The important thing is not so much who wrote the song, or even what it said or didn't say, or what was seen in the background or not. The important thing is who is behind such messages and to what end (besides selling a car). It's little conversations like this where I continue to drag out the little book, American Dream/Global Nightmare by Sardar and Davies, for consideration. They make a case for the reasoning behind the building of the myths surrounding the "special" place the USA has in world history and as a people and a culture ("Designer Culture", is my personal term for it). Using the psychological tools developed over a long period of time in rather covert government and industry labs since the early part of the 20th century and applied via advertising, PR, movies, television, sports and entertainment, they have developed and encouraged a set of American myths that act to keep a population passive through expending (possibly dangerous) mental and physical energies on sports and entertainment and consumerism, and simultaneously, softly promoting a fascist state ideal among the people from cradle to grave, using both fear and this instilled national pride to use the people for their ends (whether it be wars or marketing). I thought it an interesting read, and though I suffered in the first part of the book, I began to put things together by the end.

I had actually thought about contrasting the Chevy ad with the new Volkswagon ads, which are very classist and racist, though (and I suppose this is part of my redneck upbringing) very funny. The ads (and since you watch sports, you've probably seen them) have a German scientist/engineer wrecking ("unpimping") the cars of those society considers bottom-feeders. Of course, the engineer and his assistant are both blue-eyed blonds and dressed in white; she (the assistant) is young, attractive, 20 years younger than him, and says only four words in only one of the three different commercials; and the Volkswagon we see at the end of the ads is also lily white.

I missed the Chevy ads during the World Series. (I only watched the WS this year sporadically.) When not watching football (which of course I'm not watching much of anymore, since there's only one game left), I've been watching basketball and the Australian Open, which will itself be over here a few hours from now. But the ads during all these events always fascinate me. As you suggest, one can learn so much about our society by watching them. I've thought about writing about some of them before, but I've never quite been sure how. They're a good teacher as to what the "rules" are.

Eric, I will only add (at a lower level of discourse) that Mellancamp has caught some (I think) deserved Hell for doing that commercial; he's had some claims to being sort of left over the years and now claims he had no choice but to do that piece in order "to continue to be able to write songs." There was a piece on this in the Times last Sunday. The "progressive" Mellencamp said he fought to keep the commercial "low key" and claimed to be proud because the ad doesn't show "war scenes" and doesn't "wave the flag." I saw that commercial for the first time during World Series and said to myself "there's a nice little bit of friendly low-key fascism, mixing in pictures of Katrina victims with a shot of Martin Luther King Jr. and good old boys from involuntarily all-white ('Sundown') towns in Indiana doing their bit to wreck the earth with a big fat eight-cylinder pickup truck and all the while we have this false shared identity as a solidified volk ...way to be an asshole, John." I thought it was much worse than Bob Dylan making a Victoria's Secret (with the nice tune "Lovesick" in the background) commercial a few years back; beyond the difference in products and message, Bobby D. doesn't claim to be some kind of leftist. And I somehow fail to believe that Mellencamp has to lubricate the commercial engines of Amerikanner masskultur in order to continue being "able to write songs." I suppose Mellencamp's Chevy ad is worse than the other one I've been noticing - the remarkably long-lived "Life Takes Visa" campaign, which naturally makes not just capitalism but one particularly parasitic outpust of it into a transhistorical fact of history, indeed "life" itself. Commercials deserve more attention from left media analysts and culture critics - as does (more than) entertainment (and self-help/personal improvement) culture in general and the LOCAL (5, 6 and 10 PM [Midwest]) televison news.

Paul, I don't know if this might be useful to you or not, but it is interesting nonetheless. First, let me quote a passage from p. 69 of Alan Bullock's 1991 book Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives.

