Sunday, November 24, 2019

Designed to Distract, Divide, Yoke, and Disempower — Beware Charlatans’ Coloring of History


The Times of New York — a rag that contributed to the slaughter, maiming and birth defects of millions of Iraqis and millions more in U.S. aggression across the Middle East — has published and distributed to impressionable school children a pack of lies, twisted facts, and self-serving drivel drafted by sycophantic messengers. And it needs to be countered.

 

A

uthentic Repository
Valley City, North Dakota-born James M. “Jim” McPherson is an American Civil War historian, and is the George Henry Davis ‘86 Professor Emeritus of United States History at Princeton University. His Bachelor of Arts was taken at Gustavus Adolphus College (St. Peter, Minnesota) and his PhD at Johns Hopkins University. His major awards include the Pulitzer Prize, Lincoln Prize, and Pritzker Military Library Literature Award.

His major published works include The Struggle for Equality; Battle Cry of Freedom; Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution; For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War; Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam 1862; Fields of Fury: a history of the American Civil War for children; This Mighty Scourge.
Attributed
“There are all kinds of myths that a people has about itself, some positive, some negative, some healthy and some not healthy. I think that one job of the historian is to try to cut through some of those myths and get closer to some kind of reality. So that people can face their current situation realistically, rather than mythically. I guess that's my sense of what a historian ought to do”— James M. McPherson, An exchange with a Civil War historian
Cutting through Deliberate Misinformation
S
ober Well-informed thoughts Worthy of Pondering
Professor James McPherson in interview with World Socialist Web Site on “Project 1619”
The account is
  • Disturbingly narrow;
  • “Unbalanced, one-sided,” and
  • Lacking in “context and perspective on the complexity of slavery, which (any serious student of history knows) was clearly (and) obviously not an exclusively American institution.”
Question: “You are one of the leading historians of the Civil War and slavery” and “the Times did not approach you?”
Professor McPherson: No, they didn’t. (Emphasis added)
A

uthoritative sources uninvited
WSWS: We’ve spoken to a lot of historians, leading scholars in the fields of slavery, the Civil War, the American Revolution, and we’re finding that none of them were approached. Although the Times doesn’t list its sources, what do you think, in terms of scholarship, this 1619 Project is basing itself on?
Professor McPherson: I don’t really know. One of the people they approached is Kevin Kruse, who wrote about Atlanta. He’s a colleague, a professor here at Princeton. He doesn’t quite fit the mold of the other writers. But I don’t know who advised them, and what motivated them to choose the people they did choose.
Dubious DNA charge: Project 1619’s leader and lead writer anchors the tome on the thesis that “anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country” (America).
Professor McPherson: It does not make very much sense to me.[Emphasis added]
I suppose she’s using DNA metaphorically. She argues that racism is the central theme of American history. It is certainly part of the history. But again, I think it lacks context, lacks perspective on the entire course of slavery and how slavery began and how slavery in the United States was hardly unique. And racial convictions, or “anti-other” convictions, have been central to many societies.
“But the idea that racism is a permanent condition …, that’s just not true. And it also doesn’t account for the countervailing tendencies in American history as well— because opposition to slavery, and opposition to racism, has also been an important theme in American history.”
R

oots in America’s First Revolution
Abolitionists “viewed the Declaration of Independence as sacred scripture…
Professor McPherson: So did Lincoln. It was basic to the Republican Party. [emphasis added]
Professor McPherson: The American Revolution was first and foremost a war for independence. But there was also a more social dimension to the American Revolution, and a movement toward greater democracy, though they didn’t like to use that term. And it coincided with, and partially caused, the abolition of slavery in half of the states, the northern states, as well as a manumission movement among Virginia slaveholders.
It was not a revolution in the sense of the French Revolution, which followed it by a decade, or the Soviet Revolution of 1917, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t accomplish anything.
The accomplishments were more political than social and economic, but nevertheless there were some social and economic dimensions — progressive dimensions, I would say.
Out of the Revolution came an anti-slavery ethos, which never disappeared, even though the period from the 1790s to the 1830s was a quiet period in the antislavery movement—though there was the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
Nevertheless, the anti-slavery ethos that did come out of the Revolution was a subterranean movement that erupted in the 1830s and shaped American political discourse.
A

