With Apologies for the Interruption...

The end of the month approaches once more. It always comes up on me much more quickly than I expect. At the moment, I have only about one-third of what is required to pay next month's rent, along with a few basic first-of-the-month bills. So I regret that I must ask for donations again. I know that times are increasingly difficult for many people, and I'm deeply sorry to have to make the request for many reasons.

For the benefit of any newer readers who might see this, a brief review: I have no source of income whatsoever other than donations I receive here. My very bad and steadily deteriorating health makes it impossible for me to do anything other than write on the blog; unfortunately, my health gets so bad that I am sometimes unable to post anything for weeks at a time (and sometimes, as over this past terrible summer, a few months). The major physical problem (that I am aware of) is a weak and failing heart. Since I have no money and no insurance, the only medical care I receive is on those occasions when I am forced to call 911. I've had to do that twice in the last few years; I was briefly hospitalized on both occasions. I suffer from atrial fibrillation, among other things. I take medication for that, when I have a prescription and when I can afford it. But several months after the 911 calls, the prescriptions run out, and I have no way of getting another one (until I call 911 again -- and the experience was so ghastly last time, that I resist calling unless I genuinely believe a huge crisis is upon me). I have an assortment of other problems (general, severe weakness and periodic, sometimes extreme, difficulty breathing, which may be the result of the heart problems and/or something else; a strange lump on my left testicle, which is occasionally painful; two or three other things -- none of which are treated at all, or even diagnosed); the net result is that I am almost entirely housebound, as I have been for several years. It requires a monumental effort simply to walk to the corner store and back. I try to do that once or twice a week, for the minimal exercise -- and to try to maintain a very small semblance of actually living.

So it's all very dreadful; at regular intervals, generally five or six times a month, I have unusually bad episodes. I slowly get dressed and gather the few things I would need for the hospital -- and then I wait to see if I think I have to call 911. When you don't have a regular doctor and are forced to rely on emergency care for everything -- with no oversight of any kind by a personal physician -- the experience is profoundly unnerving, even terrifying. The last time, when I had to have blood transfusions and several other procedures, I felt like a lab rat being subjected to a series of nightmarish experiments. I won't go through that again unless I have absolutely have to.

That's the situation in which I try to write. It's not precisely a happy experience. Given that, I think the recent essays turned out well. I very much want to continue them, but I fear it may be several days at least before the next one appears. I've mentioned that it was unusually hot for extended periods in Los Angeles this past summer. The heat keeps coming back: it was in the nineties a few days last week, and we are now told it will be around 90 degrees and possibly above over the weekend. The heat makes all of my physical problems worse, sometimes much worse. It won't be a fun weekend for me.

I want to offer very special thanks to those few people who make regular donations. You are my personal angels, and I cannot thank you enough. I also thank all those who make donations, in any amount at all. I am enormously grateful. And to anyone who is thinking of donating: I greatly appreciate it, and this would be a very good time to contribute even a small amount. I have to pay the rent and other basic bills at the end of next week. I'm very sorry I almost never send personal emails to thank contributors. I send very few emails of any kind; I save whatever energy I have (not much) for writing the articles, when I can.

I have one other request, of a different kind. I began blogging in September 2002. I've been doing this for a little over ten years. (As I explain every now and then: most of the articles from the first several years have been offline for about six years, since the archives at my previous site were corrupted. I've reposted a few of those earlier pieces; most of them will probably not be available again. I have neither the time nor the energy to repost them, which must be done for each individual post and takes time and strength I don't have.)

I have fewer readers now than at almost any time in the last decade. On most days, I have less than a thousand visitors; often, much less. I sometimes think about what I consider to be the quality of some of my articles -- the recent "Accomplices to Murder" is a good example -- and think about how few people see them, and... Well, I try not to think about it too much or for too long. It tends to put me in an exceptionally bleak frame of mind. It's profoundly depressing.

Yesterday, I happened to see a comment from someone who claims to admire my writing. This person wondered if I knew how "widely read" I was. The person wanted to be sure I knew. The links to the traffic stats for the blog are available to anyone. They're at the bottom of the page. As I just indicated, I am not "widely read" by any measure. It's an utterly fantastical notion. By internet standards, my audience is close to non-existent. I could post a single picture of a naked woman (or man) with an anodyne headline ("The Naked Truth"), and with no text or comment of any kind, and my traffic would doubtless triple or quadruple within hours. I occasionally think of doing precisely that, just for the hell of it.

I've always been very bad at self-promotion. I can't stand to do it and, except for very brief periods at various times in my life, I've never been able to do it with any consistency. And now, even if I wanted to do it, I simply don't have the strength and concentration to spend several hours sending links to my articles to various writers and bloggers, or leaving links in comments sections on different sites. So this is my other request: if you like my writing, if you think it deserves a larger audience, please publicize my articles in any way you can. Obviously, the more widely you can do it, and the more places you can leave links, the better. If I am ever to have an audience of any size, you will have to make it happen. I can't do it myself. I know that some people do this already, and I'm very grateful. I also know that other readers don't do it at all.

So those are my requests: money and fame! Hahaha. But in truth, just in very small amounts. I'm merely trying to hold on to minimal survival here.

As always, I am deeply appreciative of your time and consideration.

Paths of Resistance (II): Monsters and Their Sycophants

Part I: The Refusal to Identify and Reject Evil


This is not the second installment I had planned, as indicated at the conclusion of the previous essay; I will address those issues in due course.

The Washington Post has published the second of its three articles on the Obama administration's Kill List and various aspects of the government's systematic dedication to murder and destruction. (I discussed the first of these articles in the first installment in this series.) The second Post article focuses on John Brennan and his central role in the administration's murder program.

I will confine my comments to two aspects of the Post article. Reading these Post articles is bad enough; I find the task of analyzing them in lengthy detail to be sickening in a manner I can barely describe. I imagine that being forcibly submerged in a large tub of liquified shit would not be dissimilar. Ha! I described it after all. Many of the reasons I find these articles so intensely nauseating are discussed in my series about the NYT piece concerning the Kill List: "Reflections on a Bestial Culture."

And mentioning the NYT article brings me to the first point I want to make. Consider this passage from the Washington Post article, dated October 24, 2012:

For each of Brennan’s critics, there are many associates who use the words “moral compass” to describe his role in the White House. It is Brennan, they say, who questions the justification for each drone attack, who often dials back what he considers excessive zeal by the CIA and the military, and who stands up for diplomatic and economic assistance components in the overall strategy.

Brennan’s bedrock belief in a “just war,” they said, is tempered by his deep knowledge of the Middle East, Islam and the CIA, and the critical thinking forged during a classic Jesuit education.

Some White House aides describe him as a nearly priest-like presence in their midst, with a moral depth leavened by a dry Irish wit.

One CIA colleague, former general counsel John Rizzo, recalled his rectitude surfacing in unexpected ways. Brennan once questioned Rizzo’s use of the “BCC” function in the agency’s e-mail system to send a blind copy of a message to a third party without the primary recipient’s knowledge.

“He wasn’t joking,” Rizzo said. “He regarded that as underhanded.”

Compare that to this excerpt from the NYT article, dated May 29, 2012:

Mr. Brennan, a son of Irish immigrants, is a grizzled 25-year veteran of the C.I.A. whose work as a top agency official during the brutal interrogations of the Bush administration made him a target of fierce criticism from the left. He had been forced, under fire, to withdraw his name from consideration to lead the C.I.A. under Mr. Obama, becoming counterterrorism chief instead.

Some critics of the drone strategy still vilify Mr. Brennan, suggesting that he is the C.I.A.’s agent in the White House, steering Mr. Obama to a targeted killing strategy. But in office, Mr. Brennan has surprised many former detractors by speaking forcefully for closing Guantánamo and respecting civil liberties

Harold H. Koh, for instance, as dean of Yale Law School was a leading liberal critic of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies. But since becoming the State Department’s top lawyer, Mr. Koh said, he has found in Mr. Brennan a principled ally.

“If John Brennan is the last guy in the room with the president, I’m comfortable, because Brennan is a person of genuine moral rectitude,” Mr. Koh said. “It’s as though you had a priest with extremely strong moral values who was suddenly charged with leading a war."

The president values Mr. Brennan’s experience in assessing intelligence, from his own agency or others, and for the sobriety with which he approaches lethal operations, other aides say.

The similarities are stunning, so stunning that I thought: "Jesus Christ. Why don't you bastards just print the press releases the White House gives you?" This was immediately followed in my mind by: "Silly me. Of course: you did."

If you compare the NYT and Washington Post articles, you will find many additional similarities. To be sure, there are differences as well -- but on all the major points and with regard to numerous details, the stories in the two papers are in full accord. The stories all emphasize that, while the murder program systematically targets and slaughters increasing numbers of human beings -- and does so on the basis of highly dubious, mistaken, or even nonexistent information -- the government brings profound and solemn dedication to its task. Our leaders genuinely value life, and only destroy it after the most careful weighing of moral factors of the greatest import. And so on.

It is striking that the Post in particular, since its articles are now appearing roughly five months after the NYT piece, didn't exert more effort to at least make its stories appear more original. That the Post didn't even bother reveals how far down this rabbit hole we've already gone. All the major papers (and networks, and radio stations, and...) are essentially propaganda outlets for the State. To the extent people are aware of that, they don't care, not in any way that could possibly represent a cognizable threat. The State and the major papers (and networks, etc.) know that people don't care. Why bother to hide it at all? Of course, we still must have newspapers, TV networks and so on, for Americans do love their illusions. A free press! And the first amendment is mighty important, doncha know.

It's quite funny, in an entirely horrific way. The State has so perfected its media domination -- and the media have so willingly neutered themselves -- that explicit censorship has been rendered irrelevant and completely unnecessary. That's very useful from the State's perspective: the State can guarantee that coverage will be exactly what it wants, while preserving the mirage of an active, free-ranging press, dedicated to ferreting out the truth. My goodness, whatever would we do without a free press? That's exactly what we're finding out.

I am compelled to offer a few observations about the fervid tributes to Brennan so eagerly tendered by both the NYT and the Post. I must emphasize -- and here, I must stop to note that I am forever emphasizing the actual nature of the subject of these articles, for it is precisely the bloody truth of the subject that these articles are constantly submerging, disguising, and burying in misdirection. And bloody is the goddamned operative word.

