Our Season of Creation
-
-
The big question after the Paris Attacks has been whether we should escalate the conflict in Syria. The task of voters, assuming they have a say in this matter, is to decide which facts are relevant to making a decision. There’s no question that ISIS represents a serious threat, and not just to the Middle East. Likewise, there’s no question that something must be done. But what? Some emphasize the need for a political solution. Others focus on military strategy. I think the first thing we need to understand is that the conflict in Syria has become a civil war between Shia and Sunni Islam. Next, the U.S. has taken sides in the civil war. Finally, the U.S. doesn’t really have a solution for the threat posed by ISIS beyond getting rid of Assad. These facts may not tell us what the solution is, but I think they definitely tell us what the solution is not: the solution is not military escalation on the part of the United States.
Patrick Cockburn wrote in October about ‘the failure over the last year of the US air campaign. ((Patrick Cockburn on the state of the Syrian war: Too Weak, Too Strong, London Review of Books, Oct. 23, 2015.))He said that this failure is political as much as military. The US “needs partners on the ground who are fighting IS, but its choice is limited because those who are actually engaged in combat with the Sunni jihadis are Shia. This includes Iran, the Syrian army, Hizbollah, and the Shia militias in Iraq. The US can’t offer them full military co-operation because that would alienate the Sunni states, the bedrock of America’s power in the region. As a result the US can only use its air force in support of the Kurds.”
We now know that the U.S. air campaign against ISIS hasn’t been working as well as we thought, and that the administration has manipulated the intelligence to make it seem that it’s been more successful than it has. Now we know why. As Cockburn explains, the US had a similar problem after 9/11. It was known when George Bush declared the war on terror “that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, Osama bin Laden was a Saudi and the money for the operation came from Saudi donors, but the US didn’t want to pursue al-Qaida at the expense of its relations with the Sunni states, so it muted criticism of Saudi Arabia and invaded Iraq; similarly, it never confronted Pakistan over its support for the Taliban, ensuring that the movement was able to regroup after losing power in 2001.”
This is now a huge problem in Syria because over the last few months the civil war aspect of the conflict has become more apparent. Basically, the problem with a military approach led by the U.S. is that ISIS is a Sunni force, which means that, thanks to our alliance with the Saudi’s, we’re on the wrong side of the fight with ISIS.
Which brings us to the problem with the political approach. According to Cockburn, Shia leaders have never believed in the West’s assurance that there is a moderate, non-sectarian Sunni opposition willing to share power in Damascus and Baghdad. Shia states across the Middle East, especially Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, understand this as a fight to the death with the Sunni state of Saudi Arabia and it’s local allies in Syria and Iraq. Although Shia are outnumbered by Sunnis in the Muslim world at large, Shia interests in this region are significant. There are more than a hundred million Shia in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon who believe their very existence depends on Assad staying in power in Syria. Yet this is our big political solution—that Assad must leave and the Shia states must negotiate with the supposedly moderate Sunni opposition.
There was more hope for the military approach when Russia entered the scene. Just as the U.S. bombing campaign was most successful when the Kurds were coordinating things on the ground, the Russian bombing campaign benefits from coordination with the Syrian army. Maybe this is why after the Paris attacks France’s President Hollande proposed a European alliance independent of NATO and why he seems so willing to work with Putin. On the other hand, if ISIS is only part of a civil war between Shia and Sunni, the conflict is bound to continue without ISIS. Which brings us to something like Andrew J. Bacevich’s predictions of a generational war. ((Who’s Ready for the Next World War? The Nation Magazine, Dec. 4, 2015. Available: http://www.thenation.com/article/whos-ready-for-the-next-world-war/)) In his scenario, our army would have to grow by a factor of five. Therefore, the draft would have to be reinstated… If that happens you can forget about the conversation. Who needs a conversation when all the really important questions—in particular questions about spending, but also questions about human spirit and potential—have been decided?
As the world’s governments move toward escalation, I think our first step should be to understand the dire nature of this situation–that there are no quick fixes. While it’s obvious that the center of the problem is Saudi Arabia, the Saudi’s are not going anywhere. And because of their alliance with the United States, the U.S. is part of the problem. So long as this alliance lasts, increased U.S. participation will never lead to the end of ISIS.