***

Both Kultur and Volk (with its adjective völkisch) were key words in German right-wing ideology, the emotional force of which is inadequately conveyed in English as “culture,” “folk” or “race.” According to Oswald Spengler, whose Decline of the West had a tremendous impact when published in German in 1918-22, a Kultur has a soul by contrast with a civilization, a French concept representing “the most artificial and external state of which humanity is capable.” German use of the word carried with it the conviction of the superiority of German Kultur, as expressing an intensity of feeling and idealism not found in other European cultures.

Similarly, Volk and völkisch expressed what was felt to be a much more comprehensive and emotionally charged German experience, imperfectly understood or shared, if at all, by those content to describe themselves as “peoples” or “nations.” They signified the union of a group of people, bound together in a common racial identity that was the source of their individuality and creativity. Volk was a word that was never far from Hitler's lips. It was “rooted” in its native soil, and its “organic” community (Volksgemeinschaft) protected from feelings of alienation. Translated into political terms, the völkische ideology glorified war and “renewal by destruction” over internationalism and pacifism, the exaltation of national power and national unity over individual freedom, of the authoritarian state and elitism over parliamentary democracy and egalitarianism.

***

Now, here in the United States, we don't specifically use the term Volk, or anything like it that I'm aware of. However, we do very much have the same concept, even if it is unstated. One way to see the concept is to pay attention to a particular ad that has been running during NFL games this season. (I don't know if it will run during the upcoming Super Bowl or not, and I do not recall having seen it during any other sporting events I have watched recently.)

The ad I have in mind is the one for the Chevy Silverado pickup truck -- the ad featuring John Mellencamp's song "This Is Our Country." The target demographic of this ad is the American Volk. It's the same concept, the same group of people -- we just don't use a special word for it like the one Hitler had access to. But we do very much have it.

Anyway, I just found that interesting, and since you're a radical left historian, I thought perhaps you might eventually get some mileage out of it, or at least find it interesting.

Terence,

I think what makes these "non-thinkers" tick is clear enough. And I agree with Eric when he says it is somewhat amusing to watch their ridiculous performances. as well as distracting.

However, I want to learn (and occasionally throw in my two cents) from the intelligent contributions that are given. I think it is a huge waste of time trying to defend the topics presented in this excellent blog to someone/something that hasn't the comprehension level of a slug.

I, for one, am through trying to explain the obvious to these types. Life is too short and there is so very much to be learned and applied.

Again, Paul...thanx for your direct and welcomed approach to the topics and to those who just don't seem to get it....and, most likely, never will.

 

Maybe we can learn fron the non-thinking bloggers among us. Maybe we can gather the bits and pieces of information and create dossiers that we can eventually analyze, like social scientists, to reach valuable hypotheses about how these people think and then perhaps we can begin to develop a meaningful dialogue? Because as it is there is not a snowball's chance in hell that we will reach them before their masters take us all to their own looming apocalypse. Of course this would involve encouraging them to talk, like psychiatrists do in order to find clues about how to help people. Just a suggestion. . . T

If you had, then you'd realize that she was as much about  libertariansm, than the childish, power worshipping,captialist promoters that make up right-wing 'libertarians', who, while endorsing social freedoms refuse to see issues of economic justice as necessary, perferring to leave everything to the illusory "free market". Your conflation of the right as being libertarian only exists in your fantasy world, where the narrow political options that both wings of the business class provide the 'rabble' makes Clinton some sort of Lenninist in your idiotic eyes.

 

Count me in as wanting a more tightly moderated board, if I don't have to see the likes of these moronic trolls like this one. Although I must admit, I alternate between mild amusement with the real "political correctness" of these right wing authoritarian nationalists, and outright annoyance that I have to wade through alot of dross to get to the good bits of this blog.

 

 

eb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope your quoting "the final judgment" isn't your attempt at disproving the UN actions against Iraq dating back 17 years. 

 Also, you've expressed numerous times that all leftists shouldn't be lumped together as socialists or communists.  I hope that you extend that same request to Democrats and Republicans and not call Bill Clinton "right wing."  The right wing is associated with libertarianism (the real type, not the fake "left" type) and Bill Clinton is far from being a libertarian.

