JFK assassination

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares199 Views

    Questions on Which No One Agrees: Infrastructure, Cuba and Jobs

    by

    In August, the Daily Devil’s Dictionary appears in a single weekly edition containing multiple items taken from a variety of contexts.

    Obama Hosts the Jet Set While Biden Plays the Propeller

    As Barack Obama held a lavish do at his Martha’s Vineyard manor, US President Joe Biden tweeted his satisfaction with what appears to be a major accomplishment, getting an infrastructure bill halfway home through a vote in the Senate. “As we did with the transcontinental railroad and the interstate highway,” he proudly proclaimed, “we will once again transform America and propel us into the future.”

    Propel:

    Provide a force that establishes new momentum, with or without the means to control the direction of the resulting motion

    The Context

    In the first part of his tweet, Biden explained that his “Infrastructure Deal signals to the world that our democracy can function, deliver, and do big things.” Some may read this as meaning that Biden’s pride in this partial accomplishment proves that in exceptional circumstances — by definition extremely rare — US democracy is capable of functioning.

    The corollary is that most of the time that must not be the case, an idea most people tend to agree with. But the politicians in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, appear ready to play a game of chicken. In the barnyard of the Beltway, Biden should know how perilous it can be to count your chickens before they hatch, especially when expecting one of the hatched chickens not only to cross the road (to work on repairing its potholes), but even to be propelled across it.

    Christopher Wilson at Yahoo observes that nine “moderate House Democrats on Friday threatened to blow up infrastructure negotiations, highlighting the delicate line that party leadership is trying to walk as it pushes two bills totaling over $4 trillion.” At the same time, the progressive wing has threatened to withdraw its support if the $1-trillion bill passed by the Senate is not coupled with a bill for $3.5 billion that covers some of the most urgent needs.

    In China, Cuba and Ohio, Reform and Inertia Go to Battle

    READ MORE

    Biden’s idea that the nation is being “propelled” into the future contains the odd suggestion that the future will not happen without this exceptional force. We might ask ourselves how 78-year-old Joe Biden envisions his own future, let alone the nation’s and the world’s. In the complete statement put out by the White House, a familiar Biden theme concerning the future reappears. It states that the “agreement will help ensure that America can compete in the global economy just when we are in a race with China and the rest of the world for the 21st Century.”

    Speculating about whether the US “can compete” reveals how skewed the notion of competition has become in US culture. Of course, the US can compete. Even if China does eventually overtake the US as the world’s biggest economy, the US will still be in the competition. In a fair game — even a game of chicken — everyone is expected to compete. That is the principle at the core of capitalism. What Biden literally means is that it’s all about winning, or rather dominating, and not about competing. For nearly a century, the US has seen its role, not as that of a competitor, but of a dictator. Competing means exercising the power to deprive other nations of even being allowed to compete. That’s what wars, invasions and sanctions are all about.

    The other complementary oddity in this statement is Biden’s idea that the 21st century is a prize to be won by a single nation. This is an idea he has repeatedly insisted on. It leaves the impression, confirmed by recent history, that as humanity prepares for a multipolar world, the US will resist to the death any challenge to its will to dominate. This bodes ill for the future of both Americans and everyone else at a time when it has become increasingly apparent that global problems can only be solved if all the nations and peoples of the world are involved.

    The New York Times Is Suffering From a Cold War Syndrome

    The New York Times continues to be hot on the trail of the tragic tale of the “Havana syndrome.” In its latest installment in the ongoing series of articles intended to demonstrate the paper’s failure to notice that tragedy has definitively morphed into comedy, The Times’ White House and National Security correspondent, David Sanger, offers this summary: “While the leading theory in the ‘Havana syndrome’ cases is directed microwave attacks, a classified session for senior government officials said months of investigation were inconclusive.”

    Leading theory:

    For government-led investigations, any theory, however improbable or utterly unlikely that points toward a hypothesis consistent with the requirements of the perpetrator’s agenda of political marketing

    The Context

    The New York Times appears to believe that “inconclusive” means worth writing about as if it was true until the whole thing ends up in the waste bin of history. For some historical perspective, the Warren Commission’s hasty and highly motivated conclusion in 1964 that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the killing of President John F. Kennedy became the “leading theory” of the time. It has remained officially the “leading theory” ever since and has even profited from the trend created in the early history of the CIA of dubbing a “conspiracy theory” any theory that differs or deviated from the “leading theory.”

