Do American People Hate the World?

People say they care about Syrians, for example. To demonstrate this, Americans are outraged about a travel ban and about limits on immigration, and they post pictures of suffering and dying refugees, and they post images of women wearing hijabs stylized from the American flag, but, I’d like to know, what is their reaction to the American policy of arming, paying, training, and directing ISIS and Al Qaeda mercenaries, as America’s proxy army, for invading and destroying one Arab country after another?

No reaction? No outrage? Denial?

No admittance of the possibility (fact) that our actions are monstrous.

The situation, it seems, is that people have lost the ability to think; they’re incapable of reason. Something has happened to their psychology or their ability to process information. It makes them incapable of understanding and, so, not able to engage in politics as a thinking actor. That’s bad enough. Along with it, what happens is that people who believe themselves to be humanitarian and peace-loving actually are made (unwitting) supporters of the most vile anti-Muslim hate that can possibly be devised: the US NATO wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and forthcoming planned war on Iran.

Today’s American “progressive” Democratic Party voters largely support these wars, and largely it seems, because Obama said to support them, or Clinton said so.

These wars are racist anti-Muslim hate made very real indeed. Hate made tangible. You can’t ignore that hate. You do ignore it, but you’re not entitled to ignore your country’s hate and mega violence. And you can’t make up for it by welcoming refugees. You welcome refugees because that’s what human beings do. But likewise, you have to oppose your country’s vile wars of aggression that create the refugees in the first place. You have to. Because, you’re responsible.

Let’s be clear, you’re responsible to the extent that democracy exists in the United States. If you believe that democracy exists in the United States, then as a participant in that democracy, you must believe that you are responsible for your country’s actions in the world, particularly in matters of war and peace, and particularly regarding your country’s wars of choice, wars of aggression.

If you don’t take that responsibility, then you’re expressing real hate, a more profound hate than someone who simply doesn’t like immigrants because he thinks his race is superior. Your hate is worse. Waging a war of aggression, direct or by proxy, is the supreme crime. Diswelcoming immigrants is a much much much lower offense. It’s grotesque and immoral, but it’s a lower offense. When you direct all of your outrage at the lower offense and you ignore/deny the supreme offense and crime (your country’s war of aggression), that demonstrates a vile hatred within you, whether you know it or not.

Profound western hate of Muslims and Arabs, it seems to be in the bones of many people, many of whom of course deny it, and find YOU at fault for suggesting it. Let’s see if I can convince you of it anyway.

So for example, ask yourself, let’s say hypothetically that the United States does not wage war on Muslim nations but instead wages war on Scandinavian countries: Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and some others nearby. Let’s say that American media justifies these wars on Scandinavian nations by demonizing Scandinavian Prime Ministers, and the King of Norway and the King of Sweden. Let’s say the United States arms and pays foreign mercenaries by the tens of thousands to invade Norway, Sweden and Denmark, that these mercenaries are heavily armed, armed by the United States, with mortars, machine guns, rocket propelled grenades and the like, even chemical weapons, and that they launch these weapons into Scandinavian towns and cities. Let’s say the mercenaries are ideological extremists (they’d have to be, unless it’s just for the money) who murder you for not following their narrow brand of ideology.

Alright, let’s say then that Sweden and Norway fight back in defense. And so a war is on, as Sweden’s army and Norway’s Army, led by their political leadership (Prime Ministers and Kings), defend Sweden and Norway from foreign invasion by a proxy army paid and armed by the United States.

While Swedes and Norwegians are defending their country, American media demonizes Swedish and Norwegian political leaders (Kings and PMs) for “bombing their own people.” “He barrel bombs his own people.” “Look, they’re gassing their own people.”

And then the response of the American people to this situation is this: they confine their indignation narrowly ONLY to the question whether or not Scandinavian refugees should be allowed into the United States.

Some Americans will say they don’t want the refugees. Others, on the other hand, are outraged, outraged indeed, that an American President orders a ban on the arrival of Scandinavian refugees.

