Recently the New York Times produced another propaganda gem. This article, entitled “A New Libya, With Very Little Time Left,” led with the “grisly” description of the death of “dictator” Muammar Gaddafi. Interesting that there was no condemnation of the grisly anal rape and gangland execution of the former president.
Rather than fuss, fume, and fester about the Trump phenomenon, we need to analyze the situation that brought us to this sad point in time, including what motivates his many supporters. Most have issues that anger them. They may be only slightly bruised financially by the conditions wrought by a culture hijacked by conservatism, or fed-up with no voice in how this country is run. Others are perplexed by the deteriorating comfort and well being it has brought into our midst.
The real crisis is not the influx of refugees to Europe, per se, but a toxic combination of destabilising foreign policy agendas, economic austerity and the rise of right-wing nationalism, which is likely to push the world further into social and political chaos in the months ahead.
[This is an edited version of a talk given to Common Ground for Texans in Austin, TX, March 5, 2016.]
To avoid being conned, politically and intellectually, it’s important to examine how a debate is framed and what ideology is advanced by that framing. What is the scope of the question? How was the direction of the inquiry decided? Who set the boundaries of the conversation?
Mapping the emerging global economic, political and military configurations requires that we examine regions and countries along several dynamic policy axis:
1. Capitalist versus anti-capitalist
2. Neoliberal versus anti-neoliberal
3. Austerity versus anti-austerity
4. War command centers and war zones
5. Political change and socio-economic continuity
6. New Order and political decay
Dog eat dog?
Think of any number of all-American axioms: Survival of the fittest? Winner takes all? Those who have, rule; those who do not have are the reason for their own destitution and undoing? The meek shall inherit the earth?
A few days ago I talked to one of my best friends in Mérida, Venezuela. Jose, a former Chavista who, like most of the Chavistas I knew when I lived in that city, is now in opposition to the Bolivarian government without being in “the Opposition.” He’s quite clear the Bolivarian process was a failure, but he’s not sure the Opposition or the United Democratic Roundtable (MUD) is going to be able to do much better.
Since the New Year there has been a lot of speculation in the mainstream and alternative media about Saudi Arabia and Turkey directly intervening into the war in Syria. Each week there have been threats, demands, and sabre rattling from Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Meanwhile, there is the growing momentum of the Syrian Armed Forces on the killings fields of Syria. To be blunt, the Saudi royal family and Erdogan’s Mafia clan are apoplectic about the series of defeats that their proxy forces are suffering at the hands of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies.
Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
— Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach
Basic Income is a serious proposal necessary to address many of the economic problems facing the developed world. Let us start by defining what Basic Income is. For that, the Green Party’s paper on the subject is helpful:
