0525511830
9780525511830
0525511830
4.17
8,636
Sep 04, 2018
Sep 04, 2018
it was amazing
It's a standard play book.
Taking on such a heavy topic, Stanley does a good job in laying out the playbook of fascists politics that have been used fo It's a standard play book.
Taking on such a heavy topic, Stanley does a good job in laying out the playbook of fascists politics that have been used for over a century including Myanmar, Rwanda, Nazi Germany and the buds of neofascistic politics that are currently circulating around the western world right now in Poland, Turkey, France and the United States. It's a pretty standard play book that has been followed for a long time and it's happening right now before our eyes.
The first thing a fascist politician needs to due is to fetishize the mythic past. Create a myth, usually weaved from a sense of divine nationalism, and then leverage that fraudulent nostalgia into a perceived cultural and economic loss to the dominant ethnic group of the population. The mythology is almost always created on a foundation of patriarchy and ethical purity. The best time to do this, and when a country is the most vulnerable, is during social and economic decline of that nation. This is precisely what happened in Weimar Germany as the Nazi parry began to consolidate its cultural influence. Conspiracy theories are a potent tool for a fascist. They aren't meant to convince people of the lies, that's only a secondary effect, they are meant to slander their political enemies. The normalization of lies is a big sign that fascist ideology is taking hold of mainstream thought and discourse.
Valorizing the countryside and pitting the hard working citizens against the lazy urban welfare state and professional elites is a key strategy. Setting up a dichotomy of hard workers and lazy people helps stoke the resentment and aids in setting up a double standard of state resources and a false dichotomy of the deserving and the undeserving. Anti labor is also key because unions unite classes across racial lines and the last thing a fascist wants is for the labor class to be united with an economic agenda. Fascism seeks to divide the masses and convince us that the natural state is a form of social Darwinism. The entire point of fascisms is to replace the "state" with a culturally homogenized "nation" that is lead by the appointed leader who will protect the "nation". Fascism, by the definitions I've outlined here, is almost always a right wing pro-corporate movement that always, always, casts socialists and liberals as nefarious agents that want to destroy the nation. It's like a weird merry-go-round of predictable, yet highly potent, politics.
Needless to say, this stuff is happening right now. Now it's not set in stone that we will have the same results of prior fascist movements. We do live in a unique age but I believe we are going down a treacherous path of fascistic policies that will last at least another decade. My hope is that the voice of the people is more potent today and there are still precious rights in place in most western society with the right to gather, protest and use speech.
This is an excellent and brief read and highly pertinent. ...more
Taking on such a heavy topic, Stanley does a good job in laying out the playbook of fascists politics that have been used fo It's a standard play book.
Taking on such a heavy topic, Stanley does a good job in laying out the playbook of fascists politics that have been used for over a century including Myanmar, Rwanda, Nazi Germany and the buds of neofascistic politics that are currently circulating around the western world right now in Poland, Turkey, France and the United States. It's a pretty standard play book that has been followed for a long time and it's happening right now before our eyes.
The first thing a fascist politician needs to due is to fetishize the mythic past. Create a myth, usually weaved from a sense of divine nationalism, and then leverage that fraudulent nostalgia into a perceived cultural and economic loss to the dominant ethnic group of the population. The mythology is almost always created on a foundation of patriarchy and ethical purity. The best time to do this, and when a country is the most vulnerable, is during social and economic decline of that nation. This is precisely what happened in Weimar Germany as the Nazi parry began to consolidate its cultural influence. Conspiracy theories are a potent tool for a fascist. They aren't meant to convince people of the lies, that's only a secondary effect, they are meant to slander their political enemies. The normalization of lies is a big sign that fascist ideology is taking hold of mainstream thought and discourse.
Valorizing the countryside and pitting the hard working citizens against the lazy urban welfare state and professional elites is a key strategy. Setting up a dichotomy of hard workers and lazy people helps stoke the resentment and aids in setting up a double standard of state resources and a false dichotomy of the deserving and the undeserving. Anti labor is also key because unions unite classes across racial lines and the last thing a fascist wants is for the labor class to be united with an economic agenda. Fascism seeks to divide the masses and convince us that the natural state is a form of social Darwinism. The entire point of fascisms is to replace the "state" with a culturally homogenized "nation" that is lead by the appointed leader who will protect the "nation". Fascism, by the definitions I've outlined here, is almost always a right wing pro-corporate movement that always, always, casts socialists and liberals as nefarious agents that want to destroy the nation. It's like a weird merry-go-round of predictable, yet highly potent, politics.
Needless to say, this stuff is happening right now. Now it's not set in stone that we will have the same results of prior fascist movements. We do live in a unique age but I believe we are going down a treacherous path of fascistic policies that will last at least another decade. My hope is that the voice of the people is more potent today and there are still precious rights in place in most western society with the right to gather, protest and use speech.
This is an excellent and brief read and highly pertinent. ...more
Notes are private!
0
1
Jun 29, 2022
Jul 02, 2022
Jun 29, 2022
Hardcover
0743243021
9780743243025
0743243021
4.24
10,227
May 13, 2008
May 13, 2008
it was amazing
America has never escaped the politics of the 1960s.
This is not a biography of Richard Nixon, it is a historical account of the cultural and political America has never escaped the politics of the 1960s.
This is not a biography of Richard Nixon, it is a historical account of the cultural and political shifts and subsequent turmoil that happened in America in the 1960s. This book is very long, very engaging and highly informative about why America is the way it is in the 2020s. In this historical account, you will get a very granular view of all the politics, politicians, politicking and the dumpster fire of culture wars and civil unrest that occurred. Yes, you will also learn a lot about Richard Nixon. You’ll learn that he was a tenacious and extremely brilliant politician wholly unscrupulous to maintain his seat of power.
This book starts a little with Nixon’s humble upbringing in California and his tumultuous journey from an absolute political loser to the president of the most powerful country in the history of ever. Nixon’s rise to political fame is truly something remarkable and it’s certain that the man accomplished most of it by his own grit and perseverance. This isn’t to say he was a good guy—he clearly wasn’t. He was a war criminal and a right wing demagogue who stoked racist, nativist and white grievances to break the political climate in half and seize power from the pieces.
Nixon first became a House representative by learning how to make people like they were the victims. He really became a famous political figure during his prosecution of Alger Hiss who he forced into self perjury during red baiting questioning that landed that man in prison. Continuing to stoke communism panic and creating the Orthagonion movement, Nixon moved onto becoming Senator of California and then had his sights set on begin the VP to Eisenhower and got the nod. During his VP bid he came under fire for allegedly and improperly using campaign funds and so he rolled out the infamous Checkers Speech where he appealed to Americans emotions with his dog Checkers at his feet. Apparently this was pretty ground breaking stuff at the time and the crazy thing is that it totally worked and he became the VP. After being VP, he took a shot at being Governor of California which was a total disaster for him. After his failed bid, he became a political laughing stock and the entire world thought his political career was over. Nixon receded a little, campaigning for Barry Goldwater and laid lots of groundwork while understanding that tapping into America's fears and resentment was a pathway to political power.
Now step away from Nixon for a minute and let's look at the American cultural landscape of the 1960s: LBJ Great Society, Civil Rights and Voting Rights movement are just happening. LBJ was also a tremendously successful politician somehow bringing together enough liberal consensus without pissing off conservatives too much. In fact, it really seems like LBJ was the last President at the end of the great consensus where partisanship and party affiliation weren’t so polarized. FDR, Truman, Eisnehower, JFK and LBJ had the benefit of political and public consensus where the right wingers, John Birchers, William F Buckleys, George Walleces, Barry Goldwaters—were all too fringe to have mainstream influence. So here’s a question: how did LBJ go from Great Society superstar to literally backing out of his own incumbent presidential race because he was such a political loser? Like, that is crazy. The answer is Nixonland. America broke apart late during LBJ’s elected term. Richard Nixon had failed before the great breaking because America wasn’t ready for him but now—in 1968—he fit into place perfectly. And Nixon knew it. That is why he was such a brilliant politician.
Think about all the culture wars happening now: abortion, gun control, affirmative action, US foreign war entanglements, police brutality, sexual freedom, poverty, drug wars. All of this was borne out of the 1960s. With MLK, the SNCC, Black Panthers, Hippies, LSD movement, white riots, anti-Vietnam movement, Jane Fonda. The Long Hot American Summer was absolutely crazy. The Kent State Massacre was literally right out of a fascist country. All of this broke out in the 1960s and Nixon picked up the pieces. The Republican party fundamentally shifted and became much more conservative. There was a huge red wave for the first time in 20 years.
And then Nixon got into power and he kept on Nixoning, seeming to understand perfectly how to gain the public’s favor, dance the line between dove and hawk with Vietnam and also incredulously make inroads with communist China which was applauded at home. This is the same guy who red-baited Alger Hiss and got him sent to prison, now rubbing elbows with Mao. And then, Nixon literally and unilaterally upended the Bretton Woods economic arrangement, ensuring dollar to gold bullion convertibility. Overnight, this guy turned the dollar into a speculative currency, completely breaking the agreement with the rest of the world. The crazy thing is that a lot of this stuff actually kind of worked in the long run for the US especially with China relationship and creating the dollar fiat currency. Nixon predicted and sewed the seeds for a new type of American hegemony by making the dollar the reserve currency for the world and creating a trade deficit that surplus countries became dependent on to keep their economies going.
The story of Nixonland is the same American story today. America cannot escape the similar political and cultural conditions that set the 1960s on fire. Now the political violence, state violence and war crimes in Vietnam may have been arguably worse than the recent 2010s and 2020s (although kind of not) but something is indeed way, way worse in my opinion. Let’s go back to the Checkers Speech. Nixon had to meticulously craft a public image and engage in high level subterfuge and politicking to maintain his political power until there was a bipartisan consensus that had enough of his crimes and forced him to resign. That kind of politics is quaint today. Today Donald Trump is a highly deranged version of Nixon: he uses the same dog whistles to muster right wing grievances and political power but with ZERO of the nuanced respectability and bipartisan rule of law to threaten him. In the 2020s we now have a bastardized version of Nixon who has consolidated his power over the entire GOP. That is next level stuff—that’s Trumpland. ...more
This is not a biography of Richard Nixon, it is a historical account of the cultural and political America has never escaped the politics of the 1960s.
This is not a biography of Richard Nixon, it is a historical account of the cultural and political shifts and subsequent turmoil that happened in America in the 1960s. This book is very long, very engaging and highly informative about why America is the way it is in the 2020s. In this historical account, you will get a very granular view of all the politics, politicians, politicking and the dumpster fire of culture wars and civil unrest that occurred. Yes, you will also learn a lot about Richard Nixon. You’ll learn that he was a tenacious and extremely brilliant politician wholly unscrupulous to maintain his seat of power.
This book starts a little with Nixon’s humble upbringing in California and his tumultuous journey from an absolute political loser to the president of the most powerful country in the history of ever. Nixon’s rise to political fame is truly something remarkable and it’s certain that the man accomplished most of it by his own grit and perseverance. This isn’t to say he was a good guy—he clearly wasn’t. He was a war criminal and a right wing demagogue who stoked racist, nativist and white grievances to break the political climate in half and seize power from the pieces.
Nixon first became a House representative by learning how to make people like they were the victims. He really became a famous political figure during his prosecution of Alger Hiss who he forced into self perjury during red baiting questioning that landed that man in prison. Continuing to stoke communism panic and creating the Orthagonion movement, Nixon moved onto becoming Senator of California and then had his sights set on begin the VP to Eisenhower and got the nod. During his VP bid he came under fire for allegedly and improperly using campaign funds and so he rolled out the infamous Checkers Speech where he appealed to Americans emotions with his dog Checkers at his feet. Apparently this was pretty ground breaking stuff at the time and the crazy thing is that it totally worked and he became the VP. After being VP, he took a shot at being Governor of California which was a total disaster for him. After his failed bid, he became a political laughing stock and the entire world thought his political career was over. Nixon receded a little, campaigning for Barry Goldwater and laid lots of groundwork while understanding that tapping into America's fears and resentment was a pathway to political power.
Now step away from Nixon for a minute and let's look at the American cultural landscape of the 1960s: LBJ Great Society, Civil Rights and Voting Rights movement are just happening. LBJ was also a tremendously successful politician somehow bringing together enough liberal consensus without pissing off conservatives too much. In fact, it really seems like LBJ was the last President at the end of the great consensus where partisanship and party affiliation weren’t so polarized. FDR, Truman, Eisnehower, JFK and LBJ had the benefit of political and public consensus where the right wingers, John Birchers, William F Buckleys, George Walleces, Barry Goldwaters—were all too fringe to have mainstream influence. So here’s a question: how did LBJ go from Great Society superstar to literally backing out of his own incumbent presidential race because he was such a political loser? Like, that is crazy. The answer is Nixonland. America broke apart late during LBJ’s elected term. Richard Nixon had failed before the great breaking because America wasn’t ready for him but now—in 1968—he fit into place perfectly. And Nixon knew it. That is why he was such a brilliant politician.