The bloody fucking subject of these articles -- and the bloody fucking task to which Brennan devotes his goddamned miserable life -- is the murder of innocent human beings. To the extent Brennan and his fellow monsters rely on information at all, they rely on "intelligence" gathered across numerous agencies. But, and here I shock the children and doubtless many adults as well, "intelligence" is almost always wrong. I've written about this at great length, repeatedly, over many years. Start with "Played for Fools Yet Again," if you want to pursue the subject. Even after all my articles, everyone continues to insist that it is critical that "we get the intelligence right." The intelligence is almost never right; when it is, it is usually disregarded anyway. To the extent intelligence is available, and to the extent it might rarely be correct, it will always be disregarded if it runs counter to a policy to which the government is already committed. Authors such as Barbara Tuchman and Gabriel Kolko have made these arguments for decades; you'll find excerpts in my earlier posts. The primary use of intelligence is as propaganda, and it is used after the fact as justification for policy decisions the government has already made.

And given the numerous, repeated errors of intelligence that have occurred just in the last decade, Brennan and his wretched associates know that to the extent they rely on intelligence, they are most likely relying on information that is wrong. So Brennan regularly, routinely, systematically orders the death of human beings on the basis of information that he knows is most likely to be wrong.

He orders the murders anyway. And the government carries them out. Thus, the government regularly, routinely, systematically orders the death of innocent human beings.

Then there are the "signature strikes," which murder people on the basis of no information at all. That is, the government has no particular information about the specific individuals they are murdering. "Signature strikes" are akin to murders by crazed psychopaths firing into a crowd: they see a group of people, they see something they don't like or that looks "funny" to them, or maybe they're just in a shitty mood that day, so -- kill them! And they do.

This is what the articles in the NYT and the Washington Post are about. And John Brennan is the central figure directing the murder program.

Yet the Post tells us that "there are many associates who use the words 'moral compass' to describe [Brennan's] role in the White House." Both newspapers offer comparisons of Brennan to a priest, and speak of his "moral rectitude" and "moral depth." Brennan's murder program "is tempered by his deep knowledge of the Middle East, Islam and the CIA, and the critical thinking forged during a classic Jesuit education." Well, thank God for that. We wouldn't want a maniacal psychopath who was a pathetic, illiterate ignoramus running a murder program.

Jesus Christ. Do people realize how deeply insane this is? Then, on top of all this, the Post story includes the following:

One CIA colleague, former general counsel John Rizzo, recalled his rectitude surfacing in unexpected ways. Brennan once questioned Rizzo’s use of the “BCC” function in the agency’s e-mail system to send a blind copy of a message to a third party without the primary recipient’s knowledge.

“He wasn’t joking,” Rizzo said. “He regarded that as underhanded.”

This is the kind of detail I would never dare include in a fictional work. I would expect the reader to laugh at the utter ridiculousness of it. Details of this kind couldn't possibly happen in real life.

But there it is, reported by the Washington Post with a straight face. The Post article describes in grisly, horrifying detail how the United States government, and John Brennan in particular, run a program of routine, systematic murder which targets innocent human beings. But, we are told, the State commits these murders of innocent human beings with all required solemnity, directed by "strong moral values" and "moral rectitude."

We might summarize the theme this way: The United States government regularly murders significant and steadily increasing numbers of innocent human beings -- but it does so in a profoundly moral and thoroughly admirable manner.

You are not to wonder that the preceding sentence makes absolutely no sense. And miracle of miracles: almost no one does wonder about it.

And in this context -- that is, in the context of a program that regularly murders innocent human beings -- to offer Brennan's questioning about a blind copy of an email as further evidence of his "rectitude" and deeply moral character ... it takes my breath away. To mention such a comparatively trivial, meaningless detail -- in conjunction with a systematic, growing program of murder targeting innocent human beings directed by a hugely powerful government ...

But that suddenly made it real to me. It made real how deeply, irreparably damaged these people are. Not just the murderers and those who directly assist them, but the reporters and editors who put together these kinds of stories. The deaths of innocent human beings aren't real to them. The deaths don't register in their minds in any meaningful way. In that sense, the story about the email is perfect. Brennan is enthusiastically willing to devote his life to the murders of innocent human beings -- and as long as all the rules are followed, provided everything is neat and tidy and procedure is respected, he is able to regard those murders of innocent human beings as entirely moral and righteous. The rules must always be obeyed -- whether it is the rules about murdering innocent human beings, or the rules about when it is appropriate to send a blind copy of an email. As long as you follow the rules, you are a good person.

It is only because fearsome weapons are at their disposal that such people are at all frightening. And that is assuredly a danger to be protected against as best one can. But in themselves, these people are lamentably, sickeningly pathetic. They are barely human at this point, for their souls have shriveled into empty husks, devoid of genuine feeling, compassion and empathy. If the truth of their actions were to make itself known to what remains of their minds and souls, it would shatter them forever beyond repair. There are certain actions for which atonement is not possible. That is certainly true of Brennan and all those who work in any part of the murder program. It is also true of many people who refuse to acknowledge the nature of the State that rules us and its murder program, and who continue to support such evils.

Next time, I'll discuss such support further, as well as passive collaboration with evil.

Paths of Resistance (I): The Refusal to Identify and Reject Evil

The essence of my argument in "Accomplices to Murder" is contained in these two paragraphs:

As I have written before: "the claim of a 'right' to dispense death arbitrarily -- the claim that the State may murder anyone it chooses, whenever it desires -- constitutes a separate category altogether, a category of which this particular claim is the sole unit. When death is unleashed, all possibility of action is ended forever." For this reason -- and it is the only reason required -- it is not "perfectly rational and reasonable" to decide that "the evils of their candidate [Obama] are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate."

There is no evil beyond the claimed "right" to murder by arbitrary edict, to murder anyone, anywhere, anytime. If you support this particular evil -- and if you vote for Obama, you support it -- then you will support anything.

The fuller argument will be found in the preceding article.

Almost all Americans remain blithely unaware of the meaning and implications of their government's unrestricted program of murder, a program which targets anyone the State chooses, for any reason it identifies -- or refuses to identify. To be precise, we should say that almost all Americans refuse to acknowledge the meaning and implications of the State's murder program. If the State can -- and does -- murder anyone it chooses, there is nothing it cannot do. It can order the torture of human beings, directly or indirectly. It can detain individuals indefinitely, even when they are never charged with any crime, and with no hope for release. The United States government already does all these things. When I say that if you support the evil of arbitrary murder, you will support anything, I am not exaggerating in any manner at all. I am stating precisely the nature of the evil to which so many people grant their approval.

To dispel any doubt on this point, you only need read an article dated October 23, 2012, about the State's murder program in the Washington Post. The article is preceded by this note:

Editor’s note: This project, based on interviews with dozens of current and former national security officials, intelligence analysts and others, examines evolving U.S. counterterrorism policies and the practice of targeted killing. This is the first of three stories.

Given this identification of the article's sources, what I said about the NYT article concerning the government's Kill List is equally true of the Washington Post stories:

[T]his in effect announces the identity of the article's true author: the author is the U.S. government, the State itself. Through these "advisers," the highest levels of the U.S. government have told the story they want to tell. And what is that story? It is simply this:

The State is become death. Our target can be anyone we choose. Yes, this means you. No, there is nowhere to run.

It is not every day that the State announces in the august pages of "the paper of record" that its primary program, the central mission to which it patiently and carefully devotes its vast resources, is the elimination of human life, wherever, whenever and to whatever extent it wishes.

Americans cannot legitimately claim ignorance of the immense evil being perpetrated by their government. They will not be able to claim, as others have tried to do in the past: "We never knew about the horrors that were being committed. How can you believe that we knew about that?"

Americans know all about it, in horrifying, endless detail. The State wants them to know. But the State knows that almost all Americans will refuse to admit what it means. Americans have chosen to sleepwalk blindly into the mouth of Hell. If these horrors should be practiced on a much broader scale, with the victims numbering in the many thousands, or even millions -- and depending on events, they well might be -- many Americans will no doubt plead ignorance despite the fact that the knowledge was freely and eagerly provided to them. They will ask for forgiveness. They should not be granted it, not by anyone who remains at all civilized, who is still human in the true meaning of that word.

Read the opening section of the Washington Post article:

Over the past two years, the Obama administration has been secretly developing a new blueprint for pursuing terrorists, a next-generation targeting list called the “disposition matrix.”

The matrix contains the names of terrorism suspects arrayed against an accounting of the resources being marshaled to track them down, including sealed indictments and clandestine operations. U.S. officials said the database is designed to go beyond existing kill lists, mapping plans for the “disposition” of suspects beyond the reach of American drones.

Although the matrix is a work in progress, the effort to create it reflects a reality setting in among the nation’s counterterrorism ranks: The United States’ conventional wars are winding down, but the government expects to continue adding names to kill or capture lists for years.

Among senior Obama administration officials, there is a broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade. Given the way al-Qaeda continues to metastasize, some officials said no clear end is in sight.

“We can’t possibly kill everyone who wants to harm us,” a senior administration official said. “It’s a necessary part of what we do. . . . We’re not going to wind up in 10 years in a world of everybody holding hands and saying, ‘We love America.'"

I submit that this is the essence of horror. We have seen all this before.

These opening paragraphs, and the article in its totality, describe what we might term the bureaucratization of terror, the phenomenon that Hannah Arendt wrote about extensively. Always remember that what these "U.S. officials" and "senior Obama administration officials" are discussing is the murder of human beings, including the murder of entirely innocent human beings. But they speak of a "disposition matrix," and the "accounting of the resources being marshaled," in the manner that might be used to discuss office supplies. "Oh, dear, we need more paperclips. Staplers, too." "Hmm. This group of men -- there seem to be about ten or twelve of them -- seems to be engaged in a 'suspicious pattern of activity.' We'd better dispose of them."

The story refers to "a former U.S. counterterrorism official" who mentions "a disposition problem." He means the problem of what to do with all those the State places in the category of "everyone who wants to harm us," a category which the government steadily increases in number. As the stories about the Kill List make clear, the easiest method of "disposition" is murder. When they're dead, the State doesn't need to be concerned about "disposing" of them further.

Just as we have seen before -- if anyone cares to remember -- the State which is determined to unleash horror on an ever-increasing scale seeks to transform the horror into an everyday, ordinary matter of following procedure, of following the rules, of routine:

Targeted killing is now so routine that the Obama administration has spent much of the past year codifying and streamlining the processes that sustain it.

