While Mr. Harrington’s accurate and harrowing account of what U.S. powers, often behind closed doors elect to enact as foreign policy presents an important case, I dispute THIS point:
“This is who we are. This is what we borrow trillions from the Chinese to do.”
The fact that the MIC and its deep state network of players destroys nations is not indicative of who WE–presumably the whole of the nation’s citizenry–are.
How many citizens want these policies?
How many understand them?
How many congress people or senators honestly relay their positions?
How many benefit from them given the priorities that cut school lunch programs while earmarking endless funds for armaments?
How many, due to the corporate control of media (that means who gets seen and heard) hear of any views that run counter to Inverted Totalitarian State narratives and related objectives?
The Piketty Study proves that TONS of $ has headed to the top of the fiscal pyramid.
That $ buys think tanks, media, court judges, attorneys, radio time, and political puppets. In other words, IT controls policy!
In nations everywhere, The People are crying out for a legitimate voice and the power to influence policy. So far, most have been held in contempt by increasingly militant domestic forces AND an all-seeing surveillance apparatus that’s more in place to suppress local dissent than form or ferret out “terrorists” to fight.
In the U.S. there is very little indication that Congress, the courts, Presidency, or law enforcement follow the WILL of The People. Often, consent will be deliberately manufactured to grant the necessary fig leaf of legitimacy to some (hardly all) policies.
Throughout patriarchy’s written history, so much of it is and remains the story of males vying for power and using warfare to obtain it. The storylines favor the dominators. It is THEIR limited worldview.
You, Mr. Harrington, continue that tradition by taking precisely what is done by these dominators and alleging that their empowered positions, and all that they do through stealth, dirty money, and all sorts of coercive tactics represents the rest of us.
The woman who gets raped did not ask for it and she is not responsible for it. People who are not able to stop the military monster do not necessarily grant their CONSENT to its rape of this planet (along with those annihilated in its crossfire zones).
It’s important to make these points and for persons to distinguish the larger truth.
Statements of this broad ilk suggest that what a few do–because they had the influence to make it to the top of today’s hierarchies–define us all.
This makes GENUINE alternatives and all forms of dissent invisible. Consciously or otherwise, such statements therefore support the status quo that I frequently define as that of Mars (militarism, and homage to the god of war) rules. They are derivatives of Margaret Thatcher’s authoritarian and rigid TINA: There Is No Alternative.
In fact there is, Mr. Harrington, and those of us who do not support war, militarism, disaster capitalism, the rape of this beloved planet, or any aggression-based typically male baboon hierarchy ARE that alternative. And WE are speaking up!
YOU do not speak for me, neither does this idea that what militaristic misfits manage to do defines the human story!
Lastly, all writers see through the prism of their selected paradigm(s). That you, Mr. Harrington identify with Trinity College lends evidence to something that I think is more deeply embedded than you (and some other insightful writers) have sought to examine: It’s the degree to which the premise of Original Sin–that we ALL are guilty sinners–informs your political perspective.
I hope you will consider what I’ve stated here. You are hardly the only writer that falls into this trap.