Think about all the culture wars happening now: abortion, gun control, affirmative action, US foreign war entanglements, police brutality, sexual freedom, poverty, drug wars. All of this was borne out of the 1960s. With MLK, the SNCC, Black Panthers, Hippies, LSD movement, white riots, anti-Vietnam movement, Jane Fonda. The Long Hot American Summer was absolutely crazy. The Kent State Massacre was literally right out of a fascist country. All of this broke out in the 1960s and Nixon picked up the pieces. The Republican party fundamentally shifted and became much more conservative. There was a huge red wave for the first time in 20 years.
And then Nixon got into power and he kept on Nixoning, seeming to understand perfectly how to gain the public’s favor, dance the line between dove and hawk with Vietnam and also incredulously make inroads with communist China which was applauded at home. This is the same guy who red-baited Alger Hiss and got him sent to prison, now rubbing elbows with Mao. And then, Nixon literally and unilaterally upended the Bretton Woods economic arrangement, ensuring dollar to gold bullion convertibility. Overnight, this guy turned the dollar into a speculative currency, completely breaking the agreement with the rest of the world. The crazy thing is that a lot of this stuff actually kind of worked in the long run for the US especially with China relationship and creating the dollar fiat currency. Nixon predicted and sewed the seeds for a new type of American hegemony by making the dollar the reserve currency for the world and creating a trade deficit that surplus countries became dependent on to keep their economies going.
The story of Nixonland is the same American story today. America cannot escape the similar political and cultural conditions that set the 1960s on fire. Now the political violence, state violence and war crimes in Vietnam may have been arguably worse than the recent 2010s and 2020s (although kind of not) but something is indeed way, way worse in my opinion. Let’s go back to the Checkers Speech. Nixon had to meticulously craft a public image and engage in high level subterfuge and politicking to maintain his political power until there was a bipartisan consensus that had enough of his crimes and forced him to resign. That kind of politics is quaint today. Today Donald Trump is a highly deranged version of Nixon: he uses the same dog whistles to muster right wing grievances and political power but with ZERO of the nuanced respectability and bipartisan rule of law to threaten him. In the 2020s we now have a bastardized version of Nixon who has consolidated his power over the entire GOP. That is next level stuff—that’s Trumpland. ...more
Notes are private!
1
Apr 03, 2024
Apr 29, 2024
Jun 08, 2022
Hardcover
1250272343
9781250272348
1250272343
3.89
170
unknown
Jan 25, 2022
it was amazing
A good primer to social democratic policy
This is like the umpteenth book I've read like this. It was very good with reasonable and sound ideas to fix A good primer to social democratic policy
This is like the umpteenth book I've read like this. It was very good with reasonable and sound ideas to fix American society and politics. We get a nice history of monopolization and neoliberalism through the 20th century and then very tangible and concise solutions involving bolstering the welfare state. I'm pretty convinced we need New Deal-like policy to fix the terrible mess we are in. The question for me is if a technocratic strategy will actually be effective. Given the current political climate, probably not.
This is a good book and a nice primer into these concepts. ...more
This is like the umpteenth book I've read like this. It was very good with reasonable and sound ideas to fix A good primer to social democratic policy
This is like the umpteenth book I've read like this. It was very good with reasonable and sound ideas to fix American society and politics. We get a nice history of monopolization and neoliberalism through the 20th century and then very tangible and concise solutions involving bolstering the welfare state. I'm pretty convinced we need New Deal-like policy to fix the terrible mess we are in. The question for me is if a technocratic strategy will actually be effective. Given the current political climate, probably not.
This is a good book and a nice primer into these concepts. ...more
Notes are private!
1
Mar 04, 2022
Mar 15, 2022
Mar 04, 2022
Hardcover
1982154098
9781982154097
1982154098
4.17
2,638
Nov 09, 2021
Nov 09, 2021
it was amazing
The system is the problem.
With highly accessible language yet presented in a scholarly way, Klaas does an impeccable job laying out why leaders are co The system is the problem.
With highly accessible language yet presented in a scholarly way, Klaas does an impeccable job laying out why leaders are corrupt and what to do about it. He's a political scientist who has clearly studied the topic and has interviewed scores of dictators across the globe and aims to answer the question: does power corrupt or are the corrupt attracted to power?
The short answer is yes to both.
With many anecdotes and research, Klaas shows us that yes there are those with psychopathic, Machiavellian and narcissist tendencies and yes these people are attracted to positions of power and actively seek those positions. Once in place, the corrupt leverage their power into doing all the corrupt things we know these people do: consolidate the conformers, oust the dissenters, nepotism, exploitation and embezzlement.
The whole thing started when people made projectile weapons, Klaas argues. Before projectile weapons, power systems were diffusely distributed. Ranged weapons leveled the playing field placing intellect over brute force. Power hierarchy is a relatively recent human phenomenon as most prior power structures were flat. There is a trade off because flat societies have a bit of a ceiling where advancements and innovation become stagnant because every individual is doing individual things. Once ranged weapons and surplus came along with agriculture, bam, we've got power hierarchies happening and a corruption of those power systems. After the power hierarchy is set up, we have an evolutionary mismatch where our lizard brains may still believe that those with most bravado, those that are men (usually white), are still the most equipped to be leaders. This lends us to being manipulated and highly vulnerable to corrupt systems of governance.
So yes, those that are corrupt are attracted to power but Klaas reminds us that systems matter. A corrupt system will unleash the corrupt and have a further corrupting influence on those that are in power. With many examples Klaas shows us that if you make small changes within a system, you can quickly weed out corruption. Andrather than setting up systems of surveillance for those that are controlled, we should surveil those that are actually in power. We should make leaders second guess their decisions and have them never know if they are being watched.
Recruitment is the key solution. We need to attract people to powerful positions that don't actually want to be in power. These are highly likely to be incorruptible. Rather than looking at wins and losses, we should scrutinize the decision that was used before a good or bad outcome. We should focus on how good results came about just as much as bad results or we may be punitive to good leaders and reward those that are actually corrupts.
This was an excellent read and I found it eye opening and worthwhile. Highly recommend. ...more
With highly accessible language yet presented in a scholarly way, Klaas does an impeccable job laying out why leaders are co The system is the problem.
With highly accessible language yet presented in a scholarly way, Klaas does an impeccable job laying out why leaders are corrupt and what to do about it. He's a political scientist who has clearly studied the topic and has interviewed scores of dictators across the globe and aims to answer the question: does power corrupt or are the corrupt attracted to power?
The short answer is yes to both.
With many anecdotes and research, Klaas shows us that yes there are those with psychopathic, Machiavellian and narcissist tendencies and yes these people are attracted to positions of power and actively seek those positions. Once in place, the corrupt leverage their power into doing all the corrupt things we know these people do: consolidate the conformers, oust the dissenters, nepotism, exploitation and embezzlement.
The whole thing started when people made projectile weapons, Klaas argues. Before projectile weapons, power systems were diffusely distributed. Ranged weapons leveled the playing field placing intellect over brute force. Power hierarchy is a relatively recent human phenomenon as most prior power structures were flat. There is a trade off because flat societies have a bit of a ceiling where advancements and innovation become stagnant because every individual is doing individual things. Once ranged weapons and surplus came along with agriculture, bam, we've got power hierarchies happening and a corruption of those power systems. After the power hierarchy is set up, we have an evolutionary mismatch where our lizard brains may still believe that those with most bravado, those that are men (usually white), are still the most equipped to be leaders. This lends us to being manipulated and highly vulnerable to corrupt systems of governance.
So yes, those that are corrupt are attracted to power but Klaas reminds us that systems matter. A corrupt system will unleash the corrupt and have a further corrupting influence on those that are in power. With many examples Klaas shows us that if you make small changes within a system, you can quickly weed out corruption. Andrather than setting up systems of surveillance for those that are controlled, we should surveil those that are actually in power. We should make leaders second guess their decisions and have them never know if they are being watched.
Recruitment is the key solution. We need to attract people to powerful positions that don't actually want to be in power. These are highly likely to be incorruptible. Rather than looking at wins and losses, we should scrutinize the decision that was used before a good or bad outcome. We should focus on how good results came about just as much as bad results or we may be punitive to good leaders and reward those that are actually corrupts.
This was an excellent read and I found it eye opening and worthwhile. Highly recommend. ...more
Notes are private!
1
Jun 16, 2022
Jun 23, 2022
Feb 16, 2022
Hardcover
1250162505
9781250162502
1250162505
4.27
2,766
Apr 03, 2018
Apr 03, 2018
really liked it
It could/will happen again.
This book zooms in on the political brinksmanship and statecraft that brought the Nazi party and Hitler into power. If you It could/will happen again.
This book zooms in on the political brinksmanship and statecraft that brought the Nazi party and Hitler into power. If you don't know a lot of the key German political players of that time, you'll find yourself a little lost like myself. I'm not knowledgeable about this topic but I still found this to be a worth while read. Hett catalogues the carefully planned and executed steps that the Nazi party followed to finally take power. It was a combination of a nation suffering from national trauma, embarrassment, hyperinflation, urban/intellectual resentment and anti-Semitism scapegoating.
The Nazi party, while it started as a minority voice, seized on the rural distrust of social elites and leveraged that into their political messaging. While the Nazis were clearly anti Social Democrats and the Communist party, they seemed to embrace whatever populist sentiment would give them a bigger and bigger share of the voting block. And the Weimar Republic was a democracy. It was a democracy that was slowly dismantled over about 12 years in a very deliberate and seductive way. The Nazi's were ultimately a party of nihilism. Whatever the status quo was, the Nazi party would vilify it, condemn the alternative and offer only itself as the solution.
The chilling comparison with American politics in the year 2022 are beyond obvious. The exact social conditions of distrust and extremism paired with a brittle and calcified democratic system with a governing body captured by special corporate interests--it is absolutely a set up for right wing authoritarianism. And I'm afraid it will get worse before it gets better. Hitler and the Nazis didn't just swiftly seize power, they patiently waited with a strangle hold on a democratic process that turned to ashes from the fire of distrust, violence and hatred which was their gospel.
Be warned. ...more
This book zooms in on the political brinksmanship and statecraft that brought the Nazi party and Hitler into power. If you It could/will happen again.
This book zooms in on the political brinksmanship and statecraft that brought the Nazi party and Hitler into power. If you don't know a lot of the key German political players of that time, you'll find yourself a little lost like myself. I'm not knowledgeable about this topic but I still found this to be a worth while read. Hett catalogues the carefully planned and executed steps that the Nazi party followed to finally take power. It was a combination of a nation suffering from national trauma, embarrassment, hyperinflation, urban/intellectual resentment and anti-Semitism scapegoating.
The Nazi party, while it started as a minority voice, seized on the rural distrust of social elites and leveraged that into their political messaging. While the Nazis were clearly anti Social Democrats and the Communist party, they seemed to embrace whatever populist sentiment would give them a bigger and bigger share of the voting block. And the Weimar Republic was a democracy. It was a democracy that was slowly dismantled over about 12 years in a very deliberate and seductive way. The Nazi's were ultimately a party of nihilism. Whatever the status quo was, the Nazi party would vilify it, condemn the alternative and offer only itself as the solution.
The chilling comparison with American politics in the year 2022 are beyond obvious. The exact social conditions of distrust and extremism paired with a brittle and calcified democratic system with a governing body captured by special corporate interests--it is absolutely a set up for right wing authoritarianism. And I'm afraid it will get worse before it gets better. Hitler and the Nazis didn't just swiftly seize power, they patiently waited with a strangle hold on a democratic process that turned to ashes from the fire of distrust, violence and hatred which was their gospel.
Be warned. ...more
Notes are private!
1
Feb 15, 2022
Feb 17, 2022
Feb 15, 2022
Hardcover
1250179823
9781250179821
1250179823
4.28
2,744
Mar 05, 2019
Mar 05, 2019
it was amazing
Border obsession is the re-branded frontier
Greatly enjoyed this one part American history piece, one part critique of the myth of the American frontie Border obsession is the re-branded frontier
Greatly enjoyed this one part American history piece, one part critique of the myth of the American frontier and how America's quest to expand has been reformatted into obsession about border security. Grandin gives us a nice overview of Jacksonian politics and the subsequent escapism into border expansion which served as a pop-off valve for domestic strife and social unrest with regards to matters of slavery and nativism. This strategy worked well for the US throughout the 19th and 20th century and transformed into nativism about border control. We get a nice treaty on Jacksonian politics and how they have never truly left the US but come roaring back as a backlash to wealth inequality and used as a political cudgel to distract the labor force from the real problem which is monopolized industries and consolidation of political power.
