Well done, your penultimate question essentially revealed she was not and is not equipped to answer the 'root cause' issue - the proper context for an existential threat. You were right to press her, she was flummoxed. Most definitions of war are words to the effect "...the controlled application of deadly force in the national interest....". She was doing her job. Who speaks on behalf of the planetary interest? Profoundly more importantly, who should speak on behalf of the planetary interest?
You did your best with stale material, Rachel. The success here was managing to showcase the insular fixated narcissistic narrative and mindset currently squeezing all those derided little traditional peoples for whom imperial rescue equals resource extraction and tolerated probable genocide and ecocide, justified by extremely selective moot past atrocities (Hitler). No sense of planet critical here; only America critical, and V. Nuland's recorded attitude to Europe for the rest. How about platforming Jose Vega? https://www.instagram.com/josbtrigga/reel/DAmfZTlpJVm/
Awesome interview. You stumped her with questions she’s never had to consider before. Especially telling was her blaming terrorists rather than a state supported neo-liberal economic apparatus for fomenting scarcity and conflicts. Much as it is heartening to hear serious acknowledgment of the scale of the climate emergency from this establishment figure, it is disheartening how she marshalls a host of rationalizations for maintaining the very status quo that created the crisis in the first place. Is she blind to this? Wilfully ignorant? Or fully cognizant of the insane tenets she follows?
This was a bit different! The takeaways for me were first the more practical and clear-eyed approach to the fact of and effects of a more chaotic climate than the administrations. The second was an almost complementary blindness to the economic drivers of conflicts. The result appears to be a completely non-reflective approach to problem solving which is largely given to technical rather than root cause solutions.
By the by, the use of the military in civilian roles in my view breaches an important boundary that separates state aggressive capability from the democratic day to day life of a country, be it the home country or another but that is a long road to walk another day!
Congratulations to Rachel for at least trying to get some straight answers out of her guest and for not shying away from Gaza, particularly even after Goodman played her guilt card by mentioning the Holocaust. For that, I just want to say: I don’t want to hear about your Holocaust anymore. Your “get out of jail free” card has expired. The intention to silence criticism by mentioning October 7 and the Holocaust without ever addressing the causes of October 7, and the continuing oppression, imprisonment and murder of Palestinians that has gone on now for decades is just too much. It is no coincidence that the largest nation wholly founded on a genocide (and then slavery to boot) dwarfing the Holocaust yet seemingly undeserving of special recognition, the USA, is also Israel’s largest financial and military supporter, allowing it to carry out this kind of horror. Goodman has the gall, as so many others do, to point out that October 7 was "the deadliest attack against the state of Israel" as if that somehow justifies the genocide occurring now, by the laughably named Israeli Defense Forces, against those who had nothing to do with the event, and which is fully explainable by actions by Israel herself against the Palestinian people. Those who speak of history and yet appear completely blind to what should have been learned by it have only themselves to blame.
We should never allow ourselves to accept the notion of any military as a “peacekeeping force.” Despite the occasional sly argument to that effect these are always made from the position of machismo. I suggest reading the book The Just War Myth for more on that.
The environmental poly-crisis humanity has created should be proof enough that the very notion of "the national interest," along with things like a competitive society, and competitive economies, is outdated and must be abandoned, despite what people like Goodman say about history, as if being wrong is some kind of tradition we need to cling to.
As I pointed out in a comment on Rachel’s last newsletter, the US Defense establishment’s concerns re: Climate Change are purely threat oriented. The military is not urging strong action to prevent crisis, instead it offers assessments of capacity needed to respond to what it seems to assume are inevitable worst case scenarios. In other words, the military will continue to need massive infusions of cash in order to protect the country on multiple fronts, including climate generated disruptions of world order. No surprises here, the military LITERALLY thrives on conflict, to state the obvious, it wouldn’t exist without it.
It is worthwhile talking to establishment figures from time to time, however, if only to be reminded that what we are up against is so much more daunting than greed, self-interest, and entrenched power. Behind all the bad actors we love to dis, are myriads of well-meaning, decent people, like Sherri Goodman, trapped inside hermetically sealed worldviews that regardless of their efficacy in limited contexts are directly counter to what another commenter called the planetary interest. The human propensity, even among very intelligent people, to wear ideological blinders is the real adversary confronting those of us trying to lay the groundwork for some kind of desirable future for the planet.
Thanks for this interview Rachel. I really had to force myself to listen to the end, after her comment about the military as peace builders had me laughing out loud in a maniacal way! It's good to engage with a broad spectrum of guests imho.