    This is in spite of a mountain of forensic evidence as well as willfully ignored testimony that has emerged over time pointing to the involvement or complicity of the CIA, or at least some members of the CIA, most likely with the discreet assistance from the Mafia. Film director Oliver Stone is still bravely working on the case. Despite his new documentary on the JFK assassination that was featured last month at the Cannes film festival, The New York Times didn’t bother to review or even mention it. If it wasn’t financed by Hollywood, no movie is worth reviewing.

    The Havana syndrome story has turned into high and, as usual, expensive comedy because of the monumental efforts required to ensure that the “leading theory” continues to hold its lead even after multiple contradictory hypotheses emerge. In Sanger’s article, one quote by CIA Director William J. Burns gives the game away. Explaining his hesitation to charge Russian President Vladimir Putin with the crime, Burns responded: “Could be, but I honestly cannot — I don’t want to suggest until we can draw some more definitive conclusions who it might be. But there are a number of possibilities.” The Times has not just been suggesting it, but claiming it for at least the past year.

    Embed from Getty Images

    Sanger seems unaware of the comic effect of what he reports in the paragraph following Burns’ admission: “This spring, for example, American military personnel operating in Syria suspected that a sudden illness may have been caused by a Russian aircraft that could have directed microwaves at them; it was later determined they had food poisoning.” Those who have followed the story over the past five years know that the initial cases in Cuba that gave the official title to the syndrome produced the first comic trope when, after the victims submitted recordings of the sounds identified as the source of their woes, a study by a team of biologists “said it matched the mating song of the Indies short-tailed cricket found around the Caribbean.”

    Could the Russians have been genetically engineering the crickets to produce the kind of microwave suspected (but never identified) of causing the damage? The idea that it is a sonic attack in the form of aggressive microwaves is still nothing but that: an idea or, as Burns would admit, one of “a number of possibilities” — alongside food poisoning.

    Can The New York Times be suffering from what should be called the “Havana syndrome syndrome”? It appears so, as it continues to feature the latest “inconclusive” official moves as a breaking news story that is literally devoid of content. Sanger obviously has a direct line to the State Department and the CIA, and probably knows that if he has nothing else to report about how frightening the Russians or the Chinese have become, he can always come back to the Havana syndrome. 

    As with the narrative around UFOs, explaining the state of play of the unexplained, especially if fear is involved, will always attract readers, even when the explanation amounts to affirming that there is no explanation. Meanwhile, the investment of taxpayer money continues. The National Security Council, according to a senior administration official, is “leveraging a broad array of scientific and medical expertise from within the government and outside of it to explore multiple hypotheses and generate new insights.” Their aim is of course to “protect our personnel and identify who or what is responsible.” If they aren’t even sure if they’re looking for a “who” or a “what,” there will indeed be a lot of expensive work to do.

    Whose Reason Will Prevail in the Cuba Debate?

    Following recent protests in Cuba, people find themselves struggling with what politicians and the media want to frame as a simple binary problem. To the question of what has caused the misery in Cuba, Jorge Salazar-Carrillo, writing in The Conversation, notes that  “many analysts and activists — and the Cuban government — argue that this is due to American sanctions on Cuban goods” and counters that “the embargo is not the main reason Cubans are in dire straits now.”

    Main reason:

    One of many probable causes of a particular disaster, cited by a person who seeks to reduce the problem to a single cause so as to put all the blame on an adverse party and deny any responsibility from the speaker’s own side

    The Context

    Claiming to offer “perspective,” Salazar-Carrillo writes: “consider that Cuba’s income per capita back in the 1950s was one of the highest in the Western Hemisphere. Today it has one of the lowest.” He chooses to forget another critical historical fact reported by Marianne Ward and John Devereux in an academic article with the title “The Road Not Taken: Pre-Revolutionary Cuban Living Standards in Comparative Perspective.” The authors describe a Cuba dominated by US business and Mafia interests. They explain that “between 1920 and the 1950s per capita income was declining while the revenues of the richest Cubans were increasing exponentially.”

    Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

    Castillo conveniently fails to observe that, despite the decline in income per capita since the revolution, income equality is much greater than it was under Batista’s rule. Ward and Devereux explain that in pre-revolutionary Cuba, “U.S. financial interests included 90 percent of Cuban mines, 80 percent of its public utilities, 50 percent of its railways, 40 percent of its sugar production and 25 percent of its bank deposits. In return, Cuba got hedonistic tourists, organized crime and General Fulgencio Batista” who “appointed himself president by way of a military coup in 1952.”

