On The Curiously Contradictory Complaints Against Tulsi Gabbard

Politics, much like the ethically-challenged tawdry celebrity gossip-rags it occasionally so closely resembles, is a field in which "Truth" (or even, simply, 'internal cohesiveness' of an argument or a position) is often only a tertiary consideration. With some measure of "effectiveness" (especially of a slur) as a secondary, and "the venting of highly emotive vitriol" an unabashed and unquestioned prime.

This is, presumably, how we explain the increasingly lurid, and manifestly ... not even just "counterfactual" as "inherently internally contradictory" pile-up of allegations and aspersions currently in circulation against Tulsi Gabbard.

If you believed what you read ... Gabbard is supposed to be simultaneously a radical anti-war candidate who'll leave America defenceless (by, you know, not getting further into unnecessary overseas quagmires) AND some sort of blood-curdling pro-war promulgator of the Pax-Americana.

She's accused of being an outspoken Islamophobe alleged to make Trump's statements about various demographics look moderate ... yet simultaneously a hater of Israel, an anti-semite, who wants said state wiped off the map by Iran and Syria.

Some ultra-liberal voices have attacked her for comments she made many years ago about how the Democratic Party's agenda should be economic in orientation rather than focused upon LGBT issues. Some conservatives have attacked her for the repudiation of those comments she made some years later.

And more confusingly, some Republicans have also attacked her for the earlier round of comments, on grounds that apparently they don't like people pre-empting their current-day talking points by a decade and a half?

It has even been said that she's some sort of Clinton-acolyte against genuine, economically progressive politics ... occasionally right next to the observations of her allegedly being "anti-Democrat" for the principled stance of resigning from her position on the DNC due to its favouritism of Clinton against Sanders.

Anyway, you get my point.

Going through this round of the Presidential Primary process, every, all sides who are arrayed against Gabbard are still "finding their feet". They're not sure what's going to work against Gabbard - in no small part because they've never really faced a candidate like her before [who cannot be easily attacked, depending upon which party you're from, on any of the "usual stuff" - as a brown woman with a military service record and strong, principled stances on all the key areas ... about the only "vulnerability" is if her antagonists want to go after the religion angle].

So instead of disciplined bursts of fire, along identified key themes, they're simply trying the old "throw everything at her and see what sticks" approach. Albeit in a manner which is so cap-handed and internally self-contradictory [seriously - check the GoP's initial response to Gabbard's announcement of candidacy] , that it's far less "recon-in-force" and more "recon-by-farce".

But in any case, it is useful to take a look, with critical eye, upon what's actually going on with the reality of her stances, as compared to the scaremongering rhetoric.

Take the charges of "Islamophobia", for instance.

Now while it is true that Gabbard has appeared in the media from time to time talking about terrorist threats from "Radical Islam" ... the actual thrust of this aspersion does not have much to do with that. Instead, it is because she also makes trenchant criticisms of the highly improper degree of malefic influence which Saudi Arabia exerts over American (geo)politics; of the ways in which Saudi Arabia and others are given carte-blanche to kill other Muslims, as a result.

And speaking on that general point - it takes a very strange mind indeed to suggest that Gabbard's opposition to America bombing ordinary Syrians or Iranians somehow makes her indelibly, appallingly "anti-Muslim".

I mean surely that's the more more important rubric for assessment?

Or are we in some frightningly phantasmical post-twilight political-psephological silliness-zone wherein it matters not a jot what stance one takes in opposition to the American role in tens of thousands of deaths in the Middle East in recent years ... you say "Radical Islam" on TV - that's the thing regarded as "meaningful", in the context of whether one is "pro" or "anti" Muslims.

Ultimately, yes - yes that is exactly where we are at. As can be seen by all the lurid ridicularity bound up in the mutually-contradictory aspersions being directed at Gabbard at this time.

It's all words. Empty words. Counterfactual words. Words of no fixed opinion, nor abode.

The only thing they tell you, really, is what she's up again.

That she matters.

Because apparently Everybody from all over the Establishment political spectrum, is running scared.

And given how fundamentally broken the US 'Establishment political spectrum' actually is - as morally (well, a-morally) committed as it is to pro-war and pro-poverty for all , with increasingly facile commitments to "any form of diversity you like provided it doesn't question the bedrock of our Neo-Neo (geo)political consensus" ...

GOOD!

