Why did Trump win?

As I see it, there are three broad set of voters. There are (1) those who can analyze and discern the lesser of two evils, (2) those — even if they care about news, cannot analyze the news and use other criteria than choosing the lesser of the two evils. (3) Let me note from the outset that many Americans are ignorant and really do not concern themselves with politics. And if they do, it amounts to a loyalty to their party — right or wrong.

Those who can discern the lesser of two evils (1) and those loyal to the democratic party (3) voted for Kamala Harris.

And those who are loyal to the Republican party, voted for Donald Trump.

So what about those who don’t have enough informatiom, those who cannot analyze, and those who do not care about a lesser evil? Those too chose Donald Trump on other considerations. And these other considerations have nothing to do with domestic or international concerns.

So, on what basis did they choose Trump? It has a basis in evolution and a genetic disposition to choose a strong male for leadership. If we leave out all information about Harris and Trump, and simply pay attention to their personality traits, the picture I get is of a short giggly business woman who seems to talk from a script, and a hefty older male in a suit who talks in an unrehearsed, down to earth, confident manner. Who does your instinct tell you to choose for a leader?

John Mearsheimer: the “prophet” of Ukrainian doom

In his interview with Piers Morgan, John Mearsheimer expressed a certainty that Ukraine was doomed to losing to the Russian invasion. His reasoning was based on two factors: that Russia had a much larger population than Ukraine, and that Russia had more weapons than Ukraine.

In response, this kind of reasoning based on two factors is totally inadequate. There are many other factors to consider. Let me list some of them.

  1. In addition to numbers, one must take into account strategy. Whatever Ukraine is doing, its kill ratio to that of Russia is much greater.
  2. Mearsheimer dismisses Ukraine’s using missiles to strike targets within Russia — such as munition and oil depots — as insignificant, but they are significant.
  3. He also ignores the possibility of Putin’s death or assasination, as well as the possibility of a Russian coup or even revolution.
  4. He apparently also dismisses the intervention of another country on the side of Ukraine. Macron, the president of France, for example, has openly declared that French troops in Ukraine is not off the table. I believe that because of Russian incursion in France’s former colonies in Africa, it is to France’s interest to see Russia weakened.
  5. I also believe that if Ukraine seems to be losing, NATO will intervene.

Mearsheimer also believes that it a moral duty to bring the war to an end. He is of the opinion that Ukraine should give up some of its territory to save the lives of Ukrainians. On this score Piers Morgan disagrees. Given the Russian invasion, Morgan believes that it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide. Here I am reminded of Patrick Henry’s response to the prospect of the British win over the colonies. His response was: Give me Liberty of give me death!

Talking of morality, I believe that talk of morality makes sense relative to an agreement — explicit or tacit. And the agreement I have in mine is the Budapest Memorandum which was signed by Russia, the United States and Britain as a guarantee of Ukraine’s sovereignty in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal. Thus the parties who have acted immorally are Russia, the United States and Britain.

Why Ukraine was invaded by Russia

There seems to be a dominant view among those public intellectuals whom I admire that the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was due to the United States’ project of trying to install Ukraine into NATO. This view is spearheaded on Youtube by John Mearsheimer, but it has as supporters such prominent intellectual as Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Chris Hedges, and Stephen Kinzer — to name a few.

Why this proclivity to blame the U.S.? I think it is due to their acute awareness of U.S. imperialism — in its invasions and coups, which all of them have written about. It seems, therefore, reasonable to look for the U.S. involvement in the Russian-Ukrainian affair as well. These intellectuals also think that the flight of Yanukovych was a U.S. orchestrated coup!

Contrary to their view, I believe that there was no coup; Yanukovich simply ran aways from everyone’s hostility. And this fact coincided with U.S. interests, but it was not caused by the U.S.

As to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, it is best descibed by an analogy used by Johnny Harris as the refusal of a boyfriend to let his ex-girlfriend go. Putin is the boyfriend and Ukraine is his ex-girlfriend.

I’ll let you decide which narrative is more suitable: the threat of NATO or the ex-girlfriend analogy after watching the following videos:

The first video is a debate beteen John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, for the NATO narrative, and Michael McFaul and Radislaw Sikorski, opposed.

The second video is a debate between John Mearsheimer and Carl Bildt.

The third video is a criticism of John Mearsheimer by Alexander Stubb.

