Today’s Moon of Alabama article is about the genuine nature of just passed UNSC Resolution 2728 on the Gaza Genocide and the fact that it’s binding, a fact the Outlaw US Empire is trying mightily to say it isn’t. Readers are invited to use the link to read the excellent article that cites many sources about the veracity of the UNSCR’s being binding—indeed, all of them, many of which have been ignored, like those related to the Minsk Two agreements. In my comment that follows is a plea to all other writers to adopt my descriptor of the USA or devise something similar so the vital facts of what such a descriptor means can get circulated and hopefully acted upon.
Never mind 1945 When wasn't the USA an outlaw Empire?
From Day One it was breaking treaties and cheating. It didn't compensate the "Tories" as promised for their losses. And it cheated the Haudenshaunee of their lands. It consistently refused to apply international law in its dealings with its neighbours and the Latin Americans.
Part of the reason for this impunity is its geographical isolation- European Powers had one another to deal with and a rough balance tended to ensure a minimal standard of behaviour. There was nothing close to that in America- the US dominated the continent, especially after the Haitians rid them of France, the most serious of their putative rivals (Haiti is still suffering for doing them that favour). And made up the rules, which they broke whenever they chose, as they went along.
They still do, because they still can. But impunity is eroding: since 2001 the writing has been on the wall. It is just a matter of time : a long life of crime is catching up with the Outlaw.
Bravo. I always liked it. "Outlaw US Empire" is an absolutely spot-on denomination. And, like its close relative, the Brits, the Yanks, and fellow anglos, have always thrived in stunning hypocrisy. We have therefore altered our old motto thusly: "Hypocrisy is the Oxygen of the Outlaw US Empire". It runs right under our logo. https://www.greanvillepost.com
I think that since 1945 the specter of a world ruled by worker's and their organizations became very clear. The victory of the USSR over fascism marked the beginning of the end of capitalism and the need to become and outlaw empire to survive.
A collection facts does not make a good essay. For it to be compelling, it has to grip the reader by their b**** and seduce them into following a narration. Dry historical writing may lure by the dramatic events that are being followed, history's actors be painted in lively colors, or simply the author's prose makes it a striking read with powerful observations, witty humour, or depth of human decency shining through.
I'm certain you can do it. The essential step is indeed having the blueprint, and I have learned not to start writing before I feel clear about this. It's indeed a feeling for me, and I gather it usually well on longer walks, and generally in a process of biting into a topic and letting go of it again.
You have a substack to which you contribute regularly. Perhaps try to conceive of a 10-part article series, with each article covering one key point. For example, in your comment today you mentioned that the US went Outlaw starting in October 1945 with the creation of the United Nations. You didn't explain why, no doubt to keep the comment short, but it seems like a key point. Perhaps one article on just that October 1945 situation.
Then you mentioned how Presidents should all be impeached. Another article on that or just one one President's actions exemplifying why that is so.
I am sure you can come up with many more hard-hitting single topic subjects like that.
You also might loosely consider structuring them along basic lines of past, present and future in the sense that you begin with foundational issues (like October 1945, though perhaps 1913 or even 1787 Constitutional Convention might be better), travel through various key issues and examples, and end with at least one piece providing some prescriptions for remedy.
Ideally, if you can identify what ails the republic you can find the remedy implied therein, so that's another type of internal structure.
Ever since reading your comments at MoA a couple of years ago I have felt that you have a valuable voice to contribute with something to say. The fact that you made this post today tells you all you need to know about whether or not to go forward: it's time. But write how you are used to at this point, in short, well-considered pieces. So longer than typical MoA comments, but not chapters which each take a couple of weeks to compose. You can always flesh any given chapter out with full references and footnotes later after the skeleton articles have presented the basic body.
And you write excellent prose, so don't let the heavy subject matter prevent you from having fun with your luscious sentences and fulsome paragraphs!
I think this is an important reminder that “the USA immediately began violating the UN Charter as soon as it came into legal force in October 1945”; *some* of us know that. What really fascinates me is how it is becoming open. It like they do not even try to pretend to keep those ‘rules based orders’. Somehow we do not even hear much about them.
I was only kidding. But when you do have more time, I hope you flesh out your idea in more depth and detail. Meanwhile, I highly recommend this extensive critique of Todd's latest book 'The Defeat of the West' by E. Michael Jones in Unz: https://www.unz.com/ejones/cherchez-le-juif-satanism-as-the-hidden-grammar-of-america/ He traces much of what ails Western society going through Catholic, Protestant, Marxist and Jewish influences to explain how and why America, and the West, has become so nihilistic and, therefore, evil. Though his point is less legalistic than yours, it is flying over the same terrain ultimately. The prose is far more sober and restrained than the somewhat inflammatory title suggests.