Moreover, the Obama administration is determined to make the horror a matter of routine that can be easily followed by the U.S. government indefinitely:

Less visible is the extent to which Obama has institutionalized the highly classified practice of targeted killing, transforming ad-hoc elements into a counterterrorism infrastructure capable of sustaining a seemingly permanent war. Spokesmen for the White House, the National Counterterrorism Center, the CIA and other agencies declined to comment on the matrix or other counterterrorism programs.

Privately, officials acknowledge that the development of the matrix is part of a series of moves, in Washington and overseas, to embed counterterrorism tools into U.S. policy for the long haul.

White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan is seeking to codify the administration’s approach to generating capture/kill lists, part of a broader effort to guide future administrations through the counterterrorism processes that Obama has embraced.

Toward the end of the article, we read:

For an administration that is the first to embrace targeted killing on a wide scale, officials seem confident that they have devised an approach that is so bureaucratically, legally and morally sound that future administrations will follow suit.

During Monday’s presidential debate, Republican nominee Mitt Romney made it clear that he would continue the drone campaign. “We can’t kill our way out of this,” he said, but added later that Obama was “right to up the usage” of drone strikes and that he would do the same.

Regarding the bureaucratization of terror, Arendt is probably most famous for her analysis of this subject in connection with Nazi Germany. Just as many Germans later tried to claim that they, as "ordinary" Germans, knew nothing about the horrors practiced by the Nazi regime, many people have accepted the lie. Many people think that Germans would not have accepted, much less supported, the horrors if they had only known of them.

This is simply not true. It was not true in Nazi Germany; it is not true in the United States today. Germans knew all about the horrors -- and they accepted them, and often enthusiastically supported them. The same is true in America now.

Several months ago, in "Reflections on a Bestial Culture," I addressed this question in detail. In the last part of that series, I wrote:

In the third part of this series, I offered my imagined version of a new history book which discussed events in Nazi Germany, focusing on the Nazis' consolidation and expansion of power in the pre-World War II period. My imagined book dealt with the extent to which knowledge of the Nazis' actions, including their systematic attacks on civil liberties in general -- and notably including details of Nazi brutality -- was available to the general public. The first sentence of my imagined history announced this general theme: "It perhaps astonishes us today, but newspapers often published accounts of these firebombings, raids and murders while the campaign of terror was still underway." The "gimmick" of my imaginary book was to replace Nazi justifications and explanations with those offered by U.S. officials, as detailed in the NYT article about Obama's "Kill List." I attempted to demonstrate the close parallels between Germans' acceptance of growing Nazi horrors and Americans' acceptance of our government's actions today.

I then discussed a remarkable and profoundly disturbing book by Robert Gellately, Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany. (As I explained, I hadn't been aware of Gellately's book when I wrote my imaginary history.) Part of the Amazon summary of the book reveals how Gellately unmasks this dangerous lie:

Culling chilling evidence from primary news sources and citing dozens of case studies, Gellately shows how media reports and press stories were an essential dimension of Hitler's popular dictatorship. Indeed, a vast array of material on the concentration camps, the violent campaigns against social outsiders, and the Nazis' radical approaches to "law and order" was published in the media of the day, and was widely read by a highly literate population of Germans. Hitler, Gellately reveals, did not try to hide the existence of the Gestapo or of concentration camps. Nor did the Nazis try to cow the people into submission. Instead they set out to win converts by building on popular images, cherished ideals, and long-held phobias. And their efforts succeeded, Gellately concludes, for the Gestapo's monstrous success was due, in large part, to ordinary German citizens who singled out suspected "enemies" in their midst, reporting their suspicions and allegations freely and in a spirit of cooperation and patriotism.

A brief excerpt from Gellately's Introduction makes the point still more forcefully:

I began research for this book by addressing one of the major questions that has been raised since 1945, when we became aware of the concentration camps, namely, 'what did they know and when did they know it?' Did the Germans know about the secret police and the camps, the persecutions, the murders, and so on, and did they go along? Germans have defended themselves by saying they were unaware of, or poorly informed about, the camps, and were surprised by the revelations at the war's end. There was close to general agreement among historians for a long time, that the Nazis deliberately and systematically hid what they were doing, so it was possible that ordinary people really did not know.

This book challenges these views. It shows that a vast array of material on the police and the camps and various discriminatory campaigns was published in the media of the day. In the 1930s the regime made sure the concentration camps were reported in the press, held them up for praise, and proudly let it be known that the men and women in the camps were confined without trial on the orders of the police. The regime boasted openly of its new system of 'police justice' by which the Secret Police (Gestapo) and the Criminal Police (Kripo) could decide for themselves what the law was, and send people to the camps at will. The Nazis celebrated the police in week-long annual festivals across the country, and proudly chalked up their many successes in the war on crime, immorality, and pornography. Far from clothing such practices in secrecy, the regime played them up in the press and lauded the modernity and superiority of the Nazi system over all others.

My earlier article provides additional excerpts from Gellately.

This is precisely the technique now utilized by the U.S. government. Numerous government "officials" are cited in both the NYT and Washington Post articles. The government proudly describes its murder program (along with indefinite detention and many other horrors). It "boast[s] openly" about how it "codifies" and "streamlines" its system of murder without end. The American government "plays up" its "practices," and "laud[s] the modernity and superiority" of its "system over all others." As the Washington Post article expresses it: " officials seem confident that they have devised an approach that is so bureaucratically, legally and morally sound that future administrations will follow suit."

I repeat what I said earlier: the government wants Americans to know all about the horrors. It is increasingly eager to discuss its programs and to describe how it goes about murdering ever greater numbers of people. The government does this so that Americans become accustomed to the murders, precisely so that Americans regard the murders as a matter of routine, everyday business. I remind you of a crucially related point I made recently: In addition to pursuing its goal of global hegemony, the United States government uses foreign countries as a lethal laboratory in which to practice the techniques it intends to use domestically, at home within U.S. borders.

Yet most Americans refuse to identify the meaning of the government's actions. If they are aware of these horrors at all, they tell themselves that the government would never practice these horrors here at home, and certainly not against people like them.

These, too, are transparent and pathetic lies. I shall discuss these lies and related ones next time, when I will also turn to the nature and forms of resistance that are possible to us. For now, I emphasize the critical point: If the future should bring what are now unimaginable horrors, let no American ever be heard to say that he "never knew it would come to that." They know. They know about the horrors in detail; they are told about them repeatedly. They refuse to admit the meaning of what they know. If they did, they might feel they should resist the horrors -- and that is the one outcome they fear more than any other. Whatever may come, they do not want to have to take a stand. They do not want to have to choose.

But life is choice. We are always making a choice, even when we make strenuous, tortuous efforts to avoid it. At certain moments in history, to avoid choosing is the worst and most contemptible choice of all. At present, it is also the choice of most Americans.

Accomplices to Murder

I. A Meeting in a Park

He wondered why almost no one visited this small corner of the park. How peaceful and lovely it is here, he thought. A soft breeze gently rippled the water in the pond. He thought that the families with young children must prefer the much larger lake; the children enjoyed feeding the birds that gathered there. There were no birds here; there were no signs of life at all. Perhaps that's why it's so peaceful. He laughed at himself reprovingly for having such a thought. I sometimes think you don't like people very much, he chastised himself. He reminded himself that he cared about people very much. He had dedicated his life to protecting innocent people. Ah, you're not so bad, he joked to himself. You're just tired. He was tired, and he was not entirely happy about his task this morning. But he recognized what needed to be done, as he always did.

He leaned back on the bench and closed his eyes. Let yourself relax, just for a few minutes. He had learned to do this while remaining fully alert to the slightest sound, so he heard the soft footsteps as another person entered the secluded haven. He opened his eyes and turned toward the sound. He hated the fact that the woman had the girl with her. But there was no other way to do it. Damn it, he thought. He smiled, a warm, genuine smile. "Good morning," he said.

"Oh ... hello," the woman said. She looked momentarily disconcerted. He was an attractive man, well-dressed in a business suit. He has a kind face, she thought. She offered a small smile in return.

"Please come and sit down," he said. He moved closer to one end of the bench to make room for them. After a moment, the woman walked over to the bench, still holding the girl's hand.

"Thank you."

After the woman and the girl settled themselves, the woman opened a bag she was carrying. "Let's have our cookie now, Joanna," she said to the girl. Joanna's face brightened with delight as she extended her hand to take the cookie. "Thank you, grandma." "You're welcome, darling."

The grandmother glanced again at the man to her side. It is a kind face, she thought. "We always buy a few extra ones. We probably shouldn't," she laughed gently, "but they're so good. Would you like one?"

"Only if you're sure you don't want to save it for later."

"No, no, we have plenty, believe me. Please have one."

"Thank you very much." After a moment, he said, "My goodness, these are delicious."

They ate their cookies in silence. When they were finished, they continued to sit there for a few minutes without speaking, enjoying the soothing peace of this forgotten corner of the world.

"I was surprised to see you, to see anyone. Joanna and I have been coming here for months, and there's never been anyone else here. We feel as if it's our secret place." She laughed, very gently.

"I'm sorry," the man said. "I feel as if I'm trespassing."

"No, no, I shouldn't have said that. It's a public park. I just wasn't expecting it. But you seem to enjoy this spot the way we do."

"It's beautiful here. So peaceful. You can almost forget the rest of the world is there."

"I know. Sometimes, these days, I need to forget that. There are just too many upsetting things happening."

An expression of deep unhappiness flickered across the grandmother's face. "Oh, dear. I shouldn't have said that either. I try not to speak of such things when I'm with Joanna." She put her arm around the girl, giving her a gentle hug, and kissed her on the forehead. "it's all right, sweetheart. Nothing at all for you to worry about. Just things that old people think about sometimes."

"I understand, grandma. It's okay. I always feel safe with you." The woman hugged her again.

"A wise child," the man said. He and the grandmother exchanged a warm glance of understanding.

"But I know that you've been very worried for a long time," the man went on. The woman turned a mildly puzzled face toward him. "You ... know?"

"I'm sorry," he said. "I tend to explain this badly. There's never an easy way to start." He reached into his pocket and took out a small folder. "I work for the Department of Internal Security. Here's my identification badge."

He extended it toward the woman, who looked at it for a long moment. "Richard Maddox," she read out loud. "Yes, that's me. It's as bad a picture of me as the one on my driver's license." She offered only a wary smile in response to his soft laugh. "I ... I don't understand," she said after a moment.