    To make matters worse, “Not only was the economy weakening as a result of U.S. influence, but Cubans were also offended by what their country was becoming: a haven for prostitution, brothels and gambling.” Is this the situation Castillo and other Cuban exiles wish to return to? Does this explain why a six-decade-long embargo that deprives an entire nation of interacting economically with the dominant economies of the world is not the “main reason” for its economic woes?

    The Hyperreality of a Liberal Identity in the US

    New York Times columnist Ross Duthout used the example of Tucker Carlson’s fawning interview with Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban to make an important point about “the ever-lengthening list of people who have had careers derailed for offenses against progressive norms.” He adds that frequently, “they are heterodox liberals rather than conservatives, because conservatives are rare in elite institutions and less interesting to ideological enforcers.” 

    Heterodox liberals:

    Either a real subcategory of a totally imaginary category of Americans or an imaginary subcategory of a real category of Americans. Let the reader decide.

    The Context

    In the US, everyone is taught from birth that society can be divided into two opposing camps: liberals and conservatives. Growing up, most young people feel pressure to decide which side they are on. Typically, they accept their chosen label for the rest of their lives, though converts do exist, some of whom make a point of broadcasting to the world how they were “born again” politically as living examples of a “great awakening.”

    Criticizing the tyranny of thought exercised by what he calls “intolerant progressivism,” Douthat somehow misses the real and obvious vice in the system. The intolerant progressives he despises have adopted a behavior perfectly consistent with one of the core values in US culture. We could call it “the culture of aggressive community enforcement or negative branding.”

    The idea of law and order resonates strongly in US culture. People can believe and think anything they like, but there are laws that define the limits on their actions. On the other hand, the belief in the abstract notion of “freedom” as something divinely ordained tells them that there should be no limit on what they can do. This has led the culture to adopt a compromise position formulated in the traditional idea that you can wave your arms around as much as you like, but your freedom to do so stops when it enters another person’s space. There is even a consecrated expression: Your personal liberty to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.

    Embed from Getty Images

    In other words, Americans think of themselves as free swingers, but they acknowledge that there are instances in which it may be necessary to restrain the movement. That produces a psychological dilemma that can be resolved either by disciplining one’s own movements (respecting other people’s space) or simply by avoiding other people altogether and retreating into one’s own private reality. This implicit choice has a major impact on how people choose to live their lives. The bold take risks and cultivate a carefully managed discipline of assertiveness. The shy crawl back into their shell.

    Douthat asks an interesting question: “But where can you go to vote for a different ruling ideology in the interlocking American establishment, all its schools and professional guilds, its consolidated media and tech powers?” The answer is nowhere, but not for the reason he expects. The “ruling ideology” isn’t the regime of political correctness he excoriates. There is a superior, universal ruling ideology shared by all but a few lucid and utterly marginalized critics. It bears the name “American exceptionalism.”

    Douthat has no problem with that imposed ideology that indeed interlocks everything in the political economy. Its effects may lead to the destruction of humanity. But what Douthat thinks we really need to worry about is political correctness.

    Forget Climate: Rick Scott Wants to Protect Jobs, Mainly His Own

    In an interview with NPR’s Ari Shapiro, Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida weighed in on the question of climate change. In the past, Republican politicians have preferred to dismiss the topic as fake news. Not Rick Scott, who tells us: “I think we clearly want to, and need to, address the impacts of climate change, and we’ve got to protect our environment, but we’ve got to do it in a fiscally responsible manner. We can’t put jobs at risk.”

    Fiscally responsible:

    Possessing the theological virtue in the capitalist religion of being socially irresponsible, thanks to a divine decree that places the health and prosperity of investments above the health and prosperity of the people

    The Context

    Scott added, “We’ve got to focus on the impacts of climate change, but you’ve got to do it in a manner that you don’t kill our economy.” Many economists agree with the Biden administration’s stated belief that aggressively countering climate change will not only save the planet but also produce jobs and permanently improve the economy. If that is true, what is the basis of Scott’s fear of killing the economy?

    Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

    The short answer that Republican lawmakers are well aware of is that stimulating a new direction for the economy will deprive some in the rentier class of monopolists their flock of geese that have so consistently laid golden eggs. The economists counter that promoting economic transformation may create new wealth. But the problem for someone like Scott is that new wealth takes years to build the reserves required for it to engage in serious Beltway lobbying and the active funding of political campaigns for incumbent senators.