Well done, your penultimate question essentially revealed she was not and is not equipped to answer the 'root cause' issue - the proper context for an existential threat. You were right to press her, she was flummoxed. Most definitions of war are words to the effect "...the controlled application of deadly force in the national interest....". She was doing her job. Who speaks on behalf of the planetary interest? Profoundly more importantly, who should speak on behalf of the planetary interest?
Kudos to you for your professionalism with such a cringe-worthy guest.
For me, the most detestable person that you've ever had on the podcast.
I didn't hear a single redeeming response to any question that you posed.
You did your best with stale material, Rachel. The success here was managing to showcase the insular fixated narcissistic narrative and mindset currently squeezing all those derided little traditional peoples for whom imperial rescue equals resource extraction and tolerated probable genocide and ecocide, justified by extremely selective moot past atrocities (Hitler). No sense of planet critical here; only America critical, and V. Nuland's recorded attitude to Europe for the rest. How about platforming Jose Vega? https://www.instagram.com/josbtrigga/reel/DAmfZTlpJVm/
Awesome interview. You stumped her with questions she’s never had to consider before. Especially telling was her blaming terrorists rather than a state supported neo-liberal economic apparatus for fomenting scarcity and conflicts. Much as it is heartening to hear serious acknowledgment of the scale of the climate emergency from this establishment figure, it is disheartening how she marshalls a host of rationalizations for maintaining the very status quo that created the crisis in the first place. Is she blind to this? Wilfully ignorant? Or fully cognizant of the insane tenets she follows?
This was a bit different! The takeaways for me were first the more practical and clear-eyed approach to the fact of and effects of a more chaotic climate than the administrations. The second was an almost complementary blindness to the economic drivers of conflicts. The result appears to be a completely non-reflective approach to problem solving which is largely given to technical rather than root cause solutions.
By the by, the use of the military in civilian roles in my view breaches an important boundary that separates state aggressive capability from the democratic day to day life of a country, be it the home country or another but that is a long road to walk another day!
Congratulations to Rachel for at least trying to get some straight answers out of her guest and for not shying away from Gaza, particularly even after Goodman played her guilt card by mentioning the Holocaust. For that, I just want to say: I don’t want to hear about your Holocaust anymore. Your “get out of jail free” card has expired. The intention to silence criticism by mentioning October 7 and the Holocaust without ever addressing the causes of October 7, and the continuing oppression, imprisonment and murder of Palestinians that has gone on now for decades is just too much. It is no coincidence that the largest nation wholly founded on a genocide (and then slavery to boot) dwarfing the Holocaust yet seemingly undeserving of special recognition, the USA, is also Israel’s largest financial and military supporter, allowing it to carry out this kind of horror. Goodman has the gall, as so many others do, to point out that October 7 was "the deadliest attack against the state of Israel" as if that somehow justifies the genocide occurring now, by the laughably named Israeli Defense Forces, against those who had nothing to do with the event, and which is fully explainable by actions by Israel herself against the Palestinian people. Those who speak of history and yet appear completely blind to what should have been learned by it have only themselves to blame.
We should never allow ourselves to accept the notion of any military as a “peacekeeping force.” Despite the occasional sly argument to that effect these are always made from the position of machismo. I suggest reading the book The Just War Myth for more on that.
The environmental poly-crisis humanity has created should be proof enough that the very notion of "the national interest," along with things like a competitive society, and competitive economies, is outdated and must be abandoned, despite what people like Goodman say about history, as if being wrong is some kind of tradition we need to cling to.
As I pointed out in a comment on Rachel’s last newsletter, the US Defense establishment’s concerns re: Climate Change are purely threat oriented. The military is not urging strong action to prevent crisis, instead it offers assessments of capacity needed to respond to what it seems to assume are inevitable worst case scenarios. In other words, the military will continue to need massive infusions of cash in order to protect the country on multiple fronts, including climate generated disruptions of world order. No surprises here, the military LITERALLY thrives on conflict, to state the obvious, it wouldn’t exist without it.
It is worthwhile talking to establishment figures from time to time, however, if only to be reminded that what we are up against is so much more daunting than greed, self-interest, and entrenched power. Behind all the bad actors we love to dis, are myriads of well-meaning, decent people, like Sherri Goodman, trapped inside hermetically sealed worldviews that regardless of their efficacy in limited contexts are directly counter to what another commenter called the planetary interest. The human propensity, even among very intelligent people, to wear ideological blinders is the real adversary confronting those of us trying to lay the groundwork for some kind of desirable future for the planet.
Thanks for this interview Rachel. I really had to force myself to listen to the end, after her comment about the military as peace builders had me laughing out loud in a maniacal way! It's good to engage with a broad spectrum of guests imho.