I concede the blob may not be able to 'force' Biden to step aside. He's got the delegates. But I still think the blob can insure a Biden loss, including a humiliating self-destructing landslide loss, by turning off the money spigot. Would they do this? Is Biden betting they won't? A Mexican standoff? Who will blink?
Well, if Biden (or more directly, his family) wants to endure a humiliating, self-destructing landslide loss (and an absolutely humiliating convention) he (they) certainly has the ability to do so. It appears it is up to them. I wrote a few days ago that he would not make it to the convention. I am sticking to that but it really does come down to how far Jill and Hunter want to carry on the elder abuse for their own purposes.
Biden's calculus must be that if he can resist until the Dem convention (and he thinks he can) he can then lock in the nomination. Then the Dems will regroup and launch all kinds of lawfare and propaganda and election shenanigans against Trump, including some September and October Surprises. All Biden needs to do is win a majority of the several swing states and...he wins!
From Biden's point of view he has two choices: Drop out, in which case he is done, or stay in and roll the dice in a race he may have convinced himself he is only trailing by a couple percentage points...after the worst week of his presidency. He is telling himself that he's already 'beat' Trump once. He can do it again.
The only thing standing in the way of this scenario is the possibility that the Dem donors will in fact turn off the money spigot if he's nominated and then Biden (and the entire party) will endure a humiliating, self-destructing landslide loss. Will they do this?
Who knows? It looks like we're going to see a pretty high stakes game of chicken unfold.
The hubris and overweening self-righteousness displayed on the world stage by the US seems to come rather directly from the Puritan attitude toward Others and its later codification as Manifest Destiny. Since when did the US negotiate in detail and respectfully with the Amerindians? Or with Mexico? I realize we once had some outstanding diplomats, but the base tone of American post-colonial history is represented by the widespread belief that those who are wealthy and/or powerful are being rewarded by God and that might, therefore, ultimately makes right. What was it Teddy Roosevelt said about carrying a big stick? What made the messianic military expansionism espoused by Truman and others possible was the realization that, amid the ruins of WW2, the US was the most powerful and therefore virtuous and exemplary nation in the world. We negotiated with the Allies, including the USSR, out of necessity during the war, but even before the war was over, in early August 1945, we sent a very clear message to the USSR that we were now in the global driver's seat by dropping two a-bombs on Japan that were a coded but direct order to Moscow to stand down and realize its proper place in the US -led world order When the USSR disappeared in 1991, the US took it as another sign of the superior moral and material power that the US uniquely possessed and, without negotiating with Russia, we gave Yeltsin orders to go cold turkey and overnight change the whole Russian socioeconomic system, in the process destroying 50% of the Russian GDP and lowering the life expectancy of Russian males by 15 years. We savaged the Russian economy and used our temporary (1991-2010) unipolar power to plunder Russia and ravage the Middle East. The US foreign policy "blob" is out of control, like the runaway train in Kurosawa's movie of that name. It and its pathetic Nato puppies simply refuse to negotiate anything significant or even recognize reality. If they were smart, they would negotiate night and day with all the BRICS nations, but even if a single US president such as RFK or Trump tries to negotiate with Russia and China, his or her efforts will probably be sabotaged by the DC "swamp." How can this runaway train full of ignorance, self-worship, and hubris be stopped? Hopefully the BRICS can help make some repairs simply by refusing to be pushed out of the way.
I agree with Cassander that it is not so cut and dried. Puritanism was established in the U.S. as an escape from government tyranny (and for religious freedom) not as a foundation for furthering government tyranny. Although there was an element of religious evangelism attendant to the "Manifest Destiny" idea I don't believe such an idea (evangelism through government power) was ever implicit in the religious doctrines of Puritanism or Protestantism. In fact, the Protestant immigration to the U.S. was largely a reaction against governments enforcing religious dictums and doctrines. To the extent that such ideas as "Manifest Destiny" have been propagated they have been done so by the government to leverage the support of Protestant people who would ordinarily not believe in the attendant government actions absent a religious motive.
