27-06-2016, 04:55 PM
One reason I am going so montonously "meta" here is because I think there are a lot of Sanders supporters, most of the younger ones, who are going WTF right now.
The National Security State, and its long term evolution is the answer to this WTF, because it depicts campaigns as increasingly slender apertures of what is permissible, as time passes. What I mean here is that ... maybe in 1976 a Dem might have gotten away with saying xyz about foreign policy , by 1984 only y and now nothing at all.
The elephant in the debate room is the evolution of the National Security State. By eliminating this evolution, people can only see the campaigns one- dimensionally and are led to believe that a candidate like Sanders has a chance he does not because.... its 53 years after a CIA Coup and not.. say 25 years after a CIA Coup.
On a side note it will be noted that this is precisely what Noam Chomsky does. Sure he says some true stuff re CIA but this is done at the incredibly high cost of depriving the reader of a sense of the EVOLUTION of the National Security State i.e. in year 15 elected officials could still do x, y z but by year 45 no longer. Similarly the worthwhile but very misleading book Double Government CAN ONLY make its important claim on condition that it describes the National Security State as somehow a "Trumanite Network" as if the NSS was born fully developed in 1947 with no course of pushing and shoving, no EVOLUTION which might be too dangerous because readers would get to see when exactly, the National Security State overtook the three branches once and for all.
The slow, intenetted demise of the Sanders campaign represents an opportunity to reach new, younger readers with the answer to their biggest questions right now. For those answers lie in the history of the National Security State's evolution.
The National Security State, and its long term evolution is the answer to this WTF, because it depicts campaigns as increasingly slender apertures of what is permissible, as time passes. What I mean here is that ... maybe in 1976 a Dem might have gotten away with saying xyz about foreign policy , by 1984 only y and now nothing at all.
The elephant in the debate room is the evolution of the National Security State. By eliminating this evolution, people can only see the campaigns one- dimensionally and are led to believe that a candidate like Sanders has a chance he does not because.... its 53 years after a CIA Coup and not.. say 25 years after a CIA Coup.
On a side note it will be noted that this is precisely what Noam Chomsky does. Sure he says some true stuff re CIA but this is done at the incredibly high cost of depriving the reader of a sense of the EVOLUTION of the National Security State i.e. in year 15 elected officials could still do x, y z but by year 45 no longer. Similarly the worthwhile but very misleading book Double Government CAN ONLY make its important claim on condition that it describes the National Security State as somehow a "Trumanite Network" as if the NSS was born fully developed in 1947 with no course of pushing and shoving, no EVOLUTION which might be too dangerous because readers would get to see when exactly, the National Security State overtook the three branches once and for all.
The slow, intenetted demise of the Sanders campaign represents an opportunity to reach new, younger readers with the answer to their biggest questions right now. For those answers lie in the history of the National Security State's evolution.