Many years ago now, another great economic populist of the Democratic Party - back when being a Democrat on the side of the people meant something (and, from New York, no less!) - the President Franklin Delano Roosevelt ... made a speech at Madison Square Garden, speaking about the similar confluence of opposition he and his agenda then faced.

He had this to say:

"They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred."

Just as with FDR , those in favour of Tulsi Gabbard, should, perhaps, welcome the castigation and condemnation of elites from all manner of different directions.

After all, it is a sign that, as the old Indian proverb goes:

"The monkeys only shake the tree with the good mangoes".

Which, in this instance, is a tree commensurate with what we here in Kiwiland, would refer to as a "Mighty Totara" indeed.

#GoHardForTulsiGabbard

Why Republicans Don't Want YOU To Go Hard For Gabbard

I've seen a few strange things this morning; but one of the more peculiar has to be the Republican Party attacking Tulsi Gabbard's just-announced Presidential candidacy, on grounds that "Progressives have blasted her".

I'll say that again: the Republicans appear to be attacking Gabbard for allegedly not being popular enough with "Progressives".

Like ... wut? Ordinarily, scare-mongering about a candidate running for the other party's Presidential nomination at this stage in the (pre-)campaign, is a matter of attempting to whip up your own party's supporters in paroxysms of terror about the politics of this or that potential nominee.



Now you could probably suggest that the GoP also attacking her for "Resign[ing] from the DNC to support Bernie Sanders", is an example of that. Something something "she's a creeping socialist infiltrator" something something. [Although I suspect that line of attack's going to backfire - partially due to cross-over support for economic populism between the Sanders-sectorial of American politics, and many people who voted for Trump [c.f Steve Bannon's remarks on the issue]; but largely also because people remember the narrative of the DNC having "rigged" the contest for Clinton in order to keep Sanders out. Statements that Gabbard left the DNC over this, therefore, just make it seem like a) she has Principles [over craven power-pursuit]; and b) they're Principles that people, including GoP working class people, will like].

But when you get right down to it, there's no way that the Republicans' statement about Gabbard being anathema to and routinely attacked by "Progressives", even if it were significantly true, is geared towards the Republicans' own voters.

I mean, how could it be? "DON'T VOTE FOR HER! SHE'S SECRETLY A CONSERVATIVE, MAYBE?" Yeah, nah. Doesn't work.

What it is, however, is quite clearly a message intended for Democrat Primary participants, who'll get to have their say [assuming, you know, the Primary process is fair, rather than a carefully co-ordinated Coronation] over the next year and a half or so on whether or not Gabbard gets the nod. And with the very explicit objective of discouraging them from supporting her.

Now why might that be.

Clearly, it is because the Republicans are most afraid of Gabbard.

Hence, they shall continue to do everything in their power to try and de-legitimate and pre-emptively bump-off Gabbard's candidacy, before it's even out of the starting blocks.

Because they know all too well that the potent mix of a sensible foreign policy and a genuinely for-the-people economic platform - is an absolute winner (even despite any amount of media-mouthpiece shrieking to the contrary). And, more to the point, that it's what a not insignificant proportion of those who cast their ballots for Trump in 2016 thought they were voting for, only to find themselves bitterly disappointed two to three years in, when the Hope And Change with Red Hat Characteristics, turned out to be More Of The Same - But On Twitter.

And, of course, because the GoP also know that many of the usual attack-lines they'd field against most other Democrat leading personalities simply won't work on Gabbard. After all, it's pretty difficult to accuse a relatively recent military veteran (who, indeed, left her political role in order to serve her country abroad) of being an unpatriotic, craven Beltway careerist. Or, for that matter, somebody who resigned from the DNC in protest at perceived Clintonite skulduggery, of being some sort of front for a "Clintonite agenda". Or, indeed, an ardently pious and well respected figure within our religion as being some sort of "Godless Cultural Marxist Communist" or whatever.

Having said that, it will be interesting to see how the religion angle plays out; as sadly,i wouldn't put it past Republicans (and even a few Democrats) to basically attempt to attack her for being a) of a religious minority [in the US], b) brown [and probably c) Hawaiian by state].

In any case, while I'm not in the business of simply urging people to do something largely if not entirely because somebody we don't like is opposed to it ...

... as applies the Tulsi Gabbard 2020 candidacy, I am reminded of a Murray Ball political cartoon published here in New Zealand at the height of the electoral reform debate in the early 1990s.



