Two Abortion Doctors Charged with Multiple Counts of Homicide

Here.

I don’t know what to say about this case, honestly. I generally only support late term abortions in the case of the life or the health of the mother.

For what it is worth, no US doctor has ever been arrested for homicide for the death of a fetus. This case is definitely a first.

Unhealthy Website

Here.

Someone just brought this to my attention. Certainly there are people who are sexually oriented in this way. Gay men, that is. The site is obviously pushing teenage boys in a sexual way. I suppose a lot of gay men react to teenage boys on some level or another. Nevertheless, as I look up and down the site, I can’t help but feel creeped out, sorry.

It’s not child porn, as defined by the state, but it’s getting there. Keep in mind that the state defines “child porn” ridiculously as any sexual depictions of minors, even those say 14-17 which would be arousing to most if not all adults on some level. True child porn would probably be portraying minors 12-under in sexual situations.

It’s not pedophilia. It’s hebephilia or ephebephilia, homosexual type. Most clinicians don’t even think that at least homosexual hebephilia is a disorder. However, I think that any adult who has a fixed sexual preference for teenagers above all other types of persons has something wrong with their head. You mean teenage boys or girls turn you, and grown ass adults don’t really do it? WTF man. Ridiculous.

My Favorite Angry Songs of All Time

You Bet I’ve Got Something Personal Against You! By Black Flag. Hilarious title. In 1981, I could not stop playing this song. I want to get the ringtone, but I don’t know how to put a ringtone on my phone. Someone?

Here.

Starts out with some wimpy guy simpering, “You don’t have anything personal against me, do you?” LOL. Then it segues into the song.

You don’t have anything against me, do you?
You bet I’ve got something personal against you

We know
You stole our song
You’ll regret ever touching them
You’ll regret fucking with our band
You’ll regret everything you’ve done

Now you bet that I’ve got
something personal against you!

You deny
All the sleaze and graffiti
You’ll regret
Stealing from our past
It’s minus and your fuss won’t last
We know
What you’ve done behind our back

Now you bet that I’ve got
something personal against you

You deny
Sitting in the corner
You’ve done
Nothing of your own
You’ve got
Nowhere to go but down

Check out those lyrics. Hilarious!

I saw them in 1980 at the Cookoo’s Nest in Costa Mesa. 4 or 5 punker idiots backed my friend up against the wall sneering, “Masters and slaves!” I intervened on behalf of my friend and they jumped me. I got thrown in the air. I came down with a Heineken bottle in my hand, heading for the ground. There was punker below me on his back. I was going to hit him in the head with the beer bottle! Oh fuck yeah!

He put his knees up, and kicked me with both feet as I was coming down. I went flying in the air and landed on both feet like a cat. It was kind of fun in a homicidal kind of way!

Later both of my terminally passive pussy friends accused me of being the aggressor! “Bob, you were the aggressor,” they insisted. Fuck that. I intervened to help my friend. Those Nazi punk bastards were terrorizing him, and they had pushed him all the way to the wall in the back of the club. Lot of thanks I got for rescuing that pussy.

Later, in 1985, I was with this woman that I was dating in Hermosa Beach. We went to the laundromat to pick up some of her clothes. Chuck Dukowski was there, sitting outside the laundromat, reading a book. I started talking to him, but never mentioned he was in Black Flag. He pointed out he was reading the Marquis de Sade, and he seemed to think I might appreciate it. I nodded approvingly.

Favorite #2. Husker Du, I’m Not Interested. Another hilarious song. I played this one a lot in the early 80′s. I love the chorus.

I’m not listening
TO WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY
I’m not listening
ALL LIES ANYWAY

LOL, hilarious or what?

Two songs, one asshole.

Story of my life.

Sigh.

Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Black People

Black people know how to get DOWN!

Hell with these uptight honkies.

Eartha Kitt “dancing” (actually praying ecstatically to a pagan Earth Goddess) at the Dizzy Gillespie’s Newport Jazz Festival show in 1954, years before the Second Liberation.

But as you can see, in some ways, Black culture has always been fully liberated.

Check out the guy presiding over the ceremony (Gillespie himself?) like a voodoo priest.

Oh Hell yeah!