    *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    More stories

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in World Politics

      The Historical Significance of Malcolm X’s Assassination

      by

      Americans remember four spectacular and symbolic assassinations from the 1960s. That of President John F. Kennedy, shot in Dallas, Texas, on Friday, November 22, 1963, marks a moment of maximum trauma in modern US history. For three days, television channels ran with no advertising as the nation witnessed not just the sudden disappearance of a youthful president but the unfolding of a complex narrative of criminality that concluded with the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald, Kennedy’s presumed killer, two days later.

      The second high-profile assassination, of the radical black political activist, Malcolm X, in 1965, played out as a mere sideshow. The national media treated it essentially as a black-on-black killing or a settling of scores among marginal political extremists. 

      The third assassination, the gunning down of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. in April 1968, shocked a nation already rattled by the JFK assassination and the Vietnam War. King was a black leader considered far more respectable than Malcolm X. The black community reacted with violence as riots broke out in several US cities.

      The fourth assassination occurred two months later, when JFK’s brother, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, was fatally wounded y a Palestinian immigrant, Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, following his victory in the California primary. Most people expected him to win that year’s November presidential election. His death induced a shocked sense of utter dismay across the nation.

      The media have consistently demonstrated their patriotic discipline with regard to all of these assassinations. They shied away from looking seriously into the obvious anomalies in all of them. They have ever since blocked the preponderant evidence of foul play, particularly by the CIA and FBI, on the grounds that simple coherent alternative narratives of the events have ever been credibly established. Future historians will undoubtedly admire the dexterity of those who had good reason to prevent alternative accounts from coming. In deference to the authorities, the dominant media consistently either ignored or discredited any narrative other than the official version.

      Divide and Rule: What Drives Anti-Asian Resentment in America?

      READ MORE

      As time goes by, the patterns have become clearer. But that hasn’t changed the dominant narrative in the media. Evidence that others were involved in the RFK assassination, for example, was available at the time of the investigation but wilfully ignored or obliterated. One victim of the shooting, Paul Schrade, insists today that the killer could not have been Sirhan Sirhan, who was duly tried and convicted. The King assassination contains a similar level of contradictory evidence, including the testimony of the man tried for the crime. The documented motives of J. Edgar Hoover, who ran the FBI as his feudal domain, should have been obvious enough to make him the number one suspect instead of James Earl Ray.

      In other words, anyone with a sense of the repetitive mechanics of political history should suspect that some form of concerted operation involving vested interests, including government officials, was at work in those three high-profile assassinations. That suspicion alone fails to justify any particular theory of who the actors were and how they may have executed their plan. It simply acknowledges a strong likelihood of collusion and recognizes the very real capacity those interests have for obfuscation. The case of Malcolm X until this week seemed to be the outlier, easily explainable through Malcolm’s rejection of Elijah Muhammad’s Nation of Islam movement. For the first time, we have highly credible evidence of the FBI’s role in the deed. It has been reported by Reuters, the BBC and others. 

      The evidence is the confession that New York City Police Department Officer Raymond Wood accepted to be revealed only after his death. He explains how the FBI and the NYPD set up Malcolm X’s assassination: “Raymond Wood’s letter stated that he had been pressured by his NYPD supervisors to lure two members of Malcolm X’s security detail into committing crimes that resulted in their arrest just days before the fatal shooting.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Pressured:

      Induced in such a way that what amounts to an order that must be executed can be interpreted as a mere incitement.

      Contextual Note

      In the case of the JFK assassination, numerous people in a position to know and possibly reveal the truth were conveniently eliminated or silenced, allowing the official version of the events to take precedence over any alternative interpretation. Lee Harvey Oswald was of course the first to disappear, gunned down in the Dallas police station by Jack Ruby. Guy Bannister, Mary Meyer and Dorothy Kilgallen were others on a long list. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      None of these disappearances prove anything. They could be mere coincidences. But they point to a pattern not inconsistent with the documented policy of the CIA at the time that listed assassination as one of its tools in covert operations. Mary Meyer was the ex-wife of CIA operative Cord Meyer, who headed the Covert Action Staff of the Directorate of Plans from 1962. He had also been in charge of the notorious Operation Mockingbird that allowed the CIA to control the narrative of American media. Mary Meyer was also Kennedy’s paramour. She was the victim of an unsolved murder in 1964. Kilgallen had interviewed Jack Ruby in 1964. Shortly before her death (“apparent suicide”), she “told acquaintances she had a ‘great scoop’ that would ‘blow the JFK case sky high.’”