Namely - that looking at who's opposed to Gabbard, and why : is a pretty great gateway to starting to understand why she should, nay, must be given a fair chance to run.

She stands alone, in terms of character and characteristics, policy and political personhood, that is true.

And in so doing, casts all the rest of the field, entire, in such harsh relief and shade.

#GoHardForGabbard

On Human Rights - Declared, Upheld, And Otherwise

The 10th of December marks the 70th Anniversary of the adoption of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It's a pretty interesting document - not least because, if you peruse its contents, it contains an array of "rights" that have largely fallen by the wayside here in modern, neoliberal society.

This is a piece I penned a bit more than a year ago on a closely related concept; which I'm re-running, because I feel it's relevant:

"Doing some thinking about First, Second and Third Generation Human Rights this morning. [often thought of as 'Negative Rights', 'Positive/Economic Rights', and 'Post-Materialist'/'Group'/'Identity' rights, respectively [although the third one's somewhat vague]]

Specifically, about how one of the most pernicious effects of the ongoing Neoliberal revolution has been to almost completely strip serious discussion of Second Generation Rights out of our public and political discourse. Once upon a time [during the heyday of the Post-War Economic Consensus which immediately preceded these dark times], it was entirely uncontroversial to speak of a "Right to Work" (and not just any work "just and favourable conditions of work" also turns up in the relevant enshrinements), the right to join a Union, the right to medical care, and the right to state assistance when economic times were tough. These weren't just European innovations, or misty-eyed arcs of internationalist idealism either - they formed a serious bedrock of politics the Western World over ... even (perhaps surprisingly) that much-hyped 'individualist' "paradise" America. (New Zealand, it may interest you to know, still has a theoretical duty under various forms of international law to guarantee much of the above)

But these days, all of that has passed. Through a combination of active and passive de-emphasis.

The 'active' components have been straight-forward enough. Progressive waves of legislation (mostly starting with the 'Ruthanasia' era under National - and the Employment Contracts Act in particular standing out as a bit of a death-knell piece of work) first cast many of these rights more as 'guidelines' (i.e. things which didn't have to be upheld or bothered about, really) - and then steadily eroded them down into nothingness over time.

Nowadays, you'd probably get laughed out of the building and/or job-queue at many places if you seriously attempted to insist upon a right to unionization [even if there are some seriously devoted Union organizers out there who make it their life's work to try and reverse this sad and sorry situation]; whilst the ongoing litany of protections formerly enshrined in law yet now taken away [such as smoko-breaks most recently, and guaranteed hours, job-security within the first ninety days and so many other things before that] continues to mount up by the year.

But it's the more 'passive' processes that have been dominating my thinking this morning.

In specia, the curious way in which the ideologues and adherents of this Neoliberal perfidy have so successfully shut out '2nd Generation Rights' from the debate by comprehensively re-focusing our attentions upon those rights drawn from the generations of the 1st and the 3rd.

Take a look. We see no shortage of economic right wingers jumping up and down most vociferously in defence of the Right to Freedom of Speech. LEft-wingers, too, will often be pretty enthusiastic about this (provided, of course, that the free-speech exerciser is not a "Nazi" - although if he or she is, then that opens up a fresh attention-focusing discourse about the proper and justifiable limits of Free Speech, continuing to mold the conception of 'rights' in the public imagination as being about this sort of thing rather than, say, your right to a fair day's work for a decent day's pay). And with political proposals to alter our abortion laws setting gums a'flap this Election Season, no doubt the 'Right to Life' (with all the attendant permutations of position on both sides of that particular modern debate) will shortly be joining its rather more frequently invoked cousin.

So that's the first prong of it.

The second prong, if you like, is this newfound focus on some of those Third Generation Rights which I mentioned earlier. In specia, the ones about group-identification and self-actualization. Not that there's anything wrong with these things, of course (any more than there'd be something wrong with freedom of speech). But when it comes to rights-discourse, it is inescapable that the group-rights being talked about are far more likely these days, to be the right to identify with the sexuality and gender of one's choosing rather than to identify as a Union member.

