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.
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.
Yes, you're correct, bevin. Since the beginning is correct. But the UN Charter didn't exist then as a standard to be held to, which is what I'm trying to invoke and promote.
I understand. And you are right. Many however, particularly Europeans know little about the history of the US before 1941. It was to them that I was addressing my remarks- had the world understood more the past from Washington to Jackson to Polk to .... it would have been more cynical about the sudden conversion to virtuous behaviour that the UN Charter seemed to indicate.
Who/what caused the money issues that generated the Great Depression? What nation then initiated a policy known as Dollar Diplomacy? Why was Keynes so able to predict what would occur as a result of Versailles in his book "The Economic Consequences of the Peace"? In all previous European wars, the bank loans that financed them were forgiven, written off, and initially the Americans said that's how it would be when loans began to be made in 1914--but that's not what ended up happening as the banks demanded Wilson enter the war after campaigning in 1916--"He Kept Us Out Of War." And that's why the USA entered WW1--to ensure the banks loans were repaid, which made German reparation payments a must.
Yes, America owns the Western Hemisphere--with only a few outposts of resistance like Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, etc. Half of the entire planet literally is "America's backyard" (or "frontyard" as Biden would put it).
This geographical dominance enables the USA to act with extreme impunity outside of its domain to foment conflict, wage wars of aggression, or rape and pillage the rest of the world--all justified by the greatest of all deceptions, US Freedom and Democracy™.
America loves to provoke or wage wars on the other side of the world because it believes that the US Homeland is protected by a gigantic moat called the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and thus the USA is relatively immune from the horrors that it instigates.
Someday, however, Mr. Sarmat, Mr. Poseidon, and Mr. Kinzhal will end America of its imperial impunity.
That geographical dominance-without the cost of a large army or navy- was largely provided for it by its informal inclusion within the British Empire.
The Monroe Doctrine might equally well have been called the George Canning Doctrine since it was British naval power that defended the rebelling creole states of Latin America from any Spanish or Franco-Spanish revanchist adventures.
Underneath the mythology of anti-British sentiment in Washington was the reality that, from the Jay Treaty onwards, the default position was one of co-operation between The City and its partners in the USA. Much of the investment in US expansion, from railroads to cattle ranches and packing plants came from Britain. As for the South and cotton it was almost all oriented towards Manchester. Usually via New York city the financial capital of Dixie.
Then as now the ruling classes of the UK and the USA were as 'thick as thieves', which is why when the leadership of the Empire drifted off across the Atlantic to the West very little changed either in DC or London.
Then as now the Barings and the Binghams intermarried and worked together, and their progeny hated the working class- in 1830 a labourer was hanged for slapping (back at) young Bingham during a protest against starvation wages.
If I recall correctly, George III was convinced it would be easier--and far less costly--to control the erstwhile Colonies as a weak state, and so it was until the power center finally moved across the ocean.
In many ways, the British Empire never really ended.
The British Empire mutated into its spawn of the Anglo-American Empire today, which is the leader of the Orwellian "Free World" that is the responsible for deliberately fomenting conflict and wars and perpetrating mass crimes against humanity--all justified behind lies about defending liberty, democracy, individual rights, and the Anglo-Saxon "rule of law."
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
And Brovo to you Patri ce for the work that you do in publishing the Post., one of a hanful of invaluable aggregation and original reporting sites on the internet.
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.
IMO, your thesis is valid but needs to be placed further back in time to 1918, or perhaps even longer than that, to the 1880s. Thanks for your thoughts.
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 was a writing instructor at the collegiate level and understand how all that works. I also like the writing style of Beard and DeVoto along with others, who blend the facts into the fabric of the story. Thanks for your feedback.
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!
As you're aware, I'm traveling and visiting my daughter and grandson. I also have my wife and mother-in-law with me. Thus, my ability to have the time to read all comments and reply at this time happens to be greatly constrained. I don't even have time to compose articles--the count is now at 7 that have been put aside because I currently lack the time. So, don't take umbrage.
Those replies are why Humanity seems stalled in its evolution and was deserving of a far harsher judgment at the admittedly fictional trial by the Q Continuum seen in "Encounter at Farpoint."
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.
Yes, you're correct, bevin. Since the beginning is correct. But the UN Charter didn't exist then as a standard to be held to, which is what I'm trying to invoke and promote.
I understand. And you are right. Many however, particularly Europeans know little about the history of the US before 1941. It was to them that I was addressing my remarks- had the world understood more the past from Washington to Jackson to Polk to .... it would have been more cynical about the sudden conversion to virtuous behaviour that the UN Charter seemed to indicate.