I'm not talking about how the Puritans began. I'm talking about how their theocratic dictatorship and its ideology developed over the 17th century in New England. (I grew up near Salem....) I'm also not saying Manifest Destiny developed directly from the Puritans but that it depended on some of the same unconscious presuppositions as those of the Puritans that had begun a life of their own when set free in the larger American cultural environment. My main point is that American foreign policy has almost always been messianic and based on a Manichean or dualistic worldview that pits a virtuous elite or "us" group against evil enemies or outsiders or Others, often in a stark life-or-death struggle with no compromises. Early American images of Amerindians as minions of the Devil are very common, as are images of foreigners as devils or demons in 20th century America. And there is surely a straight line continuing from the irrational, obsessive witch-hunting of the Puritans to the rather similar obsessive, self-righteous witch-hunting of Joe McCarthy, HUAC, and the Dem party's witch-hunting during the disgraceful "Russiagate" hoax.
Thanks for the elaboration. It helps me understand where you are coming from. You say "American foreign policy has almost always been messianic and based on a Manichean or dualistic worldview that pits a virtuous elite or "us" group against evil enemies or outsiders." I don't know if I would say it has always been messianic but certainly the "us against others" duality has been stressed. Although, I think this duality is a prominent feature of war propaganda not only in the U.S. but everywhere.
I might quibble with the role you suggest Puritan beliefs play in creating our current Neocon Empire. I also think that the American West was settled for many varied reasons, not all of which were nefarious. But I think you are right on in your analysis of the trouble with America's policies and ideology since WWII.
Have you seen the clip of Biden at his press conference yesterday trying to explain why he would meet with any world leader except Vladimir Putin? I'm not sure which signal he sends is worst: Biden's senility...or his arrogance in refusing to talk to his nuclear-armed counterpart...or the practical consequence of the 'more war' which he is promoting -- tens of thousands of more deaths. Biden embodies everything that you describe that is wrong with America. today
Thanks. I'm not talking about every American. I'm mainly talking -- in very broad strokes -- about how the leaders and rulers of the US throughout the centuries have unfortunately found the Puritan paradigm of rule by a hierarchy consisting of a self-ordained virtuous elite who seldom negotiate very useful and therefore worthy of continuation. Even now our corrupt pols often talk about the elitist "shining city on the hill," a Puritan self-image, as if it were the image of America today! And the whole censorship movement, mainly by the Dems, is neo-Puritan to the core. Stocks, anyone? Regarding Biden's refusal to talk with Putin, he is a lazy bum who is not doing his job as president. His salary should be cut. I agree with your view of him completely.
Yes. I can see the threads of similarity in some Puritan beliefs and in Manifest Destiny which you identify in today's America.
But I'm tempted to say there is a continuum from virtue to imperfection in most human communities and belief systems. The same Puritans who established a 'self-ordained virtuous elite' were hard-working and industrious and also believed in religious freedom and rejected the civil authority of the state, which beliefs we conservatives probably would approve of today.
Puritanism was also a hardly universal belief system as New England was settled and it continuously lost ground to greater numbers of Baptists, Quakers, Anglicans and Presbyterians and, eventually non-Protestants and non-Christians whose religious views differed greatly from the Puritans. And then there was the settlement of New Amsterdam by the Dutch and of Virginia and the American South by the Cavaliers and others who came to America with entirely different beliefs and motives.
I think modern day America is a kind of soup of the innumerable beliefs and impulses of all of our ancestors, the both virtuous and imperfect Puritan impulse being just one of many cross-currents. And I think the soup has resulted in, in most respects, a pretty impressive set of rules and guiding principles.
