dieter

Alle-fluckin-luia!!!

Why America is the World’s Most Uniquely Cruel Society Or, How Punching Down Became a Way of Life In this essay, I want to share with you a tiny theory of what it means to be American. It is up to you to judge, as ever, whether it carries any weight. All that I will say is that when I look around, it explains, a little, what I see. Any theory of being American must explain one salient and striking fact: cruelty. America is the most cruel nation among its peers — even among most poor countries today. It is something like a new Rome. It has little, if any, functioning healthcare, education, transport, media, no safety nets, no stability, security. The middle class is collapsing, and life expectancy is falling.Young people die for a lack of insulin they cannot crowdfund. Elderly middle-class people live and die in their cars. Kids massacre each other in schools — when they’re not self-medicating the pain of it all away. The combination of these pathologies happens nowhere else — not a single place — in the world. Not even Pakistan, Costa Rica, or Rwanda. Hence, the world is aghast daily at the depths of American cruelty — yet somehow, they seem bottomless. (Of course I don’t mean that all Americans are cruel. I just mean that in the same way we say countries have attitude, dispositions, that there’s such a thing as a French or German national attitude or disposition, so, too there is an American one. Nor do I mean America is “the most cruel society in the world”. Can we really ever judge that? But it is uniquely cruel — a kind of special example — in weird, needless, and singular ways.) Let me throw that into relief. Scandinavians are the happiest, longest-lived, and most prosperous people in the world because they do not punish one another constantly — but lift one another up. But Americans do not believe this reality. The underlying sentiment that unites America’s manifold problems is a myth of cruelty. So. Where did the myth of cruelty come from? That is the question before us if we really want to understand America. I’ve wondered since I was a kid, to be honest. I thought, once, it was about capitalism, patriarchy, race, once. But now I think that while those are expressions of it. That something more primary, fundamental, and unique happened. America was a strange, improbable combination of things, singular in history. A Promised Land —but one for the despised. Waves upon waves of them washed up on its shores. First, the Puritans, mocked and loathed in England. Then peasants and farmers and outlaws from across Europe. Then Chinese, Japanese, Latinos, and today, Muslims. These emigrants all tended to share a common trait. They were at the very bottom, the lowest rung, of social and economic heirarchies in their own countries. All of them. That has changed a little recently — but America was founded by and for the despised, loathed, hated. People referred to as trash, nobodies, serfs, exiles, outcasts — who were never given an ounce of respect, dignity, or even belonging, in their societies of origin. Let me make that clearer. We did not see nobles and landed gentry emigrate to America. British Lords and German Counts and Italians Barons. We saw German peasant, Irish villagers, Swedish farmers, the dwellers of Italian slums. People from the very lowest of heirarchies elsewhere, the oppressed and the subjugated, came to this Promised Land. So first the English and French settlers supposed that this New World was theirs (and began a kind of genocide against its natives, of course). But it wasn’t just the natives that they came to hate, for threatening their natural right to this Promised Land. It was the next waves of settlers, too. The English settlers hated the French. The French hated the Germans. They all hated the Irish. The Irish hated the Italians. And so on. That much is historical fact. Do you see the pattern forming yet? This is very abstract, so let me make it concrete. Here came one wave of settlers — English. They dominated their way to the top of a hierarchy, above natives and blacks. Then came a new wave — German. They were punched down too — and began punching down — to bitterly establish themselves in this hierarchy, as high up as they could. Then another wave — Irish. Punched, punching down. All desperately vying for relative dominance among the rest. You see, the crucial fact is that this didn’t happen elsewhere in the world — waves of settlers, all desperately trying to establish themselves above the next, last, most recent, in a hierarchy, all the more so, because they were despised, at the bottom, to begin with. In Europe, Asia, South America, heirarchies were long established — and broken only by revolution. America was the only nation where this constant reconstruction of hierarchy happened to such a degree, over and over again. Hence, the establishment of cruelty as a way of life — how else but to establish one’s self above the next wave of migrants? Each new tribe that came to this Promised Land brought the burden of being despised, subjugated, oppressed, with them. They were finally above someone else in a social hierarchy. They were not at the bottom anymore. But to be above requires somone else to be below. And so there was a constant battle for relative position within a growing hierarchy — hence, dominance, competition, conquest soon became the prized cultural values, norms, and institutional goals. Cruelty as a way of life was born. When we noted that the despised of England hated the newly arrived despised of France hated the newly