In the latter half of the book we get a needed critique about NAFTA, the disastrous consequences of globalization. NAFTA, which was an amalgamation of Reagan, HW Bush and Clinton politics, was sold as a way to liberalize the American market and lift other countries out of poverty. The result has been concentration of American corporatocracy and depressed wages for Americans and Mexicans alike. Obama, who wanted to usher in the era of the TPP wanted the same thing which was fortunately nixed by Trump (one of the only things the man did that I agreed with).
This book is smart and I learned a good. Two other books I would recommend in this vein:
How to Hide and Empire
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Border and Rule
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
...more
Greatly enjoyed this one part American history piece, one part critique of the myth of the American frontie Border obsession is the re-branded frontier
Greatly enjoyed this one part American history piece, one part critique of the myth of the American frontier and how America's quest to expand has been reformatted into obsession about border security. Grandin gives us a nice overview of Jacksonian politics and the subsequent escapism into border expansion which served as a pop-off valve for domestic strife and social unrest with regards to matters of slavery and nativism. This strategy worked well for the US throughout the 19th and 20th century and transformed into nativism about border control. We get a nice treaty on Jacksonian politics and how they have never truly left the US but come roaring back as a backlash to wealth inequality and used as a political cudgel to distract the labor force from the real problem which is monopolized industries and consolidation of political power.
In the latter half of the book we get a needed critique about NAFTA, the disastrous consequences of globalization. NAFTA, which was an amalgamation of Reagan, HW Bush and Clinton politics, was sold as a way to liberalize the American market and lift other countries out of poverty. The result has been concentration of American corporatocracy and depressed wages for Americans and Mexicans alike. Obama, who wanted to usher in the era of the TPP wanted the same thing which was fortunately nixed by Trump (one of the only things the man did that I agreed with).
This book is smart and I learned a good. Two other books I would recommend in this vein:
How to Hide and Empire
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Border and Rule
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
...more
Notes are private!
1
Jan 12, 2022
Jan 22, 2022
Jan 12, 2022
Hardcover
0374157359
9780374157357
0374157359
4.20
20,683
Oct 19, 2021
Nov 09, 2021
it was amazing
Nothing is inevitable.
This is a prodigious and ambitious take on how societies actually form and the authors tear apart all the assumptions about our Nothing is inevitable.
This is a prodigious and ambitious take on how societies actually form and the authors tear apart all the assumptions about our current sociological arrangement by looking to the neolithic past. The main point of this book is that the current social structure, one in which almost every human being is a subject to state authority, is not the culmination of an inevitable series of events. Meaning, the current social arrangement is not the consequence of natural sociological evolution.
The myth has to do with the dichotomy between Rousseau and Hobbes and the modern day quest for equality. The Rousseau myth evokes a picture of infantile humanity living as simple bands of foragers who were naturally egalitarian and that modern day we are seeking out a similar arrangement. What the authors do here is treat neolithic people like knowing, self aware adults who didn’t form autonomous societies because it was a natural inclination but that it was an active choice they were making, fully aware of and rejecting authoritarian rule. Many, many examples abound in this book of past cultures understanding the dangers of power and forming their societies in such a way that provided safeguards against the tyranny of concentrated power or state power. The modern enlightenment about the quest for equality probably came from American indigenous intellectuals critiquing the western power structures. When we look back and see the absence of state power, we project our own acceptance of this inevitability and believe that these past societies hadn’t achieved anything close to modernity when the reality is that they were much more in control then we possibly are.
There is a huge catalog here of societies functioning with great complexity, agriculture, art and city planning without any central authority or monarchical rule. Now of course there were plenty of societies that did have central authority but the point is we are not at the zenith of human civilization. We are probably just trapped in a very large cage that we call modernity. In a way, this book is the answer to Diamonds Guns, Germs and Steel which asserts this incremental progression into modernity that comes about because of agriculture and geographical determinism. Only agriculture does not necessarily lead to concentrated division of labor, private property and central rule as the authors demonstrate over and over again. We constantly project our own modern pathologies when we look at the people of the past.
The authors argue there are three ways people get power: control over violence, control over information and charisma of personality. The modern state clearly has harnessed these three things very, very well. Neolithic societies probably understood these levers of control and many cultures arranged themselves in such a way to prevent anyone co-opting these levers to then create central control. Sometimes it did happen, sometimes it didn’t.
What these authors do is upend the modern concepts of equality and freedom. They talk about three basic freedoms that many neolithic people enjoyed.
1. Freedom to move
2. Freedom to disobey
3. Freedom to change the social structure
Do we (meaning the vast majority who live under state authority) enjoy any of these freedoms right now? Not really. And the truth of the matter is our ancestors likely had a much better grasp on how to run a society than possibly ourselves which is a realization that has made this book so striking to me. Here’s the take home: most modern day state and political power is arbitrary.
This is a must read along with Graeber’s two other amazing books Bullshit Jobs and Debt: The First 5,000 Years. ...more
This is a prodigious and ambitious take on how societies actually form and the authors tear apart all the assumptions about our Nothing is inevitable.
This is a prodigious and ambitious take on how societies actually form and the authors tear apart all the assumptions about our current sociological arrangement by looking to the neolithic past. The main point of this book is that the current social structure, one in which almost every human being is a subject to state authority, is not the culmination of an inevitable series of events. Meaning, the current social arrangement is not the consequence of natural sociological evolution.
The myth has to do with the dichotomy between Rousseau and Hobbes and the modern day quest for equality. The Rousseau myth evokes a picture of infantile humanity living as simple bands of foragers who were naturally egalitarian and that modern day we are seeking out a similar arrangement. What the authors do here is treat neolithic people like knowing, self aware adults who didn’t form autonomous societies because it was a natural inclination but that it was an active choice they were making, fully aware of and rejecting authoritarian rule. Many, many examples abound in this book of past cultures understanding the dangers of power and forming their societies in such a way that provided safeguards against the tyranny of concentrated power or state power. The modern enlightenment about the quest for equality probably came from American indigenous intellectuals critiquing the western power structures. When we look back and see the absence of state power, we project our own acceptance of this inevitability and believe that these past societies hadn’t achieved anything close to modernity when the reality is that they were much more in control then we possibly are.
There is a huge catalog here of societies functioning with great complexity, agriculture, art and city planning without any central authority or monarchical rule. Now of course there were plenty of societies that did have central authority but the point is we are not at the zenith of human civilization. We are probably just trapped in a very large cage that we call modernity. In a way, this book is the answer to Diamonds Guns, Germs and Steel which asserts this incremental progression into modernity that comes about because of agriculture and geographical determinism. Only agriculture does not necessarily lead to concentrated division of labor, private property and central rule as the authors demonstrate over and over again. We constantly project our own modern pathologies when we look at the people of the past.
The authors argue there are three ways people get power: control over violence, control over information and charisma of personality. The modern state clearly has harnessed these three things very, very well. Neolithic societies probably understood these levers of control and many cultures arranged themselves in such a way to prevent anyone co-opting these levers to then create central control. Sometimes it did happen, sometimes it didn’t.
What these authors do is upend the modern concepts of equality and freedom. They talk about three basic freedoms that many neolithic people enjoyed.
1. Freedom to move
2. Freedom to disobey
3. Freedom to change the social structure
Do we (meaning the vast majority who live under state authority) enjoy any of these freedoms right now? Not really. And the truth of the matter is our ancestors likely had a much better grasp on how to run a society than possibly ourselves which is a realization that has made this book so striking to me. Here’s the take home: most modern day state and political power is arbitrary.
This is a must read along with Graeber’s two other amazing books Bullshit Jobs and Debt: The First 5,000 Years. ...more
Notes are private!
1
Mar 05, 2023
Mar 27, 2023
Dec 12, 2021
Hardcover
0739467352
9780739467350
0739467352
4.04
422,479
May 09, 1997
2005
it was amazing
Geographic determinism
Been waiting a long time to get to this book. Diamond attempts to answer the pertinent question: why did western European countr Geographic determinism
Been waiting a long time to get to this book. Diamond attempts to answer the pertinent question: why did western European countries come to dominate the modern world? This book is the answer to the racist assertion of racial and biological determinism, that white European countries were inherently more clever to devise methods to take over other countries. The answer that Diamond is simple: white European countries fell ass-backwards into bounteous lands full of large livestock that hadn't been killed off and was actually amenable to domestication. The seasons of land masses were more easily cultivated to create durable crops. When people can farm, they increase population density and can create division of labor beyond hunter/gatherer. This lends to advanced warfare and other social pressures that may spurn innovation.
With higher population density comes the phenomenon of people living in their own sewage and with their animals resulting in something that hunter gatherer societies lack: exposure and immunity to pathogens. Thus western societies were a neat package of unwitting biological and social welfare that easily conquered the rest of the world by virtue of happenstance of where they developed.
It's a fascinating theory that many may also find problematic. Diamond explores a lot here in a very scholarly way with mountains of anthropological evidence. This is a long but engaging read. I'd highly recommend. ...more
Been waiting a long time to get to this book. Diamond attempts to answer the pertinent question: why did western European countr Geographic determinism
Been waiting a long time to get to this book. Diamond attempts to answer the pertinent question: why did western European countries come to dominate the modern world? This book is the answer to the racist assertion of racial and biological determinism, that white European countries were inherently more clever to devise methods to take over other countries. The answer that Diamond is simple: white European countries fell ass-backwards into bounteous lands full of large livestock that hadn't been killed off and was actually amenable to domestication. The seasons of land masses were more easily cultivated to create durable crops. When people can farm, they increase population density and can create division of labor beyond hunter/gatherer. This lends to advanced warfare and other social pressures that may spurn innovation.
With higher population density comes the phenomenon of people living in their own sewage and with their animals resulting in something that hunter gatherer societies lack: exposure and immunity to pathogens. Thus western societies were a neat package of unwitting biological and social welfare that easily conquered the rest of the world by virtue of happenstance of where they developed.
It's a fascinating theory that many may also find problematic. Diamond explores a lot here in a very scholarly way with mountains of anthropological evidence. This is a long but engaging read. I'd highly recommend. ...more
Notes are private!
1
Nov 23, 2021
Dec 06, 2021
Nov 23, 2021
Paperback
9788194592525
B08MFRTG61
4.40
1,794
Jul 01, 2020
Jun 01, 2020
it was amazing
The United States can behave as a global anti-democratic rogue state.
Are you a United States politician with stock in a company that is being threaten The United States can behave as a global anti-democratic rogue state.
Are you a United States politician with stock in a company that is being threatened by a democratically elected foreign leader? Is that leader trying to nationalize their own sovereign resources away from your company, minimizing your profits? Then this book is for you. Prashad gives us a step by step guide of how to go about and orchestrate a coup to oust this leader by fabricating communist panic without you ever getting your hands dirty.
First, create your own propaganda about that leader through US media. Make sure journalists are using the word "militant" or "regime" instead of "democratically elected leader". Then make sure you have CIA agents on the ground already exerting influence. Get your Generals in order within that country with bribes. Then you've got to demonize that leader by throwing harsh sanctions on them, starving the people and really just making their economy scream. Next you must completely diplomatically isolate that leader, making them an international pariah. Now fund and organize mass riots within that country against the leader. Once you've got all the in place, give the green light, assassinate whoever is still in the way, put up your feet and watch the social implosion from the other side of the globe.
None of this is hyperbole. This is what the US has done over and over and over again.
In 1954 Operation PB Success, the CIA deposed Arbenz (first democratically elected election), and installed a military dictatorship with General Armas. Arbenz did land reform which granted land to landless peasants, introduced a minimum wage and near-universal suffrage. He also legalized the communist Guatemalan Party of Labor. The United Fruit Company was a highly profitable American business (many WH staff members had ownership in the company) which exploited labor practices all over Guatemala and persuaded the US government to overthrow Arbenz. Truman authorized the coup. Armas instituted banning opposition parties, imprisoning and torturing political opponents and reversing the social reforms of Arbenz. Four decades of civil followed.
Iran, 1953. Overthrow of the democratically elected Mosaddegh in favor of monarchical rule of the Shah. Orchestrated by the US in Operation Ajax and the UK. Mosaddegh tried to audit a British Oil company to limit that company’s control over oil reserves. The company refused to cooperate so the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize Iran’s oil industry and expel foreign corporate representatives. Fearing a communist takeover, Churchill and Eisenhower orchestrated the coup. CIA staged pro-Sha riots and bribed Iranian politicians as well as high-ranking army officials, all of which has been admitted by the CIA.
