The Pissing on John Kerry

I have it on rumor that, on the Hill, John Kerry is referred to as "a haircut in search of a brain."  For sure, "fleet" is not a word that comes to mind while imaging Kerry.

Nevertheless, as he himself has said, he has "been around long enough." That being the case he ought to have known that the A-word is never to be used in syntactical proximity to the Holy State of Israel -- which is what Kerry >gasp< did at a conclave of the Trilateral Commission over the weekend.

Now, the entire world knows that Israel is in fact an apartheid state.  It is hard to see what else it might be called when 20% of its inhabitants (not counting the Occupied Territories) are excluded de facto from military service and from anything more than nominal participation in government.

In sublimely contradictory fashion, Israel defines itself as pluralistic Jewish state.  How that is different from a multi-racial Boer state might well be left to sophists to hammer out.  But, in practice, the way it works is this:  Unlike the dunder-headed Dutch, Israel's Jews are cunning enough to allow Arab representation in the Knesset (12 out of 120 seats) with a smattering of low level posts in the Government.  Nevertheless, until 2001 no Arab-Israeli served in any Cabinet and then only by the blatant tokenism of a minister sans portfolio.  Virtually no Arab Palestinian has served in the diplomatic corps and, as per the latest available statistics, only 6% of the civil service list was comprised of Arab-Israelis.

What Jewish Israel has managed is a controlled, emasculated "inclusion" which skillfully dodges the overt threshold of de jure apartheid.  As as the United States had separate but equal, Israel has effective segregation. 

When the Occupied Territories are factored into the equation, the situation is worse.  Token participation gives way to "Separation Walls" and "Jew Only" roads.

The entire aim of the so-called peace process is simply this: to throw a thin tissue of nominal and limited "sovereignty" over a patch work of segregated Palestinian enclaves -- to achieve on a territorial, geo-political level precisely the same kind of effective segregation the Jewish State has imposed on its Arab "citizens" in Israel proper.  

What Kerry's statement meant was simply this: without an agreed upon tissue of sovereignty, Israel's imposition of actual apartheid over Palestinian Arabs will be too bald too hide.

To the sane half of the world, this remark (albeit made in private) was at least an evanescent moment of refreshing candor from a Washington incapable of uttering a truth.  After all, without a flag, an honor guard and a seat at conference tables, the croaking frogs atop  their lilly pads in a Jewish pond will be nakedly seen for what they are.

Yet, for acknowledging the obvious, Kerry has all but been drawn and quartered by the Harpies on the Hill, which brings us to the real significance of the episode.

A more venal, vicious, vile and vainglorious place than the U.S. political establishment can hardly be imagined. The Caesars, the Borgias, the waning days of l'ancien regime are as bagatelles in comparison.  

There has been a lot of comment in the past few years about the internecine gridlock of Washington -- always accompanied by the pious obligato to bring back "civility" into public affairs.  But no one asks why the gridlock is so internecine. It is assumed sub silentio that the enmity is the result of opposing ideologies that have no common ground. 

This is a false diagnosis; just the opposite is the case.  The internecine viciousness that permeates Washington results from the fact that there is no ideological opposition.  Washington is simply an immense, white washed brothel and every single denizen of this congerie   is a prostitute sharing the common ground of whoredom. 

If there were a true political polemic at issue, the politicians could come to compromised agreements because objective realities can be fit, adjusted and worked out in practical ways. 

But the whores in Washington, like the courtiers of Versailles, all ascribe to the same regime without exception.  Espousing no true political polemic to be fought over, the only thing they have left to fight is themselves. Like kept bitches in a seraglio, the fight is clawed and vicious precisely because it lacks that restraint which is imposed by practical and objective realities.  Having nothing but their position in the harem to fight over, they claw at one another savagely.

It will be argued, perhaps, that representatives and officials in government all have their respective constituencies for whose interests they are bound to do battle.  But this battle -- a fight for the King's Favour, for the Pasha's Affections, for a slice of the pie -- is not a political fight.  It is simply the grabbing and clawing for court favors on behalf of a "client". 

The fight between Bryant and McKinley, between "Silver" and "Gold" and between the Grange and the Street was a contest in political form over real social and economic realities and interests and the "ideologies" which flow from those interests. But a material dialectic is not the same kind of fight as a competition over how many licenses or tax breaks corporations can get.  This is simply a scramble for largesse at the expense and on the backs of those who no longer matter.  There is no ideology, only appetite.