"Our Department didn't have any particular reason to be aware of you. It was just the result of the random searching we do, through emails, comments on websites, things like that. I'm sure you've heard about all those programs. There have certainly been lots of stories about them. At first, we didn't like all that coverage. But when we saw that people quickly got used to the idea that we kept track of so many things, we decided the publicity was a great advantage. People didn't protest all that much, not in ways that we might have cared about. People understand that we're just trying to keep them safe. You understand that, don't you, Mrs. Hamilton?"

Her body jerked slightly in surprise. It was the first time he had used her name. "I ... this ... this is making me very uncomfortable. Perhaps we'd better go." She gripped Joanna's hand firmly and started to rise.

"Please don't go," he said. "I'm here to reassure you. Please. I need to talk to you." He had placed his hand on her arm; the pressure he exerted was strong and insistent. She experienced a rising sense of danger. She looked around the little glen, as if searching for other people, for safety.

"That's right," he said. "We're in the middle of the park. What could possibly happen here? We're just talking. Please."

It's silly to be frightened of him, she told herself. He was right. They were just talking. They were out in public. What could happen here? She relaxed, just a little, and sat back on the bench.

"So what made you aware of me in particular?"

"Well, you left lots on comments on lots of websites. And you expressed a lot of worries and concerns -- about Social Security and Medicare, about the treatment of women, about the environment, about the Supreme Court. A lot of concern, and a lot of comments. And a lot of emails, too. Of course, we agree with all your worries about what the other party might do, but we were upset to see that you were so worried about what the President would do. And you expressed so much concern about the President and his plans that we thought you were almost asking to be noticed, asking to be reassured. That's why I've come to talk to you."

She listened very intently. As he spoke, she was thinking, well, that's true. She had left lots of comments about those subjects, she had written lots of emails. She did want her concerns to be noticed, to be understood. And she had seen and heard all those stories about the government's surveillance programs. If she were honest with herself, she realized, she couldn't say she was surprised.

"Yes. Yes, I see," she said after a few moments had passed. "I would like to believe the President will make sure the policies he says he believes in are followed and protected. I guess ... I just didn't expect to be reassured in such a personal way."

"It's a new day, Mrs. Hamilton. A new time. We have dangerous enemies. Sometimes they turn up in unexpected places. We have to be vigilant. The President has talked a lot about all of that, too. I'm sure you're aware of what he's said about how committed he is to protecting innocent Americans, aren't you?"

"Yes ... yes, I suppose you're right. I just hadn't thought it through all the way."

"Almost no one does. I have to admit that I find that very disappointing. I mean, I'd like to think people understand the meaning of what they say they support. On the other hand, it makes our job easier in many ways." Mrs. Hamilton began to look worried again, even frightened. Damn, he said to himself. You always say too much in these meetings. This isn't the time to question the complexities of what you do, what you have to do.

"But look," he quickly went on. "As I said, I'm here to reassure you. You don't need to worry anymore about Social Security or Medicare, or Supreme Court appointments, or any of the other things you've written about so often. So often." He smiled at her, and quietly laughed. She finally offered a small laugh in return. "The President is fully committed to the policies he's talked about, the policies you support. Of course, we never know how obstructionist the other party will be, or what difficulties they'll cause. So there are some elements that aren't within the President's control. Still, to the greatest extent possible, the President will make sure all those things you're so strongly committed to will be protected. We want to make sure you know that."

"All right. But ... but, couldn't someone have just sent me a letter?" She looked at him with an amused expression.

"Sure, I suppose we could have done it that way. But everyone complains about how impersonal government has become, the curse of bureaucracy and all that. You've written about that, too."

"Yes, yes, I have." She laughed again.

"So we thought a personal visit would be much better. We want to emphasize how strongly we're committed to the policies we all want. Much better to hear it from someone in person, don't you think?"

"It is much more convincing than a form letter." She smiled. After a moment, she asked, "And that's it? That's what you wanted to tell me?"

He extended his arms, palms turned upwards, as if to say, That's all I've got. He still wasn't able to lie about it right to someone's face, especially to a lovely woman like Mrs. Hamilton. Not that it mattered at this point. But still.

"We should be going. Say goodbye to the nice man, Joanna." They had stood up. Joanna turned to Maddox and said, "Bye!," smiling radiantly. God damn it, he thought. He had stood, too. He raised his hand and gave a little wave.

They had taken just a couple of steps when he spoke again.

"Mrs. Hamilton." She stopped; she and Joanna turned to him. "Yes?" She didn't look at all frightened any longer. It usually happened that way. It always surprised him.

"I'm afraid there is one more thing. After we'd become aware of you because of all those comments and emails, we did some further checking. Just routine stuff. But it turned up some donations you've been making regularly to a few charities. Two of those charities appear on the list of organizations we've designated as terrorist groups."

"What are you talking about? I don't give money to terrorist groups."

"I realize that. You thought you were donating to charities. But the charities are fronts for terrorist organizations. And you've made donations to them regularly for years. And it wouldn't matter so much, except that we recently received intelligence indicating that one of those terrorist organizations is planning a major attack right here in the city. It's something big, so stopping the attack has been given the highest priority. We have to do everything possible to stop it, and to stop everyone who has any connection to it. Any connection at all. I've checked and rechecked all of this with the main office. We have no choice, not if we want to protect innocent American lives."

He said all this with great calm and deliberation. He wanted to be sure she understood. Not that it mattered, he told himself again. But still. He saw the color drain from her face. She gripped Joanna's hand with all her strength. He saw that, too. She understood.

"To stop everyone ..." Her voice trailed into nothingness.

"Yes. Everyone."

"But ... but we're in the park. Someone could come by at any moment."

"No one ever comes here, except you. And Joanna. I can't tell you how sorry I am that Joanna is with you. There wasn't any other way to do it. But Joanna ... well. Unavoidable collateral damage. Awful."

He looked genuinely pained. She thought, He still has a kind face. How can he have a kind face? In the next moment, he took his hand out of his pocket and raised the gun.

In the same moment, she started to scream, "Run, Joanna, r---." There were two soft sounds, pock-pock. A small hole opened in Joanna's forehead, followed a split second later by a hole in Mrs. Hamilton's forehead. For a moment, both bodies remained frozen in place. Then they both slowly crumpled to the ground, and the blood began to pool around their heads.

He put the gun back in his pocket. He looked around to make certain no one else could be seen. That wasn't actually a problem. The drones that regularly swept over the park would pick up anyone who might have witnessed the murders. If there were witnesses, they could be dealt with easily enough. But it was better not to have any loose ends.

He began to walk out of the glen. When he reached the turn in the path, he turned back to take one last look. The pools of blood continued to spread on the ground beneath the bodies. There was nothing else to see in this quiet corner of the park.

There were still no birds here. There was no sign of life at all.

II. The Meaning of What You Support

This story is not fiction. Yes, I've invented the characters, the dialogue and the specific actions. But in terms of its essentials, I repeat for emphasis: this is not fiction. This is the meaning of the policies you support and sanction if you vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney for President. If you vote for either man, you condone the murders of Mrs. Hamilton and Joanna.

In fact, events exactly like what transpires in my story have happened countless times over the last several years. They haven't happened here in the United States -- at least, not that we know of. But such murders take place regularly in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Yemen, in Somalia, and in additional countries. The victims include American citizens. But they were murdered abroad, not in America. The specific locale is irrelevant. If you sanction murders that happen abroad -- murders of Americans or people who are not Americans -- you sanction murders here at home as well.

If you vote for Obama or Romney, that is certainly your right -- although you will forever forfeit the right to speak of "rights" at all. If a human being can be murdered for any reason, or for no reason at all, merely on the arbitrary order of someone who claims the power to issue such orders, she has no rights at all. You thus sanction the destruction of all rights, of all human beings -- including yours. The victim may be Mrs. Hamilton, or Joanna -- or you.

If you vote for Obama or Romney, do so proudly. I want you to say: "I vote for Obama/Romney proudly. I am proud to be a knowing accomplice to their murders, including the murders of innocent human beings." Say that, and those of us who refuse to surrender our souls will know where you stand.

This is not a complicated issue. It is stunningly straightforward. Those who seek to complicate and confuse it do so because they will not identify the meaning of their support, either to themselves or to anyone else. When they wish still to be regarded as "civilized," murderers and their accomplices will engage in endless irrelevant arguments and invent complexities where none exist. Don't let them get away with it. They are knowing accomplices to murder. Make them say it.

I have explained this issue repeatedly for several years. For those who remain confused -- and I am marginally sympathetic in certain cases, given the strenuous efforts exerted by so many to create confusions out of nothing -- allow me to offer a brief review. In "Murder with Malice Aforethought" from June 2010, I wrote:

Obama and his administration claim the "right" to murder anyone in the world, wherever he or she may be, for whatever reason they choose -- or for no reason at all. Obama and his administration recognize no upper limit to the number of people they can murder in this manner: they can murder as many people as they wish. And they claim there is nothing at all that may impede their exercise of this "right."

This is the game entire. Understand this: once Obama and his administration have claimed this, there is nothing left to argue about. They can murder you -- and they can murder anyone else at all. What in the name of anything you hold holy remains to be "debated" once a vile, damnable "right" of this kind has been claimed?

This is a war crime [under the Nuremberg Principles]: "murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory..."

It is also a crime against humanity: "Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population..."

Under Principle VII, all those who are complicit in these crimes are also guilty.

Expanding on this in the second part of "Reflections on a Bestial Culture" in June of this year, I said:

Be sure to understand this issue. The claim of absolute power -- the claim of dominion over all of human life itself, and the assertion of a damnable "right" to unleash death whenever and in whatever direction they wish -- is not remotely equivalent to any dispute over lowering Social Security benefits, raising the retirement age, or any similar question, at least it is not equivalent to any sane person. The claim of absolute power is sui generis; it is a claim unlike any other. It is not -- I repeat: it is not -- simply another "question of policy." It is certainly possible that, in particular cases, the deprivation of medical benefits (as just one example) may ultimately result in a person's death sooner than would have occurred otherwise. But for some period of time, however brief, the persons so affected are left with the possibility of action; they can still try to save themselves, even if those efforts are finally unsuccessful. But the claim of a "right" to dispense death arbitrarily -- the claim that the State may murder anyone it chooses, whenever it desires -- constitutes a separate category altogether, a category of which this particular claim is the sole unit. When death is unleashed, all possibility of action is ended forever.