There is, perhaps, a bit of an irony here - in that whilst the 2nd Generation Rights I referred to above tend to require fairly monumental expressions of collective will & political engagement in order to first actualize, and then maintain and enforce ... due to the way that Identities are constructed and disseminated under our present econo-cultural system, the expression of 3rd Generation Rights [some of them, anyway], despite nominally featuring collectives, can often effectively be conducted with only one's self. [or, more darkly, with the addition to the equation of somebody to dream up a way of commodifying and selling the 'identity' and its accouterments to you]

Indeed, some analysts have suggested that this is part of an at least semi-deliberate ploy to undermine solidarity in pursuit of improved economic conditions through getting people to 'aspire' off in different directions (and along post-materialist paths of development) instead. [because 'Atomized Individuals' who think of themselves as snowflakes are rather easier to corral and economically disempower than is the whole careening avalanche of frozen water together]

I'm not sure I'd go quite that far; and it's definitely worth re-iterating that despite the way they've potentially been used to 'crowd out' the discussion of other rights, 1st and 3rd generation rights ARE important and DO have their place when it comes to shoring up the protections of what it means (and how it means) to be Human.

But nevertheless, something to think about next time you see somebody grandstanding (whether from a liberal or a conservative point of view - you hear 'rights' invoked in both contexts almost as much these days) about the Rights we hear about most these days.

Namely: "What happened to all the OTHER rights we used to enjoy?" [i.e. those predominantly of the 2nd Generation]; and "How can we make them part of the conversation again with a view to bringing them back?"

Because these things are Important (hence why they were recognized and enshrined as 'Rights' in the first place); and it is both sad and significant that we now find ourselves existing in their apparent effective absence.

The 'Damnatio Memoriae' process of first dismembering them, and then degrading their salience in the public-political imagination until it's barely remembered that they were even once there ... has evidently been a highly effective one.

But that does NOT mean that it is irreversible! "

On The Opportunistic, Would-Be Hijacking Of The Yellow-Jackets By Neoliberals

A thought that's been gestating in my head these past few days about the Yellow Jackets "political moment", is how ... I guess you could say that "populism" looks like *very* different things to different people.

And, more specifically, how any genuine upswelling of ordinary-people political sentiment which is not *vigorously* (self) branded, will find itself seemingly inevitably co-opted by people far-removed from the context in question. Often in *direct contradiction* of anything actually being advocated/agitated for by the relevant Movement.

If "populism" is "the politics of opportunism" - then it is both the mass-collaborative art [a 'flash mob' we might have said, ten years ago .. if those are still a thing] of seizing an opportunity, creating an opportunity in order to be heard *en masse* where you'd previously been ignored as individuals ...

... but it is *also*, apparently, a politics beset and bedevilled by "opportunists" seeking to coast or I suppose to "surf" [and then, with regrettable commonality, to "serf"] the 'wave' of the onrushing tide of the Body Politik to their own advancement.

Now, if all of that seems a bit abstract ... allow me to proffer an example.

The below-linked screencap is from a young American conservative commentator by the name of Charlie Kirk. If you haven't heard of him, or of the organization he represents - "Turning Point USA" - then I do apologize most deeply for (dis)abusing you via this introduction.

Suffice to say, he's of that peculiar flavour of American who has concluded that anything he doesn't like is literally "Socialism".

And, correspondingly, with the certitude of one only possessed of hammer-(and sickle) shaped glasses, that anything he *does* like is therefore inherently "anti-socialist".

Now, we shall leave aside for the moment the fact that Kirk appears to have - whether inadvertently, or intentionally - confused a bunch of *English* protesters chanting something about Trump ... for Frenchmen (a situation of ethno-political confusion, given that that flare-point captured on the video referred to, was a #Brexit demonstration, which *both sides* should find endlessly egregious!).

The key element that has defined the Yellow Jacket protests has been what it is opposed *to*. The Neoliberal technocratic-elitism which Macron is the emblematic standard bearer for, these days. And not least because he was literally elected, and then hailed, as "the antidote" or "the barrier" [but apparently, really rather more of "the speed-bump"] to "populism", to "democracy" which might produce "the wrong outcomes" ...

Perhaps French politics might be viewed like a steam-engine. Either the building pressure when there is fire under the body-politik - either it gets dissipated as hot-air through 'safe' release valves, or it builds up until the mighty 'locomotive of history' [to reference me some Marx] begins to chug inexorably, ineffably forwards. Or the whole thing explodes, which is always fun.