So I'm inclined to look at this moment in 21st Century America more as an odd aberration in our continuing development as a nation, where the over-whelmingly dominant threads of our widely-held American belief systems: democracy, individual and equal rights, law and order, due process, liberty, freedom, justice for all, the rule of law, the work ethic, and more, have been subverted to the greed and quest for power of a much smaller self-proclaimed (explicitly or implicitly) elite, which is willing to bend the rules and use coercion and authoritarianism (and militarism) to keep and expand its power and control. For precedents I'm inclined to look at the rise and fall of other Empires in the past, much less than some of our Puritan tendencies or our settlement of the American West.
As a matter of history, American foreign policy began as an effort to stay out of foreign entanglements. A seemingly notable exception was the Barbary Pirates war, which was mostly just a police action to defend American merchant shipping.
The idea of Manifest Destiny arose in the mid to late 1840s when the era of US continental expansion across the West to the Pacific began in earnest--bringing the US into conflict with expanding foreign powers in the SW and Pacific regions. Mexico, Russia, Britain. It was extremely controversial at the time because of the use that was then made of it by the slave interests--a small minority of interests in America, but an influential one politically and economically. This despite the earlier Louisiana Purchase.
Some do trace the idea back to the Puritan idea of America as a City upon a Hill, an example to the Old World. I suspect, however, that the appeal to the Puritans (who notably remained in New England where they engaged in commerce, rather than seeking empire) was used as a tool by later generations seeking a justification for empire, probably inspired by the British example.
Frederick Merk: "From the outset Manifest Destiny—vast in program, in its sense of continentalism—was slight in support. It lacked national, sectional, or party following commensurate with its magnitude. The reason was it did not reflect the national spirit. The thesis that it embodied nationalism, found in much historical writing, is backed by little real supporting evidence."
In my view (blissfully unaware of historians' professional explanations) the attraction of the West to settlers was a pretty binary thing. The land in Vermont and New Hampshire wasn't very good for farming...the land in Ohio was much better. And it was free, or cheap. Rinse and repeat as settlement progressed across the Appalachians towards the Pacific. It wasn't a matter of ideology. It was simply the compelling opportunity for a 'better' life.
But as a matter of demographics, it wasn't the Yankees who settled the West. There's plenty of information available about these matters. Much of the area between the Mississippi and the Pacific was settled by immigrants--Germans, the largest ethnic group in America, across the entire upper MIdwest. And, no, it wasn't ideological for them, either. Further south, it was Scotch Irish. These weren't empire builders.
I cannot disagree with a single thing Tulsi Gabbard says in this clip.
Except for the standard disclaimer she makes that 'Putin was wrong to invade Ukraine'. Superficially, yes, but as the entire truth of our provocations emerges, it is hard to see what alternative Russia had in February 2022. Russia knew we were determined to use Ukraine as a proxy to literally bring it down.
I guess she has to say this or face total cancellation as a Putin acolyte.
I especially like her refence to Joe Biden's infamous speech in Philadelphia where he accused anyone who voted for Donald Trump of being a domestic extemist. This is what fascists try to do to their political opponents.
Thanks for the clip, Cassander. Tulsi is very impressive in this interview. Well-spoken, logical, sharp, and appears to be aligned with ideas with which a lot of us on this blog agree. She appears to be sincere in her views and she does exhibit a degree of passion and an undeniable charisma. Viewing this makes me more inclined to be comfortable with her as a VP (or potentially other cabinet member) for Trump.
The negative thing is she made no mention of the genocide in Gaza - only expressing how Islam wants to take over the world (and therefore implying any actions that can be construed as being opposed to Islam are justified. That is disturbing to me. Also somewhat disturbing is that she has written a biographical book, which is THE signature of someone who aspires to higher political office. I guess, like Steghorn, I don't entirely trust her. Sort of like Groucho saying he wouldn't be a member of any club that would have him, I don't trust politicians who aspire to greater power... maybe even moreso former Democrats. Yeah, I know...
So we shall see. Already, I like her better than Scott, Rubio, or Burgrum as a VP choice. If she is shown to be a phony Trump could relatively easily get rid of her, with justification.