And so with no real causes to fight over, the whores in Washington simply look for ways to ridicule and wound whoever is hapless enough to let his guard down.

Future historians will marvel at how a small foreign state managed to impose its own interests as a kind of religious orthodoxy on the world's richest and most powerful empire. For uttering a blasphemy, in private, Kerry must now allow himself to be pissed upon in public.

©Barfo, 2014

Uh huh.....

And that's why Obama is a socialist.....  

Conscience Stalks the Military Again

A report by RT News discloses that "US special forces have been committing suicide at record levels for the last two years," Adm. William McRaven, the head of SOCom, said at a conference in Florida.  Although Mc Raven did not give any current statistics, in January, he directed the formation of a suicide-prevention working group to address the unique needs of the elite troops.   A 2103 survey by the Guardian disclosed that suicides (349) in Afghanistan had outpaced combat deaths (311).  As of 2010, military suicide were double the rate of civilian suicides. 

According to McRaven, the "health" of these troops is "critical to our command’s readiness and our ability to accomplish the mission. "  But, he says, "At the end of the day, we'll find the right weapon" -- meaning the right "weapon" to combat "suicides of conscience." 

Actually Barfo  has discussed the matter before, back in 2008.    [here]  Because he wishes to continue to wage war, McRaven continues the mistake of  thinking that these suicides can be dealt with by "support programs" and "coping techniques."   As Tolstoy explained in Resurrection

"It is usually imagined that a thief, a murderer, a spy, a prostitute, acknowledging his or her profession to be evil, is ashamed of it.  But the contrary is true.  People whom fate and their sin-mistakes have placed in a certain position, howsoever false that position may be, form a view of life in general which makes their position seem good and admissible.  In order to keep up their view of life, these people instinctively keep to the circle of those who share thier views...   Can we not observe the same phenomenon when the rich boast of their wealth -- robbery;  when commanders of armies pride themselves on their victories -- murder; and when those in high places vaunt their power -- violence?"

It is not a question of strategies but of [synderesis]

There is No Left Left

France's socialist President, François Hollande, has appointed Manuel Valls as the country's new prime minister.  As interior minister, Valls adopted a "tough" line on crime and immigration, including advocating deportation of Roma gypsies.  Those who were not working, he said, should be "delivered back to the borders."

As prime minister, Valls, a native born Catalonian, proposes to be just as "tough" on the economy.  He vows to cut 19 billion euros from state spending, 10 billion euros from health insurance and 10 billion euros from local governments.  He also wants to abolish the 35 hour work week and raise the pension age.

"So all the government's actions must be geared towards those men and women who suffer and fear unemployment, and those actions are in support of business, attractiveness and competitiveness precisely to create the wealth we need to release energy and create employment," he said.

This is a socialist!?

Let us parse the logic:  enacting measures to "support" business, make investment "attractive" and increase "competitiveness" (by lowering costs of guess what), will "create" wealth which will, in turn, "create" employment, and this will end the suffering of the working class which fears "unemployment" and will be grateful to work for a pittance. 

It could not have been better said by a U.S. Republican … or … for that matter, by the Ornament-in-Chief himself.  Since when did socialists advocate trickle down  as a social policy?

"I have no enemies on the Left," Valls recently said.  He is right.  There is no Left, left.

The denouement can be traced to the 1870's in Germany which, in those days, had not one but two socialist parties!

The first of these (1863) was the German Worker's Association, led by Ferdinand Lasalle.  Several years later (1869) Karl Liebknecht and August Bebel founded the Social Democratic Workers Party of Germany (SDAP).  The goals and methods of both groupings were largely the same and the two parties merged in 1875 as the Socialist Workers Party of Germany (SAPD). Together they put forward what is known as the Gotha Programme, the socialist manifesto for a kinder, gentler, more egalitarian capitalism.

While merging with fellow socialists, Lasalle secretly held tete-a-tete with the Otto von Bismarck, Germany's monarchist "Iron Chancellor."  "I never met a more brilliant man than Ferdinand Lasalle," Bismarck later intoned.