But to return to the reasoning behind this potential naescent "revolutionary moment" (yes, I'm wildly over-egging things there. How else to varnish?) - Kirk has seized, no doubt, upon the fuel-tax and upon the fact that France is relatively to the left of America on economic matters ... and decided, based on these limited two data-points that this therefore means it's a "squeezed middle" uprising against "SOCIALISM!!! (tm)".

Yet it is, in point of fact, the exact opposite.

As many people have, by now, pointed out, the fuel-tax hike proposed by Macron is not exactly a "socialist" policy. Indeed - it is a fundamentally *neoliberal* one. Which seeks to continue the long and woefully disappointing legacy of neoliberal-right political figures attempting to 'pass the buck' for internalizing the externalities which have produced runaway climate change ... from those *actually largely responsible for it* in various parts of the private (and, yes, to be fair, public) sectors of the corporate-driven world , to ordinary consumers and citizens. Which often, not at all coincidentally, entails a shift in the burden of paying for the 'cleanup efforts' from some of those *more* able to pay, in globe-spanning firms ... to some of those *least* able to pay, in those same firms' lowest-paying jobs or on the unemployment bread-line. And which, again entirely uncoincidentally, means a shift from those who have a disproportionately *loud* voice in the polises and the politics (psephological or *actually-influential*) of the world , to those who have the disproportionately *unheard* whispers upon its margins.

Further, despite France being - by any objective measure - a country that has spent much of its history to the "left" of America on matters economic ... the protesters thronging the streets of that former country are *not* demanding the Great Dismantlement of the French welfare state, or of the 'Continental Capitalist' economic model. Indeed, quite the opposite.

It's *Macron* who's been doing that - with all of his utterly ridiculous rhetoric about 'running France like a tech-industry "start-up"', et cetera.

The general trajectory amongst the "grassroots" of French politics, meanwhile, has been to push *back against* that, and do the demanding of the *reinstatement* of those state-directed protections which Macron and his wealthy associates have been attempting to strip away.

Indeed, phrased in these terms then , if we are to talk about the overall tax-situation of France ... it isn't just that Macron has been attempting to impose this significant tax-hike upon ordinary French citoyens. It's that he's doing this immediately after having *slashed* the taxes of the most wealthy, and of large firms.

That is to say, he's simply once again *shifted* the burden on to those who are *less able* or even *least able* to afford it, from those who could better do so - both socially and economically.

It's also, on a side note, why I'm appalled every time I see the Washington Post attempt to frame the Yellow Jackets' demands for the rollback of the diesel tax-hike as illogical and self-defeating on grounds that - again, in the WaPo "Voice of the Resistance" 's view - it'll necessitate spending-cuts in welfare and other areas of state spending in the economy (which, to WaPo's credit, it acknowledges are services the Yellow Jackets are *also* pretty keen on).

Because not only are said curtailments of service and of state *already happening anyway*, in order to pay for (in part) the *previous* rounds of fundamentally regressive tax-cuts and to directly facilitate Macron's odiously pro-business, pro-Eurozone agenda ... but instead of attempting to pretend the choice is simply between "fuel tax plus services [that're disintegrating *anyway*]" or "remove fuel-tax but also remove services" - the reality is there really *is* an alternative, "another way" (that of *restoring* the revenue-streams from other areas which Macron has slashed). However rhetorically inconvenient it might be for Macron's various technocratic-elitist backers across both the political and the media worlds.

But I digress.

The point here, is that it is a very curious form of "socialism" indeed which seeks to put the screws on ordinary people at the bottom of the heap in order to support the finance-sector, and private enterprise from both one's own country and more especially, from abroad. Admittedly, it *might* be viewed as an adequate encapsulation of many of the problems of the present-day People's Republic of China ... but despite the previous popularity of Maoism in, say, 1968 France, I do not think that one can conceivably refer to Macron as a Maoist, still much less as a Post-Maoist with Deng-ist Characteristics.

Yet leaving aside the litany of actual French people boldly proclaiming it ... I suppose we might be being a bit too harsh on poor old Charlie for apparently being unable to perceive that the Yellow Jacket movement is, in point of fact, a sustained assault *on* the technocratic-neoliberal Western "order".