arrived despised of Germany and so on, not to mentions natives, blacks, and Asians, in an endless vicious circle, we are also saying: America was learning to be cruel, by forever constructing greater heirachies to seize the fruits of a Promised Land. But greater hierarchies require greater cruelty to climb up, too. And the irony is that all this is what the despised came to America to escape. (I’ll add peripheral point. The despised, when coming to a Promised Land, are the least likely, perversely, though we might not immediately think so, to want to share it — because they, at last, have something that they feel is theirs. Today’s servant wants to be tomorrow’s master. Today’s peasant wants to be tomorrow’s landlord. Today’s victim aspires to be tomorrow’s oppressor.) Now. What was really happening here, in more modern terms? People were learning to “punch down”, as we might put it today. Americans were being taught to take out their anger, rage, and fear on those less powerful than them — usually, the most obvious and immediate ones they could find. An Irish mutt bastard moved into the neighbourhood? Get them. No Chinamen allowed. Those Italians? We’ve got to move them out of our city. Intern those Japanese. Punching down began to be institutionalized and normalized. Cruelty was becoming a way of life and a norm. Tribe after tribe of the despised fled to a Promised Land, but each one demanded their position above the last, having never had anything before. People who had been hated and outcast had status and belonging at last — but only by punching down the next wave. So no mechanisms ever really developed to allow the Promised Land to be shared wisely, well, or reasonably. Might became right. Now, American leaders tried to intervene every now and then. FDR’s second bill of rights, JFK’s vision for a fairer society, and so on. But they were not very succesful — because they were fighting a history of cruelty that they did not really understand: one that went to the heart of what it means to be American itself. So they never really said: “Wait. What do we all really have in common, us Americans? We are the despised and mocked of history. Its outcasts and its exiles. This is what unites us! Let us stop punching down, then. Otherwise, what have we really learned? We are only repeating the very history of cruelty that we tried to escape from.” How sad. How funny. Americans came to a Promised Land — but they could not escape themselves. Each new wave, trying to rise above the next, built a world even more cruel than the old one. Punching down, down, down, endlessly. So, today, here we are. Punching down has become a national institution, a norm, and a way of life. School shootings? Can’t ban guns — let the kids have “active shooter drills”. We are punching all the way down to our little five years olds. Life expectancy falling? Can’t have healthcare — let them self-medicate with opioids. We are punching down to the poorest. Education cost a fortune? Too bad, take out debt. We are punching down to our young people. I could give you endless examples. But perhaps you get the point by now. What does it mean to be American? To really “be” — see, feel, think, act American, so much so that you are not self-aware of it, because it is unconscious, reflexive, invisible, this way of “being”? Well, it means what it always has. Punching down, not lifting up. Punching down is hardwired into America by now, thanks to a unique history of settlers — who had never had any — punching the next wave down for relative hierarchical position. An attitude of cruelty was born. And so today cruelty is the point of its institutions, the purpose of its norms, and the linchpin of its perverse idea of virtue, that by punishing people, we can better them. It is all that Americans expect from each other — and give to each other. That is the terrible burden of a Promised Land that history’s despised warred among one another for domination of. The problem is this. A society of people punching one another down must collapse. What else could it do? It cannot rise, can it? If I am punching you down, and I am punching the next person down below me, how can anyone ever lift anyone up? But without lifting one another up, a society cannot grow in quantity or quality of life. This, too, is what happened to Soviet Russia. America has never reckoned with its history of cruelty. Instead, it developed a defensive mythology of being welcoming — even while every new wave of immigrants had to fight, sometimes quite literally little street by street, against the last wave, for a piece of the Promise Land. Like all myths, that one — was a lie that revealed the truth: America was a Promised Land for the huddled masses to roam free — but only if they could fend off the other tribes, by punching them down, endlessly,. A Promised Land is like a Garden of Eden. But who can live in the Garden peacefully but angels? Human beings, flawed, indelicate things, are only meant to be cast out— they are ever in conflict, in tension, hungry and ravenous. And that is never truer than for their most despised — who need to be healed most, or else will ravage their Gardens worst. In this way, a Garden, given to the despised, is a war, waiting to happen. A war against itself. America is at just such a war, and has always been. The name of this war is cruelty. But the end of this war is not victory, but collapse. I don’t say any of this to blame, shame, or judge. But only so that, perhaps, this history of violence can at last be reckoned with. Umair February 2018