But it’s important to point out that we’re not the only ones who are deluded. I suspect those fighting for ISIS are helping the very people they think they’re fighting, and this isn’t limited to the Saudis. I’m beginning to suspect ISIS fighters are helping organizations like the IMF and World Bank. Not that the IMF and World Bank caused the crisis—I wouldn’t know about that—but take the refugee crisis–the World Bank was promoting immigration long before the Syrian crisis began and it’s been the leading advocate for allowing Syrian refugees into Europe. Now ISIS is making that dream come true. Think about it! If ISIS really wants a caliphate, why would it terrorize its own population?
It seems we’re all being led in one direction or another. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just refuse to be led? I admit that’s not very likely, but I think this has reached the point where we can choose to talk or we can choose to fight, but we can’t do both.
-
I disagree with analysts who say Hillary wasn’t being clear about her platform in the second debate. Hillary was being very clear about what kind of president she’ll be.
She was reminded that as Secretary of State she underestimated the threat of ISIS:
So you’ve got prescriptions for the future, but how do we even [know] those prescriptions are any good if you missed it in the past?
Clinton’s answer was that the United States doesn’t bear the bulk of the responsibility for the problems in Iraq. They are the fault of the Iraqis and the region itself, which was a mess before Iraq. And the problem with Syria is Assad’s determination to hang on to power with the support of Russia and Iran.
She does admit that her vote on the Iraq War was ‘a mistake’ but provides no assurance she will do it differently in the future. And when asked why they had no post-Gaddafi plan for Libya after seeing what happened in Iraq, she said they did have a plan. Then rather than explaining what that plan was, she defended the decision to take Gaddafi out.
How could anyone say she’s not being clear about what her approach will be as president? As for how she came to this approach, that’s another question. Her own words may provide a clue.
CLINTON: I think with this kind of barbarism and nihilism, it’s very hard to understand, other than the lust for power, the rejection of modernity, the total disregard for human rights, freedom, or any other value that we know and respect.
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard the word ‘modernity’ used in ways that don’t make sense to me, usually by people who would like us to believe that Enlightenment reason is a trouble-free concept. Surely she knows that Muslim extremists are not the first people to object to aspects of modernity, and that the visible manifestations of it are not the worst of it. Historians have observed that modernity itself exerts a subliminal effect on people, causing them to exhibit patterns of thinking and behavior that lead to disaster.
Now compare Hillary’s use of the word modernity with a phrase Bernie used later in the debate, ‘modern society’.
Dickerson was trying to get the candidates to say whether they use the term ‘radical Islam’.
SANDERS: I don’t think the term is what’s important. What is important to understand is we have organizations, whether it is ISIS or Al Qaida, who do believe we should go back several thousand years. We should make women third-class citizens, that we should allow children to be sexually assaulted, that they are a danger to modern society.
And that this world, with American leadership, can and must come together to destroy them. We can do that. And it requires an entire world to come together, including in a very active way, the Muslim nations.
My interpretation of his use of the term modern society is that Bernie isn’t thinking about this crisis in ideological terms. He’s grounded in reality.
My point? The Paris attacks should not be seen as justification for putting an ideological hawk like Hillary Clinton in office. Quite the opposite.
-
Germaine Greer is now being criticized for saying that trans women are not women. Although demand by trans women that the world call them women makes many women uncomfortable, it’s the women rather than trans women who have to defend their position. Same-sex marriage also presents problems for women. In my opinion it may be even more threatening. It is becoming increasingly clear that transgender rights, same-sex marriage, and women’s rights, are connected.
Must Women Defend Their Territory?
Often women defend their territory by talking about the difficulties of being female as opposed to the privileges. Discrimination and humiliation seem to be the only proof we have of a unique right to call ourselves women.
This is not Greer’s fault but it’s pretty sad. Worse, it doesn’t stop the intrusion. Trans women answer that they’ve experienced all the same trials and therefore, they are women.