You see, Kirk and his beliefs cannot even really *see* this aforementioned "technocratic-neoliberal" edifice ... for the exact same reason that, to quote messers Gaiman & Pratchett, "people in Trafalgar Square can't see England". (And having referenced that most excellent work of apocalyptic fiction, Good Omens, I should also perhaps note the French protester who boldly proclaimed that while Macron was busy talking about "the end of the world" [in reference to the admittedly pressing issue of global climate change] , the Yellow Jackets themselves were speaking of - and fretting over - "the end of the month", i.e. how to get by and survive to then, on a month-by-month and week-by-week basis].

He's also pathologically, categorically unable to acknowledge the idea that ... accepting for a moment that the French political-economic system falls under the rubric of "socialism" [it doesn't .. not really .. but for Charlie, we'll humour him, just this once ...] ... people might actually *voluntarily choose* to live under a "socialist" system - or even, more especially, *having* lived under such a system previously, that they might *voluntarily choose* to do so *again* if and when it starts being undermined and eroded around them.

A similar phenomenon can be observed when Neo-Neo people and other defenders of a certain sort of potentially partially post-modern Liberal Triumphalism , are completely unable and unwilling to accept the idea that reasonably large numbers of Russians might want to go back to the Soviet system, having seen just how bad things went under Yeltsin etc.

So it's no wonder, I suppose, that he insists that people wanting to move - relatively speaking - back *towards* the economic left, and *run screaming for the hills* [well, for the barricades, really - France is bold like that] from more-monetarist-more-problems Financier's Neoliberalism .... that these people are somehow attempting to overturn "socialism".

Although I nevertheless find it highly amusing that he's *also* chosen to label this as an attack on "Cultural Marxism".

Not simply because, as I've capaciously argued elsewhere, there really is no such thing [there are another set of trends observable in a number of societies that *do* somewhat correlate to what some people mean by "Cultural Marxism" .. it's just that these almost invariably turn out to *actually* be "Cultural Capitalism" and/or "Cultural Liberalism" - with these actual-antagonists employing the age-old distractionary tactic of "HEY LOOK OVER THERE AT THAT OTHER THING!" in order to neutralize and defuse the potential for dissent against them in the broader populace].

Rather, it's because if you get right down to it .. if ever there *were* such a thing as "Cultural Marxism", I am *pretty sure* that Article One, Paragraph One of its charter and its depiction would be groups of ordinary people getting together with torches and cobblestones and other implements and carrying out some sort of *seriously unruly* and not-easily-dispersible mass-protest in the streets against their overly-capitalist political would-be masters who've been putting the screws on the 'common man' overly more than usual, lately.

Or, phrased another way ... particularly because this is literally how Marxist theory kinda operates (i.e. crises of capitalism, in escalating magnitude and severity, until eventually somebodies either tear the whole thing down or alternatively introduce a "reformist" (or "Bismarckian" if it goes further/more principled in ambit/intent) policy-suite designed to ameliorate the situation in some lasting, significant manner) ...

Charlie Kirk has somehow managed to identify a broadly pro-"socialist" [in his sense of the term] "Cultural Marxist" [in the *proper* sense of the term .. i.e. the one you'll almost never hear used] movement ...

... as being the exact opposite of this all the way down.

One last thing:

This tweet and line of reasoning is also why you can tell that Charlie Kirk and his ilk are not in any way, shape, or form "populists" or otherwise on the side of The People.

Because it shows that when you get right down to it - they do not want an *empowered* people, a critically engaged citizenry.

Instead, they just want - at worst - to replace one set of out-of-touch, technocratic-neoliberal elites with another.

Remember that, at all times.

The word for that, I believe, is "Opportunism".

When It Comes To Huawei, Corporate Media Think "National Interest" Is The Dividend China Gets For Owning Us

It's pretty interesting watching the reactions in the media to the GCSB disallowing Spark from using Huawei tech in the 5G network upgrade.

Spark et co appear to be pushing the "not allowing us to use the lowest-cost [and most national security-risk entailing] gear cuts into our profit margins. SO WE ARE GOING TO PASS THE NOT-SAVINGS DIRECTLY ON TO CONSUMERS! NICE JOB MAKING NETWORK ACCESS MORE SECURE AND EXPENSIVE FOR USERS, GOVERNMENT!"

That's .... probably to be expected. Although it's rather unfortunate that there's no acknowledgement of the potential desirability of having a network that's *not* a bought-and-paid-for playground for PRC malfeasance , as a worth-while trade-off for the aforementioned slight increases in outfitting price.

