes of charts and graphs and fifty-four pages of footnotes, Jamieson makes a strong case that, in 2016, ‘Russian masterminds’ pulled off a technological and political coup. Moreover, she concludes, the American media ‘inadvertently helped them achieve their goals.’” Anyone who thinks that American media were predominantly slanted for Trump instead of for Hillary is beyond all reason and evidence — but there they are at Political Wire, as readers, commenting upon a squib, which summarizes this scientific study (the first and only one on the subject).

Of course, such closed-mindedness is good for sustaining any political party, but it can destroy any democracy.

NOTE: Incidentally, while I consider that scientific study to be definitive on its topic, I strongly disagree with its author’s analysis, in his 2018 book, The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump, to the effect that “elites and activists” haven’t shaped “the American social and cultural landscape” of our time. As a historian (which he certainly is not — he’s a political scientist), I believe that, specifically (and ever since at least the time of FDR’s death in 1945) the wealthiest Americans (and not merely ambiguous “elites and activists”) did shape it, to become, as it now is: fascist. That’s why both Parties now are fascist — one liberal fascist, and the other conservative fascist. Liberalism is not progressivism. And fascism (extreme conservatism) is the opposite of progressivism. By contrast, liberalism mixes together those two opposites.  (Fascism is the modern form of feudalism, and derives from that. Progressivism is the anti-fascism.) Furthermore, by now, there exists massive empirical evidence that the U.S. Government, at least ever since 1981, is no democracy, at all, but is instead ruled only by its very wealthiest and well-connected citizens, so that, as the first of these studies phrased this matter: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” (A superb 6-minute video summary of that landmark study is here.) Consequently, that book is bad even within its own field of political science. The book’s author, furthermore, displays there a strong prejudice favoring the Democratic Party. Fortunately, however, his scientific analysis of the 2016 election was unafflicted by that, or any other, prejudice. It was straight science. Furthermore, any ad-hominem attack (such as is common in the Political Wire reader-comments) is entirely unscientific regarding any study, including that author’s. Virtually all of the reader-comments at that Political Wire article reflect mental slaves. Instead of their being grateful to the study’s author for freeing them from lies which afflict them, they insult that messenger of science.

Furthermore: on 14 June 2016 (just 17 days after Trump won the Republican nomination) Dylan Matthews at Vox had headlined “One of the best election models predicts a Trump victory. Its creator doesn’t believe it.” Matthews opened: “One of the most respected and accurate forecasting models in political sciences says that Donald Trump will win the 2016 presidential election, and by a fairly comfortable margin at that. There’s just one problem: Its creator doesn’t believe his own forecast.” That author, Professor Alan I. Abramowitz’s, formula for predicting U.S. electoral outcomes will probably now become standard. (Trump had actually won by slightly less than Abromowitz’s model predicted, and this is what Abromowitz’s 8 August 2019 article was now documenting. He points out there that especially in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania — the three states which decided the election’s outcome — Trump’s victory-margin was, in fact, lower than Abromowitz’s model had predicted it would be. So, when that Political Wire commenter attacked this author, as being just “one person with one opinion,” he was attacking the one person who had actually predicted accurately not just the 2016 Presidential election’s outcome, but the reasons why Trump was heading for victory. He was attacking the only person who had publicly figured these things out, in advance of the outcome.)

To be a mental slave is to be a believer in lies. This type of slavery was first documented anecdotally in Charles Mackay’s 1841, 500+page, classic, Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds. How is democracy possible with so many willing mental slaves voting — regardless of what the particular Party is? Is democracy impossible? Is the political situation actually hopeless? Shouldn’t overcoming prejudice — anti-scientific thinking (a tendency to believe only what one wants to believe) — be actually the chief purpose of all publicly financed education?

  • Originally posted at strategic-culture.org
  • Source: 
    Dissident Voice

    Dear friends of this aggregator

    • Yes, I intentionally removed Newsbud from the aggregator on Mar 22.
    • Newsbud did not block the aggregator, although their editor blocked me on twitter after a comment I made to her
    • As far as I know, the only site that blocks this aggregator is Global Research. I have no idea why!!
    • Please stop recommending Newsbud and Global Research to be added to the aggregator.