Although it is tempting to castigate Truman in retrospect for the "Truman Doctrine," the impetus toward imperium by the U.S. has a history much older than his assertion, as most readers here will know. Additionally, all U.S. Presidents since have exercised largely the same powers for largely the same ends (see for example, the "Eisenhower Doctrine").
If you want to be depressed reading about incursions and insurgencies of which we were not told in History classes in school, take a gander at the following:
China was actually helping them build rail infrastructure, but with the change of administrations back to the Marcos family they have not just cancelled such projects but have gone so far as to remove installed structures; instead, they are now investing in military bases and preparing to fight over a beached WWII boat posing as an island.
They had a choice between high-speed rail and tattoo parlors...
I'm tempted to ask, Do these people not see what has happened to Ukraine?! But then I catch myself. It isn't happening 'to Ukraine;' no, it's happening to other people's families, and we don't care about that.
Funny you mention tattoo parlours, Mistrc. I've just come back from a walking trip in nearby France. The little stone-built towns and villages are beautiful but in complete economic meltdown. The only businesses that seem to be thriving are tattoo joints and vaping shops. Tattoos seem to be a very visible sign of a decaying society.
A friend of mine's 26 year old son, who is a tattoo artist, is moving from the US to France to work in a tattoo parlor in Lyon, where he says conditions for his work are much better!
Wow, that's amazing, Cass. He'll certainly like Lyon, which is a very nice city. He should get a lot of business too - the French are really into their tats, especially the women!
The Chinese have apparently sent troops to Belarus to conduct 11 days of military exercises...that may be their answer to NATO! I'm definitely going to hunt down a copy of that book your wife is reading.
I concede the blob may not be able to 'force' Biden to step aside. He's got the delegates. But I still think the blob can insure a Biden loss, including a humiliating self-destructing landslide loss, by turning off the money spigot. Would they do this? Is Biden betting they won't? A Mexican standoff? Who will blink?
Well, if Biden (or more directly, his family) wants to endure a humiliating, self-destructing landslide loss (and an absolutely humiliating convention) he (they) certainly has the ability to do so. It appears it is up to them. I wrote a few days ago that he would not make it to the convention. I am sticking to that but it really does come down to how far Jill and Hunter want to carry on the elder abuse for their own purposes.
https://www.aol.com/news/trump-favored-biden-still-win-213044313.html
Biden's calculus must be that if he can resist until the Dem convention (and he thinks he can) he can then lock in the nomination. Then the Dems will regroup and launch all kinds of lawfare and propaganda and election shenanigans against Trump, including some September and October Surprises. All Biden needs to do is win a majority of the several swing states and...he wins!
From Biden's point of view he has two choices: Drop out, in which case he is done, or stay in and roll the dice in a race he may have convinced himself he is only trailing by a couple percentage points...after the worst week of his presidency. He is telling himself that he's already 'beat' Trump once. He can do it again.
The only thing standing in the way of this scenario is the possibility that the Dem donors will in fact turn off the money spigot if he's nominated and then Biden (and the entire party) will endure a humiliating, self-destructing landslide loss. Will they do this?
Who knows? It looks like we're going to see a pretty high stakes game of chicken unfold.
My dear 75 year old cousin posted this on facebook today.
https://archive.is/13Ko8
She believes it.
Oh my!
Indeed!