I wish there were a good book(s) on what things were like when they worked really well, some examples of successful societies. Am not aware of any.
Never mind 1945 When wasn't the USA an outlaw Empire?
From Day One it was breaking treaties and cheating. It didn't compensate the "Tories" as promised for their losses. And it cheated the Haudenshaunee of their lands. It consistently refused to apply international law in its dealings with its neighbours and the Latin Americans.
Part of the reason for this impunity is its geographical isolation- European Powers had one another to deal with and a rough balance tended to ensure a minimal standard of behaviour. There was nothing close to that in America- the US dominated the continent, especially after the Haitians rid them of France, the most serious of their putative rivals (Haiti is still suffering for doing them that favour). And made up the rules, which they broke whenever they chose, as they went along.
They still do, because they still can. But impunity is eroding: since 2001 the writing has been on the wall. It is just a matter of time : a long life of crime is catching up with the Outlaw.
Bravo. I always liked it. "Outlaw US Empire" is an absolutely spot-on denomination. And, like its close relative, the Brits, the Yanks, and fellow anglos, have always thrived in stunning hypocrisy. We have therefore altered our old motto thusly: "Hypocrisy is the Oxygen of the Outlaw US Empire". It runs right under our logo. https://www.greanvillepost.com
I think that since 1945 the specter of a world ruled by worker's and their organizations became very clear. The victory of the USSR over fascism marked the beginning of the end of capitalism and the need to become and outlaw empire to survive.
Now is the time to start.
A collection facts does not make a good essay. For it to be compelling, it has to grip the reader by their b**** and seduce them into following a narration. Dry historical writing may lure by the dramatic events that are being followed, history's actors be painted in lively colors, or simply the author's prose makes it a striking read with powerful observations, witty humour, or depth of human decency shining through.
I'm certain you can do it. The essential step is indeed having the blueprint, and I have learned not to start writing before I feel clear about this. It's indeed a feeling for me, and I gather it usually well on longer walks, and generally in a process of biting into a topic and letting go of it again.
I'm thinking I'll refer to the Scofflaw US. Outlaw sounds more like tv cowboys & westerns to my ear...
You have a substack to which you contribute regularly. Perhaps try to conceive of a 10-part article series, with each article covering one key point. For example, in your comment today you mentioned that the US went Outlaw starting in October 1945 with the creation of the United Nations. You didn't explain why, no doubt to keep the comment short, but it seems like a key point. Perhaps one article on just that October 1945 situation.
Then you mentioned how Presidents should all be impeached. Another article on that or just one one President's actions exemplifying why that is so.
I am sure you can come up with many more hard-hitting single topic subjects like that.
You also might loosely consider structuring them along basic lines of past, present and future in the sense that you begin with foundational issues (like October 1945, though perhaps 1913 or even 1787 Constitutional Convention might be better), travel through various key issues and examples, and end with at least one piece providing some prescriptions for remedy.
Ideally, if you can identify what ails the republic you can find the remedy implied therein, so that's another type of internal structure.
Ever since reading your comments at MoA a couple of years ago I have felt that you have a valuable voice to contribute with something to say. The fact that you made this post today tells you all you need to know about whether or not to go forward: it's time. But write how you are used to at this point, in short, well-considered pieces. So longer than typical MoA comments, but not chapters which each take a couple of weeks to compose. You can always flesh any given chapter out with full references and footnotes later after the skeleton articles have presented the basic body.
And you write excellent prose, so don't let the heavy subject matter prevent you from having fun with your luscious sentences and fulsome paragraphs!
Best of luck!
"Don't quote laws to us. We carry swords." -Gnaeus Pompeius
I think this is an important reminder that “the USA immediately began violating the UN Charter as soon as it came into legal force in October 1945”; *some* of us know that. What really fascinates me is how it is becoming open. It like they do not even try to pretend to keep those ‘rules based orders’. Somehow we do not even hear much about them.
I was only kidding. But when you do have more time, I hope you flesh out your idea in more depth and detail. Meanwhile, I highly recommend this extensive critique of Todd's latest book 'The Defeat of the West' by E. Michael Jones in Unz: https://www.unz.com/ejones/cherchez-le-juif-satanism-as-the-hidden-grammar-of-america/ He traces much of what ails Western society going through Catholic, Protestant, Marxist and Jewish influences to explain how and why America, and the West, has become so nihilistic and, therefore, evil. Though his point is less legalistic than yours, it is flying over the same terrain ultimately. The prose is far more sober and restrained than the somewhat inflammatory title suggests.
I wish there were a good book(s) on what things were like when they worked really well, some examples of successful societies. Am not aware of any.