On the denial of logic and history, and other thoughts

This is an essay I wrote a while ago. I wrote it quick, as always. There are plenty of loose ends, but I will defend the underlying logic. I welcome any and all objections, but frame your response in a way to which I can myself intelligently respond is all that I ask.

On the denial of logic and history, and other thoughts
This is something that's been banging around in my head for a bit, and I am sure that the presentation here will not be a finished article or 100% coherent, but here goes it.

I am from the US, but anyone from the US doesn't understand foreign policy until they go abroad. Maybe this goes for everywhere, but the US is more isolated than most places.

There is this one thing. People too readily dismiss the voluminous war crimes of the US. I don't mean Americans, some do, many Americans are very critical of US foreign policy. I am referring to the apologists of the US, who are not defined by nationality and include many non-Americans.

You know what they say? They usually say that the big fish eat the little fish. In other words, it is the laws of nature which determine the status quot. Yes the US is guilty of egregious acts, but it is only because it is natural for them to commit such acts.

I reject this perspective wholesale.

In my opinion, if you insist on this sort of definition, you can just as well justify the Nazi holocaust against the Jews on the same bases. Or any genocide. The Turks against the Armenians. The Armenian massacre of Azerbaijani in Khojaly (not that they were of equal scale, but Khojaly was egregious to the extreme). You name it.

The irony, however, is that such incidences are frequently brought up, not as a result of human nature, but as uncivilized acts. In essence, they are looked upon as exceptions to the general tendencies of human civilization. It is for this reason that I brought up the Nazi holocaust against the Jews (and others) firstly, because this is the alpha-example in this respect. These things are not regarded as products of human nature, they are regarded as abominations.

My answer to this is that we cannot have it both ways. They were indeed, of course, utter abominations.

And so is the conduct of the US government with regards to its foreign policy and its wars of aggression.

This is not about equivalences, in fact the entire point is that equivalences are nonsensical. It is the principle of equivalence which is the underlying factor in the "human nature" argument with respect to the conduct of certain states (i.e. the contemporary US). On this account, what I am referring to is the polar opposite of the principle of equivalence, and it is this which I find to be the only logical basis for interpreting the actions of states.

There are of course perceived interests. I am not a pacifist.

However, when it comes to the question of why the wars are, I find no basis in logic, aside from the inhumane actions of oligarchs.

In my opinion, the wars are a product of the degenerate and corrupt status of the US and the UK (though especially the US, but also extending to other countries beyond the UK, as well).

Nothing is really so new here.

But change will come, and most of us will live to see it. The US will no longer be supreme 20 years from this day. As difficult of a pill it is for some to swallow, China will be the next super power. Some may not like this, but it is the way the cards will fall. My suggestion is that if you don't like it, fine, but get over it.
Jon Vote

Dec 18 (5 days ago)

to me

Yo – I think my phone died in the middle. Anyway – yeah – except I think the Nazis were different in that extermination of the Jews didn’t really make sense from an economic point of view as far as I can tell. In fact it was a huge and expensive effort. If the US invades Iraq and steels the oil, it’s easy to see why this is in a corporation’s interest. I’m not seeing it with the extermination of the Jews – or any extermination for the most part. I think one exception is the extermination of the Native Americans in the US. But this was essentially an invasion. There were not deep heated religious or fanatical overtones for the most part. The Indians had land that the whites wanted and they took it. The fact that they dehumanized them in the process is SOP. In the case of the Jews, I think that Hitler had an irrational hatred that drove him more than any economic consideration.



This isn’t to negate your premise, but I’m not sure the holocaust is a good example of corporate greed fueling a conflict in which thousands or millions die or of American exceptionalism. I think there are some similarities but I don’t think corporate aggression is based on much more than pure greed.

there's a few things I would suggest you read into. Primarily I suggest you relearn the 19th century holistically. You can't understand the whys of the 20th without the 19th in foreign affairs and your regard for the Native is a sickeningly contemporary one. No offense, all I'm saying is make sure you believe the afore mentioned warring and outlook on natives. I'd just like to point out; It was not the US(or earlier settlers) who tortured, nor was it the US who took no prisoners ( including women, children, elderly, and handicapped) . If you do re-read and educate and can justify a counter to those very simply points then you do honestly believe what you've said. However I do find most often when someone demonizes the removal of natives from US land they know little of why they were moved, and are quite happy to base it on hate, and racism. The US never did a damn thing that costs nation budget a significant amount just out of hate, nor have out of righteous moral. We always move significant money to make significant money. you'll find not even slavery was started nor ended simply over race and hate. everything is always about money here, and always has been.

How is the US holistically to blame for being the hand of capitalism? You mention all the evil and negate the good. You even go as far as mentioning China, which is meant to be a fright I suppose, but really what Chinese industry does not rely 100% on US consumerism? Anyway, besides that.....That's not talk about how the US made China capitalistic, or how much that has improved the average Chinese' living conditions. Taking China from a broke ass, piss-poor, behind in every technology nation to the second largest GDP in the world is a good thing. I feel made this good was omitted due to the fact that China effects so many individual people, and alone could very well prove the US does far more good then evil. I don't mean to call you a propagandist, but that is what you've done. You article is one side, and I feel unfair.



My last point is simply inventions. Invention is man's savior, unlike the mysticals and mights of religion invention is real, and it saves. Capitalism and invention go hand-in-hand. This is why every great inventor from the 1800s came to the US or was born in the US. Today's world is far more capitalistic so the journey is not needed, however what nation proved capitalism's strength? who brought us this age of technological break through? Why does the industrial revolution run to the US as soon as they can? Could it possibly be the Kingdoms are crap, communism is crap, and socialism only works for stagnant nations? to simplify, This is the land of opportunity. Nations today may have more opportunity then they used to, but that is because the US proved if you simply give your people the ability to work, create, and sell. They will. For every argument behind closed doors there is a US example of the capitalistic approach. This means new, and more freedoms most of the time.