Got anyone in mind? No way ECT, no wuckin fay. Apart from drugs and alcohol, what brought you to the culmination of St Paul's fascist way? The great Damascus moment, the city the USA has spent billions trying to destroy lately. Thank you ISIS, thank you Hilary, thank you CIA, thank you all the mindless dumbfluck lunatics who have perverted the course of history to oblige the Neocon way.

Also, I've read the Schlesinger article you referred to. A couple of things about it. Firstly, it was written in 1959 when the world was different. This was the world Kennedy inherited, what is referred to as a kind of Camelot, a kind of cutesy apple pie innocense. Well, unfortunately, bubbling away in the background was what Eisenhowere - who ironically was one of the architects of it - called the Military Industrial Complex. The USA had already napalmed Greece - though nobody in the west knew about it - had reduced North Korea into a lunar, rubble filled wasteland - to the extent that MacArthur, when he was flown over the flattened debris called North Korea was reduced to tears - had deposed the democratically elected government of Iran and replaced it with the Shah who became as filthy rich as the British and American Oil Companies who ran Iraq until the Ayatollahs. Vietnam was already brewing and 'niggers were still niggers and forced to the back of the bus. And McCarthy was always hovering, and Joe Edgar Hoover was rounding up gays while all the while pretending he wasn't the biggest gay in town And in the meantime, Hollywood and Disneyland painted a noble picture of white American toil and effort, the wagon train scenario, the American noble white man defending his kith and kin on his quest to 'open up' the West. In other words, this article is a kind of glossy whitewash, a broad canvass populated only by Great and Noble White Men whose aims were decent and kind and honest and true. Notably, there is massive silence in this article about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The problem is that the evidence is there if, you want to stare it in the face and uncover it, that this canvass Schlesinger tries to paint was/is pure Fantasyland.

Great reply. I was going to add 'writers, musicians, artists, music' to my list but the edit time had elapsed. The 'Democracy' claim always gets me because the American Constitution was written by a dude who kept slaves. Therefore it is a racially biased piece of pomp and ceremony, in reality not worth the paper it's written on. That's just my view. You mention the medicine, the science, all the technological advances. Once again, true to a point. It's just that most of the scientists, doctors and inventors were European emigres. The human rights clause is in my view a total furphy. Human rights for who? The white, privileged elite? Try telling the Iraquis, the Afghanis, the Vietnamese, the El Salvadorians, the 5000 poor who were slaughtered by US Marines when they invaded Panama ostensibly to capture Norriega, the Communist Greeks who the US napalmed in the late 40's, the North Koreans, or the Syrians, or the Libyans, or the Iranians and Iraqis who were slaughted by US ordinance during that obscene US brokered war between Iraq and Iran. I could go on. We won't mention the human rights of the American Indians who had the nerve to try to stop the wagon trains. Granted, it made for great Westerns when we were kids and dumb and brainwashed enough to believe only white settlers had the right to kill and protect their land or property. And, until the Civil Rights movement of the 60's, tell me about the 'culture of human rights' in the US for its Blacks. Yes, the Yanks helped to defeat Hitler. It's just that if the American clowns who were one of the main architects of the Treaty of Versailles had any brains or foresight or wisdom, Hitler would not have been possible in the first place.