Of greater interest was the revelation that New Zealand has historically been rather circumspect about PRC-produced materials - and that this was only really reversed under the John Key-led National Government. It probably shouldn't be any form of surprise; and it's possible that one could argue that it was only in the late 2000s/early 2010s that Huawei managed to get to a point of offering the hardware in question to markets such as New Zealand.

But even so, it is both amusing and very much "playing to type" that Key apparently put such emphasis upon attempting to get NZ providers to start integrating Huawei tech into national infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the newspaper commentariat are hand-wringing about how all of this might affect ongoing trade with the PRC.

And while yes, to be fair, the PRC remains a significant market for New Zealand ... the plain reality is that there's something unwholesome about the unseemly prioritization of nominal trade-flows over apparently everything else.

"Oh, a New Zealand professor's had her home and office broken into and her car sabotaged, quite likely by PRC agents ... WELL HOW *DARE* SAID PROFESSOR CONTRIBUTE TO A POTENTIAL SLOWING OF TRADE BY BEING AN EXPERT IN HER FIELD WITH A BREAK-INTO-ABLE OFFICE AND A CAR THAT MIGHT CRASH IF YOU MESS WITH THE TIRES"

"Look, never mind that there's a straight up statutory duty for the GCSB to report and advise on *exactly this kind of proposed network improvement* effort. How DARE they do it when we've got negotiators over in Beijing RIGHT NOW attempting to lobby for an upgrade to the Free Trade Deal we've got with the PRC ??? MADNESS!!!"

And so on and so forth.

Now, all of this would be bad enough ... but it's not like our economic interactions with the PRC have ever really been a "two-way street".

After all, it wasn't so long ago that we were significantly penalized for putting proper scrutiny on Chinese steel imports to New Zealand - this, after it turned out that their certification as to quality and safety (done in the PRC) had turned out to be fundamentally fraudulent, leading to construction projects having to be re-done and railway tracks warping under use leading to at least one derailment.

Far be it for me to dare to suggest that a few large corporations operating in NZ, or a former Prime Minister with a key background in international finance ... might be more keen on earning interest than the national interest ... but it really does seem like many of those advocating and agitating for or on behalf of the PRC in these situations are operating on a fundamentally different set of priorities as compared to the rest of us.

Either "McWorld" ... or "McWorld with Chinese Characteristics".  

Why The Democrats Actually Lost The Midterms

Controversial Opinion: The Democrats actually kinda *lost* yesterday's US Midterms.

Confused? Consider this - it is not simply that the "Blue Wave" failed to seriously materialize in the tsunami force some had anticipated.

While picking up a reasonable number of Congressional seats is, indeed, a positive for them ... not being able to shift the balance of power in the Senate means that most of the hilarious hijinks and scandal-seeking shenanigans some of the more breathless anti-Trump types have been clamouring for are ... unlikely, at best. And that is before one considers the potentiality for the Republicans to actually have *increased* their holdings in the Senate.

But looking more closely at some of the newly minted Democratic representatives to have entered Congress as a result of this Election, it becomes clearly apparent that something has changed - something has shifted.

The "Party of Clinton", the "Party of the Establishment"/DNC types are increasingly being harried from their 'leftward' flank.

The trend which reached its first high-water-mark in recent years with the insurgent candidacy of Sanders two years ago during the Presidential Primaries ... and more recently which has seen all manner of kitchen-sinkery thrown at Tulsi Gabbard lest she *dare* become something of a 'spiritual successor' (with better foreign policy) to Sanders heading into 2020 ... has continued with a number of the Democrats who've won, as it were, often two elections -

that of their own internal selection battles against more 'established' or 'establishment-favoured' candidates; and then the 'external' ones against Republicans in the actual contests themselves.

What does this mean?

Even despite the somewhat cosmetic victory of the Democrats in Congress - and I say "cosmetic" because when one looks at the facts, it becomes plain that on many issues and in many measures over the past two years, there have been sufficient Republican representatives etc. prepared to vote with the Democrats (and, to be sure/fair, occasionally vice-versa) to mean that there has not been any sudden "capturing" of the balance of momentum not previously held there ..

Even *despite* this 'colour-victory' there, the plain reality is that the Democratic Party has found itself struggling to make serious inroads fighting its way "rightwards" into the Republicans, and/or successfully "marginalizing" Trump.