I don't have the time and wherewithal to innumerate the other countries where this has happened: Chile, Indonesia, Congo, Panama, Costa Rica and on and on and on and on. The US is a pointilist empire using both global military dominance and economic lawfare through the IMF and World Bank to bring any country to its heels at any moment who opposes this world order.
Now I'm no communist, I'm not even a socialist, but books like this really clarify what is going on in the whole "capitalist v communist" narrative. This isn't about ideology it's about power. Ideology is a rhetorical vehicle for power structures to protect themselves. When a "socialist" country appears like a dumpster fire in the US media, that portrayal is on purpose. It convinces the public that socialist policies are bad. But here's really what's going on: poorer countries that use socialist policies, like nationalization or government subsidies, are trying to protect their infant industries before they can compete on the global market. Guess who else does and has used this same socialistic policies? ---->The United States.
From subsidies, to nationalization in the New Deal era, government-private contracts, the US got the jump start on the global stage to protect their industries and which have now been expanded into a globalized world order that asserts its corporate control over the globe and prohibits countries from using the exact same strategy to gain an economic advantage. So today, socialism correlates with failed states but it's not socialism that is failing these states, it's US foreign policy.
Please read these related books to learn more:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... ...more
Are you a United States politician with stock in a company that is being threaten The United States can behave as a global anti-democratic rogue state.
Are you a United States politician with stock in a company that is being threatened by a democratically elected foreign leader? Is that leader trying to nationalize their own sovereign resources away from your company, minimizing your profits? Then this book is for you. Prashad gives us a step by step guide of how to go about and orchestrate a coup to oust this leader by fabricating communist panic without you ever getting your hands dirty.
First, create your own propaganda about that leader through US media. Make sure journalists are using the word "militant" or "regime" instead of "democratically elected leader". Then make sure you have CIA agents on the ground already exerting influence. Get your Generals in order within that country with bribes. Then you've got to demonize that leader by throwing harsh sanctions on them, starving the people and really just making their economy scream. Next you must completely diplomatically isolate that leader, making them an international pariah. Now fund and organize mass riots within that country against the leader. Once you've got all the in place, give the green light, assassinate whoever is still in the way, put up your feet and watch the social implosion from the other side of the globe.
None of this is hyperbole. This is what the US has done over and over and over again.
In 1954 Operation PB Success, the CIA deposed Arbenz (first democratically elected election), and installed a military dictatorship with General Armas. Arbenz did land reform which granted land to landless peasants, introduced a minimum wage and near-universal suffrage. He also legalized the communist Guatemalan Party of Labor. The United Fruit Company was a highly profitable American business (many WH staff members had ownership in the company) which exploited labor practices all over Guatemala and persuaded the US government to overthrow Arbenz. Truman authorized the coup. Armas instituted banning opposition parties, imprisoning and torturing political opponents and reversing the social reforms of Arbenz. Four decades of civil followed.
Iran, 1953. Overthrow of the democratically elected Mosaddegh in favor of monarchical rule of the Shah. Orchestrated by the US in Operation Ajax and the UK. Mosaddegh tried to audit a British Oil company to limit that company’s control over oil reserves. The company refused to cooperate so the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize Iran’s oil industry and expel foreign corporate representatives. Fearing a communist takeover, Churchill and Eisenhower orchestrated the coup. CIA staged pro-Sha riots and bribed Iranian politicians as well as high-ranking army officials, all of which has been admitted by the CIA.
I don't have the time and wherewithal to innumerate the other countries where this has happened: Chile, Indonesia, Congo, Panama, Costa Rica and on and on and on and on. The US is a pointilist empire using both global military dominance and economic lawfare through the IMF and World Bank to bring any country to its heels at any moment who opposes this world order.
Now I'm no communist, I'm not even a socialist, but books like this really clarify what is going on in the whole "capitalist v communist" narrative. This isn't about ideology it's about power. Ideology is a rhetorical vehicle for power structures to protect themselves. When a "socialist" country appears like a dumpster fire in the US media, that portrayal is on purpose. It convinces the public that socialist policies are bad. But here's really what's going on: poorer countries that use socialist policies, like nationalization or government subsidies, are trying to protect their infant industries before they can compete on the global market. Guess who else does and has used this same socialistic policies? ---->The United States.
From subsidies, to nationalization in the New Deal era, government-private contracts, the US got the jump start on the global stage to protect their industries and which have now been expanded into a globalized world order that asserts its corporate control over the globe and prohibits countries from using the exact same strategy to gain an economic advantage. So today, socialism correlates with failed states but it's not socialism that is failing these states, it's US foreign policy.
Please read these related books to learn more:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... ...more
Notes are private!
1
Jun 07, 2022
Jun 10, 2022
Oct 19, 2021
Paperback
0805086919
9780805086911
0805086919
4.25
4,020
Jan 15, 2013
Jan 15, 2013
it was amazing
America is the largest rogue terror state that has ever existed.
I remember when I was a young Boy Scout, my Scout leader was extoling us about the vir America is the largest rogue terror state that has ever existed.
I remember when I was a young Boy Scout, my Scout leader was extoling us about the virtues of America. He explained that America is virtuous and moral because it is the only country that goes to war over principle. Well, he wasn't exactly wrong but I don't believe he was referring to the principles found in Kill Anything That Moves.
Beyond just a few bad apples, the American Army, Navy and Air Force engaged in murder, torture, rape, mutilation of not only enemy combatants (whoever they were anyway) but the elderly, women, children and babies. And we're not talking collateral damage. I'm referring to specifically going into a hamlet without men of combat age and directly shooting, raping and murdering every person, child and chicken that moved. The US did this repeatedly in Vietnam for years killing between 3 to 7 million people. They are called war crimes. Or if you prefer, crimes against humanity. The systematic dehumanizing of the Vietnamese was a top down approach to the war where troops were ordered to have as high as "body counts" as possible to justify a disconnected war bureaucracy to keep the cash flowing and feed lies to the American public. Every single aspect of the Vietnam war was vile, disgusting and beyond shameful.
The Geneva Convention and rules of engagement do not apply to the United States. It is the global authority that can make war, and execute that war, however it sees fit within its own self interest. The US destabilizes governments, murders millions of innocent civilians with impunity up to and including today. Nothing has changed since Vietnam.
This book was impossible to read. I had to skip often because it was so horrifying. I actually don't even recommend this book unless you're ready to hear the truth.
Relevant book which I high recommend is the Jakarta Method where the US did the same thing in Indonesia, but covertly.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... ...more
I remember when I was a young Boy Scout, my Scout leader was extoling us about the vir America is the largest rogue terror state that has ever existed.
I remember when I was a young Boy Scout, my Scout leader was extoling us about the virtues of America. He explained that America is virtuous and moral because it is the only country that goes to war over principle. Well, he wasn't exactly wrong but I don't believe he was referring to the principles found in Kill Anything That Moves.
Beyond just a few bad apples, the American Army, Navy and Air Force engaged in murder, torture, rape, mutilation of not only enemy combatants (whoever they were anyway) but the elderly, women, children and babies. And we're not talking collateral damage. I'm referring to specifically going into a hamlet without men of combat age and directly shooting, raping and murdering every person, child and chicken that moved. The US did this repeatedly in Vietnam for years killing between 3 to 7 million people. They are called war crimes. Or if you prefer, crimes against humanity. The systematic dehumanizing of the Vietnamese was a top down approach to the war where troops were ordered to have as high as "body counts" as possible to justify a disconnected war bureaucracy to keep the cash flowing and feed lies to the American public. Every single aspect of the Vietnam war was vile, disgusting and beyond shameful.
The Geneva Convention and rules of engagement do not apply to the United States. It is the global authority that can make war, and execute that war, however it sees fit within its own self interest. The US destabilizes governments, murders millions of innocent civilians with impunity up to and including today. Nothing has changed since Vietnam.
This book was impossible to read. I had to skip often because it was so horrifying. I actually don't even recommend this book unless you're ready to hear the truth.
Relevant book which I high recommend is the Jakarta Method where the US did the same thing in Indonesia, but covertly.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... ...more
Notes are private!
1
Sep 16, 2021
Sep 20, 2021
Sep 12, 2021
Hardcover
0197527914
9780197527917
0197527914
4.04
893
Jun 11, 2021
Jul 08, 2021
it was amazing
Spoiler alert: China wants to displace the US.
This is an incredibly dry analysis of China’s geopolitical strategy based largely on the CCP’s own inter Spoiler alert: China wants to displace the US.
This is an incredibly dry analysis of China’s geopolitical strategy based largely on the CCP’s own internal documents since the 1990s. The conclusion is pretty obvious and undeniable: China wants to overtake the US’s world hegemonic control. I know, I’m as shocked as you are. I think the author here does a good job of laying out the strategy although with a serious amount of repetition.
The crux of the story is this: starting in the 1990s, China has had a grand strategy of blunting and displacing. The author argues that three events in the 1990s catalyzed this strategy for China: Tiananmen square, the US Gulf War and the Soviet collapse. Since those events, China has had a strategy of hiding its ability and keeping a low profile while shoring up regional control in Asia. The whole idea in the 1990s was to not appear as a threat to the US so the US doesn’t do what it always does: manufacture the collapse of socialist regimes. Clearly, China was successful in keeping this low profile while ramping up its manufacturing and becoming an export behemoth. During this time, China has a weird naval strategy: overinvesting in submarine and mine technology and doing nothing about trying to get aircraft carriers. The plan was to thwart US advanced aircraft carrier capabilities rather than to directly challenge its own aircraft carriers. It was all a defensive strategy. China developed the world’s largest submarine fleet to blunt regional US naval control.
Another strategy is that China was worried about neighbors colluding with the US, so China has made many attempts at diplomatic multilateral efforts by joining organizations like APEC, all with the attempt at blunting the US in the pacific rim. China basically sabotaged the APEC so it wouldn’t become an Asian NATO where the US could exert influence. China has also been obsessed with maintaining MFN (Most Favored Nation) status which has greatly helped globalize its markets and catapult its GDP to rival that of the US’s, primed to change their strategy into being more aggressive after the 2008 financial collapse.
Cue the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China just took a page from the US and how it's used the IMF and WTO to slap down BRI projects all over the place even if they make zero economic sense to maintain debt leverage and control over smaller countries with budding economies. The entire point of BRI is for China to gain regional dominance and put China at the center of other country’s economies. China has successfully executed monterey diversification even offering up its own China back payment systems, CIPS, to compete with SWIFT.
Now with the rise of Trumpism and fracturing of social and cultural cohesion, China likely sees the time is ripe to become more aggressive with US hegemonic blunting. China basically now overtly states its aims are to subvert the US’s position in the world. Does this mean more military aggression? Probably not. As the author argues, you can take over hegemonic control peacefully which it seems China has become adept at doing.
Here’s what’s missing from this book: China’s incredible weaknesses like its burdensome dependence on supply chains for its exporting and manufacturing. China’s success for the last 20-30 years is because of its hyper financed model based on cheap credit. The unraveling of the American lead order may completely upend China’s model of success. China's navy is large but only has 3 aircraft carriers opposite of US’s 11. Yes, China can bomb the hell out of its own waterways if any southeast asian country tries to take control but it will cut off mainland China from essential trading that it needs to even support its own population. Combine a plummeting fertility rate that will destroy its work force with mass starvation and single party rule and you have the perfect cocktail for social upheaval. China could be right around the corner at any moment of its own society unraveling.
Also missing from this book is how much US treasury China holds: it’s a lot. It does this to keep its export prices low to keep its labor force robust. China depends on the US to maintain a trade surplus which is one of the entire reasons China has been so successful. China is dependent on US consumption. The point is, the US and China are locked into interdependence. How can you blunt your rival when your literal success depends on theirs? Anything China does to disrupt this arrangement will be much much worse for China than the US.
Anyway, I found this book worthwhile. ...more
This is an incredibly dry analysis of China’s geopolitical strategy based largely on the CCP’s own inter Spoiler alert: China wants to displace the US.
This is an incredibly dry analysis of China’s geopolitical strategy based largely on the CCP’s own internal documents since the 1990s. The conclusion is pretty obvious and undeniable: China wants to overtake the US’s world hegemonic control. I know, I’m as shocked as you are. I think the author here does a good job of laying out the strategy although with a serious amount of repetition.