The Jews: A Nonterritorial Nation

Super commenter James Schipper brilliantly lays out the traditional Left case regarding the Jews.

I do agree with him that sometimes you have to let bygones be bygones, therefore I accept the presence of the Jews in Palestine as, at this point, natives and not settler colonists. They have a right to be there by now. And possibly even a Jewish majority state has a right to exist in Palestine, though I have some serious issues with the racist nature of this state.

I also believe that the Sikhs are a majority in Punjab.

Jews were a non-territorial nation. Stateless nations are for instance the Kurds today and the Poles, Czechs or Finns before WWI. The Kurds have already a homeland, that is, an area in which most of them live and in which they are the clear majority.

Most nations are stateless. The only  ones that are entitled to a state are those that have sufficient numbers and that have a homeland in which they are a clear majority. If all Ruritanians lived in territory X but were only 40% of the population of that territory, then they would not be entitled to create their own state in that territory because it would violate the majority principle.

Needless to say that Jews were not entitled to a state when Herzl wrote Der Judenstaat. Most of the Jews before WWI lived in Europa, where they were scattered all over the place. They were clearly a non-territorial nation.

But were they a nation? In my book, they were certainly not. A nation is a linguistic, cultural community. A nation is a people that speaks a common, not necessarily unique, language and has a common culture. Jews didn’t have that, although in Eastern Europe there was a Yiddish nation, to which Herzl certainly didn’t belong.

Jews are a genealogical community. They imagine that they all, or nearly all,  descend from Abraham. That’s not a nation but a clan. Once people start basing claims on ancestry, all hell will break loose. Do American blacks have legitimate claims to Western Africa? Are Indians entitled to all of North America?

Even more bizarre is to base the legitimacy of the Zionist project on the fact that once Jews had a state in Palestine. Where would this world end if everybody started to base claims on what happened 2000 years ago? The Greeks would be entitled to Istanbul and Alexandria.

The fact that Zionism was illegitimate from the start does not invalidate Israel’s right to exist today. A lot has changed since Herzl wrote his book, and there is now a Hebrew nation-state in Palestine, or better, an binational Arab-Hebrew state with a Hebrew majority. To end this state now would only create new problems and injustices. Sometimes you have to let bygones be bygones.

I will admit that Jews in 1900 were entitled to a state of their own, if you recognize that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Bahais, Sikhs,  Zoroastrians have a right to a state of their own. Those are all religions which don’t have single state in which they are the clear majority.

Jews are a religion too, but a religion which lays claim to nationhood. We Gentiles are no more obligated to recognize this claim than that we are obligated to abstain from eating pork. Your religion is not ours, and your religion-based claims impose no obligation on us.

Zionists like to believe that they are secular, but their project makes sense only if you accept the claims from Judaism that Jews are a nation and have a promised land. As the joke goes, a Zionist is an atheist who firmly believes that Jehovah give Palestine to the Jews.

Why the Jews and Other Stateless Nations Have No Inherent Right to a State

Just curious again. No one demanded that any other white European nation dissolve within others. A progressive may oppose a an ethnonationalist state on racial grounds but no one opposes a state that identifies itself with a particular culture or language.

If a progressive whom I did not know told me that they opposed Jewish nationalism and that it was for my own good, I would certainly be taken aback.

Gay State Girl continues to argue with me about my opposition to Jewish nationalism. It is a principled Leftist position, reiterated by Stalin and Lenin. The problem is that the Jews were scattered everyone around the globe, in the Diaspora. Such stateless nations have no inherent right to a state at all according to Leftist theory.

Believe me, we have a hard enough time convincing people that nations who already have de facto states in their territory have a right to a state.

That the Judeophilic masses decided that the territory-less Jews had a right to a stolen state on someone else’s land while denying such a state to many nations on their own homelands (such as Northern Irish, Scandians, Bretons, Basques, Corsicans, Basques, Catalans, Bosnians, Kosovars, Baloch, Aceh, French Polynesians, French Guyanans, Puerto Ricans, Polisarians, Chechens, Ingush, Dagestanis, Cabindians, Kashmiris, Assamese, Trans Dniesterians, Scottish, Welsh, Quebeckers, Southern Thai, Karen, Kachin, Shah, Manipurese, Naga, Tamils, Abkhazians, Puntlanders and Oromo) while giving the territory-less Jews the right to go steal someone else’s territory and call it a state is particularly bizarre and perverse.