Despite their manifest differences (Lasalle was lean, nervous and Jewish whereas Bismarck was "robust," phlegmatic and Junker) the two men got along and Lasalle showed Bismarck the state-logic of maintaining a secure and well fed working class.  Indeed! "Why should not the labour soldier receive a pension as much as the veteran?"  Bismarck asked rhetorically.

The result of the meeting was Bismarck's "social-state" legislation of the 1880's which became the blueprint for all of Europe's social legislation for the next hundred years.

Marx was ambivalent.  He was not such an ideologue to condemn any measure which brought relief to the working man.  Reasonable work hours, safe working conditions, unemployment and accident insurance, health care and pensions were nothing to sniff at.  But the problem was, that no one looks a gift horse in the mouth.  Marx feared that the gift horse would turn out to be a Trojan Horse in the ranks of revolution.

Lenin was not ambivalent.  He loathed the Liebknecht-Lasalle duo.  He called them "social chauvinists" and predicted that when push came to shove they would staunchly back the Kaiser in war urging their beloved working men to die as labour-soldiers in the work place of battle.

Bismarck could not have agreed more.  Speaking of Lasalle, the chancellor later said,  He was very ambitious and by no means a republican. He was very much a nationalist and a monarchist. His ideal was the German Empire,…"

When Lenin and Bismarck agree about something, people ought to perk up and pay attention.

Bismarck no doubt colored Lasalle through his own lenses. Lasalle could hardly be called a "monarchist" in the political sense which that term is usually given.  But he was a nationalist which was the whole point of Lenin's "chauvinism."  In putting the country above class, Lasalle accepted the national status quo, which was a quo built on the status of a capitalist political-economy.  As Marx put it in his Critique of the Gotha Programme, "But the "framework of the present-day national state", for instance, the German Empire, is itself, in its turn, economically "within the framework" of the world market…"  (Critique, ch. 1.)

The entire matter was very simple.  Take
   

SDAP

add "national" for chauvinist and you get

NSDAP

The Social Democrats and Nazis of 1930 Germany differed on cultural, ethnic and geo-political policies, but on the political-economy they were in fundamental agreement.  They both accepted the capitalist engine which they both sought to regulate and "modernize" with measures for enhanced trickledown on the national level.

Enchanced Trickledown

What is wrong with enhanced trickledown?  Nothing really, except that the trickle depends on the steam of the engine.

E.T. is basically a form of wealth-distribution, which is why capitalists and Republicans ("Liberals" in Europe) loathe it and excoriate it as "state-robbery."  The Liberals are right.  Enhanced Trickledown is a form of "taking" -- which cuts out a slice of fat-cat profits and gives it to the "needy".   Aside from them, everybody was in favor of enhanced trickledown, even Pope Pius XI.

"[T]he wealth of nations originates from no other source than from the labor of workers. … [C]apital," has undoubtedly long been able to appropriate too much to itself. …  Therefore, the riches that economic-social developments constantly increase ought to be so distributed among individual persons and classes that the common advantage of all,…  To each, therefore, must be given his own share of goods, and the distribution of created goods,  … into conformity with the norms of the common good, that is, social justice."  (Quadressimo Anno (1931) ¶¶ 53-57.)

In boldly attacking the "idols of Libealism" with a "new social philosophy." (Ibid. ¶ 14) Pius XI was simply reiterating the Lasalle-Bismarck compact from a Catholic perspective.

The problem is, as the quote from Pius illustrates, that the whole thing depends on the bubble up -- a "constant increase" -- from which trickle down can be siphoned.  The whole point of Marxist analysis is that the capitalist mode of production is not a perpetual motion machine but rather contains inherent contradictions which will bullox up the workings over time.

In a rough nutshell, production and consumption are necessary correlatives.  As consumption increases so too does production. But as production increases so too do the demands on investment.  However, since the wherewithal of investment is derived from profits, greater investments require greater profits which can only be garnered by diminishing costs (i.e. the amount trickled down to the worker), which in turn diminishes consumption and results in pointless production.  There is no one left to sell anything to.

This (in epigrammatic form) is what the academic debate is about.  Pure capitalists like Ayn Rand and Herbert Hoover think that the system will self-regulate, as a top spinning erratically  always re-balances itself in the end. Regulatory capitalists like FDR and Mussolini, think that the whole thing is a question of "manageable cycles" correctable a little tap here or a little prod there.  Pure socialists like Lenin and Marx think that the top will fall over and a new game needs to be played.
 
