Editor's note: as part of the writing I do, I frequently find myself collecting and cataloguing thousands of links for later use when I'm sourcing arguments in my articles. Most of those links really only have value in the moment, but some of them (like today's story) are so important and worthwhile that I thought I'd start sharing them from time to time here on this Media Madness blog.
-----
While I would certainly be the first person to criticize the suggestion that there is any sort of upside to the Trump presidency, it would be foolish to argue that electing an uncouth, petulant fascist who says the quiet part out loud hasn't altered the behavior of mainstream liberal media in some beneficial ways.
For example: when presented with the riddle of how to engage in a
perpetually running war of words with the President of the United States, while
still supporting the ongoing (
and lucrative) imperial project that President is ostensibly running - mainstream corporate media in the Pig Empire has largely responded by creating two Trumps and refusing to acknowledge the existence of both at the same time. Thus, domestic and economic policy Trump is (
rightfully) criticized as an unstable, monstrous amateur whose
fascist beliefs represent a
very real threat to millions of Americans and their
democratic institutions. In contrast, foreign policy Trump is
praised as decisive and presidential when he supports aggressive military action, and eviscerated as a pathetic
pawn of Russian president Vladmir Putin when he doesn't.
Once in a while however, in their efforts to
falsely portray Trump and his administration as
aberrant outsiders, the media will get its wires crossed and accidentally allow damaging truths about the Pig Empire to slip briefly into the public discourse. Such was the case on December 19th, 2017 during the waning moments of
Rex Tillerson's time as Downmarket Mussolini's Secretary of State, when
Politico of all outlets published the following (shockingly candid) piece:
Let me start by saying that if the entire sad history of Politico was just a run-up to this article, I'd be forced to admit that it was probably worth it. Here you have a US State Department official, with longstanding ties to the Pig Empire propaganda machine across multiple governments, telling Trump's SecState to shut up about Human Rights because we don't really give a crap and it's just a tool to manipulate our "enemies." This is without a doubt one of the most significant moments in US media history, and yet it largely passed by without much note at the time it was published.
Let's look at some of the juiciest quotes from the article for a moment:
"The May 17 memo
reads like a crash course for a businessman-turned-diplomat, and its
conclusion offers a starkly realist vision: that the U.S. should use
human rights as a club against its adversaries, like Iran, China and
North Korea, while giving a pass to repressive allies like the
Philippines, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
“Allies should be treated differently—and better—than adversaries.
Otherwise, we end up with more adversaries, and fewer allies,” argued
the memo, written by Tillerson’s influential policy aide, Brian Hook."
So - you caught that right folks? The United States absolutely does not give even half a damn about Human Rights except in terms of weaponizing it against state adversaries. Let's keep going:
"Hook’s memo “tells Tillerson that we should do exactly what Russian and
Chinese propaganda says we do—use human rights as a weapon to beat up
our adversaries while letting ourselves and our allies off the hook,”
said Tom Malinowski, who served as an assistant secretary of state for
democracy, human rights and labor in the administration of former
President Barack Obama."
We'll talk more about Malinowski and the overall tone in the article in a moment, but let's keep mining this verdant field for the kind of quotes the propaganda machine isn't supposed to let slip:
“The classic dilemma of balancing ideals and interests is with regard to America’s allies.
In relation to our competitors, there is far less of a dilemma. We do
not look to bolster America’s adversaries overseas; we look to pressure,
compete with, and outmaneuver them,” Hook wrote.
"For this reason," Hook continues, "we should consider human rights
as an important issue in regard to U.S. relations with China, Russia,
North Korea, and Iran. And this is not only because of moral concern for
practices inside those countries. It is also because pressing those
regimes on human rights is one way to impose costs, apply
counter-pressure, and regain the initiative from them strategically."
-----
"Hook approvingly writes that Ronald Reagan’s "first instinct was
always to back allies against adversaries, even in controversial cases,
including through his second term." But Jimmy Carter, Hook states,
damaged American interests because he "badgered" and undermined U.S.
allies like the shah of Iran.
Today, "in the case of US allies such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the
Philippines, the [Trump] Administration is fully justified in
emphasizing good relations for a variety of important reasons, including
counter-terrorism, and in honestly facing up to the difficult tradeoffs
with regard to human rights," Hook writes. "It is not as though human
rights practices will be improved if anti-American radicals take power
in those countries."
Holy sh*t my friends, this entire piece is a clusterf*ck of truly massive proportions on the propaganda machine's part. Although
any fool who observes
American foreign policy at work could tell you that the
U.S. government doesn't care about
human rights, it is truly a rare and momentous occasion to see it laid out so plainly in an official Pig Empire document.
Naturally, the author does provide the war machine with a fig leaf of sorts; the memo is painted as a possible response to
a Tillerson speech in which he failed to affirm Pig Empire support for human rights. Furthermore, Politico happily allows Malinowski and an anonymous senior official in the Bush administration to state that Hook's analysis is wrong, or "disappointing" without serious challenge. Finally, the overall tone of the piece seems to strongly imply (as have
other media outlets) that the
problem is a
uniquely Trumpian affair.
This is all, to put it bluntly, utter goddamn hogwash and even a cursory look at
US human rights violations or the
monstrous behavior of
countless Pig Empire
allies makes that
abundantly clear. Even the piece we're quoting is forced to admit that Hooks is a long time conservative foreign policy wonk who previously served in the Bush II administration:
"Long a familiar face in conservative foreign policy circles, Hook
held several positions under President George W. Bush, including
assistant secretary of state for international organizations.
Hook's decision to join the Trump administration surprised some in
Washington because so many other mainstream conservative foreign policy
experts publicly distanced themselves from Trump during the 2016
presidential race. His disproportionate influence at the State
Department has unnerved some lawmakers who note that he never had to
endure the confirmation process."
In other words, the emperor isn't just naked - he's shaking his testicles up and down Main Street while shouting "I'm a bare-asssed, corpse merchant fraud!" Keep that in mind
the next time the US foreign policy establishment (on
both sides of the supposed political divide in America) tells you we need to enact regime change in Venezuela and invade Iran to "protect human rights."
- nina illingworth
