Prima di parlare dei discorsi, l’articolo descrive Obama e Hollande che passeggiano assieme e stringono le mani con la folla. Un uomo, in particolare, ha trattenuto Obama un po’ più a lungo degli altri e gli ha detto qualcosa all’orecchio. Verso la fine, l’articolo rivela che si trattava di un veterano americano del D-Day. Dickey gli ha chiesto cosa aveva detto al presidente e lui ha risposto: “L’ho ringraziato per averci tenuto fuori dalla guerra.”

Tranne: Gli attacchi continui con i droni che uccidono innocenti in tutto il Medio Oriente e in Africa da quando Obama è stato eletto. L’invio di ulteriori 30.000 soldati in Afganistan (ai tempi del premio Nobel per la pace). L’azione Nato in Libia presumibilmente per aiutare la popolazione a liberarsi di un dittatore (mentre il governo americano ha appoggiato e continua ad appoggiare dittature per conto proprio). La presenza in tutto il pianeta di basi militari e truppe americane che hanno come unico scopo la difesa degli intrighi e dello sfruttamento delle risorse economiche a vantaggio della plutocrazia corporativa. La quasi invasione della Siria per, ancora una volta, presumibilmente aiutare la popolazione a liberarsi di un dittatore. E poi: l’intensificazione della presenza militare nel Golfo Persico attorno all’Iran, un aumento delle forze nel tentativo di stringere la Cina, e finalmente la promessa di un miliardo di dollari per rafforzare la presenza Nato attorno all’Ucraina.

Se qualcuno fa caso a tutto il fervore militarista dell’amministrazione Obama, le parole del veterano gli appariranno fuorvianti. Eppure questo genere di ignoranza è tutto intorno a noi, soprattutto tra i liberal del partito democratico (non che i repubblicani siano perdonati). Per molti di loro, Obama è un presidente che ama la pace e sta facendo tutto il possibile per far cessare le guerre e mettere a posto l’economia, non l’imbroglione guerrafondaio che fa una politica a favore delle élite monopolistiche rigurgitanti avidità. Ci sono liberal, come Michael Moore, che hanno criticato Obama ma poi l’hanno votato nel 2012 perché era il “migliore tra due mali”; come se in questa tirannia a due partiti potesse esserci un migliore.

Il semplice fatto che qualcuno del potere dica che stanno aiutando gli altri, non significa che quello che fanno si tramuti in un aiuto vero e proprio. Quelli che credono a tutto quello che dice una persona semplicemente perché l’hanno votata sono vittime di quegli avversari narcisistici che dicono qualunque cosa pur di aumentare il consenso e poi fare il contrario di quello che hanno fatto credere ai loro elettori.

Come disse Hitler, il dittatore totalitario e assassino di massa, “Fabbricate una grossa bugia, semplificatela, ripetetela continuamente, e alla fine ci crederanno.”

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Before the speeches, the article talks about Obama and Hollande walking together and shaking hands with the crowd. But one man in particular held Obama’s hand a little longer than others and whispered something in his ear. By the end of the article, it is revealed that this man is an American veteran of the D-Day invasion. Dickey asked him what he whispered and the man responded, “I thanked him for keeping us out of war.”

Except for: the continuous drone strikes killing innocents throughout the Middle East and Africa since Obama took office. The 30,000 troop build-up in Afghanistan (around the time of his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance). The NATO actions taken in Libya to supposedly help the people get rid of a tyrant (while the U.S. government supported and continues to support tyrants of their own). The presence of U.S. military bases and troops around the globe to fight a force that only exists because of that presence to safeguard the manipulation and exploitation of economic resources for the corporate plutocracy. The near-invasion of Syria to, again, supposedly help the people get rid of a tyrant. With naval buildups in the Persian Gulf near Iran, a buildup of forces trying to surround China, and now a $1 billion pledge to strengthen NATO forces around Ukraine.

If anyone has truly been paying attention to the fervent militarism of the Obama administration, this comment made by the veteran seems quite confusing. Yet this type of ignorance is all around us, especially in regard to liberal Democrats (not that Republicans are excused). To many of them, Obama is a peace-loving president who is doing everything he can to end the wars and fix the economy, not the war-hungry deceiver whose policies favor greed-ridden, monopolistic elitists. There are some liberals, such as Michael Moore, who have criticized Obama, yet still voted for him in 2012 because he was the “better of two evils” – as if there is such a thing when it comes to the two-party tyranny.

Just because someone in power says they are doing this because it will help, does not mean it actually will. Those who believe everything a person says just because they voted for them fall victim to those narcissistic foes who will say anything in order to garner a large amount of support just to do the opposite of what they fooled their voters into believing they would.

As Hitler, the totalitarian mass murderer, once said, “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

Translations for this article:

• Italian, L’Ignoranza Continua.

Sorry for the lack of posting, all. I’ve been on holiday in Japan and then started a new job the day after I got back to Taipei. But one of the good things going on holiday is good for is reading books, which I never seem to get around to in my normal life anymore. From my vacation reading (Development as Freedom by Amartya Sen) comes this fascinating nugget about life expectancy in Britain.

Interdecade comparisons, based on decadal censuses, show that by a very wide margin the most speedy expansion of life expectancy occurred precisely during the two “war decades” [that is, 1911-21 and 1940-51]. While in the other decades life expectancy rose rather moderately (between one and four years), in each of the two war decades it jumped up by nearly seven years.

Britain had to undergo food rationing during the wars, especially during WWII. But what food there was, people were willing to share in a time of national crisis, posits Sen, and that accounts for the counterintuitive increase in life expectancy during the two decades containing the world wars.

Each war situation produced much greater sharing of means of survival, including sharing of health care and the limited food supply (through rationing and subsidized nutrition)…It is in fact, confirmed by detailed nutritional studies that during the Second World War, even though the per capita availability of food fell significantly in Britain, cases of undernourishment also declined sharply, and extreme undernourishment almost entirely disappeared. Mortality rates also went down sharply (except of course for war mortality itself). A similar thing had happened during the First World War.

To me, the fact that such an important measurement of welfare as an expansion of life expectancy can go up during such times of deprivation because of greater sharing of what’s available is a compelling reason to adopt a liberal rather than a libertarian point of view. Some sharing in the form of government sponsored healthcare and social safety nets to take the edge off inequality is humane and increases total welfare. I therefore find those programs desirable even though they mean I would have to pay taxes I’d rather not and at a cost to total economic efficiency.

Inequality is a scourge that is not going to go away. As technology advances, multiplying the productivity of the most skilled workers and rendering the services of less skilled workers increasingly worthless, we are entering a time where even healthy economic growth on a macro level do not translate into higher household incomes for the bulk of us.

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 5th, 2008.

Be sure to check out the comment section on the original post, thanks to the Way Back Machine.