      The standard reasoning to defend the official accounts of assassinations was expressed by Bruce Miroglio, a lawyer cited by the BBC: “The number of people that would be involved in the cover-up is so vast, it seems almost impossible they would keep anything earth-shattering under wraps.” Miroglio obviously knows little about either organizational psychology in general or government secrecy in particular. Why have liberal presidents such as Barack Obama gone to such extremes to send whistleblowers to prison? Concern for one’s survival and well-being can incite close to 100% of the population not only to keep a secret but to accept passive complicity.

      As the BBC reports this week, the posthumous testimony of New York policeman Raymond Wood contains the allegation “that he was tasked with making sure that Malcolm X would have no door security in the building where he was due to speak in public.” Wood’s family affirms that “he did not want to make the letter public until after his death, fearing repercussions from the authorities.” As any mafioso knows, repercussions sometimes happen.

      Historical Note

      A month after the JFK assassination, President Harry Truman authored an op-ed in The Washington Post denouncing the fact that the “CIA has been diverted from its original assignment.” He singled out its newfound predilection for “peacetime cloak and dagger operations.” In 1953, the first year of the Eisenhower presidency, the CIA drafted a document that was only made public in 1997: “A Study of Assassination.” The director of the CIA was Allen Dulles, appointed by Truman. Dulles was the man John Kennedy fired after the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961. Eisenhower appointed John Foster Dulles, Allen’s brother, as secretary of state.

      Those two brothers literally ruled the world specializing in a wide range of skulduggery that typically included regime change. The overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, and President Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala were two spectacular cases conducted in that same year, 1953.

      J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI had perhaps provided the example the Dulles’s post-Truman CIA decided to emulate. Hoover had effectively turned the FBI into the equivalent of a government terrorist outfit, using its legitimate activity that consisted of investigating federal crimes as cover for repressive acts with highly political ends. It is worth noting that the “I” in FBI stands for “investigation.” The “I” in CIA stands for “intelligence.” Investigation is the normal activity of any law enforcement organization. Hoover, of course, pushed it further.

      Truman should never have called the CIA an “intelligence” organization. The French translation of intelligence is simply “renseignement,” which means gathering “factual information.” That was what Truman was expecting — the delivery of information to inform the executive’s decision-making about policy. The idea that it was “intelligence” may have gone to the head of CIA directors. 

      In the 1950s, Hoover and the Dulles brothers shaped a world in which political intellect was transferred from democraticly elected officials to organizations that encouraged the mentality of a police state. Since then, technology has simply added to their power.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      Recruiting an Army for a Civil War

      by

      Last week’s storming of the Capitol has already achieved the traumatic status of only a few other events in recent US history: the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and 9/11. Its historical consequences will play out for years if not decades.

      Pearl Harbor allowed the United States into what until then had been largely a European conflict. The US subsequently became the dominant force in the Second World War and then the world, after ushering in the nuclear age with a shocking and scientifically sadistic attack on the civilian populations of two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The JFK assassination cleared the path for two other game-changing events: Lyndon Johnson’s war in Vietnam and the flowering of the hippie movement. Combined, these marked an important stage in shattering the trust Americans formerly had in their institutions, a trend that has continued ever since. 

      Flashpoint America: What the Hell Is Happening?

      READ MORE

      The attacks of 9/11 provided the scheming neocons and their pliant president, George W. Bush, with the pretext for spreading endless wars across the Middle East. It was designed as an intended display of virile might but turned into a failed and futile melodrama that, in the eyes of most of humanity, seriously undermined the vaunted moral authority of a nation that for two centuries had claimed to be the “beacon of democracy.”

      An article by Emma Grey Ellis in Wired, “The DC Mobs Could Become a Mythologized Recruitment Tool,” points to one of the possible long-term consequences of last week’s event. Ellis cites Shannon Reid, a researcher of the phenomenon of street gangs and white power at UNC Charlotte: “My fear is that this moment will die down and everyone will think we’re OK. Really this [riot] was a recruitment tool, a part of a mythology that is going to grow.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Recruitment:

      Conversion to an extreme, violent ideology of people who realize — though with limited understanding — that the respectable institutions controlling their lives and to which they are expected to pledge allegiance have no interest in their well-being, and even less in recruiting them for gainful employment.

      Contextual Note

      One commentator cited in the article notes how an event that achieved nothing evokes a positive reaction from the extreme right, suggesting that “The hardened neo-Nazis on Telegram are over the moon that this all happened. They feel like it’s going to radicalize millions of boomer-tier people. They’re kind of scolding the boomers: ‘You tried to work through the system, but now you’re radicalized along with us.’”