Who/what caused the money issues that generated the Great Depression? What nation then initiated a policy known as Dollar Diplomacy? Why was Keynes so able to predict what would occur as a result of Versailles in his book "The Economic Consequences of the Peace"? In all previous European wars, the bank loans that financed them were forgiven, written off, and initially the Americans said that's how it would be when loans began to be made in 1914--but that's not what ended up happening as the banks demanded Wilson enter the war after campaigning in 1916--"He Kept Us Out Of War." And that's why the USA entered WW1--to ensure the banks loans were repaid, which made German reparation payments a must.
Yes, America owns the Western Hemisphere--with only a few outposts of resistance like Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, etc. Half of the entire planet literally is "America's backyard" (or "frontyard" as Biden would put it).
This geographical dominance enables the USA to act with extreme impunity outside of its domain to foment conflict, wage wars of aggression, or rape and pillage the rest of the world--all justified by the greatest of all deceptions, US Freedom and Democracy™.
America loves to provoke or wage wars on the other side of the world because it believes that the US Homeland is protected by a gigantic moat called the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and thus the USA is relatively immune from the horrors that it instigates.
Someday, however, Mr. Sarmat, Mr. Poseidon, and Mr. Kinzhal will end America of its imperial impunity.
That geographical dominance-without the cost of a large army or navy- was largely provided for it by its informal inclusion within the British Empire.
The Monroe Doctrine might equally well have been called the George Canning Doctrine since it was British naval power that defended the rebelling creole states of Latin America from any Spanish or Franco-Spanish revanchist adventures.
Underneath the mythology of anti-British sentiment in Washington was the reality that, from the Jay Treaty onwards, the default position was one of co-operation between The City and its partners in the USA. Much of the investment in US expansion, from railroads to cattle ranches and packing plants came from Britain. As for the South and cotton it was almost all oriented towards Manchester. Usually via New York city the financial capital of Dixie.
Then as now the ruling classes of the UK and the USA were as 'thick as thieves', which is why when the leadership of the Empire drifted off across the Atlantic to the West very little changed either in DC or London.
Then as now the Barings and the Binghams intermarried and worked together, and their progeny hated the working class- in 1830 a labourer was hanged for slapping (back at) young Bingham during a protest against starvation wages.
If I recall correctly, George III was convinced it would be easier--and far less costly--to control the erstwhile Colonies as a weak state, and so it was until the power center finally moved across the ocean.
In many ways, the British Empire never really ended.
The British Empire mutated into its spawn of the Anglo-American Empire today, which is the leader of the Orwellian "Free World" that is the responsible for deliberately fomenting conflict and wars and perpetrating mass crimes against humanity--all justified behind lies about defending liberty, democracy, individual rights, and the Anglo-Saxon "rule of law."
Well said.
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
Thanks very much! I must admit to never taking notice of that on your masthead.
And Brovo to you Patri ce for the work that you do in publishing the Post., one of a hanful of invaluable aggregation and original reporting sites on the internet.
"Hypocrisy is the Oxygen of the Outlaw US Empire"
And deception is the lifeblood of the Anglo-American (Evil) Empire.
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.
IMO, your thesis is valid but needs to be placed further back in time to 1918, or perhaps even longer than that, to the 1880s. Thanks for your thoughts.
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 was a writing instructor at the collegiate level and understand how all that works. I also like the writing style of Beard and DeVoto along with others, who blend the facts into the fabric of the story. Thanks for your feedback.
I'm thinking I'll refer to the Scofflaw US. Outlaw sounds more like tv cowboys & westerns to my ear...
Thanks! However it's phrased as long as it conveys it outlawry.
Another way I refer to it is as a Protection Racket. Because in essence that is what it is...
Mafia that is.
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!
Interesting. It was I who prompted you to write a substack article about this and now I have the only comment you didn't 'Like'!
Miffed!!
As you're aware, I'm traveling and visiting my daughter and grandson. I also have my wife and mother-in-law with me. Thus, my ability to have the time to read all comments and reply at this time happens to be greatly constrained. I don't even have time to compose articles--the count is now at 7 that have been put aside because I currently lack the time. So, don't take umbrage.
"Don't quote laws to us. We carry swords." -Gnaeus Pompeius
Melian (Thucydides) dialogue!
"The strong do to the weak...."
USA makes the rules in its "rules based" empire.
It
Those replies are why Humanity seems stalled in its evolution and was deserving of a far harsher judgment at the admittedly fictional trial by the Q Continuum seen in "Encounter at Farpoint."
Thucydides was required reading in the USAF officers' command and general staff course.
It reflects the hegemon. its strife against rivals and defectors. imagery of democracy, and finally demise through overreach (Siragusa)!
Some create a Thucydides trap [obvious US tilting with China and Russia], but the telling observation is "power corrupts"; unchanged in 2500 years.
Yes, I read him too as part of my self-education of Greek history.
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.