Yet you can read various harsh denunciations of this policy, and you will almost never encounter language of the kind I employ here. Even for the most vehement of "dissenters," the assertion of absolute power is treated as another in a list of wrongs, perhaps an especially egregious wrong, but not a claim which demands a fundamentally different response. For such writers, it is certainly nothing to take to the streets about; it is no cause for withdrawing one's support in every way possible from a system of evil dedicated to death.

Later in the same essay, in discussing the Obama administration's urgent participation in the lengthy New York Times article about Obama's Kill List, I wrote:

[T]his in effect announces the identity of the article's true author: the author is the U.S. government, the State itself. Through these "advisers," the highest levels of the U.S. government have told the story they want to tell. And what is that story? It is simply this:

The State is become death. Our target can be anyone we choose. Yes, this means you. No, there is nowhere to run.

It is not every day that the State announces in the august pages of "the paper of record" that its primary program, the central mission to which it patiently and carefully devotes its vast resources, is the elimination of human life, wherever, whenever and to whatever extent it wishes.

This is what you support if you vote for Obama. Let the meaning of the phrase sink in: a vote for Obama. If you vote for Obama, you vote for the murder of anyone, anywhere, anytime. Your vote is not accompanied by a short treatise which explains that you vote for policies one through five, but against policies six through 10. Your vote is an either-or proposition. This, too, is not a complicated issue. If you vote for Obama and you oppose his murder program, how do you propose to stop his murders if he is reelected? You're not going to stop them. Anyone who votes for him knows that. It's worse than pointless to argue the point with them. They know the murders will continue.

The same is true for Romney. As one example, look at this exchange from the Republican primary debate on November 12, 2011:

Scott Pelley: And that is time. Thank you, sir. Governor Romney. Governor Romney, recently President Obama ordered the death of an American citizen who was suspected of terrorist activity overseas. Is it appropriate for the American president on the president's say-so alone to order the death of an American citizen suspected of terrorism?

Mitt Romney: Absolutely.

Give the bastard a point for clarity and brevity. The totality of Romney's views make it indisputable that he means that "Absolutely." A vote for Romney is a vote for murder without end, of anyone, anywhere, anytime. Grant the principle in one case, and you have granted it in all cases.

This issue is a very simple one. This question stands alone; there is no other issue that begins to approach it. I understand very well that people care passionately about ensuring the continuation of Social Security (they hope), or protecting the environment (they hope), or establishing full equality for women (they hope). Take another look at the story that began this essay. Even if every other issue you care about is, in fact, advanced and safeguarded by Obama (or Romney, if that's your preference), if the President and his associates have the power to order the murder of anyone for any reason, that is the end of the argument. If you're dead, the other issues don't matter a damn. If people can't understand this, it's because they refuse to understand it.

Many people refuse to understand it, including famous and well-regarded writers and dissenters. It gives me no pleasure to offer harsh criticism of men like Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky, but this is not a time for avoiding confrontation and argument. The repeated public announcement of the State's assertion of absolute power demands the most forceful response possible. I hold both men in very high regard for their past work (and even for some of their more recent work); in the case of Ellsberg, I am deeply grateful for his past acts of astonishing heroism. But past work and past actions are no guarantee for the future. People change; there lies the possibility of glory, and the possibility of ignominy. I expect, I demand to be held to the same standard myself.

With regard to the following passages, keep in mind what I said in the earlier essay:

Even for the most vehement of "dissenters," the assertion of absolute power is treated as another in a list of wrongs, perhaps an especially egregious wrong, but not a claim which demands a fundamentally different response. For such writers, it is certainly nothing to take to the streets about; it is no cause for withdrawing one's support in every way possible from a system of evil dedicated to death.

Daniel Ellsberg recently wrote the following. To make certain his argument can be evaluated fairly, I offer an excerpt which is not brief:

An activist colleague recently said to me: “I hear you’re supporting Obama.”

I was startled, and took offense. “Supporting Obama? Me?!”

“I lose no opportunity publicly,” I told him angrily, to identify Obama as a tool of Wall Street, a man who’s decriminalized torture and is still complicit in it, a drone assassin, someone who’s launched an unconstitutional war, supports kidnapping and indefinite detention without trial, and has prosecuted more whistleblowers like myself than all previous presidents put together. “Would you call that support?”

My friend said, “But on Democracy Now you urged people in swing states to vote for him! How could you say that? I don’t live in a swing state, but I will not and could not vote for Obama under any circumstances.”

My answer was: a Romney/Ryan administration would be no better -- no different -- on any of the serious offenses I just mentioned or anything else, and it would be much worse, even catastrophically worse, on a number of other important issues: attacking Iran, Supreme Court appointments, the economy, women’s reproductive rights, health coverage, safety net, climate change, green energy, the environment.

I told him: “I don’t ‘support Obama.’ I oppose the current Republican Party. This is not a contest between Barack Obama and a progressive candidate. The voters in a handful or a dozen close-fought swing states are going to determine whether Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are going to wield great political power for four, maybe eight years, or not.”

As Noam Chomsky said recently, “The Republican organization today is extremely dangerous, not just to this country, but to the world. It’s worth expending some effort to prevent their rise to power, without sowing illusions about the Democratic alternatives.”

Following that logic, he’s said to an interviewer what my friend heard me say to Amy Goodman: “If I were a person in a swing state, I’d vote against Romney/Ryan, which means voting for Obama because there is no other choice.”

Note the list of "serious offenses" that I highlighted. Ellsberg lists "a drone assassin" as another "serious offense." It's not another "serious offense." It is the ultimate offense -- against civilization, against every person now alive, against life itself.

A vote for Obama is support of Obama's assassination program. Ellsberg can call it whatever he wants; the fact of his support is not altered. I assume that Ellsberg's report of Chomsky's identical view on this question is accurate. (If it is not, I would appreciate being pointed to a source for refutation.) Assuming their views to be the same, they are both accomplices to murder. I want them to say it.

Certain remarks of Glenn Greenwald's fall into a related, but different category. The Greenwald comments are different because, at least in this column -- from December 31, 2011 -- Greenwald is at pains to say "that I am not 'endorsing' or expressing support for anyone’s candidacy..." (I do not read Greenwald with any regularity, so if he has since endorsed Obama, I would be interested to know that. I don't read him regularly in large part because of the error I am about to discuss, and a number of similar errors; see the concluding section of this essay for one example.) The column offers a detailed examination of Obama's "heinous views" and actions "on a slew of critical issues," and contrasts Obama's views with those of Ron Paul. Greenwald (correctly) criticizes those who seek to minimize or avoid just how heinous Obama's record is.

Then he writes (the italics and highlighting are his):

It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

Without my adopting it, that is at least an honest, candid, and rational way to defend one’s choice. It is the classic lesser-of-two-evils rationale, the key being that it explicitly recognizes that both sides are “evil”: meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less Evil contest.

As in the Ellsberg example, Greenwald lists "American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process" together with other heinous policies and acts. To be sure, the slaughter of Muslims (and not only children), the evils of the prison complex and the Surveillance State, and the other items he lists are indeed heinous -- but murder by arbitrary whim remains the ultimate heinous crime. These are not policy choices of equal weight and meaning.

As I have written before: "the claim of a 'right' to dispense death arbitrarily -- the claim that the State may murder anyone it chooses, whenever it desires -- constitutes a separate category altogether, a category of which this particular claim is the sole unit. When death is unleashed, all possibility of action is ended forever." For this reason -- and it is the only reason required -- it is not "perfectly rational and reasonable" to decide that "the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate."

There is no evil beyond the claimed "right" to murder by arbitrary edict, to murder anyone, anywhere, anytime. If you support this particular evil -- and if you vote for Obama, you support it -- then you will support anything.

I want to mention two comparatively minor points. The inclusion in Greenwald's list of the purported preferred policies of "a President with no association with racist views in a newsletter" is a reference to the Paul controversy about this issue. But it's an astonishing claim to make in Obama's favor. Obama himself has expressed viciously racist views (see generally this, as well as all the links collected there; see this, too, as well as this for a narrower example concerning black fathers) -- and much more significantly, the most lethal racism is embodied in countless aspects of Obama's foreign policy, a subject which I recall Greenwald himself has addressed. To mention "associations with racist views in a newsletter" in the context of Obama's own record is trivial and ludicrous.

The second point is that, in response to this Greenwald post, Roy Edroso offered some very heated criticism of Greenwald's argument. Greenwald made some remarks in Edroso's comment section, but all the comments have disappeared from Edroso's site, apparently the result of a site redesign. However, I'd saved the comment; Edroso references Greenwald's comment in an update to his post, and I'm certain Greenwald would confirm its content if questioned. In any case, the comment merely repeats the essence of Greenwald's argument as set forth in his original column, so I need not rely on it for my criticism. But his rewording is worth noting. Here is Greenwald's comment as I had saved it originally (again, the italics and highlighting are Greenwald's):

Roy - I appreciate the post, but I actually did lay out in detail exactly why one could still rationally and reasonably support Obama despite the issues you flagged (on which I do think Paul is clearly better). This is what I said could constitute exactly that sort of endorsement:

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

I think it's far from clear that the issues in bold are insign[i]ficant or outweighed by the horrible positions Obama has taken.

No, it's not "far from clear." Obama's assertion of an unrestricted "right" to murder whomever he chooses for whatever reason he likes is of the greatest "significance," and it "outweighs" every other item.

As I noted, since Greenwald did not endorse Obama in his column (and has not, to my knowledge), I view this as different in that sense from the Ellsberg-Chomsky argument. Nonetheless, failing to identify the full meaning of the claim to absolute power -- and why the claim is fundamentally different from every other issue -- remains a grievous error, one which necessarily must lead to horrifying and tragic results.

III. The Lesson of History

The twentieth century saw a series of conflicts and catastrophes that are terrifying to contemplate. Yet as I have sometimes remarked, as awful as the slaughter and devastation were, what sometimes almost seems worse to me is that it appears we have learned nothing at all.

Over six years ago, on September 30, 2006, I wrote "Thus the World Was Lost" after the passage of the Military Commissions Act. Most people have already forgotten that Act; it is almost never mentioned now. We have learned nothing, and we remember nothing. After discussing that Act and its meaning, I noted: "People often exhibit a visceral rejection of comparisons of our dire predicament to the rise of Nazi Germany." I addressed that rejection in the earlier article.