Indeed, one can compellingly argue that Trump's increasingly 'interventionist' striding into the Mid-Terms has had the *exact opposite* effect to what one would have predicted if he were anywhere near as unpopular as any array of media opinion-pieces, Democratic "strategists", and even polling would appear to suggest.

Meanwhile, it shall be very interesting indeed to see what takes place on the party's Leftward flank.

Regrettably, one potential and very strikingly plausible pathway 'forwards' (that is, in reality, no such thing) - is much like the 'gabions' utilized in coastal defences where shorelines are suffering from erosion.

These are large steel cages loaded up with rocks - which dissipate the force of the waves coming into them up into the crevices and gaps, without allowing the actual coastal terrain behind to be seriously buffeted or broken down to be worn away and transported.

How this would manifest, then, in the Democratic Party, would be the slow and steady co-option of these 'insurgent' Democrats - until they, too, are part-and-parcel of the well-worn DNC machine.

An early example of this was, in fact, the unfortunate fate of Sanders - reduced, in some ways, to a mannequin in exchange for minimal policy-concessions of the DNC's national platform.

A more recent instance, that of the recent social-media darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - who despite being a prototypical poster-child for *exactly* this kind of "ouster the Establishment moribund : empower the rampancy of the margins" mentality ... has evidently started to find herself under similar pressure in recent months since successfully winning her Democratic Primary. You can see this, particularly, in her dramatic and strident shifts of rhetoric on Israel and related matters - to "toe the party line", lest she find herself cut off at the knees.

[Tulsi Gabbard, by contrast, has previously suffered quite some attacks from what is nominally supposed to be "her own side" for resolutely failing to be similarly compromised]

So that is *one* likely occurrence: the DNC doing what it always does ... and proving that "assimilation" is the most successful pathway of destruction, of what would otherwise be 'radical' or 'insurgent' elements. Along with 'annihilation' - or attempts of that nature - against any who will not yield. And 'marginalization' of the remaining few who still stand, even if it means 'standing alone'.

While waiting, I suppose, for the youthful 'idealists' and 'enthusicrats' who have propelled such candidacies to get disillusioned and disenfranchised and stop bothering or caring - or "grow up" onto the next generation of craven and unprincipled 'party hacks' and 'apparatchiks'.

Another, potentially more 'hopeful' development, would be the genuine growth of an 'alternate' caucus - either within the Democrats, or perhaps more 'cleanly', both inside-and-outside (i.e. much more mamentable to 'independents' and 'third/fourth' tickets') , to foster and propel a more overtly 'left wing' .. and, for that matter, rational foreign policy, grouping.

Such a thing was talked about during and after the Sanders candidacy, of course. But I am unsure how seriously taken such an idea still is. It seems that the "threat of Trump" has caused an abandonment of such potential sensibility - of multipartisanship, one might perhaps say - in the face of the "usurper of Clintonism".

A third, parallel development that *is* actually gaining steam (much to my amusement) is some sort of 'hybrid' 'third ticket' which brings together allegedly "moderate" republicans with the Democrats of the establishment and righter-wing of the party, in order to, I suppose, try and act as a 'spoiler' ticket against the Republicans should they run Trump again in 2020 .. but which actually professes to be pushing for a more 'bipartisan' set of "solutions".

The Neo-Neo Consensus spreading its wings and shedding its bi-tonal camouflage, one might perhaps say. The party of Bloomberg and Kasich.

If these two latter developments were to happen "in parallel" to each other - as appears increasingly likely to be at least somewhat the case - then it could very well start to sound the death-knell in meaningful terms of the modern Democratic Party.

Some might be scared by this.

But in all honesty .. while I am no great fan of 'accelerationism' for exactly the same reasons that Marx himself was wont to oppose it (the sheer level of human cost and human casualties required in pursuit of this much-mystified "ideological purity" of ultimate outcome) ... it is increasingly difficult to see how continuing to support the "establishment" which wishes to see American politics - and therefore, politics across much of the Anglosphere and the World Over , run as an effective "one party state" (with, as a certain Tanzanian political figure once remarked - the characteristic extravagance of daring to have two parties at once with which to do it), is actually a thing worth supporting, still much less "preserving".

Bring on the "destruction". Bring on the "transcension".

Just please, keep it far, far away from here at let us get on with our own domestic political 're-alignment' in peace.