bolition, Abolitionists 1700s on
Professor McPherson:  From the Quakers in the 18th century, on through the abolitionists in the antebellum, to the radical Republicans in the Civil War and Reconstruction, to the NAACP which was an interracial organization founded in 1909, down through the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s — there have been a lot of whites who have fought against slavery and racial discrimination, and against racism. This has been true “almost from the beginning of American history.” And this is what is “missing from this [Project 1619] perspective.”
Slaveholders, Non-slaveholders
Professor McPherson: In the parts of the South where slavery was a minimal factor—in the Appalachian Mountain chain; for example in western Virginia and in eastern Tennessee where there are very few slaves and very few slaveholders, a lot of the whites did not want to fight for the Confederacy, to risk their lives for what they saw as a slaveholders’ war.
There were “strong currents of unionism in those parts of the South. In fact, West Virginia becomes a union state—one-third of the state of Virginia—in the Civil War.
A

 Counterrevolution
Professor McPherson on “counterrevolution of 1861”: The slaveholders saw the triumph of the Republicans in 1860 as a potential revolution that would abolish slavery. That’s how the Republicans got votes in 1860. They saw Abraham Lincoln and his Republican Party as just as bad as the abolitionists.
[Throughout the 1850s and through their domination of the Democratic Party …, slaveholders in the United States controlled the government. … In fact, the principal reason for secession in 1861 was their loss of control of the United States government, for the first time ever.]

“In order to preempt (the) revolution that would have overthrown slavery in the South, they (slaveholders) undertook … a ‘preemptive counterrevolution,’ which was secession.
“But secession, ironically, brought on the very revolution that it attempted to preempt, through the war: the abolition of slavery.”

T

he War
Professor McPherson: “while the official motivation was preservation of the Union; that increasingly became merged with the destruction of slavery, which had launched the attack on the flag in the first place. (You cannot) really separate those two motives.
While the emphasis originally was on fighting for the Union, fighting for the United States, fighting to defend the flag, increasingly that became bound up with a conviction that the only way the North was going to win the war, preserve the Union, and prevent further, future rebellions against the Union, was to destroy slavery, which had brought the war on in the first place.
Professor McPherson: The Civil War accomplished three things.
  • First, it preserved the United States as one nation.
  • Second, it abolished the institution of slavery. Those two were, in effect, permanent achievements. The United States is still a single nation. Slavery doesn’t exist anymore.
  • Third …, the Civil War accomplished “a potential, and partial, transformation, in the status of the freed slaves, who with the 14th and 15th amendments achieved, on paper at least, civil and political equality.
…The struggle ever since 1870, when the 15th amendment was ratified, has been how to transform this achievement on paper into real achievement in the society.”

L

incoln and Emancipation
Professor McPherson: Lincoln became increasingly convinced, as many of the Union soldiers did, that the Union could not be preserved if that disturbing factor—slavery—remained.
By the summer of 1862 Lincoln had become convinced … that he could never achieve his primary goal—the preservation of the Union—without getting rid of slavery. And this was the first step toward doing that.
“He had already drafted the Emancipation Proclamation, and he was preparing the way for it. …”
In what turned out to be Lincoln’s final speech, “he came out in favor of qualified suffrage for freed slaves, those who could pass a literacy test and those who were veterans of the Union army.”
“

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”
attributed to
“Father of the Constitution” (for his critical role in drafting and promotion the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights)
Co-author of “The Federalist Papers”
Co-founder of the Democratic-Republican Party
Fifth United States Secretary of State (1801-1809)
Fourth President of the United States
James Madison Jr.
(Virginia Democratic-Republican, 1809–1817)



Sources

Wikipedia
James M. McPherson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._McPherson

World Socialist Web Site “Opposition to slavery has also been an important theme in American history”: An interview with historian James McPherson on the New York Times’ 1619 Project
By Tom Mackaman November 14, 2019: The World Socialist Web Site spoke with James McPherson, professor emeritus of history at Princeton University, on the New York Times’ 1619 Project. McPherson is the author of dozens of books and articles, including the Pulitzer Prize-winning Battle Cry of Freedom, widely regarded as the authoritative account of the Civil War. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html