The crux of the story is this: starting in the 1990s, China has had a grand strategy of blunting and displacing. The author argues that three events in the 1990s catalyzed this strategy for China: Tiananmen square, the US Gulf War and the Soviet collapse. Since those events, China has had a strategy of hiding its ability and keeping a low profile while shoring up regional control in Asia. The whole idea in the 1990s was to not appear as a threat to the US so the US doesn’t do what it always does: manufacture the collapse of socialist regimes. Clearly, China was successful in keeping this low profile while ramping up its manufacturing and becoming an export behemoth. During this time, China has a weird naval strategy: overinvesting in submarine and mine technology and doing nothing about trying to get aircraft carriers. The plan was to thwart US advanced aircraft carrier capabilities rather than to directly challenge its own aircraft carriers. It was all a defensive strategy. China developed the world’s largest submarine fleet to blunt regional US naval control.
Another strategy is that China was worried about neighbors colluding with the US, so China has made many attempts at diplomatic multilateral efforts by joining organizations like APEC, all with the attempt at blunting the US in the pacific rim. China basically sabotaged the APEC so it wouldn’t become an Asian NATO where the US could exert influence. China has also been obsessed with maintaining MFN (Most Favored Nation) status which has greatly helped globalize its markets and catapult its GDP to rival that of the US’s, primed to change their strategy into being more aggressive after the 2008 financial collapse.
Cue the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China just took a page from the US and how it's used the IMF and WTO to slap down BRI projects all over the place even if they make zero economic sense to maintain debt leverage and control over smaller countries with budding economies. The entire point of BRI is for China to gain regional dominance and put China at the center of other country’s economies. China has successfully executed monterey diversification even offering up its own China back payment systems, CIPS, to compete with SWIFT.
Now with the rise of Trumpism and fracturing of social and cultural cohesion, China likely sees the time is ripe to become more aggressive with US hegemonic blunting. China basically now overtly states its aims are to subvert the US’s position in the world. Does this mean more military aggression? Probably not. As the author argues, you can take over hegemonic control peacefully which it seems China has become adept at doing.
Here’s what’s missing from this book: China’s incredible weaknesses like its burdensome dependence on supply chains for its exporting and manufacturing. China’s success for the last 20-30 years is because of its hyper financed model based on cheap credit. The unraveling of the American lead order may completely upend China’s model of success. China's navy is large but only has 3 aircraft carriers opposite of US’s 11. Yes, China can bomb the hell out of its own waterways if any southeast asian country tries to take control but it will cut off mainland China from essential trading that it needs to even support its own population. Combine a plummeting fertility rate that will destroy its work force with mass starvation and single party rule and you have the perfect cocktail for social upheaval. China could be right around the corner at any moment of its own society unraveling.
Also missing from this book is how much US treasury China holds: it’s a lot. It does this to keep its export prices low to keep its labor force robust. China depends on the US to maintain a trade surplus which is one of the entire reasons China has been so successful. China is dependent on US consumption. The point is, the US and China are locked into interdependence. How can you blunt your rival when your literal success depends on theirs? Anything China does to disrupt this arrangement will be much much worse for China than the US.
Anyway, I found this book worthwhile. ...more
Notes are private!
1
Jun 12, 2023
Jun 23, 2023
Jul 08, 2021
Hardcover
0316492930
9780316492935
0316492930
4.71
35,023
Jun 01, 2021
Jun 01, 2021
it was amazing
Blackness is not peripheral to the American project, it is the foundation upon which it is built.
This book is a tour guide about the real history of s Blackness is not peripheral to the American project, it is the foundation upon which it is built.
This book is a tour guide about the real history of slavery. And like a tour guide, Clint Smith takes the reader from one historic US site to the next as he uproots the real foundational history of slavery in America and frames it as the quintessential focal point of all American history. While past and modern day thought it is to relegate slavery to the annals of history, Smith reminds us with both passion and patience about how the history of slavery is the history of all of America: how cities were built, how financial systems were stabilized, how our legends are actually white supremacist myths.
From the Monticello museum where Jefferson is exposed as both the framer of the constitution and a border of slavery. He thought he was a benevolent care taker of black bodies when in reality in dealt in the human trafficking of black Americans, adult and children. Jefferson in fact was in so much debt after he died, his slaves were sold to pay for his mismanagement during his lifetime. Smith takes us to the Transatlantic Slave Trade and into the post-abolition era to places like Angola prison which was once a plantation with black slaves and is a modern day prison with something very similar to black slaves.
What we learn, among many things, from Smith is that history is fable and mixed with nostalgia for an era of inequitable and cruel forces. In between history and nostalgia is collective memory, something that attempts to bring the truth to a people that have forgotten a past that has forged who they are.
I highly recommend this book if you enjoyed works by Ibram Kendi. ...more
This book is a tour guide about the real history of s Blackness is not peripheral to the American project, it is the foundation upon which it is built.
This book is a tour guide about the real history of slavery. And like a tour guide, Clint Smith takes the reader from one historic US site to the next as he uproots the real foundational history of slavery in America and frames it as the quintessential focal point of all American history. While past and modern day thought it is to relegate slavery to the annals of history, Smith reminds us with both passion and patience about how the history of slavery is the history of all of America: how cities were built, how financial systems were stabilized, how our legends are actually white supremacist myths.
From the Monticello museum where Jefferson is exposed as both the framer of the constitution and a border of slavery. He thought he was a benevolent care taker of black bodies when in reality in dealt in the human trafficking of black Americans, adult and children. Jefferson in fact was in so much debt after he died, his slaves were sold to pay for his mismanagement during his lifetime. Smith takes us to the Transatlantic Slave Trade and into the post-abolition era to places like Angola prison which was once a plantation with black slaves and is a modern day prison with something very similar to black slaves.
What we learn, among many things, from Smith is that history is fable and mixed with nostalgia for an era of inequitable and cruel forces. In between history and nostalgia is collective memory, something that attempts to bring the truth to a people that have forgotten a past that has forged who they are.
I highly recommend this book if you enjoyed works by Ibram Kendi. ...more
Notes are private!
1
Aug 14, 2021
Aug 28, 2021
Jun 04, 2021
Hardcover
1635574250
9781635574258
1635574250
4.33
1,365
Jun 01, 2021
Jun 01, 2021
it was amazing
The 2nd Amendment was designed for white people
This is my third Carol Anderson read and, although brief, she delivers on the premise that the right to The 2nd Amendment was designed for white people
This is my third Carol Anderson read and, although brief, she delivers on the premise that the right to have an armed militia originated with white fear of black slave rebellion. The 2nd amendment has always been tinged with protecting white people and punishing black Americans for insisting on the same gun rights. Anderson gives us a brief history tour of how the south was afraid that the federal government would overreach and insisted on their own militia to ensure the viability of their economic model built on slavery. The southern states were also afraid that black slaves would arm themselves in a rebellion as a sort of sleeper cell militant group of the federal government. Basically Anderson casts the 2nd amendment as nothing more or less that a grand bargain to ensure violence against black bodies so that the south would join the union. Growing fears of slave insurrection in Haiti as well as Gabriel's rebellion, Nat Turner and the 1811 slave rebellion were a constant source of anxiety for white Americans in the early history of America. Shay's and the Whiskey rebellion made something very clear: the right to bear arms was only a white institution.
The entrenched racism was bolstered by the fugitive slave act which allowed southerners to hunt, kill or re-enslave their northern fled fugitives. Dread Scott ruling helped ensured that black Americans could not be legally be citizens so the 2nd amendment did not apply.
Fast forward to the Black Panthers who legally bared arms who were vilified in the bay area and whose local gun laws were written simply to get "militant" black Americans from having firearms. Modernly we have example after example of the NRA and state-sanctioned support of white Americans to legally carry and use their arms for violence while black Americans can never appear unarmed before the police, even when their weapon is simply a remote control of a bag of skittles. Self defended rulings are 10x more likely to be determined for white killers.
Once again, the American hypocrisy is palpable. The bald face truth is staring us in the face: white people are terrified of black people, whether they are armed are not. ...more
This is my third Carol Anderson read and, although brief, she delivers on the premise that the right to The 2nd Amendment was designed for white people
This is my third Carol Anderson read and, although brief, she delivers on the premise that the right to have an armed militia originated with white fear of black slave rebellion. The 2nd amendment has always been tinged with protecting white people and punishing black Americans for insisting on the same gun rights. Anderson gives us a brief history tour of how the south was afraid that the federal government would overreach and insisted on their own militia to ensure the viability of their economic model built on slavery. The southern states were also afraid that black slaves would arm themselves in a rebellion as a sort of sleeper cell militant group of the federal government. Basically Anderson casts the 2nd amendment as nothing more or less that a grand bargain to ensure violence against black bodies so that the south would join the union. Growing fears of slave insurrection in Haiti as well as Gabriel's rebellion, Nat Turner and the 1811 slave rebellion were a constant source of anxiety for white Americans in the early history of America. Shay's and the Whiskey rebellion made something very clear: the right to bear arms was only a white institution.
The entrenched racism was bolstered by the fugitive slave act which allowed southerners to hunt, kill or re-enslave their northern fled fugitives. Dread Scott ruling helped ensured that black Americans could not be legally be citizens so the 2nd amendment did not apply.
Fast forward to the Black Panthers who legally bared arms who were vilified in the bay area and whose local gun laws were written simply to get "militant" black Americans from having firearms. Modernly we have example after example of the NRA and state-sanctioned support of white Americans to legally carry and use their arms for violence while black Americans can never appear unarmed before the police, even when their weapon is simply a remote control of a bag of skittles. Self defended rulings are 10x more likely to be determined for white killers.
Once again, the American hypocrisy is palpable. The bald face truth is staring us in the face: white people are terrified of black people, whether they are armed are not. ...more
Notes are private!
1
Jun 13, 2021
Jun 17, 2021
Jun 02, 2021
Hardcover
0374172145
9780374172145
0374172145
4.46
15,776
Feb 19, 2019
Feb 19, 2019
it was amazing
The United States is in everyone's backyard.
This is a sweeping and scholarly work which sticks to its guns to prove a very poignant fact about the Uni The United States is in everyone's backyard.
This is a sweeping and scholarly work which sticks to its guns to prove a very poignant fact about the United States: it was created as an empire and continues to operate as such today. In How to Hide an Empire, Immerwahr provides a jaw-dropping account of how the American empire was formed soon after WWII and how that empire has taken on a modern day transformation where it sells itself as an egalitarian democracy but is actually a pointillistic empire spread across the world.
First we explore the vast American territories that America controlled around WWII. We commemorate the Peal Harbor bombings but all seem to forget that this was a coordinated attack on other American territories that day, namely the Philippines and other territories. We don't commemorate those attacks because we don't consider those territories to be American soil--only they were. America had territory in the Philippines, Guam, American Samoa, Hawaii, Alaska, American Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. After WWII, these territories were literally treated as social, medical and architectural testing grounds with the fraction of the oversight if they occurred on the mainland. The Philippines had a white apartheid where American business ventures went to boom and die with no benefit to the native population. 1.7 M people died in WWII in the Philippines, the majority were Filipino. This is the worst death toll on American soil ever. Ever heard of it? I hadn't. The American empire was interested in the land of these territories but not the people of these territories. Sounds very familiar today.
When it was discovered that hook worm was widespread in Puerto Rico, it was suggested that the high population density of such a "degenerate" people was the cause and that a culling of the population was the only cure. However, anti-parasites were tested on the people with no oversight, including blatant genocide by physicians, and the medication was created of which all benefited. From brith control to female sterilization, these crimes were perpetrated on Puerto Ricans of which we all benefit today. Immerwahr goes on and on with the atrocious accounts of grave crimes against humanity that occurred in all of these territories: martial law in Hawaii where executions occurred regularly, Japanese interment camps in Alaska with zero oversight. Examples abound.
And then something curious happened after WWII: for the first time in the history of the world, a world power gave up its territories. They were "returned" to their native people. Why? The answer is that a modern global empire looks very different today than ancient times. While America gave up land, it strung itself up with military bases absolutely everywhere. This completely changed warfare. American was suddenly in everyone's back door prompting social upheaval and recalcitrance everywhere. America found it too costly to its mainland empire to maintain territories while denying representation to the sovereign population and squashing rebellions was (like in Puerto Rico and elsewhere). Thus America became the pointillist empire.
Vast development in material technology, like plastic and rubber, enabled America to no longer be resource driven and released their grasp on most of these territories while still having bases there to mobilize and continue its global warcraft. Aviation completely changed the law of geo politics. The US maintained its empire by codifying standards for everything--from screws to instruments and to stop signs. The greatest achievement of the American empire is ensuring that English is the dominant language of politics, coding, the internet and academia. America has achieved an astonishing cultural empire that the world has never before seen.