The hubris and overweening self-righteousness displayed on the world stage by the US seems to come rather directly from the Puritan attitude toward Others and its later codification as Manifest Destiny. Since when did the US negotiate in detail and respectfully with the Amerindians? Or with Mexico? I realize we once had some outstanding diplomats, but the base tone of American post-colonial history is represented by the widespread belief that those who are wealthy and/or powerful are being rewarded by God and that might, therefore, ultimately makes right. What was it Teddy Roosevelt said about carrying a big stick? What made the messianic military expansionism espoused by Truman and others possible was the realization that, amid the ruins of WW2, the US was the most powerful and therefore virtuous and exemplary nation in the world. We negotiated with the Allies, including the USSR, out of necessity during the war, but even before the war was over, in early August 1945, we sent a very clear message to the USSR that we were now in the global driver's seat by dropping two a-bombs on Japan that were a coded but direct order to Moscow to stand down and realize its proper place in the US -led world order When the USSR disappeared in 1991, the US took it as another sign of the superior moral and material power that the US uniquely possessed and, without negotiating with Russia, we gave Yeltsin orders to go cold turkey and overnight change the whole Russian socioeconomic system, in the process destroying 50% of the Russian GDP and lowering the life expectancy of Russian males by 15 years. We savaged the Russian economy and used our temporary (1991-2010) unipolar power to plunder Russia and ravage the Middle East. The US foreign policy "blob" is out of control, like the runaway train in Kurosawa's movie of that name. It and its pathetic Nato puppies simply refuse to negotiate anything significant or even recognize reality. If they were smart, they would negotiate night and day with all the BRICS nations, but even if a single US president such as RFK or Trump tries to negotiate with Russia and China, his or her efforts will probably be sabotaged by the DC "swamp." How can this runaway train full of ignorance, self-worship, and hubris be stopped? Hopefully the BRICS can help make some repairs simply by refusing to be pushed out of the way.
I agree with Cassander that it is not so cut and dried. Puritanism was established in the U.S. as an escape from government tyranny (and for religious freedom) not as a foundation for furthering government tyranny. Although there was an element of religious evangelism attendant to the "Manifest Destiny" idea I don't believe such an idea (evangelism through government power) was ever implicit in the religious doctrines of Puritanism or Protestantism. In fact, the Protestant immigration to the U.S. was largely a reaction against governments enforcing religious dictums and doctrines. To the extent that such ideas as "Manifest Destiny" have been propagated they have been done so by the government to leverage the support of Protestant people who would ordinarily not believe in the attendant government actions absent a religious motive.
I'm not talking about how the Puritans began. I'm talking about how their theocratic dictatorship and its ideology developed over the 17th century in New England. (I grew up near Salem....) I'm also not saying Manifest Destiny developed directly from the Puritans but that it depended on some of the same unconscious presuppositions as those of the Puritans that had begun a life of their own when set free in the larger American cultural environment. My main point is that American foreign policy has almost always been messianic and based on a Manichean or dualistic worldview that pits a virtuous elite or "us" group against evil enemies or outsiders or Others, often in a stark life-or-death struggle with no compromises. Early American images of Amerindians as minions of the Devil are very common, as are images of foreigners as devils or demons in 20th century America. And there is surely a straight line continuing from the irrational, obsessive witch-hunting of the Puritans to the rather similar obsessive, self-righteous witch-hunting of Joe McCarthy, HUAC, and the Dem party's witch-hunting during the disgraceful "Russiagate" hoax.
Thanks for the elaboration. It helps me understand where you are coming from. You say "American foreign policy has almost always been messianic and based on a Manichean or dualistic worldview that pits a virtuous elite or "us" group against evil enemies or outsiders." I don't know if I would say it has always been messianic but certainly the "us against others" duality has been stressed. Although, I think this duality is a prominent feature of war propaganda not only in the U.S. but everywhere.
I might quibble with the role you suggest Puritan beliefs play in creating our current Neocon Empire. I also think that the American West was settled for many varied reasons, not all of which were nefarious. But I think you are right on in your analysis of the trouble with America's policies and ideology since WWII.