I then offered some excerpts from a book by Milton Mayer. I thought of editing the excerpts for inclusion here, but I then decided to repeat the excerpts as I had first posted them. The continuing relevance of these passages grieves me more deeply than I can find words to express.

This is what I wrote:

Finally, I offer several excerpts from Milton Mayer's illuminating and frightening book, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45. I will not belabor the parallels,and I leave you free to draw what conclusions you will.

In Chapter 14, "Collective Shame," Mayer refers to the "excesses" of the "radical" Nazis, and discusses how some people attempted to oppose them [the highlights throughout are mine]:

""Yes," said my colleague, shaking his head, "the 'excesses' and the 'radicals.' We all opposed them, very quietly. So your two 'little men' thought they must join, as good men, good Germans, even as good Christians, and when enough of them did they would be able to change the party. They would 'bore from within.' 'Big men' told themselves that, too, in the usual sincerity that required them only to abandon one little principle after another, to throw away, little by little, all that was good. I was one of those men.

"You know," he went on, "when men who understand what is happening--the motion, that is, of history, not the reports of single events or developments--when such men do not object or protest, men who do not understand cannot be expected to. How many men would you say understand--in this sense--in America? And when, as the motion of history accelerates and those who don't understand are crazed by fear, as our people were, and made into a great 'patriotic' mob, will they understand then, when they did not before?

"We learned here--I say this freely--to give up trying to make them understand after, oh, the end of 1938, after the night of the synagogue burning and the things that followed it. Even before the war began, men who were teachers, men whose faith in teaching was their whole faith, gave up, seeing that there was no comprehension, no capacity left for comprehension, and the thing must go its course, taking first its victims, then its architects, and then the rest of us to destruction. ..."

A few pages later, Mayer tells the story of a chemical engineer, who brought Mayer "even closer to the heart of the matter..."

One day, when we had become very friendly, I said to him, "Tell me now--how was the world lost?"

"That," he said, "is easy to tell, much easier than you may suppose. The world was lost one day in 1935, here in Germany. It was I who lost it, and I will tell you how.

"I was employed in a defense plant (a war plant, of course, but they were always called defense plants). That was the year of the National Defense Law, the law of 'total conscription.' Under the law I was required to take the oath of fidelity. I said I would not; I opposed it in conscience. I was given twenty-four hours to 'think it over.' In those twenty-four hours I lost the world."

The engineer recounts how his refusal to take the oath would have meant the loss of his job, and that he would have had difficulty getting another, at least in his chosen field. But he tried "not to think" of himself or his family -- but of "the people to whom I might be of some help later on, if things got worse..."

He finally took the oath: "That day the world was lost, and it was I who lost it." But in fact, the engineer did save lives:

"For the sake of argument," he said, "I will agree that I saved many lives later on. Yes."

"Which you could not have done if you had refused to take the oath in 1935."

"Yes."

"And you still think that you should not have taken the oath."

"Yes."

"I don't understand," I said.

"Perhaps not," he said, "but you must not forget that you are an American. I mean that, really. Americans have never known anything like this experience--in its entirety, all the way to the end. That is the point."

"You must explain," I said.

"Of course I must explain. First of all, there is the problem of the lesser evil. Taking the oath was not so evil as being unable to help my friends later on would have been. But the evil of the oath was certain and immediate, and the helping of my friends was in the future and therefore uncertain. I had to commit a positive evil, there and then, in the hope of a possible good later on. The good outweighed the evil; but the good was only a hope, the evil was a fact."

As their conversation continues, and to make the case for the engineer's decision to take the oath as strong as possible, they agree that "only" three million innocent people were slaughtered by the Nazis, while the engineer saved as many as a thousand lives. The engineer asks:

"And it would have been better to have saved all three million, instead of only a hundred, or a thousand?"

"Of course."

"There, then, is my point. If I had refused to take the oath of fidelity, I would have saved all three millions."

"You are joking," I said.

"No."

"You don't mean to tell me that your refusal would have overthrown the regime in 1935?"

"No."

"Or that others would have followed your example?"

"No."

"I don't understand."

"You are an American," he said again, smiling. "I will explain. There I was, in 1935, a perfect example of the kind of person who, with all his advantages in birth, in education, and in position, rules (or might easily rule) in any country. If I had refused to take the oath in 1935, it would have meant that thousands and thousands like me, all over Germany, were refusing to take it. Their refusal would have heartened millions. Thus the regime would have been overthrown, or, indeed, would never have come to power in the first place. The fact that I was not prepared to resist, in 1935, meant that all the thousands, hundreds of thousands, like me in Germany were also unprepared, and each one of these hundreds of thousands was, like me, a man of great influence or of great potential influence. Thus the world was lost."

"You are serious?" I said.

"Completely," he said. "These hundred lives I saved--or a thousand or ten as you will--what do they represent? A little something out of the whole terrible evil, when, if my faith had been strong enough in 1935, I could have prevented the whole evil."

The claim of a "right" to murder anyone for any reason is the greatest expression of evil we can imagine. Both Obama and Romney claim the President has such a right. Obama has actualized his belief on many occasions. Any individual who claims such a right cannot, by definition, represent a "lesser evil" of any kind. He claims as his own the greatest evil possible. Every other issue, no matter how important it may be in itself, no matter how passionately we may feel about it, is necessarily less significant.

For the German engineer, taking the "oath of fidelity" represented a "certain and immediate" evil. The same must be true of support for a person who claims the right to unrestricted, unbounded murder. As the engineer said: "I had to commit a positive evil, there and then, in the hope of a possible good later on. The good outweighed the evil; but the good was only a hope, the evil was a fact."

It is a fact that Obama and Romney both claim the President possesses absolute power, the power over life itself -- and this with regard to every human being alive. It is a fact that a vote for Obama or Romney means that you support their claim. Demand that anyone who says he or she will vote for Obama or Romney declare: "I vote for Obama/Romney proudly. I am proud to be a knowing accomplice to their murders, including the murders of innocent human beings."

Make them say it. I still have hope for the future, but whatever hope I have rests on our understanding, identifying and accepting the meaning of what we are doing. To vote for Obama or Romney is to be a knowing accomplice to their murders. If that is what you are, say it. Say it -- and be damned.

Then we can defend ourselves.


(There remains much more to be said, including how one stops supporting evil. I will begin to deal with that in the next article on this subject.)

Nosty Pays Another Call: Sissies Love Their Drones

I mention the following point not as an exercise of obnoxious, unbridled arrogance, or as some kind of boast. I myself view it much more prosaically: it just happens to be true. And the point is this: for many years now, I've predicted, often in some detail, how future events would play out. I've done so by identifying the nature of the principles involved in the actions and statements of our political leaders, and by consulting history to see how similar situations have developed in the past. The entire process is often inordinately complicated, and it frequently makes my head hurt a lot. I'm obviously naming just the essentials of the analysis involved, and in very abstract terms. It's the dizzying number of details (together with what are often inconsistencies and contradictions) that make it so damnably difficult.

I could offer many examples to support the claim. Here are just a few: "An Election Conceived in Nausea," concerning the utter uselessness of the Democrats, written on October 30, 2006; "The Fatal Illusion of Opposition" and "Silenced: Barack Obama and the End of Struggle toward Truth and Freedom," published in May and August 2008, respectively. Consider, too, this very brief excerpt from a longer argument:

The overall course the Obama administration will follow will be that indicated by [Naomi] Klein with regard to torture, and the same stratagem will be applied to the use of torture, to confrontation with Iran, and to every other issue of significance. Klein refers to the removal of "small piece[s]" of the torture apparatus, and the return to "plausible deniability." We can make the same point in a different way: the Obama administration will return to the days when the U.S. government practiced all these horrors, but with better PR.

That's from "You Aren't Going to Beat the System, Baby" -- and it was published on January 10, 2009. Yes, friends, before the supersplendiferous, transcenfuckingdental Obama even took office.

There are many more examples; take a stroll through the archives if you have the time and interest. Given the nature of the all-devouring system that consumes us as it lays waste to increasing swathes of the world, my predictions have generally been awful ones. This is another reason my record in this regard is not offered boastfully: the accuracy of my ability makes me desolately unhappy. It also does not make me very popular or widely read; most people would prefer not to think about the hell that lies ahead. Nonetheless, even if I could fundamentally alter my approach (I can't), I wouldn't. I myself think it's best to know the truth, as accurately and fully as we can ascertain it, the better to prepare ourselves. The reference in the title of this post comes from "Concerning Those Who Manufacture and Eat Shit," from 2010, where I noted at the end that: "I think I may change my name on this here blog. From now on, perhaps I'll sign my posts: Nostradamus Silber. But you can call me Nosty."

That is by way of preface. In my essay the other day, I included the following argument. It was off the major topic, so I offered it parenthetically. After noting that many of the nightmarish developments over the last decade were barely credible in one sense (although they remained predictable, if one knows what to look for), I wrote:

(As just one example, consider the trajectory of public attitudes concerning drones being used domestically in the United States. First, almost no one thought drones would ever be used domestically, certainly not in significant numbers. Then, most Americans got used to the idea of domestic drones, but we were concerned about "intrusive" surveillance and invasions of "privacy." Now, most Americans have already become accustomed to the idea of wide-scale surveillance, and they don't resist overhauling our conception of "privacy" altogether. This battle is already over; the battle was never actually engaged. The incontrovertible fact is that incomprehensible, endless, ever-proliferating regulations, statutes, rules and orders already allow the government to do whatever the hell it wants -- including murdering whomever it chooses, whenever it wants. In perhaps as few as five years, the skies over the United States will be filled with huge numbers of drones on a regular basis. Within ten years, most people won't even remember what life was like without them -- and if they do remember, most people won't care.)

Yesterday, just one day after I published that article, I saw this: "Bay Area Law Enforcement Agencies Test Drones." The story begins this way:

They began as tools in military combat. Now aerial drones are being considered by Bay Area law enforcement agencies as a cost-cutting way to replace helicopters, and use technology to fight crime and save lives.

A few aspects of the story should be noted, for they reveal the manner in which certain patterns are repeated over and over again.