Theories exist to be debated endlessly; but history is showing that Lenin was right.  The capitalist system is not generating the Wealth of Nations, but rather the Poverty of Nations. 

That is what "austerity" means and that is what "austerity" is all about.  The only way the truth is hidden is by chopping the figures.  The canard is very simple.  The official statistic include the Wealth of Individuals in the figure for the Wealth of the Nation.  Mirabilis Dictu suddenly the Nation is wealthier even though greater and greater numbers are unemployed, homeless, and living on "food stamps."  It is a fool's game even a child ought to see through.  "We" are not wealthier, if disparity is ignored. 

Just as the wealth of a few is counted as the wealth of all, so too the poverty of a few is diluted from the poverty of all.  ¿?   In other words, the total number of global poor is artificially lessened by dividing the "poor" into different national groups; so that if 90% of the world's poor lives in poverty under a global economy this figure is made to seem like less by speaking only of Germany's 20% poor or the U.S.A's 30% and so on. 

In short, the end game of capitalism is a breach of promise and the unchopped figures bear that fact out. In fact, it is worse than Lenin thought; for he never envisioned a situation where capitalism destroyed the very ecology of the earth on which any and all economy depends.

In all events, the chauvinism of the democratic socialists has lost its nationalistic figleaf and is shown as what it really always was: chauvinism for a system.

There is no difference between Jose Luis Zapatero (PSOE) or Francois Hollande (PS) or Gerhard Schroeder (SPD) or Tony Blair (New Labour) or Georgious Papandreou (PASOK) they are all investor chauvinists, willing to starve the worker in order to feed the machine that will supposedly feed the worker… ever less and less, that is.

The contradiction between what they call themselves and what they do is contained in the contradiction of the Gotha Plan

Every single one of these Quislings are members of the Most Dishonourable Order of Creeps.

A degree of charity can be accorded the Lasalles and Roosevelts of their day.  The contradictions seen by Lenin and Marx were at least debatable and, when all is said, the Social Democrats and New Dealers did produce tangible ameliorative benefits and securities for working people.  Roosevelt would never have called for "austerity" in the name of so-called "fiscal discipline."  Never.

But the miserable midgets that bear the "liberal" (US) and "socialist" (EU) label warrant neither pity nor mercy.  Everyone one of them knowingly and consciously labors in the vineyard of the Master, cutting back and pruning the fruits of labor while sweet talking and bamboozling their lethal hypocrisies.

I hope Valls chokes on a Madelaine.

Pomp & Blarney

It was a sight to behold as Her Majesty rolled out the pomp for Ireland's poet-philosopher President, Michael D. Higgins.

This was no ordinary state visit.  England certainly knows how to do it up with that high degree of shine and flutter which stops just short of ridiculous.   But this was different.  The welcome for His Excellency, Mr. Higgins was a gaudy state visit.

Not only was Higgins greeted in style, he was escorted in style, taken into the royal carriage, in a progress of carriages which, flanked by shimmering guardsmen and running footmen, made its way into the courtyard of the Queen's personal residence, Westminster Castle, where a military review was held of the Irish Guards whose mascot, an Irish wolfhound was awarded a doggie-jacket by the President -- it being precisely the comedy of such deeds which prevents the whole thing from becoming a joke.   No. This was not a mere state visit; it was more like a state wedding.

After a bitter divorce. The official theme of the visit was "reconciliation and renewal." But it was heartier than that.  There was a message within the pomp which said:  My realm and I really want to appreciate you.

Queen Elizabeth is no stranger to smiles.  They are, after all, her craft and trade.  But there was more than just professional sparkle in her eyes. Her glance at Higgins showed genuine happiness and warmth.

At the dinner Higgins laid it on thick, salting his words with Gaelic and stopping just short of the tedious.  But his remarks summed the matter of 500 years up,

"We live in the shadow of each other," he said,  but "the shadow of the past has become the shelter of the present" and the Queens example has "encouraged us to embrace best version of each other."

There was a deep and abiding personal element here which is usually lacking in mere state affairs; and to be English or Irish is to know it. The history of the past 500 years between the two peoples comes close to embodying all that is perversely poisonous in religion and commerce.   It casts long shadows of disparagement and resentment.