I've been to Germany, The Netherlands, Russia, and France. All business trips except Germany was medical. I can't speak from a simple living stand point, but work wise. We murder, its reflective in our GDP. I would never open any company in any of those nations. I wholesale to established companies instead.

Ironically, before I traveled abroad I thought very much like you do now. It had the opposite effect on me. I expected more out of Europe in general. Not to be too mean to our euro friends, but it's shitty. The buildings are dilapidated and falling apart....it's like no one really knows trades there...It dirty everywhere, like they don't know how to use some fucking soap and water on a table after a customer leaves and such. It's inconvenient everywhere( you can tell they're older then cars). Ignorance in not a US phenomenon. People generally don't know shit outside of their tiny shit hole. The cars and streets look like micro-machine toys. The info-tech infrastructure is nothing short of a fucking lie. Every time I asked for something extra( ice, napkins, towel etc) I got attitude. Every time I gave attitude I got a little bitch what who backs down quickly and quietly. My impression of europe, from the months I've spent there, is it's Falling apart, dirty, and filled with stupid....no bones about it stupid...crybabies.


summary; your history knowledge of the 1800s sounds kinda like you've not re-read it since freshman college yearsish, no offense, definitely don't mean that in an immature or lack on intellect way, but a common/cliche response kind of way. And capitalism is more good then bad. Fuck the samurai and bring on asimo. yay America.

^There are 45 countries in Europe and all of them are very different from each other. You should visit Scandinavia

marchegiano wrote:there's a few things I would suggest you read into. Primarily I suggest you relearn the 19th century holistically. You can't understand the whys of the 20th without the 19th in foreign affairs and your regard for the Native is a sickeningly contemporary one. No offense, all I'm saying is make sure you believe the afore mentioned warring and outlook on natives. I'd just like to point out; It was not the US(or earlier settlers) who tortured, nor was it the US who took no prisoners ( including women, children, elderly, and handicapped) . If you do re-read and educate and can justify a counter to those very simply points then you do honestly believe what you've said. However I do find most often when someone demonizes the removal of natives from US land they know little of why they were moved, and are quite happy to base it on hate, and racism. The US never did a damn thing that costs nation budget a significant amount just out of hate, nor have out of righteous moral. We always move significant money to make significant money. you'll find not even slavery was started nor ended simply over race and hate. everything is always about money here, and always has been.

How is the US holistically to blame for being the hand of capitalism? You mention all the evil and negate the good. You even go as far as mentioning China, which is meant to be a fright I suppose, but really what Chinese industry does not rely 100% on US consumerism? Anyway, besides that.....That's not talk about how the US made China capitalistic, or how much that has improved the average Chinese' living conditions. Taking China from a broke ass, piss-poor, behind in every technology nation to the second largest GDP in the world is a good thing. I feel made this good was omitted due to the fact that China effects so many individual people, and alone could very well prove the US does far more good then evil. I don't mean to call you a propagandist, but that is what you've done. You article is one side, and I feel unfair.



My last point is simply inventions. Invention is man's savior, unlike the mysticals and mights of religion invention is real, and it saves. Capitalism and invention go hand-in-hand. This is why every great inventor from the 1800s came to the US or was born in the US. Today's world is far more capitalistic so the journey is not needed, however what nation proved capitalism's strength? who brought us this age of technological break through? Why does the industrial revolution run to the US as soon as they can? Could it possibly be the Kingdoms are crap, communism is crap, and socialism only works for stagnant nations? to simplify, This is the land of opportunity. Nations today may have more opportunity then they used to, but that is because the US proved if you simply give your people the ability to work, create, and sell. They will. For every argument behind closed doors there is a US example of the capitalistic approach. This means new, and more freedoms most of the time.


I've been to Germany, The Netherlands, Russia, and France. All business trips except Germany was medical. I can't speak from a simple living stand point, but work wise. We murder, its reflective in our GDP. I would never open any company in any of those nations. I wholesale to established companies instead.

Ironically, before I traveled abroad I thought very much like you do now. It had the opposite effect on me. I expected more out of Europe in general. Not to be too mean to our euro friends, but it's shitty. The buildings are dilapidated and falling apart....it's like no one really knows trades there...It dirty everywhere, like they don't know how to use some fucking soap and water on a table after a customer leaves and such. It's inconvenient everywhere( you can tell they're older then cars). Ignorance in not a US phenomenon. People generally don't know shit outside of their tiny shit hole. The cars and streets look like micro-machine toys. The info-tech infrastructure is nothing short of a fucking lie. Every time I asked for something extra( ice, napkins, towel etc) I got attitude. Every time I gave attitude I got a little bitch what who backs down quickly and quietly. My impression of europe, from the months I've spent there, is it's Falling apart, dirty, and filled with stupid....no bones about it stupid...crybabies.


summary; your history knowledge of the 1800s sounds kinda like you've not re-read it since freshman college yearsish, no offense, definitely don't mean that in an immature or lack on intellect way, but a common/cliche response kind of way. And capitalism is more good then bad. Fuck the samurai and bring on asimo. yay America.

I think that you are missing my points, and that it is quite pretentious of you to presume that I lack knowledge of 19th century history, when I don't even get into it. You fail to recognize the logical basis that I present. It isn't your fault completely, because it is not all worked out in a clear manner, but you are making a lot of assumptions from the loose ends which simply don't apply. Most of your criticisms are basically irrelevancies. I'm not really interested in responding to the mainstream criticisms you present, because they are just the same old tired stuff.