James Madison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison
Brainy Quote https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/james_madison_135446




Insight Beyond Today’s News, CLB - © All Rights Reserved




Friday, November 22, 2019

High Crimes and Misdemeanors Club


The Entrenched devoid of Moral Standing

Americans lacking principle, distracted constantly from reflective thought, enthralled with one or another personality, political party or prejudice may well deny this. Nevertheless an important truth holds:
The USA’s (entrenched politicians’) “legalized” pay-to-play elections, overt and covert PAC / Super PAC political campaign financing, nepotistic and interminable office terms, think-tank / private / public revolving-door, lobbying system of governance have built and sustained a mound of rot. And this decades-long portrait in governance offers a textbook demonstration of bribery and related crimes. Some just take criminality further than others.
T

he current billionaire buyer of executive office enthusiastically joined Federal Washington’s criminal (status quo) club.

In his usual over-the-top showman’s temperament, instead of hiding (“lipsticking”) his membership, he essentially (figuratively) bought a highway billboard and boldly plastered (or ordered his immigrant employees to plaster) on it his Club Criminal Card.

This display effectively called the hand of Washington’s old-line criminal club members, exposing their lack of moral standing to call foul.

All are “members in ‘good’ standing” of the high “legalized” crimes and misdemeanors club. And one of their favorite crimes is extortion and/or bribery.



T

he new boys (and girls) on the block may be publicly strutting, calling to the rafters their high crimes; but the legalization and unchecked practice of graft and far-reaching high crimes and misdemeanors did not begin with the newest officials and partners in public office.

Capitol Hill, White House
Legislative, Executive, Judiciary officials
Create, Sustain Crime Club 
Endemic and Evident in Executive, Legislative, Judicial offices’ policy, legislation, resolutions, executive orders, foreign relations, staffing, appointments, court rulings
BRIBE / Bribery:
“Money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust”; “something that serves to induce or influence”
Think the whole of Federal Washington and individual states and municipalities
EXTORT / Extortion:
“To obtain something by pressure or intimidation”
Think United States inordinate power and exercise of bullying, abuse of power against nearly 200 member states of the United Nations
PAYOLA / pay to play (paying-piper calls tune / taker plays tune):
“Undercover or indirect payment” for a “favor”
Think the whole of Federal Washington and individual states and municipalities
Think code speak and winks and nods among public officials and partners
QUID PRO QUO
“Something for something”; “something given or received for something else.”
Think the whole of Federal Washington and individual states and municipalities.
C

orruption by any name is still corruption. Crime by any name, committed by any person or group is still crime. And while U.S. officials and friends might claim to be pressuring other states and nations to end their crimes and their corruption — what you can believe is this. 

Americans have written the books, given the lectures; and brazenly, repeatedly and with impunity demonstrated that which, by any objective standard, can only be termed unethical, unconscionable, criminal corruption.


Insight Beyond Today’s News, CLB - © All Rights Reserved



Thursday, November 21, 2019

Impeachment Inquiry: Performing Ideologues and sycophantic Propagandists, Partisans and Personalities


Old-liners Protecting Private Interests

Filling the Minds of
Poorly Educated,
Intellectually Lazy Americans with
Lies,
Half truths,
Misrepresentations of Russia and USA

Setting some of the Record Straight

T
here is no greater Global  interventionist than the USA. 

  • There is no greater regime changer in the world than the USA. 
  • There is no greater stockpiller of bombs, no greater bomber of nations and peoples than the USA. 
  • There is no greater arsenal of nuclear bombs, not greater seller of and trader in lethal weapons and promoters of world wars and conflict than the USA. 
  • There is no greater peddler of propaganda than the USA. 
  • There is no greater executor of global (including domestic) surveillance than the USA.
There is not greater threat to the world than our country, The United States of America, under entrenched and inept leadership.