But the Queen's decision to visit Ireland two years ago was more than "putting the past behind us."  It was something more metaphysical -- an engagement to work the shadow into light.

We have gone, said Higgins to both Houses of Parliament,  from the doubting eyes of estrangement to the trusting eyes of partnership and, in recent years, to the welcoming eyes of friendship.

For a monarch whose life work has been the gracious letting go of empire, this work stood for the regain of a familial neighbour. 

What saved the affair from insubstantiality was not only the frank acknowledgement of mutual estrangements and cruelties but an equally open acknowledgement that friendships arise from the each and own of mutual advantage.  As correct religion reinforces commonality so too proper commerce eschews exploitation in favor of commingling.

It was the happiness of a solid occasion.

 ©

[Ch4Report]

The Wilted Rose of Foggy Bottom

Secretary of State John Kerry announced today that it was "reality check time" as the "Israeli-Palestine Peace-Process" collapsed for the 647th time.    As moderate members of Benjamin Netanyahoo's called for a cessation of negotiations,  Kerry's spokesman said the Secretary was "willing to walk away."

this is what you look like after
Gutterpunk Bibi hands you your ass
on a platter.

If anyone ever wondered why some lawyers can command $500.00 an hour and up, they only had to look at James Baker III in action in November 2000.  His performances were amazing.

Baker wonderfully combined an aura of melodious righteousness, forbearance and threat to which he added dashes of fleeting fury as called for an end to "endless" recounts which were, he said in feigned bewildered incredulity, damaging our country.  And that was the public face.

No doubt, behind the curtains the brass knuckles were out as he barked commands and chewed-out legal team leaders who in turn chewed out and barked at their assistants who in turn leaned on grunt lawyers and para-legals to come up with more cases and statutes at 4 a.m. while Baker continued strategizing with high level partners in the game. 

The result, for the good of the country, is well known. But the point here is that on one in his right mind would want to meet up with James Baker in a legal dark alley.

And yet, when it came to the Middle East -- to Israel and Palestine -- not even James Baker III could work his usual magic.

Nevetheless, striding forward where better men have fallen, John Kerry was convinced that he could finally break the 50 year impasse in what has become the greatest diplomatic joke in 2000 years - the "Middle East Peace Process."

It seems never to have occurred to Kerry that Israel has taken its cue from Scheherazade (a Persian, no less) and her death postponing tales of 1001 Arabian Nights.

And so it was that as that last chapter in the peace process drew to a close, Israel came up with a new begining (that is to say, a new "outrage" or stumbling block  as a result of which it "could only" take an action or announce a precondition which was bound to provoke the "other side" into refusals or preconditions of its own in saecula saeculorum to borrow a phrase.)

It was barely Spring when the Rose of Foggy Bottom wilted

The Hypocrisy of Hope

The United States is being blackmailed into releasing Jonathan Pollard, the Jewish spy who handed over a treasure trove of Nation Security Secrets to Israel.

The backdrop to the blackmail is found in the  sordid bramble of the Interminable Peace Process Negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.  The matter may be distilled as follows. 

As part of the tit-for-tat and quid-pro-quos of agreeing to continue to talk about talking, Israel and Palestine have agreed to various "confidence building" measures, including an exchange of prisoners.  The only problem is that Palestine has no Israeli prisoners.  What to do?

Enter Herr Professor Rath's Clown Act, otherwise known as Uncle Sam the Even-Handed Peace Broker.  (Yes, this is truly the genre known as vaudeville noire.)  The U.S.A. is desperate to keep "the process" going.  Thus, in order to provide momentum to the wheel, the U.S. is considering ponying up a prisoner for Israel on behalf of Palestine.

Enter Pollard.

Israel has a policy of not-abandoning its own, although in the case of Jonathan Pollard, the policy has often had to take a back seat to other equally existential policies.  But Israel now senses an opportunity to make good on its problem to stand-by Pollard.

Result:  A campaign -- on the front page of the New York Times no less!! -- to "FREE POLLARD"

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !!!  cry the placards.  "FEE POLLARD"

Subtext:  A terrible injustice has been done!