The Alameda County Sheriff "says the drones get a birds-eye view that most tactical officers on the ground would never get, sometimes endangering their lives." The Sheriff goes on:

“Very valuable to any tactical officer, as you’re setting up your perimeters and knowing what the suspect may have in his hands, how the suspect is dressed, what are the avenues of escape?” Ahern added that his office would only use drones during emergencies, from a high-speed or high-risk chase to search-and-rescue operations in disasters, as well as proactive policing measures like catching marijuana grows in fields on public lands and in grow houses.

These patterns are all too horribly familiar at this point. Just as the U.S. military and its adjuncts rejoice that they can murder human beings and wreak destruction all over the globe without ever endangering oh-so-precious American lives (in contrast to all those other lives, which aren't worth shit), the Sheriff exults in the realization that law enforcement can spy everywhere in detail, and then develop and execute its plans of capture and murder (only with great reluctance, of course, and only if those rotten bastards make the good guys murder them, of course) -- all while protecting their own miserable asses. It's highly amusing. The good-guy tough guys used to be inordinately proud of their willingness "to put their asses on the line." Now they puff up their manly chests with the knowledge that their own asses will be sprinkled with baby powder and swaddled in the softest down, far from even the smallest particle of danger.

Bless the drones! For they have brought us the burgeoning legions of the New Sheriffs (and New Presidents, and New Generals, and...), all fashioned in accordance with Gore Vidal's memorable line about Theodore Roosevelt: "Give a sissy a gun and he will kill everything in sight." Drones dispense entirely with the requirement of "sight" in the old, immediate sense. Today, the farther away the victim is, the better.

I note only in passing the reference to "proactive policing measures," such as those concerning the horrific crime of growing marijuana, which would never be viewed as anything other than shatteringly good news in a minimally sane world. But ask yourself: if, rather when drones are found to be so wonderful in terms of saving certain lives, as well as marvelously effective in providing oodles of information about criminal activity (together with information about what a healthy three-year-old would consider entirely non-criminal), why not increase their use? Why not use drones to ferret out information about, well, anything and everything at all? That is the pattern the U.S. government follows abroad; it will be precisely the same here at home.

Then the story provides us with the obligatory "Oh, but wait a sec..." passage, with the obligatory appearance by the ACLU:

But not everyone is pleased at the growing number of agencies looking to use these [Unmanned Aerial Systems]. The American Civil Liberties Union or ACLU says drones should only be deployed when a warrant for a specific crime is involved. The ACLU is also worried that they may harm both privacy and people. In a statement, the ACLU wrote, “Drone manufacturers are also considering offering police the option of arming these remote-controlled aircraft with weapons like rubber bullets, Tasers, and tear gas.”

Sheriff Ahern says an armed drone is out of the question. He says local public safety agencies must take advantage of innovation that’s out there, calling it a “no brainer.”

"[A]n armed drone is out of the question." Sheriff Ahern doesn't mean that. You know he doesn't mean it. He knows you know it. None of that matters. The "innovation that's out there" will include armed drones soon enough. And then it, too, will be a "no brainer." That's always how this pattern plays out. Everyone knows that, at least if they're honest. The ACLU knows it, too, just as the ACLU knows it will lose this battle. At a certain point, you have to wonder how long, and how innocently, people can continue to engage in these charades.

Then this morning, Vastleft sent me this link: "CIA seeks to expand drone fleet, officials say":

The CIA is urging the White House to approve a significant expansion of the agency’s fleet of armed drones, a move that would extend the spy service’s decade-long transformation into a paramilitary force, U.S. officials said.

The proposal by CIA Director David H. Petraeus would bolster the agency’s ability to sustain its campaigns of lethal strikes in Pakistan and Yemen and enable it, if directed, to shift aircraft to emerging al-Qaeda threats in North Africa or other trouble spots, officials said

Sissies love their drones.

And here is where another critical pattern comes into play, one I've written about extensively. In brief: In addition to pursuing its goal of global hegemony, the United States government uses foreign countries as a lethal laboratory in which to practice the techniques it intends to use domestically, at home within U.S. borders. As I explained in "Terrorist State, Abroad and At Home" (from 2008, I note):

Just as it is not possible for an individual to restrict what constitutes a fundamental psychological methodology to only one area of his life, so a ruling class will not employ one approach in foreign policy while dealing with matters of domestic politics in a radically different manner. In any case, the U.S. ruling class never had such a desire: in one way or another, other nations would be made to submit to the demands of the U.S. government -- and the same is true for U.S. citizens. The citizens of America will do exactly as the ruling class demands -- or else. As far as the ruling class is concerned, you have as little reason to complain as the murdered Iraqis do: the ruling class only wishes to improve your life. The ruling class acts only on your behalf, and "for your own good."

In other words:

In perhaps as few as five years, the skies over the United States will be filled with huge numbers of drones on a regular basis [including armed drones]. Within ten years, most people won't even remember what life was like without them -- and if they do remember, most people won't care.

I have no more predictions for today.

Lucky me. Lucky you.

Cabrera for President!

Thus read a fan's sign during the Tigers' victory over the Yankees last night. For you low-information sports observers, the reference is to Miguel Cabrera, baseball's first Triple Crown winner in 45 years:

Cabrera became just the 15th player to win baseball's Triple Crown, joining an elite list that includes Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams and Lou Gehrig. Cabrera topped the AL with a .330 batting average, 44 homers and 139 RBIs, becoming the first Triple Crown winner in the major leagues since Boston's Carl Yastrzemski in 1967.

Cabrera for President! The story refers to Cabrera as "one of baseball's reluctant superstars." If he were to bring a similar reluctance to assuming the office of President, he might be a significantly less awful choice than what is on offer. And the fan's sentiments are one of the exceedingly rare indications of a perspective on the election that I regard as remotely beginning to approach healthy normality.

One aspect of the baseball playoffs this year unexpectedly provides a useful insight into the presidential "contest." The following is in the nature of A Brief Treatise on the Post-, Pre-, Anterior, Posterior, Ad Hoc, Constructivist, Expressionist, Whateverthefuckist Nature of (Un)Competition in Contemporary America. This particular thought scorched itself into my wounded soul as I watched the Orioles, for whom I had rooted all season with the single-minded devotion of a goggle-eyed ten-year-old, go down to defeat by the Yankees in the American League Division Series. The Orioles had played a lot of great baseball during the regular season. Then, in the series against the Yankees, they solemnly dedicated themselves to a peculiar proposition. I spoke to a man highly placed within the Orioles organization after the team had been consigned to the wastelands of winter by the imperialist, fascist Yankees. This man would only speak to me anonymously, since the team had not granted him permission to speak on the record about the team's (non)performance in the Yankees series. He explained to me, in a tone of grave recognition of what he regards as a seminal breakthrough in human understanding that is positively (which is to say, negatively) goddamn metaphysical in its implications, the nature of the Orioles' insight:

"Winning in baseball has always been predicated on scoring at least one more run than your opponent. So to win, you gotta score some runs. But everyone does it that way. The Orioles decided that was ultimately uninteresting. What if winning, at least in the Orioles' minds, resulted from not scoring runs? Now that would really be something! So that became the Orioles' holy grail: whatever you do, don't score runs! I've never seen a team so fervently dedicated to a single goal. It was totally awesome. And they succeeded! They didn't score runs more than the Yankees didn't score runs. Since the Yankees were barely scoring themselves, that was very, very difficult. But the Orioles pulled it off. I've never seen anything like it. So they lost, which is to say, they won. In their heads, I mean. In the end, regardless of the cheers or boos the world gives you, you have to be able to look yourself in the mirror. The Orioles can be mighty proud of themselves. It's not easy to not score runs the way they didn't score runs. Fantastic!"

He also pointed out, his face and voice dancing with delirious glee, that the Yankees finally realized the superior nature of the Orioles' achievement -- for the Yankees are bringing a similar dedication to not scoring runs in the series with the Tigers. So successful (which is to say, unsuccessful) are the Yankees in their new quest that they may be swept by the Tigers in tonight's game. My anonymous source exulted: "This is so great! The Yankees can buy runs the way they buy players and everything else. They've always done it that way. Now they understand there's a much more enlightened approach. Now they're buying not runs. You might see the tide of history actually turning once in your lifetime. You're seeing it right now. Fantastic!"

When you hear it explained in these terms, it's impossible to disagree. If the Yankees win tonight -- that is, if they lose -- they will compel my respect, as well as my gratitude. At least until they start acting like imperialist fascists again. I give them maybe 20 seconds.

But, you ask, what the bloody hell does any of this have to do with politics? If you reflect on it a moment, you'll see how obvious the answer is. The truth of what's happening is the opposite of what you think. Maybe not what you in particular think (the readers of this teensy blog are, like, supersmart, for which we are totally grateful), but what people generally think. "This is a fiercely fought contest for the future of America!" "The Democrats and Republicans have fundamentally opposed visions for our country!" "The fate of the nation, indeed the fate of the world, depends on who is elected President!"

What a load of crap. What's actually happening? Here's part of the explanation:

Fascinating and entirely predictable fact of the week, month, year, decade and century: no matter who is elected the next president of these wondrous, unique United States of America, "the last, best hope" of all the planets in all the multiverses ever posited in your strangulated imaginations, with respect to every matter of consequence, the next president will be ... a white man! Surprise!

...

[T]he beliefs, motives, and goals of the American ruling class have remained basically unchanged for well over a century. That means they are the beliefs, motives, and goals of a white ruling class. Obama may be biracial in hereditary terms, but in every significant respect, he is as white as any black man can be -- ideologically, politically, and with regard to every critical policy issue.

As they say, dear reader: only in America. It's one fucking great country.

Those are the opening and closing passages of an essay I wrote over four years ago. It's just as true today. When I wrote that piece in June 2008, Hillary Clinton was still in the race. As I explained in the article, in every significant functional respect, Clinton is a white man just as Obama is. (For a lengthy discussion of this point, together with tons o' links, see this.)

Romney and Obama are both perfect representatives and embodiments of the loathsome corporatist-authoritarian-militarist system that has been killing this country -- and millions of people, both abroad and at home -- since its inception. That's why they're running for President. In terms of essentials and basic principles, it doesn't matter a damn which is elected. But Americans do love their fantasy of a "representative democracy" -- which the United States never was, and was never intended to be. There is a significant sense in which the charade of national elections (and increasingly, the charade of elections at any level) is a symptom of a deeply neurotic, delusional separation from every relevant fact, and from reality altogether.