    Support this site

    News Sources

    Source Items
    WWI Hidden History 51
    Grayzone Project 164
    Pass Blue 207
    Dilyana Gaytandzhieva 14
    John Pilger 416
    The Real News 367
    Scrutinised Minds 29
    Need To Know News 2578
    FEE 4592
    Marine Le Pen 380
    Francois Asselineau 25
    Opassande 53
    HAX on 5July 220
    Henrik Alexandersson 908
    Mohamed Omar 371
    Professors Blog 10
    Arg Blatte Talar 40
    Angry Foreigner 18
    Fritte Fritzson 12
    Teologiska rummet 32
    Filosofiska rummet 107
    Vetenskapsradion Historia 152
    Snedtänkt (Kalle Lind) 217
    Les Crises 2793
    Richard Falk 166
    Ian Sinclair 108
    SpinWatch 61
    Counter Currents 9457
    Kafila 471
    Gail Malone 39
    Transnational Foundation 221
    Rick Falkvinge 95
    The Duran 9724
    Vanessa Beeley 122
    Nina Kouprianova 9
    MintPress 5627
    Paul Craig Roberts 1811
    News Junkie Post 58
    Nomi Prins 27
    Kurt Nimmo 191
    Strategic Culture 4762
    Sir Ken Robinson 24
    Stephan Kinsella 99
    Liberty Blitzkrieg 851
    Sami Bedouin 64
    Consortium News 2670
    21 Century Wire 3540
    Burning Blogger 324
    Stephen Gowans 88
    David D. Friedman 152
    Anarchist Standard 16
    The BRICS Post 1514
    Tom Dispatch 523
    Levant Report 18
    The Saker 4302
    The Barnes Review 527
    John Friend 473
    Psyche Truth 159
    Jonathan Cook 145
    New Eastern Outlook 3972
    School Sucks Project 1775
    Giza Death Star 1916
    Andrew Gavin Marshall 15
    Red Ice Radio 612
    GMWatch 2295
    Robert Faurisson 150
    Espionage History Archive 34
    Jay's Analysis 963
    Le 4ème singe 90
    Jacob Cohen 207
    Agora Vox 15487
    Cercle Des Volontaires 436
    Panamza 2187
    Fairewinds 117
    Project Censored 945
    Spy Culture 527
    Conspiracy Archive 76
    Crystal Clark 11
    Timothy Kelly 569
    PINAC 1482
    The Conscious Resistance 835
    Independent Science News 80
    The Anti Media 6664
    Positive News 820
    Brandon Martinez 30
    Steven Chovanec 61
    Lionel 292
    The Mind renewed 442
    Natural Society 2619
    Yanis Varoufakis 1001
    Tragedy & Hope 122
    Dr. Tim Ball 114
    Web of Debt 145
    Porkins Policy Review 423
    Conspiracy Watch 174
    Eva Bartlett 596
    Libyan War Truth 335
    DeadLine Live 1913
    Kevin Ryan 63
    BSNEWS 2080
    Aaron Franz 233
    Traces of Reality 166
    Revelations Radio News 121
    Dr. Bruce Levine 145
    Peter B Collins 1563
    Faux Capitalism 205
    Dissident Voice 10770
    Climate Audit 224
    Donna Laframboise 438
    Judith Curry 1131
    Geneva Business Insider 40
    Media Monarchy 2382
    Syria Report 78
    Human Rights Investigation 91
    Intifada (Voice of Palestine) 1685
    Down With Tyranny 11906
    Laura Wells Solutions 44
    Video Rebel's Blog 436
    Revisionist Review 485
    Aletho News 20464
    ضد العولمة 27
    Penny for your thoughts 3011
    Northerntruthseeker 2383
    كساريات 37
    Color Revolutions and Geopolitics 27
    Stop Nato 4712
    AntiWar.com Blog 3071
    AntiWar.com Original Content 6945
    Corbett Report 2360
    Stop Imperialism 491
    Land Destroyer 1198
    Webster Tarpley Website 1103

    Compiled Feeds

    Public Lists

    Title Visibility
    Funny Public