Precisely. They certainly know how to kill, those so-called Americans ( as though Canada and Central and South America don't count as 'Americans', if you know what I mean.) In an ideal world, they'd stick to just killing each other. What perplexes me to the point of being prostrate with bafflement is that there are people in the so-called civilized world who simply refuse to see that a country which has such a high turnover of horrific mass shootings is sick to the core, that it is one of the biggest, most hypocritical basket cases in the history of the world. Trump, if you like, is the festering puss-filled pimple of this mess called the USA, an entity totally devoted to and ruled by weapons, most of them weapons of mass destruction. Equally as sickening is that the next choice the voters of the USA had was another imbecilic, corrupt war machine called Hilary Clinton. God spare us.

Well put. I'd still like to know why you think this. I don't want to argue, I'm simply curious as to how anyone can think this. Are you talking Geography, its people?

Since the invasion - which was based on lies and propaganda in - 2003. We won't mention the deaths caused by depleted uranium in the period after the so-called first Gulf war, or the death toll of children - Madelaine Albright's infamous 'Just' casualties of the US imposed sanctions. Noam Chomsky once pointed out, and this was before the 2003 Invasion, or the ongoing invasion of Afghanistan, that the USA was involved in more wars in the 20th Century than the countries of the rest of the world combined. Yes, the so-called 'great' country.

Those figures are a joke. The casualty rate in Iraq - mostly civilians - has been estimated to be way over a million. www.truth-out.org/.../30164-report-shows-us-invasion-occupation-of-iraq-left-1-milli...

I've promised myself I'm over getting into unwinnable bun fights on this site, but, what, pray tell, is your definition of greatness?

That's the coppers for you, always throwing the victim in the divvy van.

I would have gone the whole hog!

I suppose you got away with two weeks in jail on the murder charge because the Judge was a Demons supporter.

You, like my dear wife, is obviously a Polack. I like the word 'doupas'. Brings back memories...

De Jnr's of this world ALWAYS have an answer. Only thing for sure other than taxes and death.

Lovely stuff, Nut.

How did I know you'd write shite like that?

You mean the Sydney test, don't you, because he called the boxer, I recall his interviews with Maxwell - Australia's Cricket version of Jack Watts.

And e coli wobblers.