I'm working on a related essay which I hope to complete within the next week. In that piece, I will explain why I view anyone who is at all conversant with political events -- and I emphatically include all political commentators and bloggers, as well as regular readers of political blogs, in this group -- and who votes for either Romney or Obama to be profoundly immoral. I will also explain why I have concluded that anyone who votes for a third party candidate for national office, while certainly not immoral in the same sense, is making a grievous error. The error is especially regrettable because it makes far more likely the awful outcomes such voters say they oppose. I'll turn to those questions next time.

Now, I want to discuss a related but separate issue, and offer some thoughts about last night's debate. Yes, I watched it. Scotch helped. (Also periodically checking on the Yankees' commitment to not scoring more runs than the Tigers were not scoring, which blessedly remained intact. Go, Yankees! You almost appear to be not completely terrible for the moment.) As background to this issue, I offer another passage from that June 2008 post. I want to emphasize that I think very few people fully grasp the implications of these observations -- and I've found this failure to be common even among many dissenters and those who say they passionately oppose the actions of our government. The inability to acknowledge fully the meaning of this passage arises from the manner in which all of us are taught the primacy of obedience and the related reverence for authority from a very young age. These lessons make it almost impossible for most people to look at our national leaders and identify just how evil and dangerous they are. I'll have much more to say about this in the follow-up essay.

Here is that passage from four years ago:

Because all three of these politicians [Obama, McCain and Clinton] have chosen to engage in national politics at the highest level, they have no choice about enthusiastically adopting all the indicia of the ruling class, for indeed they are the ruling class. That is, they have no choice if they want to win. And all three of them assuredly want to win (even if one of them seems to be out of the running for the moment, but much can happen between now and November, and even between now and August).

Reflect for just a moment about what it is they want to win so desperately. Each of these three persons wants to be the most powerful ruler in the world. Given the nature of the weapons that will be at their disposal, they want to be the most powerful ruler in all of history, with the power to fundamentally transform human history and perhaps even to end it in significant part. Even if you believed that you acted righteously, with justice and truth on your side (let us set aside for the moment how one can believe that the power to murder millions of innocent people can ever be thought to be right or just, although I do not believe such considerations should ever be set aside), would you want power of that kind? If you would, I hope never to meet you. For any person who actively seeks the power of life and death over just one other human being, let alone millions of people, is deeply, irrevocably damaged in psychological terms. If we use the term "normal" to designate those goals and motives that can generally be described as supportive of individual life and happiness, no one who wants to be president of the United States is remotely close to normal. When you consider the years of relentless, soul-destroying ambition that are required to approach the office of president, together with the indefensible compromises, the endless lies, and the constant exercise of power over others in less extreme forms, anyone who deeply desires to be president verges on a constant state of insanity.

Yet one of these terrifyingly deranged people will, in fact, be the next president. Many Americans are excited, even thrilled, about the prospect, which tells you a rather important fact about most Americans, actually many important facts. I have numerous reasons for dreaming of a stateless world. There are others, but these are among the most critical of them.

If you follow that last link, you will learn my prescription for this election, and for all national elections. If a sufficient number of people followed that course of action, significant changes might begin, and in a largely nonviolent manner. Until fairly recently, I viewed that "tale" as simply that: an imagining of how life without allegiance to any external authority might begin to emerge. I considered it impossible for events to develop in that manner in actuality. But given the nature of events that have occurred in the last ten years -- many of which I never would have believed or thought remotely credible before they happened -- I no longer view it as mere fantasy. Far stranger things have happened in history; far stranger things are happening every day. (As just one example, consider the trajectory of public attitudes concerning drones being used domestically in the United States. First, almost no one thought drones would ever be used domestically, certainly not in significant numbers. Then, most Americans got used to the idea of domestic drones, but we were concerned about "intrusive" surveillance and invasions of "privacy." Now, most Americans have already become accustomed to the idea of wide-scale surveillance, and they don't resist overhauling our conception of "privacy" altogether. This battle is already over; the battle was never actually engaged. The incontrovertible fact is that incomprehensible, endless, ever-proliferating regulations, statutes, rules and orders already allow the government to do whatever the hell it wants -- including murdering whomever it chooses, whenever it wants. In perhaps as few as five years, the skies over the United States will be filled with huge numbers of drones on a regular basis. Within ten years, most people won't even remember what life was like without them -- and if they do remember, most people won't care.)

With regard to my earlier observations about the nature of the desire for power -- which in the political context always means power over human beings, as I've said for years -- it must never be forgotten that the desire for power is the desire to control human beings, to direct their lives and their choices, to force them to act in one particular way as opposed to other ways. The desire for power over others perverts and distorts an individual's psychology in a profound manner: it seeks to deny, and finally to obliterate, the human need for genuine autonomy, which means it seeks to deny, and finally to obliterate, the human capacity for happiness. Ultimately, the desire for power seeks to deny, and finally to obliterate, human life itself.

Anyone who seeks such power is, as I said, irrevocably damaged. This is certainly true of the two major candidates for president. Although I constantly had to fight off intense feelings of nausea, I found one aspect of last night's debate utterly fascinating. It concerns Obama, and the nature of his public image and performance. A number of people have commented on a peculiar oddness in Obama's manner, the sense he gives of a bizarre automaton. It reveals itself in his sense of discomfort, his frequent pauses in mid-phrase and mid-sentence, as if he has to struggle to remember his lines. That was an especially strong feeling I picked up from him last evening: it was as if he had to work very hard to remember which responses went with which questions, as if he were mechanically trying to fit the memorized bits into the right slots. Romney was much more natural in this respect. I hate using this word (especially because it's usually employed with unbearable pretentiousness), but Romney's performance was much more "organic." You may loathe the content of what Romney was saying, but there was the sense that a person exists who believes these things.

With Obama, it's as if there's no "person" there at all. While he very often paused momentarily as if trying to retrieve the particular phrases and points that were relevant, his relief when he realized that a particular canned paragraph could be used was palpable. You could almost hear his sigh of relief: "Oh, I can use that argument right here! Whew!" He struck me as not unlike a not very skilled college debater.

As I say, these points (and related ones) have been made by others. But as I was watching last evening, I tried to puzzle it out further. I thought about the countless areas in which Obama has acted as president in ways diametrically opposed to what he said he favored four years ago -- for example, with regard to all the national security issues for which he heatedly criticized Bush. Yet, as a number of writers have also pointed out, he's outdone Bush in every respect, and he also regularly perpetrates civil liberties horrors that Bush would never have dared attempt. And the same is true across almost all domestic issues, including his pet issue, health "care." The despicable health "reform" act is primarily an express train delivering helpless people by the tens of millions directly into the bloody maw of the insurance companies. I have no doubt that with regard to every issue of health care about which Obama claims to care so passionately, the "reform" of which he is so proud will make life intolerably worse.

I could express the point more informally. Romney will do terrible things; if you know how to listen and understand what he says, you realize that Romney tells you he will do terrible things. Those terrible things are what Romney genuinely believes.

But Obama told us and continues to tell us that he will do wonderful things. Now, if you know how to listen and understand what he says, you realized that all those wonderful promises were vicious lies four years ago. And Obama's record over his first term is of consistently pursuing policies that lead to results that are the opposite of what he claims to want. The same would certainly be true in a second Obama term. So Obama will also do terrible things -- in fact, they're largely the same terrible things Romney will do -- but Obama continues to insist that he'll do wonderful things. So where is the "person"? Is the person the one who promises wonderful things -- or the one who does terrible things?

As I watched Obama last night, I finally understood the answer. The "person" is nowhere to be found: there simply is no person. After his disengaged performance in the first debate, some commentators wondered if Obama even wanted a second term, if he still wanted to be president at all. Democratic partisans and Obama supporters have taken heart from his more aggressive manner last night. They are reacting only to what is on the most superficial level. They cannot see (or they will not permit themselves to see) the enormous effort that was required for Obama to appear engaged and assertive, as I've described it above. They take solace in canned slogans and phrases, and they react to emotional signifiers devoid of content. Not only are those signifiers devoid of content: they are directly contradicted by Obama's record in office. Those who choose to be deluded will continue to believe the lies Obama tells, and the lies they tell themselves.

But those of us who recognize the truth of Obama's record, and the truth of his false promises then and now, can understand the absence of a person in the sense I've attempted to describe. Those who wonder if Obama wants to be president at all came close to the truth. I think the more complete truth is far worse, and far more terrifying, and I didn't fully grasp it myself until last night. I conclude that Obama never wanted to be president, that is, he never wanted to do the work, master the details, understand the mechanics of the overwhelming complexities of a massive, constantly metastasizing State. Yes, he wanted to have the title "President" and enjoy the power and prestige that accompanies it (to say nothing of the fact that he and his family are now set for life at the pinnacle of the ruling class). But he never wanted to be president because there were certain policies to which he was passionately committed and wanted to put into action. He wants to be called "Mr. President"; leave the dull, wearisome duties of office to the underlings. That's what underlings are for. We might regard him as the most frighteningly complete narcissist we are likely to see, as well as perhaps the most complete solipsist. There are no policies beyond himself that he deeply cares about; there is nothing beyond himself at all. Outside of himself and his own power, he believes nothing.

At the same time, as I've noted, there is no "person" there, either. When you combine these two aspects, you are left with what might be the ultimate horror in psychological terms: a narcissist, and a solipsist, with no "self." When you care about nothing beyond this arrested, primitive sense of "self," you are left with nothing at all. That also means you are capable of anything. To be more accurate, you are left with one thing: a deep reservoir of rage and hatred. An individual cannot destroy his own personhood in this way and avoid the profound, unrelenting rage that must result. Rage of this kind demands an outlet. Thus, Obama is inevitably led to murder without end, first abroad and now increasingly at home. For a damaged person like Obama, a Kill List is an absolute necessity.

So that is the choice for Americans in November: a man who will commit terrible, evil acts -- and who tells you that he will, or a man who will commit terrible, evil acts -- and who insists that he won't. Neither can be countenanced by anyone who gives a damn in any sense, and who cares about the value of a human life. Since both men are committed to evil, neither can be supported by a decent human being. If you vote for either, you are supporting evil. And I am compelled to say, in terms of the argument as I have developed it, that Obama may well be the more dangerous. As I just noted, he is capable of anything. At least in general terms, we know the nature of the evil that Romney will commit. As for Obama -- why, the evil he will commit may well be unimaginable.

I can only repeat what I said four years ago, now with a desolate, blasted heart: It's one fucking great country.