The people first in line to get nations according to Leftist theory are those with national territories within states. In general, of course they have a right to self-determination. Last in line are territoriless nations, who only have a right to a nation insofar as someone wants to donate one to them.

The Jews have no territory, hence they have no right to a state, unless someone wants to donate one to them. The Gypsies don’t get a state either. Stateless nations, scattered to the four winds, have no right to a state, unless someone wants to give them one.

What is the Progressive Project With Regard to the Jews?

Gay Area Girl writes:

I would argue that they are hostile to the idea of Jews existing as a distinct, separate group, which I would consider intrusive and disrespectful.

Ever since the damaged Jew stumbled out of the ghettos of Europe  in the early 1800′s, blinking like cats in the new light, the progressive project has been the assimilation of the Jew. You can see that in Marx’s On the Jewish Question. Israel is the biggest Jewish ghetto on Earth, and that’s why it’s such a shitty little country.

The ghetto is a bad place for Jews. It makes Jews act bad, and it turns the Gentiles into anti-Semites. The behavior that anti-Semites complain about is more or less Jewish ghetto behavior. No ghetto Jews, no anti-Semites. Pretty much, though it’s not a very exact equation.

“Going Caveman” on Women in Ambiguous Situations

Tulio writes about women in ambiguous situations where you’re not sure if she wants to be just friends or something more:

Some guys in the game community are advocating just going caveman. They’re saying just whip out your dick. A lot of guys are reporting good results with it. Not likely something I’d do, but it seems to be working for some guys in ambiguous situations. If nothing else, that will certainly remove any guesswork.

Oh I don’t agree with that at all. My philosophy for a long time now has been to put the woman in charge of her destiny as far as her relationship with me goes. Let the woman lead. A lot of guys would say that’s a recipe for disaster, but it’s actually worked out quite well! Women like to be empowered in that way by a man who lets them feel relaxed and respects any direction they want to take the relationship.

Actually, in many cases, women have gotten frustrated with me and more or less said, “Aren’t you going to ask me out?” or “Aren’t you going to kiss me?” or “Are you going to fuck me or what?” Those situations are actually pretty humorous. The response in all of those situations is to laugh and say of course.

If a woman has given me no real signs she wants anything other than friendship, then it’s almost a violation for me to impose that upon her. She has the right to be just friends with me without me imposing some sexual bullshit on her. It’s a violation of her rights as a woman and more importantly a violation of her human rights.

This is one of women’s main complaints about men. In a sexist and patriarchal society, men can’t be friends with women at all because all friendship between the sexes leads to sex.

Now, I have nothing against being aggressive with women in ambiguous situations in one way or another, and of course I’ve been doing that all my life. But on the other hand, there’s a time to be a gentleman. And a ladies’ man doesn’t go around hitting on every woman who gives him the time of day. I don’t know if I’m a ladies man now, though I do prefer the company of women to the company of men. At one time in my life, I was very much one.

There is always the risk that you will end up “Friends with all, lovers with none.” This is a very frustrating situation for a guy to be in, and I was in that situation at one point in my life, more or less. At that point, women are treating you like you are one of their girlfriends or one of their gay friends. It’s almost emasculating. One way around this is to make it clear that you are a sexual man and a sexual threat. Even your female friends should know this very well. With that in place, friendships with women can be very rewarding.

“Obama’s Anti-China Stratagems – Drumbeats Of War,” by Peter Tobin

An excellent piece by Peter Tobin, who is a Marxist, on how US imperialism appears to be threatening China and trying to encircle that country. Indeed, US imperialists are very afraid of China. The motto of the ultra-impieralist neoconservative crowd around George Bush seemed to be “Get China!” Richard Perle, Super-Jew, Cold Warrior and one of the most vicious US imperialists of all, was quoted as saying that if China continued on its present trends of economic and military development, war with the Chinese was probably inevitable within 20 years.

This same crowd, which included Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and other punks, also listed Western Europe as a “US enemy” and suggested various projects to screw the Europeans, who were economic competitors.