You are a naughty boy, Ethan: this is a Hate Site, as toxic as The Elders of Zion. You should be ashamed. TheReligionOfPeace.com: Working to Streamline the American Empire’s “War on Terror” by Garibaldi on July 10, 2012 in Feature by Garibaldi Before Loonwatch launched in 2009 the web was inundated with a plethora of anti-Muslim Islamophobes, who for a full 8 years (since 9/11) organized and propagated their narratives on Islam/Muslims largely unopposed (notable exceptions). A cornerstone narrative that was developed and used by the Islamophobia Movement during this time was the myth that “All Terrorists are Muslim.” This narrative had wide circulation until it was debunked by Danios. The fallback arguments that Islamophobes have since tried to amplify are two: 1. even if all terrorists aren’t Muslims, the overwhelming majority of terrorists are, and 2. most terrorist attacks worldwide are committed by Muslims, hence, in a further leap of logic, Islam is to blame. This argument conflates the tactic of terrorism with the religion of Islam, a claim whose proponents don’t even consider Islam a religion but rather a “political ideology.” More on this later. TheReligionOfPeace.Com and the Faulty “Islamic Terrorism Ticker”: If you visit JihadWatch, AtlasShrugs or any of the too numerous to count anti-Muslim hate sites and blogs, you are likely to find on the sidebar a hyperlinked image claiming that “Islamic Terrorists have carried out more than _____ Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11.” The image was created by the anti-Islam hate site, The Religion of Peace (TROP), associated with Islamophobe Daniel Greenfield, aka “SultanKnish,” who you will recall earns a pretty penny from the David Horowitz Freedom Center. (as of July 7,2012) The clear visual intent of this “Islamic terrorism ticker” is to provoke an emotive fear and anxiety of a global, monolithic, totalitarian Islam (read: Muslims), that is waging terror everywhere through thousands upon thousands of unmitigated and random attacks. On TROP the “terror ticker” serves as ammunition for the site’s stated missionary proposition of portraying “Islam” as “the world’s worst religion.” It also aids in the attempt to tie terrorism to Islam. Even a cursory glance at TROP’s list of so-called “Islamic terrorist attacks” reveals it to be nothing more than a deeply biased, propagandistic spin-job that conflates: real terrorist attacks, (semi)religious/culturally motivated crimes, attacks on military personnel and attacks by secular groups with no ideological basis in Islam — all in theaters of occupation, civil war and separatist conflict. Sheila Musaji comments on this aspect of TROP’s list, writing, Musaji’s complaint about their lack of links or citations to attacks holds true, however, one can generally glean where they grab their information. Some of it is likely from verifiable news sources while other sources are Right-Wing Christian/Zionist sites and news aggregators such as World Net Daily, BosNewsLife and Arutz Sheva. A sampling of the entries on TROP’s “terrorism attack ticker” list is quite revealing. One of their most recent entries is an attack near Turbat, Pakistan. This is how TROP spins this nationalist/separatist attack: According to most reports Balochistani nationalist separatists are suspected (via. CNN), These facts are no hindrance for TROP’s propagandistic methodology, they likewise file this attack under “Islamic terrorist attack.” Non-religious crime: Criminal gangs as well as a low scale insurgency operate in Dagestan. No group has claimed responsibility for gunning down the cop. Interestingly enough if one searches Google for “off-duty cop gunned down,” one will notice many findings of such incidences occurring recently in the USA. Should such killings likewise be termed “American Terrorism,” or since the majority of Americans identify as Christians, “Christian Terrorism?” Attack on Foreign Occupiers: British soldiers who are part of a coalition force in Afghanistan are not civilians, therefore this attack is not one that falls under so-called “Islamic terrorism.” Terrorism in most definitions refers, in one way or another, to the targeted killing of civilians in the furtherance of a political cause. Suspected non-religious motivated crime: TROP seems to have taken this report from BosNewsLife, which according to its About page is a Christian news agency. News reports of this incident do not mention the religion of the two individuals who were killed. They are described as two musicians and brothers, and most reports say a “religious” motive is not suspected. Again, this does not fit the paradigm of so-called “Islamic terrorism.” Tribal/Cultural crime: A sad and despicable murder, but definitely not related to Islam or terrorism. TROP’s attempted spin here is to conflate Islam with the so-called cultural practice of “honor killing,” which exists in various cultures around the world. Nationalist/Secular Attack: The BLA are nationalists yet TROP labels them “Islamic Terrorists.” TROP once again conflates separatist groups who have specific nationalist aspirations with so-called “Islamic terrorism.” The BLA (Balochistan Liberation Army) claimed responsibility for the attack, Domestic violence: A very sad story, related more to patriarchy and domestic violence than “Islamic Terrorism.” It also should be pointed out that instances of husbands beating or forcing their wives to vote the way they want is not limited to Muslim countries. Honor killing: Once again, a