9/11 did not happen in a vacuum. The naive question: "why do they hate us?" has a simple answer: it was retaliation for American pointillistic empire strung across the Middle East. There are 30 extra national Non-US bases in the world. There are 800 American bases around the world. <-Read that again.
This book was phenomenal. Well researched and incredibly accurate. I learned a ton. Highly recommend.
Similar books I'd recommend:
Confessions of an Economic Hitman
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
The Jakarta Method
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... ...more
This is a sweeping and scholarly work which sticks to its guns to prove a very poignant fact about the Uni The United States is in everyone's backyard.
This is a sweeping and scholarly work which sticks to its guns to prove a very poignant fact about the United States: it was created as an empire and continues to operate as such today. In How to Hide an Empire, Immerwahr provides a jaw-dropping account of how the American empire was formed soon after WWII and how that empire has taken on a modern day transformation where it sells itself as an egalitarian democracy but is actually a pointillistic empire spread across the world.
First we explore the vast American territories that America controlled around WWII. We commemorate the Peal Harbor bombings but all seem to forget that this was a coordinated attack on other American territories that day, namely the Philippines and other territories. We don't commemorate those attacks because we don't consider those territories to be American soil--only they were. America had territory in the Philippines, Guam, American Samoa, Hawaii, Alaska, American Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. After WWII, these territories were literally treated as social, medical and architectural testing grounds with the fraction of the oversight if they occurred on the mainland. The Philippines had a white apartheid where American business ventures went to boom and die with no benefit to the native population. 1.7 M people died in WWII in the Philippines, the majority were Filipino. This is the worst death toll on American soil ever. Ever heard of it? I hadn't. The American empire was interested in the land of these territories but not the people of these territories. Sounds very familiar today.
When it was discovered that hook worm was widespread in Puerto Rico, it was suggested that the high population density of such a "degenerate" people was the cause and that a culling of the population was the only cure. However, anti-parasites were tested on the people with no oversight, including blatant genocide by physicians, and the medication was created of which all benefited. From brith control to female sterilization, these crimes were perpetrated on Puerto Ricans of which we all benefit today. Immerwahr goes on and on with the atrocious accounts of grave crimes against humanity that occurred in all of these territories: martial law in Hawaii where executions occurred regularly, Japanese interment camps in Alaska with zero oversight. Examples abound.
And then something curious happened after WWII: for the first time in the history of the world, a world power gave up its territories. They were "returned" to their native people. Why? The answer is that a modern global empire looks very different today than ancient times. While America gave up land, it strung itself up with military bases absolutely everywhere. This completely changed warfare. American was suddenly in everyone's back door prompting social upheaval and recalcitrance everywhere. America found it too costly to its mainland empire to maintain territories while denying representation to the sovereign population and squashing rebellions was (like in Puerto Rico and elsewhere). Thus America became the pointillist empire.
Vast development in material technology, like plastic and rubber, enabled America to no longer be resource driven and released their grasp on most of these territories while still having bases there to mobilize and continue its global warcraft. Aviation completely changed the law of geo politics. The US maintained its empire by codifying standards for everything--from screws to instruments and to stop signs. The greatest achievement of the American empire is ensuring that English is the dominant language of politics, coding, the internet and academia. America has achieved an astonishing cultural empire that the world has never before seen.
9/11 did not happen in a vacuum. The naive question: "why do they hate us?" has a simple answer: it was retaliation for American pointillistic empire strung across the Middle East. There are 30 extra national Non-US bases in the world. There are 800 American bases around the world. <-Read that again.
This book was phenomenal. Well researched and incredibly accurate. I learned a ton. Highly recommend.
Similar books I'd recommend:
Confessions of an Economic Hitman
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
The Jakarta Method
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... ...more
Notes are private!
1
May 03, 2021
May 17, 2021
Mar 27, 2021
Hardcover
1631497782
9781631497780
4.26
2,482
Jan 12, 2021
Jan 12, 2021
it was amazing
The filibuster must go.
I was hesitant dive into Kill Switch, afraid it might just be a liberal rant only offering sensationalism. Certainly there is l The filibuster must go.
I was hesitant dive into Kill Switch, afraid it might just be a liberal rant only offering sensationalism. Certainly there is liberal bias by the author but I was pleased to find a lot of history about how the US Senate has become the calcified, obstructive and corrupt body of minority will that it is today. Jentleson lays out some important ground work starting with James Madison. He is often quoted by those who assert that being a republic is supposed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This is a modern, conservative spin and Madison in fact intended the exact opposite. A republic, by design, is supposed to be ruled by majority consensus. The Senate was designed from the beginning to legislate by simple majority, meaning a simple 51 of the 100 senators. Is it perfect? Of course not, but we weren't supposed to have a system where Senators that literally only represent 35% of the population can obstruct policy when the majority of the publicly clearly favors it.
The current filibuster is new and is not what was originally intended. Jentleson lays out some nice history of one in particular: John Calhoun. White supremacist, segregationist Senator and Vice President from South Carolina who very much tried to get minority will to drive everything the Senate did. He is the grandfather of the modern filibuster. Unlimited debate was NOT intended by the framers of the US constitution but this exactly what Calhoun wanted: to obfuscate to protect southern white supremacy and their economy of slaver. Filibustering started to be used when rule 22 was invented as a slavery abolition obstructionist tool and to continue to ensure power of the southern states. Whether it was democrats or republicans at the time, either way, it was used by southern white supremacists to preserve white apartheid state.
Flash forward to LBJ and Jesse Helm. These two men greatly contributed to what would become the modern use of the filibuster. The super minority draws its strength from conflict, not broad appeal. These senators figured out that as long as they don't piss off their base, they can become political heroes simply by filibustering and to require a super majority to even vote on bills. But requiring a super majority does not encourage debate and consensus, it only obstructs and creates false political martyrs who stoke culture wars and bring in campaign dollars. Harry Reid also radically changed filibustering when he "went nuclear" and made it so presidential appointments didn't have to have a super majority (except Supreme Court appointments). Enter Mitch McConnell who ironically early in his career was an enormous voice for campaign finance reform. McConnell then tried to get corruption denied only as explicit exchange and quid pro quo. This was obviously before Citizens United ruling which made all this moot and completely destroyed US elections in my opinion.
I found Kill Switch to be hugely informative and brought to my mind the salient problems with our Senate, the foremost is that the filibuster is hugely abused to require a super majority. The facts are simple: a minority voting block of white Americans wield outsized control over the US through the Senate. 35% of the US population controls the levers of meaningful legislation. And this is a new trend. Before President Obama, there were only 82 filibusters ever; during his administration he alone had 86 filibusters by the GOP. This is unprecedented stuff.
The filibuster is anti-democratic, corrupt and it must go. It can happen, too. We'll see... ...more
I was hesitant dive into Kill Switch, afraid it might just be a liberal rant only offering sensationalism. Certainly there is l The filibuster must go.
I was hesitant dive into Kill Switch, afraid it might just be a liberal rant only offering sensationalism. Certainly there is liberal bias by the author but I was pleased to find a lot of history about how the US Senate has become the calcified, obstructive and corrupt body of minority will that it is today. Jentleson lays out some important ground work starting with James Madison. He is often quoted by those who assert that being a republic is supposed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This is a modern, conservative spin and Madison in fact intended the exact opposite. A republic, by design, is supposed to be ruled by majority consensus. The Senate was designed from the beginning to legislate by simple majority, meaning a simple 51 of the 100 senators. Is it perfect? Of course not, but we weren't supposed to have a system where Senators that literally only represent 35% of the population can obstruct policy when the majority of the publicly clearly favors it.
The current filibuster is new and is not what was originally intended. Jentleson lays out some nice history of one in particular: John Calhoun. White supremacist, segregationist Senator and Vice President from South Carolina who very much tried to get minority will to drive everything the Senate did. He is the grandfather of the modern filibuster. Unlimited debate was NOT intended by the framers of the US constitution but this exactly what Calhoun wanted: to obfuscate to protect southern white supremacy and their economy of slaver. Filibustering started to be used when rule 22 was invented as a slavery abolition obstructionist tool and to continue to ensure power of the southern states. Whether it was democrats or republicans at the time, either way, it was used by southern white supremacists to preserve white apartheid state.
Flash forward to LBJ and Jesse Helm. These two men greatly contributed to what would become the modern use of the filibuster. The super minority draws its strength from conflict, not broad appeal. These senators figured out that as long as they don't piss off their base, they can become political heroes simply by filibustering and to require a super majority to even vote on bills. But requiring a super majority does not encourage debate and consensus, it only obstructs and creates false political martyrs who stoke culture wars and bring in campaign dollars. Harry Reid also radically changed filibustering when he "went nuclear" and made it so presidential appointments didn't have to have a super majority (except Supreme Court appointments). Enter Mitch McConnell who ironically early in his career was an enormous voice for campaign finance reform. McConnell then tried to get corruption denied only as explicit exchange and quid pro quo. This was obviously before Citizens United ruling which made all this moot and completely destroyed US elections in my opinion.
I found Kill Switch to be hugely informative and brought to my mind the salient problems with our Senate, the foremost is that the filibuster is hugely abused to require a super majority. The facts are simple: a minority voting block of white Americans wield outsized control over the US through the Senate. 35% of the US population controls the levers of meaningful legislation. And this is a new trend. Before President Obama, there were only 82 filibusters ever; during his administration he alone had 86 filibusters by the GOP. This is unprecedented stuff.
The filibuster is anti-democratic, corrupt and it must go. It can happen, too. We'll see... ...more
Notes are private!
1
Apr 06, 2021
Apr 09, 2021
Mar 05, 2021
ebook
0674035976
9780674035973
0674035976
4.20
1,175
Feb 15, 2010
Feb 15, 2010
it was amazing
The falsehood of black criminality has always existed in America.
This book is about one thing: the association of blackness with criminally focused on The falsehood of black criminality has always existed in America.
This book is about one thing: the association of blackness with criminally focused on the turn of the century. Muhammad zeroes in on this time period with precision, research and an objective analysis. The conclusion is so obvious and horrifying that the banality of it all only adds to the injustice. America is a white supremecist state. It always has been and it is to this very day. State-sponsored violence maintains the racial caste system, as it did in the post-reconstruction era just as much as it does today. History both repeats itself and it rhymes.
What I got most from the Condemnation of Blackness, is that the "liberal" attitudes of any day can very much be a wolf in sheep's clothing or simply a Trojan horse to perpetuate white supremacy. During the turn of the century, Muhammad cites scholar after scholar who try to assess the criminality of blackness, to put it into a racial box, stamped and sealed and to explain that criminally is an inherent part of blackness. This was thought to be a compassionate approach to the black crime problem of the day. Rarely would a scholar try to point out the obvious systems of structural racism that the black crime statistics confirmed. Even W. E. B. Dubois seemed to concede to the liberal intelligentsia of the day that perhaps there is inherent criminality in black Americans. Although I suspect Dubois likely did this to save face within white supremacy academia. I wonder if we would even know who Dubois was if he were too outspoken.
Reading this book brought to my mind a lot of Malcom X's stances. He stated he would rather deal with an overt racist than the "helpful" liberal who only offers reform so that he can stay at the table of power and dictate what is just.
This book is very relative to what is going on in 2021. White conservatives decry black-on-black crime and condemn the fracturing of the black home concluding that black criminality is a moral failure of an entire race and culture. For these same people, white criminality is merely an individual failing. This of course is a grand lie, obfuscating the deeply-rooted structures of white supremacy that underpin everything in American society. This book mad me profoundly sad as I contemplated the durability of the American racial apartheid state that is alive and well, hiding beneath a modern veneer of the philosophies of political think tanks which the public consumes. The rebellion of the subjugated will always look like terrorism to the dominant caste and that is what is occurring now.
This book was hard to read. It was also incredibly dry and not very engaging. It is still very important but I would recommend reading something like The New Jim Crow first. ...more
This book is about one thing: the association of blackness with criminally focused on The falsehood of black criminality has always existed in America.
This book is about one thing: the association of blackness with criminally focused on the turn of the century. Muhammad zeroes in on this time period with precision, research and an objective analysis. The conclusion is so obvious and horrifying that the banality of it all only adds to the injustice. America is a white supremecist state. It always has been and it is to this very day. State-sponsored violence maintains the racial caste system, as it did in the post-reconstruction era just as much as it does today. History both repeats itself and it rhymes.
What I got most from the Condemnation of Blackness, is that the "liberal" attitudes of any day can very much be a wolf in sheep's clothing or simply a Trojan horse to perpetuate white supremacy. During the turn of the century, Muhammad cites scholar after scholar who try to assess the criminality of blackness, to put it into a racial box, stamped and sealed and to explain that criminally is an inherent part of blackness. This was thought to be a compassionate approach to the black crime problem of the day. Rarely would a scholar try to point out the obvious systems of structural racism that the black crime statistics confirmed. Even W. E. B. Dubois seemed to concede to the liberal intelligentsia of the day that perhaps there is inherent criminality in black Americans. Although I suspect Dubois likely did this to save face within white supremacy academia. I wonder if we would even know who Dubois was if he were too outspoken.