I have always said that capitalist nations, by their very nature, have no allies, none. They can’t have any, as they out to screw over every other country on Earth. I don’t want to screw over all the other countries. I want to grow together with them. Solidarity over imperialism and realpolitik and Great Games. That’s one reason I’m a socialist.

Lenin was correct. Capitalism leads to imperialism and imperialism leads directly to war. Around World War 1, only the socialists were sounding the alarm, saying that the war was really just a mad capitalist grab for land and resources. They were right; that’s exactly what WW1 was.

Similarly, WW2 was another mad rush for land and resources on the part of the Axis Powers, who were eating sour grapes because they felt they had been locked out of the colonialism game, which the West had fenced off by colonizing most of the world. The Axis said, reasonably enough, “We want colonies too!”

Of course colonialism was always a capitalist and imperialist project. For all the blather about “White man’s burden,” ultimately colonialism was and still is (in its modern form of neocolonialism) all about the loot.

In the conflict below of the US Empire versus China, my heart lies with the Chinese people.

Obama’s Anti-China Stratagems – Drumbeats Of War

US economic and military muscle-flexing in the Pacific and specifically its unilateral intervention into the complex maritime issues among the countries contiguous to the South China seas has led the Chinese to warn about ‘outside forces’ getting involved in disputes that it argues should be settled bilaterally.

What is at stake is a region that carries one-third of the world’s seaborne trade and over half of its oil and gas transport and where there are known to be massive petroleum resources waiting to be exploited.

America is also attempting to tie China to increased free trade arrangements through the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC). It has signed bilateral free trade deals with eight Pacific Rim countries to the exclusion of the ‘economically unreformed’ China. There has also been increased pressure in the long-running dispute regarding an undervalued Chinese Yuan which the US alleges costs American jobs by using ‘unfair currency practices’ to undervalue and effectively dump Chinese goods on western markets.

But the most ominous development has been the increased focus on military presence to counter China’s growing naval power. E.g. the Chinese Navy has recently commissioned its first aircraft carrier, the Varyag, a clear challenge to the hitherto US domination of the Pacific. Hu Jintao has further announced a increase in naval strike capacity as a ‘preparation for war.’

In this regard, an important first for the Pentagon war-planners was the agreement to deploy 2,500 Marines plus naval ships and aircraft to a base in Darwin, Australia commencing next year.

America, before it dominated the world by ‘land, sea and air’ was a maritime empire in the Pacific, emerging in the last decades of the 19th Century. The blue-water strategy was driven to a great extent by the perceived need to penetrate the untapped Chinese market, known as the ‘Open Door’ policy. The phrase that encapsulated America’s global ambition was ‘Manifest Destiny’, i.e. the belief that Americans were God’s people whom he had chosen to shape the world. Starting with Asia, the precept was: “Westward the course of Empire takes its sway.”*

Significantly this continued expansion across the Pacific was underpinned and legitimized by the new theory of geopolitics which asserted that national powers do not act for moral reasons, although they may claim to, but for strategic ones. Securing unfettered access to resources, controlling markets and military domination are what drive empires and any stratagem that secures long-term hegemony in these areas is justified. It furthermore theorized that future empires would be resource-driven and therefore would have to be continental powers before all else.

The American empire for all its attitudinizing about ‘freedom’, ‘liberty’ and ‘democracy’ has in fact followed the logic of the theory’s principal advocates, Admirals Mahan and Mackinder, with regard to ‘realpolitik’ – the realization that securing national advantage required the ruthless application of power necessary to build and sustain an empire.

All of these elements can be traced in recent US activity in the region and this activity is meant to remind any potential usurpers that, whatever the rate of relative economic and political decline, the US is still the number one world power and retains overwhelming military superiority over all others. Note that the USA constitutes only 3% of the world’s population but is responsible for over half of its military expenditure.

“Violence Is As American As Cherry Pie.” (H. Rap Brown)

That fact that the US empire is able to refocus, diplomatically, economically and military, on the rising threat of China while, among other things, fighting a major war in Afghanistan, threatening war against Iran, fomenting civil war in Syria, bankrolling the military machine of the Israeli settler state and initiating this year by Presidential decree a military presence in sub-Saharan Africa, demonstrates the flexibility and strength of the Empire and its continuing global military dominance.