sad and despicable murder, but definitely not related to Islam or terrorism. TROP’s attempted spin here is to conflate Islam with the so-called cultural practice of “honor killing,” which exists in various cultures around the world. Reprisal attack, inter-ethnic violence: Myanmar is home to the displaced Muslim Rohingya peoples, a group that is considered one of the most oppressed in the world. The country is seeing some of its worst inter-ethnic violence in quite some time with the beleaguered Muslim minority facing the brunt of the violence. These attacks are better categorized under sectarian and reprisal violence, not “Islamic terrorism.” Honor Killing: Also an unbelievably sad and despicable triple murder, no doubt, but definitely not related to Islam or terrorism. TROP’s attempted spin here is to conflate Islam with the so-called cultural practice of “honor killing,” which exists in various cultures around the world. Attack on Foreign Occupiers: Once again, NATO soldiers are not civilians, this does not fall under the general understanding of “terrorism,” let alone the ephemeral concept of “Islamic terrorism.” Separatist attack on soldiers: TROP leaves out the fact that there has been a separatist insurgency in Southern Thailand since 2004. The majority of the population in the South are Muslim Malay who feel marginalized and discriminated against by the predominately Buddhist Thai government. This does not fit under the rubric of terrorism. Those targeted by separatist insurgents were Thai soldiers and not civilians (via. AP). Honor-related Crime: Another terrible honor based crime.TROP’s attempted spin here is to conflate Islam with the so-called cultural practice of “honor killing,” which exists in various cultures around the world. Honor Killing: Once again, a horrific and despicable double murder, but definitely not related to Islam or terrorism. TROP’s attempted spin here is to conflate Islam with the so-called cultural practice of “honor killing,” which exists in various cultures around the world. Assault: While certainly falling under “assault” and disregard for freedom of religion/expression this has nothing to do with “terrorism.” Possible Honor Killing: A horrendous triple murder, but again, definitely not related to Islam or terrorism. TROP’s attempted spin here is to conflate Islam with the so-called cultural practice of “honor killing,” which exists in various non-Muslim cultures around the world. The above is just a rough sampling of “attacks” over a period of a month that TROP included as terrorist attacks but that would not fit most definitions of terrorism, let alone so-called “Islamic terrorism.” TROP also reports many incidents of attacks as the work of Islamist/terrorist groups when no group has taken responsibility or when law enforcement is unsure of the culprit. They omit facts, decontextualize, leaving out the fact that most of these attacks are part of larger insurgencies against the state. They also just plain lie about some attacks. The Correlation Between the US “War on Terror” and the Exponential Increase in Terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan: It goes without saying that experts on terrorism, actually anyone involved in counter-terrorism does not rely on TROPs silly “Islamic terrorism ticker” in their listing of terrorist attacks. Most experts laugh off TROPs clear missionary attempt at maximizing “Islamic terrorism” by inflating the numbers with everything from nationalist attacks to so-called honor killings. What TROP and other Islamophobic sites will also cover up is the obvious correlation between the US “War on Terror” and the exponential rise of terrorism in Muslim majority countries, specifically Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. These three countries account for more than roughly two-thirds of terrorist attacks over the past 7 years. In Danios’ groundbreaking article, Most Victims of Islamic Terrorism are Muslim…And Why America is to Blame for it, he begins by pointing out that the threat of terrorism to Americans and Europeans is “very minimal.” The brunt of terrorist attacks around the world is absorbed by Muslims. One would think that this being the case Muslims would be at the forefront cheerleading the “War on Terror,” but they aren’t, So why do Muslims hold such negatives views of US foreign policy and the “War on Terror” despite also holding overwhelmingly negative views towards AlQaeda and its tactics? Statistics and graphs illustrating the number of terrorist attacks pre-War on Terror and post-War on Terror highlight this point vividly. Iraq:

Phew, one less humorless clod.

Fie upon fie, this coming from a former Allie. We fought at Stalingrad together, then you changed sides when the wind changed, Dante. What a disappointment you were. Then again, you were a lousy fighter anyway. You should have stuck to poetry or entering nose picking contests. Anyway, if you really believe that, I believe you are a mental midget. Next you'll be calling me a man hating radical lesbian. You might as well. It would probably be more intelligent.

The loss of four young lives was due to negligence by contractors, of you don't mind.

Malcolm Turnbullshite

Your posts on this topic border on fanatical, loony, ignorant - for example women have not historically worn hijabs in Iran - and they come from a place of absolute bigotry, not unlike the fanatical antisemitism of the Nazis and the murderous race hatred of the Ku Klux lunatics. You should be ashamed of yourself.