In any just and truly merit-based system, the British woman known as Fiona Hill would never have been given a high level position in the U.S. government or in the U.S. foreign relations domain.
She is British (we fought a revolution against these people) born, bred and educated (she did not come her as an infant). And she is an old-line anti-Russia (anti-Putin) sycophantic propagandist who should never have been given a position of advisor or officer to any American about any issue bearing on domestic or foreign affairs.
This is an especially critical issue — the issue of incompetents, propagandists and sycophants kowtowing, ingratiating themselves, to one or another personality or ideology inside Washington — at a time when the greatest and most compelling global matters confronting the world are  international relations and genuine and long-lasting cession of hostilities; instead of deepening hostilities and repeating Cold War and past wars, old-line aggression.

T
he United States with other nations (particularly past empires, world war hawks and colonizers, e.g., the USA, the Russian Federation or former USSR, Britain, France) should be leading forward, leading critically important 21st century change:

  • ending Western and Eastern aggression
  • leading diplomatic verbal engagement
  • talking resolutions
  • principled (not partisan) rapprochement between and among nations; recommitting to nuclear disarmament;
  • ending landmine use and clearing landmines of past conflicts;
  • drafting and ratifying peace treaties (and sharing instead of plundering resources, aiding in basic infrastructures such as running water and energy and mending entities and relations destroyed by war and conflict).
Instead of persisting in the old mold of aggression and propaganda and provocation; conflict in the service of empire, an elite establishment, special interests including think tank, NGO and weapons industrial interests — 

  • the way forward must be characterized by peaceful measures demonstratively engaged in mending relations and improving conditions across cultures and languages, within, among and between nations and peoples of the East (Eastern Asia and Eastern Europe including Russia), the Near East (Middle East, North and Eastern Africa), the South (Americas, Australia New Zealand, including sub-Saharan Africa), the North (Russia, Canada, Greenland), and the West (Europe, USA, Central and Caribbean Americas).

W
ho is Dr. Fiona Hill?
Harvard University gave Fiona Hill a place in the early1990s and, with virtually nothing to offer except Ivy League “connections,” the United States, just over a decade later, granted her a citizenship card. 

She took a degree at Harvard and Harvard gave her a research job at its JFK School of Government (where even drug abusers get entry). And with connections still in hand and a newly minted citizenship card, Fiona Hill landed a position (2006-2009) focused on “Russia and Eurasia” on the U.S. National Intelligence Council. 

And in less than a decade, she hopped up to the White House’s National Security Council staff as “Deputy Assistant to the U.S. President and Senior Director for European and Russian.”

Between times, Hill’s connections connected her with the think tank Brooking Institution and they published a couple of her books, which are not considered university faculty scholarship but would fall into a category of anti Russia / anti-Putin propaganda. And with her penchant or malleability for propaganda, the British lady took (or was given) membership in the controversial foreign-country- meddling Council on Foreign Relations and Eurasia foundation.

F
iona Hill’s Old-line interventionist memberships
CFR, ER 

The post-World War I era neoconservative, neoliberal-leaning Council on Foreign Relations has included among its 4,900 members: senior politicians, dozens of U.S. secretaries of state, Central Intelligence Directors, bankers, lawyers, professors and senior media figures.
Because of the number of high-ranking government officials (along with world business leaders and prominent media figures) in its membership and the large number of aspects of American foreign policy that its members have been involved with, the CFR has come under scrutiny concerning matters of “sovereignty” and “undue influence on US foreign policy.…”

The Eurasia Foundation is a public-private United States Agency for International Development (USAID)-supported “privately managed grant-making, program implementing, private-enterprise advancing, public policy/administration promoting organization — that is a meddler attempting to influence internal affairs of “former Soviet Union” countries: “Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.”
Fiona Hill’s Brookings Institution

Among the Ivory-towered Washington, D.C., think tanks is post-World War I era Brookings Institution, sporting a treasure chest of “nearly half-a-billion (with a B) dollars in assets and deep ties to political leaders.”

Though Brookings bills itself as a group (a) engaged in “in-depth research” leading to “new ideas for solving problems facing society at local, national and global levels”; (b) valuing “the independence of its scholars” and (c) priding itself on “open-minded” inquiry — independent reporting has found that Brookings is instead “swayed by ‘open-wallet’ inquiry.”

Brookings’s massive collection of money, Adam Andrzejewski reported in 2017, is not “just dollars provided by private donors”; they “are (U.S.) tax dollars funding partisan advocacy projects and papers.”