Women counter by saying that the ability to bear children makes them women. This doesn’t seem to impress trans women, but I think the women on to something. The child-bearing role of women is relevant to both categories, same-sex marriage and transgender rights. It’s also relevant to heterosexual relationships, but this is not acknowledged in a way that benefits women.
Terms and Definitions
There are many other sources of confusion here, not least of all the terms. But at least it’s easier to agree on terms and definitions. If there are differences, most people are willing to accept correction.
A transgender individual who has transitioned, whether or not surgery was involved, doesn’t want to be called a transwoman because this would indicate that he or she hasn’t transitioned. The term ‘trans woman’ is preferred to transwoman because trans is being used as an adjective describing a specific kind of woman. However there are some who prefer to just be called women.
I was surprised to learn that none of these terms refers to sexual orientation. Also transgender people are not necessarily interested in same-sex marriage.
How Does Same Sex Marriage Affect Women?
Even though same-sex marriage is different from the transgender issue, I run into a similar problem when trying to argue its effects on women. My first piece of evidence is pretty straight forward—same-sex marriage was legalized at a time when female reproductive rights were under attack. Subsequently, same-sex marriage has competed for attention with reproductive rights.
Reproductive Rights
And now we’re getting to the heart of the matter. There is no comparison between the issue of same-sex marriage and reproductive rights. That’s also true between gender rights and reproductive rights. Compared to reproductive rights, same-sex marriage and gender rights are vanity issues. Women know this, but childbirth is treated as trivial to the point where they don’t quite believe it themselves. Instead, the focus is discrimination and misogyny. That situation should be more remarkable than it is. What it’s really saying is that the place of women has been turned upside down. They should have more privileges, but they don’t even have the right to claim their own unique identity.
Bride Wealth
The importance of the role of childbirth was once recognized in the custom of bride wealth, but bride wealth has never been practiced in the United States. Therefore, it’s impossible to argue that it’s threatened by same-sex marriage. However, it would be if it still existed. That is meaningful.
Child Custody
The other problem that same-sex marriage ignores is child custody. The irony here is that it was only the payment of bride wealth that made men equal to women in custody matters. Now even custody is in question.
Childbirth as a Moral Obligation
We may not like to hear that the childbearing role is our only claim to superiority, probably because this idea is now used against us. Conservative men insist that women are privileged, usually with the purpose of increasing the birthrate. But this is an anachronistic claim–the value remains but we have no memory of the privilege. Patriarchal lip-service is not now and never has been an element of social organization.
Background Noise from Right-Wing Traditionalists
After I wrote about Hermes in India I tried for quite some time to discuss my concerns about Hermetic influence in the United States. People aren’t really concerned that Hermes can morph into, say, Jesus Christ, or that he has taken over our medical system. I worry that the LGBTQ issue remains under the radar in the same way.
Often, same-sex couples are unaware of the ideological meaning behind transgender manifestations. Ellen Degeneres for example is baffled by the fact that Caitlyn Jenner is Republican and not particularly supportive of same-sex marriage.
I don’t know Jenner’s affiliations, but the possibilities are endless. I found a movement while researching this article, the North American New Right, and this movement has taken an interest in Jenner. She’s been interviewed on the Counter Currents website. This article is no longer available, but here is a book by the same interviewer, James O’Meara.
To this way of thinking the only true homosexuality is the type practiced by those mythical bands of men who roamed the earth before the birth of human culture. A modern example would be the Nazi männerbund. This movement thinks same-sex marriage is irrelevant if not silly, and it mocks what it calls the ‘Fake Left’ for insisting that homosexuals are just like everyone else in their desire to be married and raise children. Homosexuality should be an escape from marriage, they say, rather than a reason for it.
Rene Guenon and Baron Juius Evola
The vogue of using a mythical past in pursuit of political aims was popular in Europe before and during the world wars. Rene Guenon represented this type of Traditionalism (denoted with a capital ’T’). Thanks to Guenon’s influence, so did Albert Gleizes. The North American New right acknowledges Guenon’s influence, and, surprisingly, it also acknowledges the Traditionalism of Baron Julius Evola. Evola was a Traditionalist of another sort. His ideas are more closely associated with Nazism than those of Guenon.