Have you seen the clip of Biden at his press conference yesterday trying to explain why he would meet with any world leader except Vladimir Putin? I'm not sure which signal he sends is worst: Biden's senility...or his arrogance in refusing to talk to his nuclear-armed counterpart...or the practical consequence of the 'more war' which he is promoting -- tens of thousands of more deaths. Biden embodies everything that you describe that is wrong with America. today
Thanks. I'm not talking about every American. I'm mainly talking -- in very broad strokes -- about how the leaders and rulers of the US throughout the centuries have unfortunately found the Puritan paradigm of rule by a hierarchy consisting of a self-ordained virtuous elite who seldom negotiate very useful and therefore worthy of continuation. Even now our corrupt pols often talk about the elitist "shining city on the hill," a Puritan self-image, as if it were the image of America today! And the whole censorship movement, mainly by the Dems, is neo-Puritan to the core. Stocks, anyone? Regarding Biden's refusal to talk with Putin, he is a lazy bum who is not doing his job as president. His salary should be cut. I agree with your view of him completely.
Yes. I can see the threads of similarity in some Puritan beliefs and in Manifest Destiny which you identify in today's America.
But I'm tempted to say there is a continuum from virtue to imperfection in most human communities and belief systems. The same Puritans who established a 'self-ordained virtuous elite' were hard-working and industrious and also believed in religious freedom and rejected the civil authority of the state, which beliefs we conservatives probably would approve of today.
Puritanism was also a hardly universal belief system as New England was settled and it continuously lost ground to greater numbers of Baptists, Quakers, Anglicans and Presbyterians and, eventually non-Protestants and non-Christians whose religious views differed greatly from the Puritans. And then there was the settlement of New Amsterdam by the Dutch and of Virginia and the American South by the Cavaliers and others who came to America with entirely different beliefs and motives.
I think modern day America is a kind of soup of the innumerable beliefs and impulses of all of our ancestors, the both virtuous and imperfect Puritan impulse being just one of many cross-currents. And I think the soup has resulted in, in most respects, a pretty impressive set of rules and guiding principles.
So I'm inclined to look at this moment in 21st Century America more as an odd aberration in our continuing development as a nation, where the over-whelmingly dominant threads of our widely-held American belief systems: democracy, individual and equal rights, law and order, due process, liberty, freedom, justice for all, the rule of law, the work ethic, and more, have been subverted to the greed and quest for power of a much smaller self-proclaimed (explicitly or implicitly) elite, which is willing to bend the rules and use coercion and authoritarianism (and militarism) to keep and expand its power and control. For precedents I'm inclined to look at the rise and fall of other Empires in the past, much less than some of our Puritan tendencies or our settlement of the American West.
As a matter of history, American foreign policy began as an effort to stay out of foreign entanglements. A seemingly notable exception was the Barbary Pirates war, which was mostly just a police action to defend American merchant shipping.
The idea of Manifest Destiny arose in the mid to late 1840s when the era of US continental expansion across the West to the Pacific began in earnest--bringing the US into conflict with expanding foreign powers in the SW and Pacific regions. Mexico, Russia, Britain. It was extremely controversial at the time because of the use that was then made of it by the slave interests--a small minority of interests in America, but an influential one politically and economically. This despite the earlier Louisiana Purchase.
Some do trace the idea back to the Puritan idea of America as a City upon a Hill, an example to the Old World. I suspect, however, that the appeal to the Puritans (who notably remained in New England where they engaged in commerce, rather than seeking empire) was used as a tool by later generations seeking a justification for empire, probably inspired by the British example.
Frederick Merk: "From the outset Manifest Destiny—vast in program, in its sense of continentalism—was slight in support. It lacked national, sectional, or party following commensurate with its magnitude. The reason was it did not reflect the national spirit. The thesis that it embodied nationalism, found in much historical writing, is backed by little real supporting evidence."
In my view (blissfully unaware of historians' professional explanations) the attraction of the West to settlers was a pretty binary thing. The land in Vermont and New Hampshire wasn't very good for farming...the land in Ohio was much better. And it was free, or cheap. Rinse and repeat as settlement progressed across the Appalachians towards the Pacific. It wasn't a matter of ideology. It was simply the compelling opportunity for a 'better' life.