Here is the first endnote in an excellent ZNet piece by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson today:

"1. According to the Final Judgment at Nuremberg, a ruling that has provided all succeeding generations with the classic pronouncement on the illegality of aggressive war:

'War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." See Final Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals (September 30, 1946), specifically "The Common Plan or Conspiracy and Aggressive War," from which this passage derives.' "

Go to the article and the relevant judgements are linked.

Well, Ross Perot's independent campaign was a factor that helped right wing Democrat Bill Clinton in '92. If it was clear that the center and right vote would be split, I suppose that might permit more space for national political action on the left by reducing the "spoiler" risk mandated by the Winner Take all/no instant run off system. Could create more room to push say an Edwards (the "Two Americas" candidate who just purchased a grotesquely wealthy mansion in which to chill out from his "populist" campaign) a bit closer to actual majority opinion (fairly left) on key issues. Financial and related media and other institutional barriers (including the practically pre-embryonic nature of organized left political activity in the U.S.) are too steep for a left presidential victory of course but it'd be okay to try to garner a significant vote total (enough for matching funds in 2012)...all while bearing in mind that left activity is about so much more than the big quadrennial freak shows and the search for political "saviors from on high."

 Political dynamics under their game's rules are interesting. My sense is that an Obama declaration (still waiting to be fully finalized I think) could push Hilary Inc. further to the right in the primaries since strategists would assume that he automatically locks up the nation's leftmost voting segment (African-Americans). It's a good time to start looking at the candidates' respective campaign finance profiles as U.S. politics is very much about competing political investment blocs (Thomas Ferguson, The Golden Rule)

This is a bit off topic but I heard that M. Bloomberg is going to mount an independent presidential campaign. If this is true and comes to pass he will certainly grab a large portion of the middle or centrist voters, including many of the ever vacillating 'Regan democrats' and Clintonian centrists. My question is do people feel as if this alter the Dems chances and/or the candidate they put forward? Also, does it not open up the chance for a left indy candidate?

Interesting comment. I feel the need to move off Obama (I'm overkilling him) for a while and focus more on the other two in the Democratic Big Three (I've had the vague feeling that Edwards was a little better but have not investigated him closely); and of course we can't forget the terrible specters of nutcase McCain and the horrendous Rudy G.

Victor, sorry I didn't address your comments. Serious question, are you saying that you believe that the leaders of the various investment banks, the leaders of the world's economic engines, shouldn't be allowed to lead?  In sum, leaders shouldn't be allowed to lead?  Who do you suggest should lead then?  Some Joe off the street - like Ben and Jerry's tried a few years ago when they had a poetry contest for the next CEO?  To say that the leaders don't care about the average Joe is completely absurd.  Economic policies are precisely set with the effect in mind.  Just because you may not approve of the outcome doesn't mean the leaders don't care.

Paul, "...repeatedly criticized by old left friends for "blogging.."

I, for one, really appreciate the blog. Blogs remind me of study groups, back in my college days, where the "stick" was passed around and if you wanted to speak you had to wait your turn.

Your approach is direct and ass-kickin. The information is great, timely and well presented...great info, links, and challenges to learn and unlearn (if needed or desired).

The comments of all are welcome. ..even those comments from the likes of SGTR. On the one hand, it is hard to comprehend "why" the thought, the research, and the investigative processes seem to be so stymied. You have given him tons of info to digest and yet, ego driven, he comes back for more.

But, on the other hand, it seems the door is closed, save a small open crack for the sake of argument.

Kick ass!

Here's the stick.

R

 

"Dmx" that is a great find - the Kissinger op-ed..apparently in a ME paper. The oil motivation is about common imperial and geostrategic (and world-systemic political-economic) sense going back well into the last century, which gave birth to global petrocapitalism. No "conspiracies" required.