Oh.... not the injustice of punishing a spy (that gets quietly dropped by the wayside). No!  The injustice of a life sentence!!

There ain't nuthin like taste of hypocrisy.

We agree that 29 years is "enough".  In fact, we think that 29 years is too much.  Barfo ascribes to the view, still held in the dwindling number of enlightened countries, that no sentence should exceed 20 years.

Why not?  Because in the Christian Era (which supposedly began 2000 years ago), justice goes beyond an eye-for-an- eye.

No man can live without hope; and a life without hope is death.  Equally as bad, a life without hope is meaningless and when one man is reduced to meaninglessness, all are.

The Twenty Year Rule holds that, at some point, even a reprobate must be given back his hope and a chance to realise his humanity in a meaningful way.

This rule flows from the same premise that underlies the Catholic rule against euthanasia and abortion in cases of rape.  The Church's preferential option is to bring forth hope even out of vileness. 

(The Church calls it a mandatory option - but It has no business imposing what must be seen and treated as a free and personal act of spiritual dedication.  The Church oversteps its bounds when it seeks to force people to mount the Cross.)

Back to Pollard.

Even granting that Pollard effected "immeasurable damage" on U.S. national security, he is a finite being with a finite life and should not be punished immeasurably. After 20 years he should be released.

So Barfo agrees that enough is enough.  But Barfo pukes at Israeli/Jewish hypocrisy in the matter.

The correlative to the Twenty Year Rule is the Statute of Limitations.  Both rest on a policy of forgetfulness.  Hope rests on forgetting.  At some point, the fixed and unchangeable past has to be relegated to the past and the future opened up to the freedom that gives substance to hope. 

And yet, demanding perfect and implacable "justice" for an "unspeakable" and "immeasurable" crime, Israel and Jewish organisations are scouring the world for feeble 92 year olds to haul them into court on the crime of Assisting a Holocaust, in some vague and tenuous manner of "involvement".

If Israel wants mercy, it should show mercy.

Supreme Court Rejects Panaceas in Favor Of Diseased Politics

Predictably the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court voted to remove limits on political campaign donations by individuals.  Just as predictably the false social democrats (aka "liberals") on Court hollered foul.

As with most things in Late Empire, the matter is inordinately intricate and fussy, littered with encrusted doctrines, labyrinthian statues,  obscure technical meanings and even more obtuse verbal short-hands. The opinion's synopsis runs a full six pages. In short, the matter is an impenetrable morass.

But the morass may be distilled. 

The conservatives, led by the Chief Justice argued that, no matter how desirable it may seem, the First Amendment does not allow government to "level the playing field" or to "level electoral opportunities" no matter how well intentioned. 

The liberals, led by Justice Breyer argued that just as free speech doesn't include the right to shout "Fire!" in a theatre, so too it does not include to drown out everyone else in your own noise.

Now this is a true conundrum because both positions are true.  Both positions also are false.

Sometimes shouting down and drowning out the opposition is the force for necessary change.  As for playing fields, the entire premise of demos-cracy is that the field is level.  

The majority's concern that levelling out the opportunities would lead to managing the issues debated effects a classic confusion between quality and quantity.  Restricting the amount of money that can be spent on an issue (as represented by a candidate or political organization) does not manage the interplay between issues, as such. It does not become government control over the content of speech only over its volume. 

It is here that Chief Justice Roberts tips his hand: he equates control over quantity (money expended) with control over quality (issues debated) because people with money tend to have certain issues peculiar to them which people without money do not. 

In plain words, Roberts discloses that the underlying issue is whether "respectable voices" (wealthy ones) should be brought down the level of "common" (poor) ones.  God Forbid! The Law in its majesty forbids neither rich nor poor from rising to the top.

But the liberals fare no better. Their solution is just another form of bussing.  It "equalizes" positions and debate within a specified locale, in this case, the "arena of public debate" without equalizing the social or economic reality outside the arena.

The majority opinion is crass but frank acknowledgement that we are a class-stratfied, plutocratic society.  The minority opinion seeks some palliative which disguises and softens that harsh fact.

The true solution is very simple.  Return to a 90% tax rate and/or put a cap on absolute aggregate income. Once society itself is "levelled" the political debate will be quieter and more robust at the same time. 

But neither faction on the Court wants to do that. God Forbid!

©Barfo 2014