The Empire has also intensified is its warmongering ethos. America is a society saturated in cultural, personal and institutional violence, racism, anti-communism and militarism. As its economic power declines, it is therefore conditioned to resort to even use of force to maintain domination. As the Black Panther leader, H. Rap Brown, (above) pointed out: violence and its glorification are in America’s historical DNA.

Its latest interventions in the Pacific and South China Seas therefore have all the classic ingredients for later imperial war by provocatively laying yet more bricks in the wall around China. They also march in step with the present diplomatic initiative made by US Secretary of State Clinton who made a recent visit to Myanmar to try to woo that nation from its long-standing Chinese alliance.

In their turn these projects march in step with the rest of the joined-up strategy in SE Asia which, while having other economic and political objectives, has the geopolitical strategy of encircling and hobbling China.

Thus its involvement in Afghanistan is as much about extirpating a Islamist threat as part of its ongoing ‘War On Terror’ as it is to securing access to the petroleum resources of the many ‘Stans’ in Central Asia and to having a standing army or militarized client state in the region as a counterweight to the now well-established continental power across the border.

Similarly, its post 9/11 embrace of Gyenandra and subsequent funding of the expansion of the King’s army by over 20,000 personnel and provisioning of huge amounts of arms and military equipment to that army was as much about defeating the communist revolution in Nepal as it was about getting another footing on the same border.

The relationship between US and Nepalese militaries continues to  strengthen to this day as joint strategy meetings at command level take place in the US embassy and joint visits are common. In fact the NA High Command in August attended a US Navy-convened maritime conflict scenario conference in sunny California! What is a land-locked country doing being represented there?

The Nepalese Maoists tried, after Powell’s visit in 2002, to point this out to the Chinese in an attempt to forge common cause, at least among equally threatened parties, if not actual comrades. The Chinese noted their points.

The new strategic alliance with India show the multifaceted interests of US imperialism in action.

Among these are 1) the increasing penetration of neoliberal global capitalism into the Indian market and society beginning with the Memos of Understanding (MOUs) initiated by Bush in 2006, 2) granting India a pass card in relation to its nuclear power obligations, 3) the insertion of American and Israeli military advisers into counterinsurgency where they assisted with the planning and execution of the genocidal Operation Green Hunt which has claimed the lives of many Adivasis and communists (the most recent being Comrade Kishenji), and 4) being granted a potential anti-China launching platform.

The establishment of this new alliance was facilitated by the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) American oligarchs sharing a strong class bond with the Hindutva Brahminical Indian oligarchs.

Anti-China from Communism to Capitalism

The hostility to People’s Republic dates to its communist origins in 1949. American reactionaries had armed and supported the Chaing Kai-shek-led Bonapartist, feudal, comprador Koumintang (KMT) against the communists, and their overwhelming defeat by the PLA was seen as a ‘betrayal’ by ruling circles in America. It directly contributed to the anti-communist hysteria and show trials of the McCarthy period.

It also led to America fighting a proxy war against China when the CIA funded and armed Tibetan Yellow-Hat Gelugpa separatists in their 1959 uprising, a failed attempt to restore their pre-1950 medieval theocratic slave society. India had facilitated this by allowing the Lamists, under CIA guidance, to establish a base in Khalimpong which even Nehru referred to as “a nest of spies.”

It further saw the attempt by the CIA to establish a Khampa base in Nepal’s Mustang region for the purposes of cross-border raids. This was destroyed by the RNA in 1974.

The ripples of this policy are still clearly evident in the financial, diplomatic and political support given to the Gyatso clique in the figurehead of the Dalai Lama. The same network also funds their monasteries in Nepal and the network’s presence is evident in the number of monks you see loafing around in Kathmandu talking on expensive cell-phones.

America still uses Tibetan ‘Human Rights’ as a club to beat Nepal with as evident from the threat last week to withdraw specific funding if the Nepalese government would not guarantee safe passage for renegade Tibetan/Chinese using Nepal as a transit station and for agitprop activities.

Aside from these specific policies during the 1950s, there was also a massive propaganda campaign in the West to paint Chinese communism as the ultimate ‘totalitarian’, ‘ant-hill’ society and threat to human ‘freedom’. This went hand-in-hand with the cosying up to the more ‘moderate’ communism of the USSR in the era of ‘Détente’.