I think oil was the leading factor for going into Iraq but petroleum's  role as the leading factor is especially graphic and undeniable when you turn just to the question of why they don't leave.  

Master imperialist and arch-war criminal KiSSinger rightly goes right to oil --- "a region on which the energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend" and needs to be defended against Iran's question for "dominance" --- when he gets into why "under present conditions withdrawal is not an option." He claims the threat to those supplies comes from "the Iranian combination of imperialism and fundamentalist ideology." We know that U.S. policy is simply opposed to anyone but the Americans controlling ME oil, including Arab and Persian people who are not enthralled with "Iranian imperialism" and Islamic fundamentalism.  And of course what is the invasion of Iraq but an expression of astonishing and criminal U.S. imperialism (and regional [and global] "dominance"-seekers)  conducted by operatives who appear to be messianic-militarist fundamentalists?

Earlier on HK feeds Bushian paranoia by saying that radical Islamists' "most important target is the United States." This is certainly false.  Their chief aim i suspect is to topple regional governments and many of them have reason to think the U.S. assault is useful for that objective...this may well have been a key motivation behind 9/11 (an operation well within the capability of al Qaeda at the time). 

Later in his op-ed Kissinger says "American policy should not deviate fromt he goal fo a civil state, whose political process is available to all citizens."  Not available to the point of determinng policy in accord with democratic principles of majority rule and one person one vote, however. We suport "democracy" abroad as long as overseas citizens agree with U.S. objectives. Even inside the imperial homeland, most U.S. citizens now call for fairly rapid U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (as do most Iraqis) and HK just says "not an option."  In the early 70s, Kissinger played a role in overthrowing a democratically elected Marxist government in Chile. Christopher Hitchens wrote a decent book about all that a bit before he became a thoroughly dissipated tool of the right. Kissinger said that the Chileans could not be permitted to foolishly use their franchise to elect socialists.   

Kissinger's "under present conditions" is amusing.  Apparently we can call off our criminal invasion once the "industrial democracies" have shifted to energy self-sufficiency.  Note that Kissinger hides the fact that one particular "industrial democracy" - the United States - wants to deepen its control over other "industrial democracies" (and China) by tigtening its control over the super strategic ME oil spigot.   

I am repeatedly criticized by old left friends for "blogging" and one of the things I say in defense is that people often send some excellent and informative links in the comments section; that Kissinger piece is an example of what I mean. 

 

  

 

 

Yikes.  

 "So it is old fashioned imperialism?"

Street: don't know what "old fashioned" means. There's a core and open (if you look a little) quest for global dominance at the heart of U.S. foreign policy I think. That's not new and is not historically unique to U.S. - I suppose it's significantly "old-fashioned" in some ways if you like.

"Militant Islam is not a threat to the civilized world?"

Street: I'm no fan of extremist Islamo (or any other kind of, including U.S. state-) terrorism or for that matter of fundamentalist religion of any kind (including our own many "Christian" fascists)  but where is this "civilized world?" I hope you don't mean the U.S., (please read my list of U.S. atrocities here) the arch-criminal atom-bomber of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the perpetrator at No Gun Ri, the messianic crucifier of Indochina and the blood-soaked butcher of Fallujah (just to mention a few of the more notorious crimes).

Reporter: 'What do you think of western civilization?'

Mahatma Gandhi: 'I think it would be a good idea.'

People who live in barbarian houses shouldn't throw around charges of barbarism. 

If you want to generate more barbarians in the ME, just keep attacking them...along with your related and more covert imposition of a neoliberal (corporate globalization) agenda that undercuts away basic secular state supports and socioeconomically drives people into fundamentalist madness and institutions.  

"The Mullahs are 'just kiddding' when they talk about killing non-believers in the name of jihad? The free world shouldn't take the Iranians seriously as they not only fire long range missles, but develop nuclear technology to go in those missle coupled with rhetoric of blowing up Tel Aviv for no reason other than it being filled with Jews?"