But as a matter of demographics, it wasn't the Yankees who settled the West. There's plenty of information available about these matters. Much of the area between the Mississippi and the Pacific was settled by immigrants--Germans, the largest ethnic group in America, across the entire upper MIdwest. And, no, it wasn't ideological for them, either. Further south, it was Scotch Irish. These weren't empire builders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny#Themes_and_influences
I am liking Tulsi here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ZOI8LfX3o
I cannot disagree with a single thing Tulsi Gabbard says in this clip.
Except for the standard disclaimer she makes that 'Putin was wrong to invade Ukraine'. Superficially, yes, but as the entire truth of our provocations emerges, it is hard to see what alternative Russia had in February 2022. Russia knew we were determined to use Ukraine as a proxy to literally bring it down.
I guess she has to say this or face total cancellation as a Putin acolyte.
I've been watching some more Tulsi. She is also very good in this interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeNXGMSraYU
I especially like her refence to Joe Biden's infamous speech in Philadelphia where he accused anyone who voted for Donald Trump of being a domestic extemist. This is what fascists try to do to their political opponents.
Thanks for the clip, Cassander. Tulsi is very impressive in this interview. Well-spoken, logical, sharp, and appears to be aligned with ideas with which a lot of us on this blog agree. She appears to be sincere in her views and she does exhibit a degree of passion and an undeniable charisma. Viewing this makes me more inclined to be comfortable with her as a VP (or potentially other cabinet member) for Trump.
The negative thing is she made no mention of the genocide in Gaza - only expressing how Islam wants to take over the world (and therefore implying any actions that can be construed as being opposed to Islam are justified. That is disturbing to me. Also somewhat disturbing is that she has written a biographical book, which is THE signature of someone who aspires to higher political office. I guess, like Steghorn, I don't entirely trust her. Sort of like Groucho saying he wouldn't be a member of any club that would have him, I don't trust politicians who aspire to greater power... maybe even moreso former Democrats. Yeah, I know...
So we shall see. Already, I like her better than Scott, Rubio, or Burgrum as a VP choice. If she is shown to be a phony Trump could relatively easily get rid of her, with justification.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't trust this woman.
Although it is tempting to castigate Truman in retrospect for the "Truman Doctrine," the impetus toward imperium by the U.S. has a history much older than his assertion, as most readers here will know. Additionally, all U.S. Presidents since have exercised largely the same powers for largely the same ends (see for example, the "Eisenhower Doctrine").
If you want to be depressed reading about incursions and insurgencies of which we were not told in History classes in school, take a gander at the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States
(And this doesn't even mention the Greek civil war.)
Will it ever end? (At least before we as a country are ended?)
Brian Berletic has a good video and article out about the U.S. placing the Philippines on a war footing with China:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw026TLtGyM
China was actually helping them build rail infrastructure, but with the change of administrations back to the Marcos family they have not just cancelled such projects but have gone so far as to remove installed structures; instead, they are now investing in military bases and preparing to fight over a beached WWII boat posing as an island.
They had a choice between high-speed rail and tattoo parlors...
I'm tempted to ask, Do these people not see what has happened to Ukraine?! But then I catch myself. It isn't happening 'to Ukraine;' no, it's happening to other people's families, and we don't care about that.
Funny you mention tattoo parlours, Mistrc. I've just come back from a walking trip in nearby France. The little stone-built towns and villages are beautiful but in complete economic meltdown. The only businesses that seem to be thriving are tattoo joints and vaping shops. Tattoos seem to be a very visible sign of a decaying society.
A friend of mine's 26 year old son, who is a tattoo artist, is moving from the US to France to work in a tattoo parlor in Lyon, where he says conditions for his work are much better!
Wow, that's amazing, Cass. He'll certainly like Lyon, which is a very nice city. He should get a lot of business too - the French are really into their tats, especially the women!
The Chinese have apparently sent troops to Belarus to conduct 11 days of military exercises...that may be their answer to NATO! I'm definitely going to hunt down a copy of that book your wife is reading.