Reading this book brought to my mind a lot of Malcom X's stances. He stated he would rather deal with an overt racist than the "helpful" liberal who only offers reform so that he can stay at the table of power and dictate what is just.
This book is very relative to what is going on in 2021. White conservatives decry black-on-black crime and condemn the fracturing of the black home concluding that black criminality is a moral failure of an entire race and culture. For these same people, white criminality is merely an individual failing. This of course is a grand lie, obfuscating the deeply-rooted structures of white supremacy that underpin everything in American society. This book mad me profoundly sad as I contemplated the durability of the American racial apartheid state that is alive and well, hiding beneath a modern veneer of the philosophies of political think tanks which the public consumes. The rebellion of the subjugated will always look like terrorism to the dominant caste and that is what is occurring now.
This book was hard to read. It was also incredibly dry and not very engaging. It is still very important but I would recommend reading something like The New Jim Crow first. ...more
Notes are private!
1
Apr 12, 2021
Apr 27, 2021
Feb 13, 2021
Hardcover
1250220114
9781250220110
1250220114
4.24
1,175
Jun 23, 2020
Jul 14, 2020
it was amazing
Here’s a novel idea: maybe people know what’s best for themselves.
Author of Listen Liberal, Frank offers another scathing analysis of not only the swi Here’s a novel idea: maybe people know what’s best for themselves.
Author of Listen Liberal, Frank offers another scathing analysis of not only the switch and bait of the modern day Republican Party but a timely repudiation of the liberal intelligentsia.
Here we get a refocusing of populism. The author asserts that the current definitions are wrong referring to the populist part of the 1890s. I’m not convinced it matters at this point if we’re all using the term populism wrong but his point is solid: we need to stop believing in the infallibility of meritocracy. Frank argues that populism is the well informed, organized labor class not necessarily rejecting expertise but rather the orthodoxy that maintains the current power structures.
And this is where the New Deal succeeded: it rejected conventional wisdom despite a powerful corporate class and technocratic elites. The populists were correct to get rid of the gold standard.
Elite liberalism has learned to deplore working class movements and call it populism, sanitizing it of its roots. There was a liberal consensus in the 1950s that all societal problems could be solved by professionals. Mass movements were and are considered irrational and dangerous. Anti populism embodies the carefully cultivated professional class of the Clinton and Obama administrations. Attacking populism is to defend the elite power structure.
Even Jimmy Carter deregulated the airlines and was entrenched in anti populism sentiment. Labor and and union rights have no place in the current liberal zeitgeist. Liberals now scold instead of listen and validate.
Enter Trump who offered populist rhetoric but pulled a clear bait and switch with his corporate friendly 2017 tax plan. Liberal scolding will solve nothing, only serve for individual righteousness. Democrats have totally turned away from the idea of the people.
Populism is optimistic about people and has faith in them to be informed and to know what is best for themselves. The major flaw with this book is that Frank too easily compared the populism of the 1890s with today. There’s a huge elephant in the room: disinformation and propaganda are an enormous force today with siloed information and media bubbles. This creates a lethal brand of populism where ignorance has been amplified. I’m not as optimistic about Frank’s trust in the average American to know what public policy is best.
However it’s clear that the solutions are rooted in populism: regulate business, break up monopolies and strengthen the labor force. ...more
Author of Listen Liberal, Frank offers another scathing analysis of not only the swi Here’s a novel idea: maybe people know what’s best for themselves.
Author of Listen Liberal, Frank offers another scathing analysis of not only the switch and bait of the modern day Republican Party but a timely repudiation of the liberal intelligentsia.
Here we get a refocusing of populism. The author asserts that the current definitions are wrong referring to the populist part of the 1890s. I’m not convinced it matters at this point if we’re all using the term populism wrong but his point is solid: we need to stop believing in the infallibility of meritocracy. Frank argues that populism is the well informed, organized labor class not necessarily rejecting expertise but rather the orthodoxy that maintains the current power structures.
And this is where the New Deal succeeded: it rejected conventional wisdom despite a powerful corporate class and technocratic elites. The populists were correct to get rid of the gold standard.
Elite liberalism has learned to deplore working class movements and call it populism, sanitizing it of its roots. There was a liberal consensus in the 1950s that all societal problems could be solved by professionals. Mass movements were and are considered irrational and dangerous. Anti populism embodies the carefully cultivated professional class of the Clinton and Obama administrations. Attacking populism is to defend the elite power structure.
Even Jimmy Carter deregulated the airlines and was entrenched in anti populism sentiment. Labor and and union rights have no place in the current liberal zeitgeist. Liberals now scold instead of listen and validate.
Enter Trump who offered populist rhetoric but pulled a clear bait and switch with his corporate friendly 2017 tax plan. Liberal scolding will solve nothing, only serve for individual righteousness. Democrats have totally turned away from the idea of the people.
Populism is optimistic about people and has faith in them to be informed and to know what is best for themselves. The major flaw with this book is that Frank too easily compared the populism of the 1890s with today. There’s a huge elephant in the room: disinformation and propaganda are an enormous force today with siloed information and media bubbles. This creates a lethal brand of populism where ignorance has been amplified. I’m not as optimistic about Frank’s trust in the average American to know what public policy is best.
However it’s clear that the solutions are rooted in populism: regulate business, break up monopolies and strengthen the labor force. ...more
Notes are private!
1
Dec 16, 2020
Dec 21, 2020
Nov 18, 2020
Hardcover
1501183087
9781501183089
1501183087
4.23
1,021
2019
Oct 15, 2019
it was amazing
America has created and recreated itself over and over again. We must do it again.
The sweeping history from the last 100 years of monopolisitc powers America has created and recreated itself over and over again. We must do it again.
The sweeping history from the last 100 years of monopolisitc powers versus the average American person is presented in Goliath, told with great detail, great accuracy and with both temperance and passion. Scarcely do I read a book that so thoroughly demonstrates current problems through history, and from that history, provides a roadmap out of the current concentration of power in which we live.
Stoller starts this history with a question: why would a bunch of well-meaning technocrats in the form of the Obama administration bail out the very banks that caused a financial crash? Given the chance, why would they decide to do the exact opposite of the New Deal era and double down on the very system that created the crisis? The answer to this question requires delving back 100 years and tacking us back to Teddy Roosevelt.
Roosevelt branded himself as anti-monoplistic but actually oversaw monopoly formation and presided over it. Wilson, his successor, was actually anti-monopolistic. Wilson passed the first laws that benefited the workers: 8-hour work day, child-labor laws. He created the Federal Trade Commision (FTC) and he passed the Clayton act which stopped large mergers from happening. The next in line, Harding, took quite a different approach. While Harding may not have had as a direct effect on monopolization his Secretary of Treasury, Andrew Mellon, sure did.
Andrew Mellon played a BIG role in monopolization. He was a former private banker who likely bribed Harding for the role the Secretary of Treasury. He would serve as Secretary of Treasury for THREE MORE PRESIDENTS. Mellon owned enormous monopolies, including ownership in over 70 companies. He own Alcoa, an aluminum company that had 100% of the aluminum market. Mellon was in fact good friends with Mussolini, a man he admired for being anti-communist and who fused together government and business. Where Mussolini used murder and dictatorship for his mergers, Mellon had to actually appeal to voters. Mellon was impeached by Congressman Wright Patman. Patman serves as a key figure in this book. He is lauded by the author as being one of the most anti-monopolistic watchdogs in American history.
The depression happened as the markets collapsed and then a wave of bank defaults soared through Europe and the United States which stopped lending and seized funds. Unemployment went from 2% to 25$. FDR won over Hoover in a landslide. A reckoning occurred during this time for the monopolists. The famous Pecora hearings was aimed at rutting out the monopolists, including Mellon, and acted as a referendum on the disaster of a financial system that was imposed. New Deal policies then dramatically decreased the unemployment rate and increased housing in forms of HOLC and FHA (which had racist policies, a topic for another book, The Color of Law). The New Deal clearly elevated the economic rights of the average American and created a stable foundation on which the Civil Rights were then built. With the decentralization of banking and other Keynesian moves, monopoly power was greatly weakened in the New Deal eras.
Changes in the zeitgeist started to occur in the 1960s and really culminated in the 1970s. On the left, you had the emergence of economic technocrats like Galbraith who preached the "countervailing forces" in which monopolies were perfectly sound because the market will naturally create forces that will oppose monopolies; this was a highly influential idea to baby boomer liberals. And then of course on the right you have the Chicago School of Economics finding fertile scientific ground disseminating their neoliberal ideas throughout the courts and politics (in the form of Scalia and Goldwater). The Chicago schooled fundamentally changed rhetoric and language redefining freedom as unfettered business. "Monopoly" began to refer to union and government control and that corporations were a protector of this newly branded freedom. A fetishising of meritocracy occurred on both the left and the right which helped to create a victimization of businesses. It's no wonder that Friedman could insinuate that a business unable to discriminate based on race was an infringement of freedom. Galbraith and Chicago school loathed one another but their philosophies were in sync: wealth and power needed to be concentrated into educated technocrats.
Despite Goldwater's presidential failure, the winds were already changing. The business round table (with the Powell Memo as their manifesto) sought to inject business into politics. Riston created CDs which formed a parallel banking system which then held the Fed hostage to do anything because it would induce a bank run. Jimmy Carter was actually going to fire all the air traffic controllers anyway before Reagan actually did it, a move that supposedly heralded in the return of neoliberalism. Nader was around and close with the philosophies of Patman and Brandeis but seemed more concerned with consumer protection. The Consumer Good Pricing Act screwed over small business and helped predatory pricing of which the liberal bought in. Democracy was beginning to be seen as inefficient by both sides of the political party and a HUGE wave of mergers took over in the 19080s. The politics of affluence reigned.
Reagan put four neoliberal judges on the court including Scalia. Junk bonds changed corporate structure. Leveraged By-outs became normalized and completely finacialized the system, further concentrating the wealth. The opposing democrats at this time where anti-populist themselves. Bill Clinton won on a populist movement but with no mention of anti-trust. Clinton deeply entrenched more of Reagan's principles. He coddled corporate interests and attacked banking restrictions by repealing Glass-Steagall and signing NAFTA, an agreement that helped corporations find cheaper labor elsewhere. Hillary sat on the board of Wal-Mart... Clinton appointed pro-monopoly judges Briar and RBG, both of whom signed a Scalia opinion that posited that the possession of monopolization was not illegal and it produced economic growth. Section 230 occurred in the 90s, opening up for the wave of tech giants.
Bush did even less than Clinton about monopoly power, ushering in more powerful monopolies and basically running a war profiteering outfit full on contractors upon sub-contractors. When Lehman bros filed bankruptcy in 2007, it spurred a bank run. There were 5-7 TRILLION dollars in unpaid mortgages just flapping in the wind. The cultured had changed so much that there was no anti-populist outcry from the Democrat party when Obama bailed out the banks. This is because the Democratic party has become the corporate, technocratic wonk party full of professional elites. Finance has become sacrosanct to all. The Democratic Party has become the party of Mellonism.
It's no wonder we have the largest tech companies running every part of our lives. In 2016, Google and Facebook took 60% of all online ad revenue in America which is the largest source of advertising money. Google has 90% of the search and ad market and can track users across 80% of websites. Facebook has 70% of social network trafficking. 2/3 of American get their news on social media. Amazon is the epitome of monopolization, operating on the very dominant market that it owns. America is now a news desert. The fallout from the tech monopolization is unspeakable and beyond the scope of this review.
What we learn is that the Obama-era bailouts where an attempt to STOP New Deal regulations, not to stop a depression. The liberal technocrats had been indoctrinated by liberal-corporate thinking of Galbraith which was copied and pasted once again from Clinton policy. The Democrat party ceased to be the part of the people circa 1980s with the resounding election of Reagan. The two parties have become two sides of the same neoliberal coin. When Obama bailed out the banks, there was no established democratic outcry, because the populist movement doesn't exist anymore. Neither party can be trusted to put the power back into the hands of the people.
And that is what populism is. Populism is average people knowing exactly what is good for them. Populism is rejecting the concentration of wealth and power. Populism is decrying plutocracy, oligarchy, monopoly and the corporate infiltration into governance. Populism is not perfect because average people are not perfect, but it at least wrestles power away from the liberal elite, the corporate elite and conservative-corporate fascism.