Street: there is a long record of rational international proposals to demilitarize the ME and control/dismantle nuclear weaponry - all opposed by your benevolent non-imperialist U.S. Empire.  How should the Arab and broader world take Israel's considerable stock of nuclear weapons and the vicious racism of its occupation and other anti-Arab policies?  You are out of your mind or just incredibly ignorant if you think Arab anti-semitism (a terrible but sadly predictable thing) is just some kind of organic outgrowth of inherent racism. 

What the Hell is the free world? The Cold War ended in the early 1990s.      

"The Sunni/Shia rift is the same thing as a drunk uncle saying some unkind words as a family BBQ and poses no threat of sucking the entire region into a '100 year war'? (That's a history reference for you Paul because I know how much you 'respect' history.)"

Wow, "SGTR":  you actually think people like Henry K, Dick C, or George W. Bush could give a flying fuck about Arabs slaughtering eachother for 100 (try 5000) more years? They don't mind that one bit; the only reason the region is such a big deal for them - the only reason they conduct this big occupation (which you foolishly help pay for and which only makes the world more dangerous and your own situation more precarious) and maintain this giant obsession with the region is (guess what...) super-strategic oil. 

 "Oh, and we can't forget the lip service by the burgeoning ethenol industry to decrease dependency on Arab oil."

Street: you just keep digging your moronic hole of  misunderstanding and ignorance deeper and deeper. Please formally disenfranchise yourself before the next election. You refuse to pay elementary attention to my writing and others' analyses on this site and across the left. The Empire rationally (no conspiracy) seeks the remarkable global critical leverage they get from controlling super-strategic ME oil; this would be true even if we had converted fully to renewable energy. And Ethanol ain't gonna do the trick (do you own stock in Archer Daniels Midland by any chance? Ask your broker).  

"It's all a ruse in the name of imperialism? You guys need to read the new Vanity Fair magazine with interviews with the architects of neoconservativism. While they are very critical of George Bush, there is nothing that can be construed as 'imperialistic.'"

Street: okay, I'll go get the latest Vanity Fair and learn that there's nothing as crazy and bizarre as "imperialism" running around in the minds of neocons and/or is it Bush?  Here you are especially incoherent.    

"If you're an isolationist, say you're an isolationist. If you're simply a pacifist and don't like war, say so."

Street: "SGTR" your idiocy is just relentless! We're against a monumentally illegal and provocative and terrorism-inciting and openly imperialist and oil-centered (sorry) occupation and therefore we are "isolationists"?  You reactionary Murikan herrenvolk are just addicted to false-dichotomous thinking...you can't let go of simplistic and deceptive all-or-nothing black-and-white either/or constructions: "stay-the-course" or "cut-and-run;" good (us) v. evil (them); and now imperialist (you, though you won't admit it)  or "isolationist" (left internationalists). 

Also, one does not have to be a pacifist to not "like war."  Guess what, I don't "like war" and yet I personally am "not a pacifist."  Imagine that! 

"But be honest and don't go on some absurd chase looking for imperialsim where none can be found. You can claim you're allegations are true but you can't prove them."

Street: imagine looking for something as crazy as "imperialism" in the brazenly/openly imperialist and mass-murderous and illegal invasion, subjugation, oppression and occupation of a formerly sovereign nation. "SGTR" you are living in a fairy-tale world and have been listening too loyally to bedtime stories (you have to buy that one at the bookstore)from the American powers that be.  

 

 

This concentrated dose of reality might do irreparable harm to the worldview of SGTR, but then those with a paranoid bent can always inflate some other peril to keep the hoary saga playing in their minds going...

"Militant Islam is not a threat to the civilized world"

"The free world shouldn't take the Iranians seriously as ..."

