Too few know much of anything

BY: Martin Love

The one possibly good outcome of any Biden win in November is that, in the U.S., there are millions of people on the left side of the political spectrum so fed up with the status quo that they may be successful pushing Biden to the left to support some of their hopes for change on issues like universal healthcare with the expansion of Medicare, or less support for insidious foreign policies that are helping bankrupt the country morally and financially.

NOURNEWS/NORTH CAROLINA - Trump versus Bolton. Biden versus Trump. Really, everyone versus someone somewhere in the disintegrating USA, which some claim is even facing a “civil war” now. The political and general domestic chaos is, well, so chaotic that it’s virtually impossible to get a grip on who is saying anything worth hearing. But the elites appear to be losing control. This latter is key.

Take Trump, for example, recently saying he allegedly has grown cold to Juan Guaido, the anointed alleged successor to Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela if by chance Maduro loses his grip. Trump has skirted wanting talks with Maduro while Guaido remains an unpopular, ineffective dweeb, and everyone at bottom knows it, but just because Trump MAY reject Guaido, Biden is claiming Trump has lost his marbles, reiterating support for the dweeb. Which just underscores the fact that Biden, as a so-called “Deep State” supporter, MAY not be any better, and perhaps worse, as a U.S President.

The one possibly good outcome of any Biden win in November is that, in the U.S., there are millions of people on the left side of the political spectrum so fed up with the status quo that they may be successful pushing Biden to the left to support some of their hopes for change on issues like universal healthcare with the expansion of Medicare, or less support for insidious foreign policies that are helping bankrupt the country morally and financially.

The Trump Administration also seems to be angling towards talks with Iran, apparently over prisoner exchanges? But one can suspect there might be more to this latter: maybe it’s all just sheer frustration In Washington over what amounts to a complete stalemated standoff between the U.S. and Iran, and especially now when Trump and gang failed to frighten Iran off from sending fuel and oil field gear to Venezuela on a raft of ships that were not challenged on the seas by the U.S. navy. Not a single foreign policy initiative against those countries targeted as “enemies” (of U.S. imperialism really) by Trump has been successful.

So many cross currents, or rather just the chaos, while Trump flopped at a half empty stadium of racist Trump zealots last weekend in Tulsa in Oklahoma where he spent an entire nine minutes trying to explain why he appeared feeble (like some multiple sclerosis victim off his meds) walking down an inclined ramp after his earlier address, itself a staged event solely for Trump, at a West Point graduation ceremony. Trump is showing what he cares about more than anything else, and it ain’t good governance: it’s getting reelected because this at least shields him for four more years from potential legal action with exposures of law breaking and corruption now and in his past.

But does Trump also want to get reelected to follow through on some vague concepts he has about freeing the U.S. from his “Deep State” enemies who are mostly all about just getting Trump out office? Trump did after all campaign in 2016 for what most Americans want: especially a reduction of foreign military actions and entanglements, even though he has done almost nothing about it and often made things just worse, especially with his efforts to destroy the JCPOA and his failure to throttle Israeli ambitions.

For many what’s most discouraging is that no one can fathom what direction the U.S. may take, or then plan accordingly, since the chaos extends to those who create policy in Washington. For example, look at the so-called “Caesar Act” sanctions which in particular now are horribly harmful to both Syria and Lebanon, and can be seen as spawned from spiteful envy because Assad’s Syria, where Assad is quite popular, has almost “won” the wars against Western and Saudi backed terrorists and brought some relative calm to his country. These recent sanctions are based on revulsion over the claimed deaths of many Syrians civilians by Assad’s army and the Russians in these battles, and yet the carnage has primarily been meted out by the terrorists, including ISIS, who have used Syrian civilians as human shields in the areas they held in besieged Syria.

The only thing that could possibly justify the “Caesar Act” sanctions is if Assad were despised by Syrians, and he’s just not, given the most reliable reports anywhere and these by Western journalists in Syria namely Vanessa Beeley and Eva Karene Bartlett, one a Brit and the other a Canadian. Who does the U.S. think is going to “rule” Syria in the absence of Assad? Are they not aware that terrorists would? Maybe the U.S. in its slavish support of the Zionists imagines Israel might control Syria through proxies? This must be the plan. Israeli control. The U.S. has not revealed ANYONE who looks remotely responsible and decent to manage Syria as an alternative to Assad, and meanwhile Trump is making it virtually impossible for Syria to rebuild. It’s time for Russia and China to help Syria bigtime, even help feed Syrians whose wheat fields beyond the Euphrates have been set afire by Trump or Kurds or ISIS remnants in further acts of stark cruelty.

"Empires" come and go, often with violence, but also with the thought that it may not have to be so -- that "Empires" of a kind can prevail indefinitely if they would just, given their vast relative wealth, somehow transform themselves and their orientations to the rest of the world, the "other".. The transformation is one essentially of becoming generous and benevolent and somewhat laissez faire with regard to potential challengers. Let these upstarts, if they exist, make the same mistakes the US has and ultimately fall apart, as the US may be. But what if leaders were so far sighted and enlightened to realize that if they adopted "benevolence" or something like it across the board that they might possibly assure their continued relevance and even power...except that the "power" would be expressed and maintained and derived from good and generous deeds and not the desire for control and military and economic advantage.
Setting a good example can be recognized and appreciated and often adopted by others who understand its long-term impacts. The positive result is natural rather than forced, where the use force and threat only seed future destruction. Back immediately after WW2 the U.S. was seen, even it was not exactly true because the control factor remained paramount, as a benevolent hegemony. The Marshall Plan comes to mind, for example. The resurrection of European prosperity after the war. But all such notions began to fall apart big time with the senseless war on Vietnam, and then other stupid US moves like Iraq, now Syria, Ukraine, and hostility to Iran, etc. Such that now especially in places like the Mideast the US has the worst of major allies like Saudi and Israel, neither of which set any kind of decent example for tolerance, democracy and serious good will. Perhaps human nature so often inclined to ignorance and greed is the core problem worldwide. Anyway, believe it or not, a majority of Americans are saddened by the country being on the downslope and continuing to elect the wrong people with counter-productive outlooks and policies.