Gender Rights are enshrined in law
In the United States same-sex marriage is water under the bridge, and compared to the ideological aspects discussed above it may prove to be relatively harmless. But I doubt it. When was a smoke screen ever harmless?
It’s only when you consider the casual nature of marriage and the fact that the only real criteria for it is ‘true love’, that it becomes outrageous to deny same-sex partners the right to marry. If you ignore all of these factors, legalizing same-sex marriage seems progressive. True love has become a substitute for the economic necessities that acknowledge these realities. And these realities are inseparable from the role of women. Without the appropriate economic arrangements, married life, while it’s marginally better for women than single life, is a cynical proposition.
Elizabeth Stoker wrote a helpful article for the New Republic on Traditionalism from the Catholic point of view, Francis Agonistes, New Republic, March 1, 2015. (It’s no longer available on the same website but you may be able to find a copy.)
-
I agree with Pope Francis that Kim Davis has a right to follow her conscience. However, there are extenuating circumstances surrounding the Davis affair that I’m having a very hard time with, the main one being that she, personally, risks nothing by her actions. All the costs will fall to the residents of the county.
Since she is an elected official the only way she can be removed is to be impeached, and this isn’t likely to happen in Kentucky. In addition, she won’t face another election until 2019. You can bet she took stock of this before she chose to defy the court. She’s far too accustomed to that nice salary of hers, not to mention the salary that her office now pays to her son.
I myself don’t think that same-sex marriage makes sense on a policy level, but I accept it as the law. At the same time I couldn’t agree more that it’s important to follow one’s conscience. In my opinion, it’s now up to the people of Kentucky to make an honest woman of Kim Davis by impeaching her for breaking the law.
-
I’ve been wondering if the determination to control the message might explain the White House guest list for the Pope’s reception. ((Vatican pushes back over White House invite to Catholic Dissidents, Catholic New Agency, September 18, 2015. Available: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-pushes-back-over-white-house-invite-to-catholic-dissidents-51001/))
I say this because I’m getting tired of the same-sex marriage issue taking over the conversation. In fact, I’m tired of the LGBT issue, period. I ended up writing this blog because of Wikipedia’s misogyny–women’s rights were my focus and with good reason–but instead of making headway on this problem women have been blindsided with legislation limiting reproductive rights, while in the same period the same-sex marriage initiative has been a great success.
It’s not hard to make the case that fighting misogyny is more important to our society than same-sex marriage. Half the U.S. population of 319 million is female while Americans identifying as gay or lesbian make up only 1.6 percent of the population, and those who consider themselves bisexual represent only .7 percent. Yet the LGBT issue vaults ahead, both in the media and in the courts.
Many thought it was surprising that the Supreme Court approved this measure, but considering the character of these justices this should have made us suspicious about the potential uses of this issue. What has happened here, besides the drowning out of women’s issues in the media, is that women have finally been made irrelevant. Now men can marry and adopt children, while single women continue to lose their babies to adoption.
-
You may be aware that when the Syrian conflict was just getting started Assad offered to team up with the U.S. to fight ISIS. The U.S. said no thank you. Now Putin has offered to help end it with pretty much the same result. You might think the situation is too complex to make a judgement call here, but once you’ve made it a priority to protect populations in each country, it becomes clear that it’s a mistake to reject such an offer. Here Stephen F. Cohen and and John Bachelor talk about Putin’s recent offer to help end the Syrian civil war: ((http://www.thenation.com/article/the-obama-administration-rejects-russias-offer-to-form-a-new-military-coalition-vs-isis-in-syria/))
Also in the last post I called for an end to the World Bank. Well, it looks like the bank is up to its old tricks in Greece. Greece’s creditors have raised taxes on Greek Farmers. They’ve also removed food import restrictions. See: List of prior actions – version of 26 June 20 00-2
Here’s an article that illustrates just how upside-down the World Bank’s current agricultural policies really are: ((http://www.rightingfinance.org/?p=1055))
And you might like to read about an ongoing campaign to dismantle both the World Bank and the IMF. ((http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/ecology/dismant.htm))
-
Masses of humanity overrunning neighboring borders is not the kind of thing I had in mind when I said we should focus on supporting a growing population. My context was the justification of automation in agriculture with the need to feed a growing population. I was referring to an article in which automation had already been justified by the profit motive. I argued that corporate profitability and prosperity don’t mix. Putting the population first in this case would mean employing more people. If this makes the agriculture industry unprofitable, it’s the industry that should be considered expendable—not the workers.