The threat to freedom lies in THE WORDS YOU USE. Who needs to be civilized, pacified ... smartbombed ? Who is free and who is not free ? Who is distroying freedom in the US ? Your government or militant Islam ? Who is frightening YOU with absurd propaganda ?

Yes Islam has extremists like any other religion. Yes they can be dangerous on the individual level. But no, they cannot be considered as a threat to the existence of the US (defined by its Constitution). The existential threat to the US is IMPERIALISM and its associated RACIST ideology.

 

 

So it is old fashioned imperialism? 

Militant Islam is not a threat to the civilized world? 

The Mullahs are "just kiddding" when they talk about killing non-believers in the name of jihad? 

The free world shouldn't take the Iranians seriously as they not only fire long range missles, but develop nuclear technology to go in those missle coupled with rhetoric of blowing up Tel Aviv for no reason other than it being filled with Jews? 

The Sunni/Shia rift is the same thing as a drunk uncle saying some unkind words as a family BBQ and poses no threat of sucking the entire region into a "100 year war"?  (That's a history reference for you Paul because I know how much you "respect" history.)

Oh, and we can't forget the lip service by the burgeoning ethenol industry to decrease dependency on Arab oil.  It's all a rouse in the name of imperialism? 

You guys need to read the new Vanity Fair magazine with interviews with the architects of neoconservativism.  While they are very critical of George Bush, there is nothing that can be construed as "imperialistic."

If you're an isolationist, say you're an isolationist.  If you're simply a pacifist and don't like war, say so.  But be honest and don't go on some absurd chase looking for imperialsim where none can be found.  You can claim you're allegations are true but you can't prove them. 

Eric Bogan thank you and yes sir it's time to take the gloves off on these right-wing clowns; if the power-worshipping "liberal"centrists/ pragmatists/realists/know-it-alls/won't fight back we on the actual left sure as Hell will.

 "SGTR" you impersonal Internet name you: it's just not my fault that you are too out of it to see the difference between left power-structure approaches --- you could even look back at the great U.S. sociologist C. Wright Mills (The Power Elite, a bit Weberian for my taste but very useful to this day) since you probably can't handle Chomsky's work --- and "conspiracy theories." My guess is you choose to be ignorant and confused about this and I can't fix that.

You don't even know how to take a decent cheap shot at me. The critique of me saying that my report is becoming "increasingly indispensable" would be that I am getting too impressed with myself, not that I am getting too "self-righteous." Geez!

But here's the other thing, SGTR, I was just kidding. I don't actuallty think my report is "indispensable." I was joking. Maybe I need to get more serious and reactionary folk like you need to get more smart.

A stupendous source of strategic power. Here is the latest quote of Killer Kissinger :

"But under present conditions, withdrawal is not an option. American forces are indispensable. They are in Iraq not as a favour to its government or as a reward for its conduct. They are there as an expression of the American national interest to prevent the Iranian combination of imperialism and fundamentalist ideology from dominating a region on which the energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend."

This is not really a conspiracy, it is just imperialism and both parties (Dems and Republicans) share a imperialistic agenda because their capaigns are financed by the MIC. Regarding 9/11, of course this was the trigger for a set a imperialistic wars. Of course, it was a huge opportunity for this administration. Of course, it occurred right on time. And of course, it was an inside job, but deep inside the MIC and private military contractors related to some key members of the military hierarchy (Miers) and administration (OVP). But of course, very few people inside the Bush administration should have known. Bush himself does not know (would you share a secret with this guy ?) They were set up just like every one else. This is ugly. Imperialism is ugly. And of course watch closely because the nightmare is just beginning.

If I am to understand you correctly, you're claiming a conspiracy of sorts between the President of the United States, "the petrol companies," and the "military industrial complex?"  How does that make you any different than the 9/11 conspiracy theorists that you criticize? 

"my increasingly indispensable ..."  You're getting pretty self-rightous. 

 

You do kick ass. Anyway, maybe someone could introduce Obama to participatory economics to fix his little "social cohesion" problem...