What should we do? LEARN. Don't fall back into elitism and technocracy, steer clear of corporate fascism. We have created and recreated ourselves many times over and we MUST do it again. The question is not if commerce is good, it's who will control the commerce and the power of this country. America is a battle and a struggle for justice. WE chose who wins. ...more
The sweeping history from the last 100 years of monopolisitc powers America has created and recreated itself over and over again. We must do it again.
The sweeping history from the last 100 years of monopolisitc powers versus the average American person is presented in Goliath, told with great detail, great accuracy and with both temperance and passion. Scarcely do I read a book that so thoroughly demonstrates current problems through history, and from that history, provides a roadmap out of the current concentration of power in which we live.
Stoller starts this history with a question: why would a bunch of well-meaning technocrats in the form of the Obama administration bail out the very banks that caused a financial crash? Given the chance, why would they decide to do the exact opposite of the New Deal era and double down on the very system that created the crisis? The answer to this question requires delving back 100 years and tacking us back to Teddy Roosevelt.
Roosevelt branded himself as anti-monoplistic but actually oversaw monopoly formation and presided over it. Wilson, his successor, was actually anti-monopolistic. Wilson passed the first laws that benefited the workers: 8-hour work day, child-labor laws. He created the Federal Trade Commision (FTC) and he passed the Clayton act which stopped large mergers from happening. The next in line, Harding, took quite a different approach. While Harding may not have had as a direct effect on monopolization his Secretary of Treasury, Andrew Mellon, sure did.
Andrew Mellon played a BIG role in monopolization. He was a former private banker who likely bribed Harding for the role the Secretary of Treasury. He would serve as Secretary of Treasury for THREE MORE PRESIDENTS. Mellon owned enormous monopolies, including ownership in over 70 companies. He own Alcoa, an aluminum company that had 100% of the aluminum market. Mellon was in fact good friends with Mussolini, a man he admired for being anti-communist and who fused together government and business. Where Mussolini used murder and dictatorship for his mergers, Mellon had to actually appeal to voters. Mellon was impeached by Congressman Wright Patman. Patman serves as a key figure in this book. He is lauded by the author as being one of the most anti-monopolistic watchdogs in American history.
The depression happened as the markets collapsed and then a wave of bank defaults soared through Europe and the United States which stopped lending and seized funds. Unemployment went from 2% to 25$. FDR won over Hoover in a landslide. A reckoning occurred during this time for the monopolists. The famous Pecora hearings was aimed at rutting out the monopolists, including Mellon, and acted as a referendum on the disaster of a financial system that was imposed. New Deal policies then dramatically decreased the unemployment rate and increased housing in forms of HOLC and FHA (which had racist policies, a topic for another book, The Color of Law). The New Deal clearly elevated the economic rights of the average American and created a stable foundation on which the Civil Rights were then built. With the decentralization of banking and other Keynesian moves, monopoly power was greatly weakened in the New Deal eras.
Changes in the zeitgeist started to occur in the 1960s and really culminated in the 1970s. On the left, you had the emergence of economic technocrats like Galbraith who preached the "countervailing forces" in which monopolies were perfectly sound because the market will naturally create forces that will oppose monopolies; this was a highly influential idea to baby boomer liberals. And then of course on the right you have the Chicago School of Economics finding fertile scientific ground disseminating their neoliberal ideas throughout the courts and politics (in the form of Scalia and Goldwater). The Chicago schooled fundamentally changed rhetoric and language redefining freedom as unfettered business. "Monopoly" began to refer to union and government control and that corporations were a protector of this newly branded freedom. A fetishising of meritocracy occurred on both the left and the right which helped to create a victimization of businesses. It's no wonder that Friedman could insinuate that a business unable to discriminate based on race was an infringement of freedom. Galbraith and Chicago school loathed one another but their philosophies were in sync: wealth and power needed to be concentrated into educated technocrats.
Despite Goldwater's presidential failure, the winds were already changing. The business round table (with the Powell Memo as their manifesto) sought to inject business into politics. Riston created CDs which formed a parallel banking system which then held the Fed hostage to do anything because it would induce a bank run. Jimmy Carter was actually going to fire all the air traffic controllers anyway before Reagan actually did it, a move that supposedly heralded in the return of neoliberalism. Nader was around and close with the philosophies of Patman and Brandeis but seemed more concerned with consumer protection. The Consumer Good Pricing Act screwed over small business and helped predatory pricing of which the liberal bought in. Democracy was beginning to be seen as inefficient by both sides of the political party and a HUGE wave of mergers took over in the 19080s. The politics of affluence reigned.
Reagan put four neoliberal judges on the court including Scalia. Junk bonds changed corporate structure. Leveraged By-outs became normalized and completely finacialized the system, further concentrating the wealth. The opposing democrats at this time where anti-populist themselves. Bill Clinton won on a populist movement but with no mention of anti-trust. Clinton deeply entrenched more of Reagan's principles. He coddled corporate interests and attacked banking restrictions by repealing Glass-Steagall and signing NAFTA, an agreement that helped corporations find cheaper labor elsewhere. Hillary sat on the board of Wal-Mart... Clinton appointed pro-monopoly judges Briar and RBG, both of whom signed a Scalia opinion that posited that the possession of monopolization was not illegal and it produced economic growth. Section 230 occurred in the 90s, opening up for the wave of tech giants.
Bush did even less than Clinton about monopoly power, ushering in more powerful monopolies and basically running a war profiteering outfit full on contractors upon sub-contractors. When Lehman bros filed bankruptcy in 2007, it spurred a bank run. There were 5-7 TRILLION dollars in unpaid mortgages just flapping in the wind. The cultured had changed so much that there was no anti-populist outcry from the Democrat party when Obama bailed out the banks. This is because the Democratic party has become the corporate, technocratic wonk party full of professional elites. Finance has become sacrosanct to all. The Democratic Party has become the party of Mellonism.
It's no wonder we have the largest tech companies running every part of our lives. In 2016, Google and Facebook took 60% of all online ad revenue in America which is the largest source of advertising money. Google has 90% of the search and ad market and can track users across 80% of websites. Facebook has 70% of social network trafficking. 2/3 of American get their news on social media. Amazon is the epitome of monopolization, operating on the very dominant market that it owns. America is now a news desert. The fallout from the tech monopolization is unspeakable and beyond the scope of this review.
What we learn is that the Obama-era bailouts where an attempt to STOP New Deal regulations, not to stop a depression. The liberal technocrats had been indoctrinated by liberal-corporate thinking of Galbraith which was copied and pasted once again from Clinton policy. The Democrat party ceased to be the part of the people circa 1980s with the resounding election of Reagan. The two parties have become two sides of the same neoliberal coin. When Obama bailed out the banks, there was no established democratic outcry, because the populist movement doesn't exist anymore. Neither party can be trusted to put the power back into the hands of the people.
And that is what populism is. Populism is average people knowing exactly what is good for them. Populism is rejecting the concentration of wealth and power. Populism is decrying plutocracy, oligarchy, monopoly and the corporate infiltration into governance. Populism is not perfect because average people are not perfect, but it at least wrestles power away from the liberal elite, the corporate elite and conservative-corporate fascism.
What should we do? LEARN. Don't fall back into elitism and technocracy, steer clear of corporate fascism. We have created and recreated ourselves many times over and we MUST do it again. The question is not if commerce is good, it's who will control the commerce and the power of this country. America is a battle and a struggle for justice. WE chose who wins. ...more
Notes are private!
1
Dec 09, 2020
Dec 16, 2020
Nov 15, 2020
Hardcover
1541742400
9781541742406
1541742400
4.61
11,319
May 19, 2020
May 19, 2020
it was amazing
Anti-communism panic has murdered millions of innocent civilians.
This is a dense, detail-rich, recounting of the long lost history of the horrific mil Anti-communism panic has murdered millions of innocent civilians.
This is a dense, detail-rich, recounting of the long lost history of the horrific military purge that occurred in Indonesia. Sukarno was the first Indonesian president from 1945-67 after freedom from the Dutch control and Japanese occupation. Sukarno gained popular and political support as the communist part of Indonesia (PKI) as he steered the country much more leftward. While backed by the likes of the Soviets and China, his anti-imperialistic policies irritated the state military as well as the Unites States government.
The US started courting the right-wing side of the Indonesian government in the form of arms deals while creating a clear split in the Indonesian government. There was the right-wing military and the left wing PKI. This climate created the events of September 30th, in which alleged Sukarno sympathizers attempted a military coup when trying to assassinate six Indonesian army generals. This failed coup was blamed on the communist PKI giving the impetus for a mass purge of the communist movement from the country by General Suharto. It is estimated that 500,000 to 1 million civilizan were abducted and murdered by the right wing Indonesian faction, all with the backing and consent of the US government. A lot of doubt remains if the PKI were truly even involved in the coup or if it was an orchestration of Suharto and the CIA to justify the communist purge and mass murder. This is an assertion that Bevins makes here.
What began to be known as "The Jakarta Method" was a form of terror that spread throughout much of Central and South America against socialistic/communist movements. The message was clear: the disappearing of mass civilians will happen here as it did in Jakarata. It happened in Chile with the replacement of Allende with Pinochet. It happened in Brazil, Argentina, Gautemala, Iraq and several other countries. The strategy from the US perspective was clear: replace communist people's movements with crony capitalistic dictators. And thus we have the execution of a new form of US imperialism: covert corruption of a people's sovereignty to subvert Soviet global influence. This strategy was hugely successful for US business and cultural influence which remains today. The US paid the price for continued global domination with the blood of millions of innocent people from the 1960s through 1980s.
And who have benefited? Is it the people of these nations? No. They remained impoverished. Is it the American people? Likely yes, but not as much as the main benefactors: corporate wealth and US imperialism. What I've learned most from this book is that massacre is justified by ideology, regardless of espoused beliefs. Men will find any rationale they need to gain power. Be it the demonizing of communists or the dehumanization of races, men will find away to corrupt their way to power. The politics are only tangential.
This is a dense but excellent and illuminating read.
Similar books I recommend:
Confessions of an Economic Hitman
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
How to Hide and Empire
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... ...more
This is a dense, detail-rich, recounting of the long lost history of the horrific mil Anti-communism panic has murdered millions of innocent civilians.
This is a dense, detail-rich, recounting of the long lost history of the horrific military purge that occurred in Indonesia. Sukarno was the first Indonesian president from 1945-67 after freedom from the Dutch control and Japanese occupation. Sukarno gained popular and political support as the communist part of Indonesia (PKI) as he steered the country much more leftward. While backed by the likes of the Soviets and China, his anti-imperialistic policies irritated the state military as well as the Unites States government.
The US started courting the right-wing side of the Indonesian government in the form of arms deals while creating a clear split in the Indonesian government. There was the right-wing military and the left wing PKI. This climate created the events of September 30th, in which alleged Sukarno sympathizers attempted a military coup when trying to assassinate six Indonesian army generals. This failed coup was blamed on the communist PKI giving the impetus for a mass purge of the communist movement from the country by General Suharto. It is estimated that 500,000 to 1 million civilizan were abducted and murdered by the right wing Indonesian faction, all with the backing and consent of the US government. A lot of doubt remains if the PKI were truly even involved in the coup or if it was an orchestration of Suharto and the CIA to justify the communist purge and mass murder. This is an assertion that Bevins makes here.
What began to be known as "The Jakarta Method" was a form of terror that spread throughout much of Central and South America against socialistic/communist movements. The message was clear: the disappearing of mass civilians will happen here as it did in Jakarata. It happened in Chile with the replacement of Allende with Pinochet. It happened in Brazil, Argentina, Gautemala, Iraq and several other countries. The strategy from the US perspective was clear: replace communist people's movements with crony capitalistic dictators. And thus we have the execution of a new form of US imperialism: covert corruption of a people's sovereignty to subvert Soviet global influence. This strategy was hugely successful for US business and cultural influence which remains today. The US paid the price for continued global domination with the blood of millions of innocent people from the 1960s through 1980s.
And who have benefited? Is it the people of these nations? No. They remained impoverished. Is it the American people? Likely yes, but not as much as the main benefactors: corporate wealth and US imperialism. What I've learned most from this book is that massacre is justified by ideology, regardless of espoused beliefs. Men will find any rationale they need to gain power. Be it the demonizing of communists or the dehumanization of races, men will find away to corrupt their way to power. The politics are only tangential.
This is a dense but excellent and illuminating read.
Similar books I recommend:
Confessions of an Economic Hitman
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
How to Hide and Empire
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... ...more
Notes are private!
1
Nov 03, 2020
Nov 06, 2020
Nov 03, 2020
Hardcover
Loading...
