Given the breadth and sweeping nature of both the ‘executive powers’ and ‘executive privileges’ that are associated with the office of president, the actions and the attitude taken up by certain elements in certain executive branch agencies such as the ‘Department of Justice’ (DOJ) and a number of other agencies amount to a kind of insubordination towards the office of president that is perhaps unprecedented in the history of the United States or perhaps in any other country. Moreover, the issue at hand is not insubordination towards the will of an individual. The issue at hand is the nature of the actions and the attitude of insubordination demonstrated by certain elements in the executive branch towards an office which was occupied by an individual who had a popular mandate given to him by the American electorate to do what he was doing. Thus, the use of the “law” and “law enforcement” by certain elements within executive branch agencies as a prop to wage psychological warfare against an individual and an office which were given a popular mandate by the American electorate undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the entire notion that America is a democratic system.
Given the history, evidence, and the facts, there is no leg for worthless shills like Kurt Campbell, Jake Sullivan, Tony Blinken, and many others to stand on when they bad-mouth other countries for the way they run their economies, governments, and societies. Essentially, Washington has been running on a falsehood and a lie for about two decades now, and the primary role of the American mainstream media was to serve as a conduit for such falsehoods and lies without any shame whatsoever. Running on a falsehood and a lie is unsustainable in the long run, and if anything, social phenomena such as the “Great Resignation” and the “Havana Syndrome” and the fact that ‘U.S. State Department’ employees are afflicted with mental health problems more than any other type of federal employee demonstrate that running on falsehoods and lies is unsustainable in the long run.
Eventually, a course of action and a kind of rhetoric based on phobia and disrespect towards other cultures and religions which is then shrouded in falsehoods and lies must be halted at its tracks one way or another, and most likely, all of it will lead to a ‘fire-change.’ As the late Howard Zinn wrote, Washington’s current course of action and rhetoric towards the rest of the world began at the start of the 20th century when America transitioned out of its policy of ‘isolationism’ towards a policy based on ‘empire’ and ‘imperialism’ which benefitted the few, not the many. As Zinn wrote: “The taste of empire was on the lips of politicians and business interests throughout the country now. Racism, paternalism, and talk of money mingled with talk of destiny and civilization.”
But if an empire and nation like Great Britain – with all its cultural and intellectual sophistication – met the fate of decline and demise which was experienced by all other empires prior to it, then Washington and its ‘Havana Syndrome’ is no exception to the rule. As mentioned before and as the 20th century political philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote, empire and imperialism is the initial stage of ‘totalitarianism’ as well as the stage of political and social evolution which immediately precedes ‘totalitarianism.’ Thus, according to George Orwell, writers who take up the pen and challenge the system and status quo amidst this type of political and social climate are motivated by a set of four basic factors.
For one, there is the issue of ego and the sense of importance and self-worth which a writer seeks to validate and is well-deserved as a result of making sacrifices and taking risks which other people are not willing to take, and this issue is far more important than money for some writers. Second, there is the issue of ‘aesthetic enthusiasm’ and the search for beauty, pleasure, and richness of experience in the world. Third, there is the ‘historical impulse’ which prompts a writer to understand both facts and reality. And fourth, there is a ‘political purpose’ and a desire to “push the world in a certain direction” and to “alter other people’s idea of the kind of society they should strive after.” Although all writers wield some sort of personal bias or opinion, what sets the bias and opinion of a certain class of writers apart from the biases and opinions of everyone else is the artfulness and attitude wielded by a certain class of writers which everyone else lacks. In turn, the artfulness and attitude of an exclusive class of writers stems from a democratic ethos and sentiment which the establishment and their mouthpieces and puppets are lacking. As Orwell wrote about his own writing experience, which one must note, is an experience that is totally relatable to the experience of certain writers today:
“Every line of serious work that I have written…has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it. It seems to me nonsense, in a period like our own, to think that one can avoid writing of such subjects. Everyone writes of them in one guise or another. It is simply a question of which side one takes and what approach one follows. And the more one is conscious of one’s political bias, the more chance one has of acting politically without sacrificing one’s aesthetic and intellectual integrity.”
Hence, all along, the choice and tradeoff confronting writers like myself was either to acknowledge, recognize, and tackle these realities and subjects head-on, or to ignore them like everyone else in Washington and to live a total lie which in turn would induce a combination of ‘Havana Syndrome’ and economic, political, and social dysfunction on a global scale inter alia.
Adam A. Azim 