      The FBI has now warned that thousands of Trump supporters and election deniers are currently organizing armed protests across the nation, seeking to make a furious show of force before Joe Biden’s inauguration. But they don’t see it as a one-time event. The movement will continue and possibly grow in the coming months. Its participants share a mentality of civil war. After four years of Trumpian fireworks in the media, these rebels — many of them well-trained war veterans inured to righteous violence — simply cannot imagine the nation in the hands of someone other than The Donald, who in their eyes has become the symbol of American assertiveness.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Sociologist Cynthia Miller-Idriss sees this event as confirming “a swing back toward anti-government extremism.” She believes it is “creating odd coalitions.” With his usual reflexive mendacity, when Trump sought to blame antifa for the storming of the Capitol, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy immediately contradicted him. Nevertheless, while it is unlikely that antifa and the MAGA crowd could ever agree on coordinating their studied nihilism, a certain convergence in their mutual capacity for discord seems possible.

      The main victims of the growing disorder will be the vast majority of Americans and, more particularly, the significant swaths of the population who are seriously interested in reforming, if not transforming, a system whose injustices seem patent and the indifference of the moneyed elites only too evident. The entire black and Hispanic communities will be the first to suffer since the most likely immediate response will be to impose heightened surveillance and more aggressive policing in the name of national security, following the precedent of 9/11.

      The hopes that were awakened last year with the popularity of the Black Lives Matter movement following the death of George Floyd will be dashed by the combined force of COVID-19, tightened security and official suspicion of anything that isn’t resolutely middle-of-the-road during the Biden presidency.

      Racial injustice and wealth inequality will be put on the back burner. That should surprise no one, but the coronavirus crisis and the George Floyd protests led many to believe that some form of positive change was about to emerge. For once, the government seemed to show awareness of the needs of a population that the pandemic had cast into the gulf of uncertainty created by unbridled free market capitalism. 

      The Biden administration will immediately focus on the evident danger of right-wing radicalism that drew its energy from the personality of Donald Trump but has now achieved a life of its own. But an aggressive attempt to throttle it may aggravate its attraction. Right-wing militias are more the symptom than the problem. The deeper issue lies in the fact that a significant portion of the population places more of its hope in hard drugs, opioids, suicide missions and the rage of the mob than it does in government reforms.

      Historical Note

      Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the 9/11 attacks 60 years later had the effect of immediately designating an enemy Americans felt must be countered with force. The Japanese attack provided the US with a ticket to a world war that had started in Europe. From then on, it concerned the entire Northern Hemisphere. In a similar fashion, 9/11 provided the pretext for an undefined global war on terror that has prolonged its effects in both violent and profoundly insidious ways ever since, sapping the nation’s morale.

      The JFK assassination is the outlier in that series of traumatic events. What happened in Dallas in November 1963 was engineered to appear as a purely domestic murder mystery. By focusing on a single designated killer, it succeeded in masking its true historical significance. Nevertheless, the Kennedy assassination produced a powerful effect on the international as well as the domestic front. It cleared the path for the Vietnam War. The combined force of the assassination and the war stimulated the creation of a counterculture that turned many of the reigning values in US society on their head.

      As the year 2021 begins, marked by nervous anticipation of Joe Biden’s arrival at the White House, the consequences and eventual lessons of last week’s insurrection will begin to emerge. At the time of this writing, the FBI is anticipating violence in all 50 states. Where that will lead, nobody knows. At the same time, the stability of both political parties appears to be seriously compromised. It will take months and perhaps years to assess the consequences of what may become known as Trump’s last stand.

      Commentators, even those favorable to the Republicans, admit that this is the one event history is likely to associate with Donald Trump’s presidency. Others fear that the events of January 6 were simply the initial skirmish of a struggle that will play out with growing anarchy over the months and even years to come, in what may be a muted civil war.

      Some specific issues related to the riot will undoubtedly be addressed. Action will be taken to strengthen the protocols for the protection of public sites. The behavior and training of law enforcement and security personnel will be reviewed once again. But any of the specific issues will pale in significance to the growing awareness of the studied indifference to the concerns of the people on the part of those who make the laws, to say nothing of their corrupt complicity with the moneyed interests that have the means to influence, if not dictate, the laws. Given their level of education, the team Joe Biden has recruited should have the intellectual capacity to grasp these issues. Will it be able to summon the resolve to deal with them?

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More