One former fellow at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar was quoted saying “If a member of Congress is using the Brookings reports, they should be aware that they are not getting the full story.” This scholar recalled his employment interview with Brookings in which he was told “he could not take positions critical of the Qatari government in papers.” Reports produced by Brookings and peddled to the U.S. Congress and Executive leaders “‘may not (convey) … a false story; … (but) they are not the full story.”

Public funding shows that “Brookings is less of a think tank and more of a public affairs shop for establishment-left donors and allied government officials; and while what they are doing is “not illegal under current federal law…, the question is whether it’s ethical to secretly coerce taxpayers into supporting partisan causes.”

S
ome of Andrzejewski’s findings

2008-2014 “Brookings amassed from 50 government agencies (including the Obama Administration’s Office of the President) nearly $20 million in contracts and grants. Brookings’ assets in Fiscal Year 2014: $496 million (IRS990, FY2014)

2008 – 2017
  • Billed $1.8 million to the Agency for International Development (USAID) in taxpayer-funded grants to provide generic ‘humanitarian assistance’
  • 2016: Brookings published a white paper funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark touting the veracity of the USAID public/private partnerships. But, Brookings paper did not disclose its conflict-of-interest -- USAID direct funding of the organization during the period covered by the study.
  • $1.2 million in grants (2008-2018) flowing from the National Science Foundation into the Brookings vertical “Brookings Papers On Economic Activity” – an academic journal published twice a year on a range of macroeconomic topics impacting public policy debates.
  • $719,102 in grants (2009-2011) from the Department of Energy flowed to Brookings for their “climate and energy economic policy research.” This Brookings project advocates a domestic cap-and-trade tax and thanks California for taxing carbon.
  • $25,000 in National Endowment of the Arts grants (2013) funded Brookings for “promotion of the arts.” Presto! Brookings published research on the Arts and Economic Development. If taxpayers want a copy of the report, Brookings sells it for $30.99.




Sources
Forbes Media “Brookings Institution — The Progressive Jukebox Funded By U.S. Taxpayers” Adam Andrzejewski, senior contributor June 2, 2017
Adam Andrzejewski (say: And-G-F-Ski) is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of OpenTheBooks.com – a database containing 3.5 billion captured spending transactions from federal, state and local governments across America.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2017/06/02/brookings-institution-the-progressive-jukebox-funded-by-u-s-taxpayers/#3a828d035e53

Wikipedia
Council on Foreign Relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations
Eurasia Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia_Foundation

Brookings Institution: “INDEPENDENCE & INTEGRITY POLICIES”
“The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit organization devoted to independent, in-depth research that leads to pragmatic and innovative ideas on how to solve problems facing society. Brookings’s commitment to institutional independence is rooted in the individual independence of its scholars. Therefore, the Institution does not take positions on issues.” https://www.brookings.edu/about-us/

Today’s Impeachment Inquiry News
Business Insider “LIVE: Former NSC official Fiona Hill told EU ambassador Gordon Sondland, ‘I think this is all going to blow up’” Sonam Sheth, John Haltiwanger and Grace Panetta’
  • “House investigators leading the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump are hearing testimony from Fiona Hill and David Holmes on Thursday.
  • “Hill, the former top Russia adviser on the National Security Council, offered a scathing picture of shadowy efforts to urge Ukraine to investigate Trump's political rivals.
  • “Holmes is a top staffer at the US Embassy in Ukraine and worked closely with Marie Yovanovitch while she was serving as the US ambassador to Ukraine.
  • “Hill and Holmes said they were ‘shocked,’ ‘saddened,’ and ‘disappointed’ after they read a summary of Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump repeatedly pressured Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and a conspiracy theory suggesting Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.
  • “They also forcefully defended Yovanovitch’s record and said Trump's and Rudy Giuliani’s ‘smear campaign’ against her was ‘shameful.’
 https://www.businessinsider.com/impeachment-hearing-updates-fiona-hill-testimony-2019-11
 


Insight Beyond Today’s News, CLB - © All Rights Reserved


 


Long Way from Madison—Time to Rethink, Revise

Qualifications Standards Enforcement  Prerequisites for Public Office We are a long way—carelessly and arrogantly distanced— from Madison, ...