The profit motive is more expensive in the long run. The refugee crisis in Syria began at least fifty years ago with bad agricultural policy. Desertification of the Syrian Steppe began in 1958 when the former Bedouin commons were opened up to unrestricted grazing and the eastern part of the steppe was put under intensive agriculture using underground irrigation. The nomads and farmers that were displaced by these practices were then forced to eek out a living in the cities, which explains why the protests began in provincial towns rather than in Damascus or Aleppo. ((Serra, Gianluca, Overgrazing and Desertification in the Syrian Steppe Are the Root Causes of War. Ecologist, June 5, 2015. Available: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2871076/overgrazing_and_desertification_in_the_syrian_steppe_are_the_root_causes_of_war.html))
Regardless of the cause, at this point the U.S. is obliged to do its part for Syrian refugees. But going forward we need policies that are designed to help people where they live. It’s true that we have no control over the agricultural policies of countries like Syria which were influenced by the Soviet Union. However in the West the World Bank’s policies have been just as damaging.
Aside from rampant corruption, (I moved the discussion of Richard Behar’s Forbes article to the end this post) one of the main characteristics of the World Bank’s Green Revolution, from 1970 to 1990, was the removal of poor farmers from their land. As in Syria, these farmers either migrated to the cities or moved to areas with poorer soils. It is estimated that with the added pressure of the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008, up to a third of the world’s population has been dragged into a cycle of poverty and hunger. Unbelievably, according to its 2008 World Development Report, the World Bank plans to resume its focus on agriculture while ignoring the lessons of history. The basis of its agenda remains the transfer of resources away from peasants and toward large capitalist firms. ((Kersson, Tanya, Land and Resource Grabs: the World Bank’s Long War on Peasants. Global Research, April 24, 2015. Available: http://www.globalresearch.ca/land-and-resource-grabs-the-world-banks-long-war-on-peasants/5444917))
If the well-being of the global population is a priority, it makes no sense to uproot people and destroy working ecosystems. Instead, our policies should have the goal of allowing people to thrive where they are. This would benefit the environment and also decrease the flow of refugees. But if we want to accomplish altruistic goals, they have to actually be our focus.
Today a handful of people believe that wealth and power entitle them to rule the world. Their decisions are profit driven, but in order to sell them to the public they then tack on altruistic goals, like feeding the world, spreading democracy, or enforcing peace. This is not policy—this is sleight of hand. It’s no wonder nothing gets done.
Dismantle the World Bank. Rein in the corporations. If you’re still not convinced please read Richach Behar’s article in Forbes. A summary follows:
According to a 2012 Forbes article ((Behar, Richard, World Bank Spins Out of Control: Corruption, Dysfunction Await New President. Forbes, June 27, 2012. Available: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2012/0716/feature-world-bank-robert-zoellick-too-big-to-fail.html)) things were pretty bad when Dr. Jim Yong Kim took over as president. Richard Behar’s assessment at that time was that the system needs a complete overhaul. Since that article was written things have gone from bad to worse. ((Lakhani, Nina, World Bank’s Ethics Under Scrutiny after Honduras Loan Investigation. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2014/jan/13/world-bank-ethics-scrutiny-honduras-loan-investigation))
Behar argued that the World Bank’s problems are philosophical, structural, and cultural. Examples of the philosophical problem include a failure to articulate a vision for the World Bank’s role in the 21st century, and the handling of countries like China which no one wants to offend, with the result that China’s abuses are tolerated.
The cultural problem refers to a culture of fear—fear of loss of reputation for the Bank, fear of being the target of a witch hunt for whistle-blowers.