The fourth is a series of videos by Johnny Harris. In the first video he comments on the pre-invasion plans of Russia. In the second and third videos he makes his comments after the invasion.

Piers Morgan exposed as a racist in sheep’s clothing

I have watched many interviews conducted by Piers Morgan with people at opposite poles in their stance towards the government of Israel. On the surface, his interviews are calm and — without scrutiny — appears to be even handed.

But they are not. His bias is exposed in a rightously indignant manner by Cornell West and Cenk Uygur in the interview below. Cornell West had never in my experience acted in such a volatile manner as he did with Piers Morgan. Both accuse Morgan of lying through his technique of framing questions and his omissions.

His racism comes through when he calls Hamas a terrorist organization for the acts of Oct. 7, but explicitly disavows calling the genocidal acts of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) acts of terrorism.

My X, right or wrong: Two Versions

In the following video, there is a commentry on the expression “my country, right or wrong”

He traces the origin of this expression, and points out that it is elliptical, and that the full context calls for support of the country if it is right, and criticism of it, if it is wrong.

I bring this topic up because of the genocide which is taking place in Gaza.

This genocide is a troublesome fact for many people – both Jews and non-Jews. There are Zionist Jews who identify with Israel and feel that loyalty and patriotism requires them to defend the actions of the Israeli government – right or wrong. And not willing to say that the Israeli government is wrong – they rationalize.

There are also Zionist Jews who are critical of the Israeli government. And there are, of course, non-Zionist Jews who are also overwhelmingly critical, and both groups are among those in the student protests against the genocide in Gaza.

Now this loyalty or patriotism question is taking place in the U.S. and in other countries around the world. For example, the U.S. government is supporting Israel in its genocide of Gaza. [To be more accurate, it is Joe Biden who is doing the supporting.] So. the support of Israel for allegedly loyal Americans depends on the stance of their government.

Be it as it may, all these people who support the genocide in Gaza can be called supporters of a patriotic or loyalist version of “my X, right ot wromg.”

The othe version of “my X, right or wrong” I will call “opportunistic.”

Opportunists are, above all, politicians, college administrators, soldiers, and policemen. Their loyalty – if one may call it that – is to their paycheck: “my paycheck, right or wrong.” Both soldiers and policemen are prone to rationalize their behavior as their duty or simply as following orders. Politician and college administrators (notably, presidents), on the other hand, if challenged, rationalize in a more detailed manner.

Let me take as an example the speech of Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House of Representatives at Columbia University:

He talks about anti-semitism, as if that was the problem. No, the problem is genocide in Gaza!

Warmongering Netanjahu

I am against giving power to any single individual – be it a monarch, a president, or prime minister. I prefer the government of Switzerland, where power is diffused among seven members of a Federal Council.

The history of wars is predominantly a history of single leaders.

The current war against Ukraine is the decision of one man: Putin.

And the current genocide of Gaza is also the decision of a single leader: Benjamin Netanjahu, the Prime Minister of Israel.

But he has recently tried to deflect world attention from his genocide of Gaza by destroying the Iranian consulate in Syria on April 1, 2024. This was a deliberate attempt to get Iran to respond, which it did.

For many years now, Netanjahu has tried to get the US to attack Iran for harboring a nuclear weapons program – akin to the charge against Iraq for harboring a program for weapons of mass destruction.

If this lunatic is not removed, he may plunge the world into World War III.

Gaza and Genocide Deniers

In my opinion, of all the scholars of the Palestinian-Israeli relations that I know, Norman Finkelstein is the best informed and the most reasonable in his recommendations — which are to follow the international law, the United Nations resolutions. and to pay attention to human rights watchdogs — like Amnesty International.

I agree with him, and I also agree with the International Court of Justice that a plausible case can be made that a genocide is taking place in Gaza.

With the ICJ finding in mind, I have watched various debates on this issue on Youtube, taking note on who affirms and who denies that a genocide is taking place in Gaza.

The most scholarly debate on Youtube is the following:

The participants were Norman Finkelstein and Mouin Rabbani, on one side, and Benny Morris and Steven Bonnell (aka Destiny), on the other.

Commentary: Since the debate was set-up by Lex Fridman, he must be held responsible for including Destiny, who was obviously in a company beyond his competency, and who Finkelstein, during the debate, called a moron and an imbecile.