Those outraged by the refugee ban are completely silent about the United States destruction of Scandinavia in the first place with economic war (brutal sanctions), media war (propaganda), and military war, direct and by proxy.

So what can we say about this? What can we think about people who are perfectly OK with the United States destroying Scandinavian countries: “The Swedish PM and King are bombing their own people“; what can we say about people who accept this kind of logic as normal, reasonable:

“it must be normal, and inevitable; (because) my country, the United States, is doing it, so it must be good, and decent, and it must be motivated by humanitarian concerns, and if it’s bad, it’s only bad out of unfortunate necessity, an unfortunate but necessary pain and price paid for some ultimate good. Worst case scenario: despite our unquestionably good intentions, things have, beyond our control, gone awry.” 

I think that pretty accurately sums up the general opinion. Of course you have to add just this: we feel sad and sorry for Swedes and Norwegians fleeing the war, and want to “help” them. It’s a shame their leaders are such monsters.

So where do we go from there? What kind of people are we?

I think we’re broken in an essential way. We’re people who can no longer think. We can’t reason. We’ve been made essentially dysfunctional. We no longer meet the minimum criteria for even the possibility of being responsible human beings. We’re responsibility-incapable.

How did this happen? I think Vanessa Beeley is looking in the right direction for answers here:  I recommend this tremendously important article. It raises many important ideas and questions.

But let me continue here with this analogy. I add the question:

…what if there were one person in the United States Congress who honestly reports that our war against Scandinavia has to stop, and, what if this Congresswoman proposed a law that calls on the United States to “Stop Arming Terrorists”? What if she proposed a law making it illegal for the United States to arm terrorists?

What would happen to this lone voice of reason in US government?

Our proxy army that we arm and pay to destroy Scandinavia is comprised of Scandinavian religious extremist Christians who oppose women working, going to school, driving, and who murder those who don’t subscribe to their narrow religious ideology, but, and here is the most vile distortion: anyone dissenting, anyone in the United States who opposes the war, and opposes the arming and funding of these extremist terrorist proxies, these dissenters are marginalized with this label: “Scandinavophobe”

Think about that.

If I oppose the destruction of Scandinavia. If I dissent and oppose the US war of aggression against Scandinavia, and if I oppose not only the war, but also its method (the use of Scandinavian extremist factions as proxies, mercenaries), well, that makes me a Scandinavophobe!

There are no words to describe the monstrosity of this distortion. Even George Orwell would take notice.

So this US Congresswoman introduces a bill to “Stop Arming Terrorists”. For that, she’s smeared as a “Scandinavophobe”. And the reaction of millions of typical Americans? Particularly Democratic Party voters? Well, they parrot: She’s a Scandinavophobe! They ignore her law proposing to Stop Arming Terrorists (because she’s a Scandinavophobe!). And they go back to their happy place congratulating themselves for feeling sorry for Scandinavian refugees fleeing their “monstrous leaders” who are “bombing their own people…”

What is there to say about people like this? They’ll be angry at YOU, if you ask them about these things. The won’t be angry at the war machine of their own country. They’ll be angry at YOU:

  • you failed to appreciate their heart-warming concern for refugees

Others will say,

  • “that’s an interesting theory (that the US is waging war by proxy) but the sources you cite are not credible (they don’t conform to the New York Times), and you do a poor job making the case.”

And others will say,

  • “They’re gassing their own people and Putin’s a thug”.

The conversation in my experience never gets anywhere beyond this when you’re talking with Democratic Party voters. As a lifelong Democratic Party voter myself until 2012, it’s been interesting to notice (and I’m grateful) that people who consider themselves Conservatives, on the other hand, frequently have been much more open to simple ideas, like:

  • “The United States is responsible”
  • “War is wrong”
  • “Endless war has to stop”
  • “Arming ISIS and Al Qaeda for regime change is criminal and racist and hateful”
  • “Regime change policy is Crime Against Peace)”

Some people still are capable of reason, so there is hope. Hope until the last person.

One Comment Add yours

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s