The most obvious structural fault would be the huge annual budget combined with a lack of oversight by the governments that provide the funds, leading to corruption at all levels.
In my opinion, you would also have to include a corporate way of thinking that convinced reasonable people this setup would work in the first place. Frankly it’s difficult to believe that the World Bank’s negative outcomes could be caused by a bunch of hapless people. The bank’s destructive tendencies are too consistent.
-
I’m afraid I’m still focused on the presidential campaign. I didn’t intend to spend so much time on this subject, but it seems the activities of Black Lives Matter and the support they have received from the ‘liberal’ media need some kind of explanation. The media pretends it’s a question of whether BLM members have a right to be angry about structural racism. They do, but that’s not the point. The point is whether it makes sense for progressives to shut down Bernie Sanders. What can explain this mystery? A word of warning: we can’t blame all Black Lives Matter activists for this. Apparently some Seattle members of Black Lives Matter were shocked when they learned that Bernie’s speech had been shut down.
Strangely, the ACLU seems as untroubled by this spectacle as the media. This organization has been sending emails asking for signatures and donations to fight government surveillance of Black Lives Matter. They seem unaware that many of us don’t agree with what they are doing. It turns out that the ACLU does not necessarily represent progressives. In fact, since the 1970s the ACLU has been a leading advocate for the expansion of constitutional rights for corporations. Its advocacy of corporate rights has actually served to diminish its human rights gains.((Nace, Ted, Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy. Berret-Koehler Publishers Inc. San Francisco. 2003.))
But the ACLU is an advocate for minorities, right? Not necessarily. Here is an example of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois response to a problem that Chicago’s black youth was trying to address: The ACLU bypassed black activists and made a back-room deal with Mayor Rahm Emanuel that has the potential to shut down dialogue on the issue of stop and frisk. The ACLU was negotiating their own deal secretly while claiming to support the STOP Act that the activists were trying to pass. The ACLU’s deal will not require the police department to release information about stops, as the STOP Act would have done. In other words, the ACLU’s deal won’t solve the problem, it will only make things easier for the city. ((Hayes, Kelly, ACLU of Illinois Sells Out Chicago’s Black Youth. Truthout, 14 Aug. 2015. Available: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/32361-aclu-of-illinois-sells-out-chicago-s-black-youth))
The influence of the ACLU might also explain the curious fact that Black Lives Matter hasn’t shut down any of Hillary Clinton’s speeches. Maya L. Harris, one of three senior policy advisers to lead the development of an agenda for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, was formerly a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. From 2008 until she took her current position, she was Vice President for Democracy Rights and Justice at the Ford Foundation. Prior to joining the ford Foundation, she served as the Executive Director of the ACLU of Northern California. ((Wikipedia: Maya Harris. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Harris))
-
It looks like Bernie Sanders’ campaign has already moved on in responding to Black Lives Matter. I probably should make it clear that the following is just my opinion.
On Saturday a group of people belonging to an organization called Black Lives Matter stormed into a Netroots Nation town meeting with the apparent aim of giving Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley heck. Then on Sunday and Monday, there were ‘thoughtful’ articles asking whether Bernie Sanders can win over the black vote. Black lives do matter, but in my opinion this story doesn’t add up. Why the hostility?
There were black people at the rally. They weren’t storming around. They were listening, like everyone else. On the way out I asked a young black woman what she thought of the rally. She said she liked his ideas. She had thought she might vote for Hilary but she was reconsidering.
When Senator Sanders appeared on stage on Saturday night he was obviously amazed at the size of the crowd.
“Somebody told me Arizona is a conservative state. Somebody told me the people here have given up on the political process. That’s not what I see here tonight. There’s nothing we can’t accomplish in transforming America!”
The thing is, the people who told him that Arizona is a conservative state were right. In certain circles Arizona is conservative. However, the conservatives were not there on Saturday night. Either that or they couldn’t make themselves heard over the cheering, because more than eleven thousand people liked what they heard. Here’s the rally from my point of view.
The rally from my point of view 
After the rally