This sustained vitriolic brainwashing provided the ideology that the American ruling class utilized in the wars it launched against Korea, Vietnam, Kampuchea and Laos beginning in the early fifties. Its earlier drive to empire saw it slowly choke, provoke and finally sweep aside the indigenous westernizing Japanese empire, but post-1945 it was beaten decisively in three and stalemated in one of these later unprovoked aggressions.

All these protean efforts were galvanized by the aim of establishing itself as the major continental power in SE Asia, following Mahan and Mackinder’s advice.

The emergence of China as a state-capitalist concern, following the termination in the mid 1970s of the period of communist construction, was wholeheartedly embraced by the US dominated west, as it provided cheap goods to sate its obsessive consumerist society. Later, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was yet another proof that capitalism was triumphant everywhere and that history was effectively at an end.

The hostility has resurfaced as established Western capitalism has become mired in a decade-long financial crisis, caused essentially by substituting metaphysics for materialist criteria in the law of value, in short: speculation instead of production.

China’s new type of state-planned capitalism, where land and the finance sector are state-controlled and where the state-directed economy is production oriented has proved more resilient. It is an historical irony that erstwhile communists have proved to be the more efficient capitalists.

What is happening is that within the era of the capitalist mode of production, the torch is being taken from a declining power and passed on to a rising power. Thus it has reawakened American hostility to China. Hence we have Emperor Obama, lecturing the Chinese prior to the recent East Asia Summit about its need to be a ‘grown up’ economy and for it to stop ‘gaming the system’ (i.e. getting the better of the Americans).

America has had designs on China for well over a century; during that period it has variously tried to contain, defeat, subvert, and control China, all of which have come to total failure. China is getting stronger in every sphere despite America’s efforts, and that is what makes war more likely at some point in the coming decades.

Encircle America

The US state is presently the most dangerous threat to world peace and progress. It is a state built on genocide and slavery and which through creating a post-1945 military/industrial economy has become increasingly dependent on war economically, technologically and strategically as a solution to all problems. Consider that while it is engaged in massive reductions in state expenditure along with all the other developed capitalist nations in crisis, it is increasing military expenditure.

This is a sure sign that it foresees an increasing need for force to maintain its hegemony. So America’s very conditions of existence make it gung-ho, trigger-happy and create a culture of impunity. The absence of a socialist bloc further encourages the tendency to act unilaterally and murderously.

It shows that contradictions within differing types of expanding capitalist societies are becoming increasingly antagonistic in the global jostle for power and resources.

It is why Lenin stressed that great power rivalry under imperialist capitalism inevitably leads to hostilities and that therefore imperialism is war – continual war – and why Mao added:

In order to end (imperialist) war we must make (People’s) war.

American imperialism remains, even intensifies, as the principal contradiction facing the world proletariat. The US is the heart and head of international reaction. Domestically its progressive and proletarian forces are outnumbered and beleaguered, but as the recent upsurge in class struggle around the Wall Street occupations has shown, they are not negligible or without fighting spirit.

The further these domestic contradictions intensify, the weaker will become the cohesion required to withstand the external revolutionary threat. That is why struggles everywhere are symbiotically fused and why this century will be the battleground where reaction and revolution will contend.

At the moment, the fact remains that the US with its vast and expanding military-industrial complex remains the arsenal of fascism and as such is a threat both to human progress and survival. It is this ‘Evil Empire’ that must itself be encircled and smashed by world revolution. As Rosa Luxemburg wrote the choice for humanity is stark:

Socialism or barbarism.

*The obverse of the ideology of American ‘exceptionalism’ in this instance led to the specific racist view of Chinese as the “Yellow Peril’, a paranoia created by the influx of cheap ‘coolie’ labour brought in from the mid-19th century to work the goldfields and build the railways, particularly the transcontinental track.

They died in their thousands, unmourned and despised by the nation they were serving. As soon as they were no longer useful, the US government adopted a series of controls over further Chinese immigration beginning with the 1875 Page Act, moving on to the 1885 Chinese Exclusion Act, etc. and culminating in the 1922 Cable Act, which declared that Chinese were not racially acceptable as American citizens. The term ‘Yellow Peril’ was a precursor to the later ‘Red Menace,’ which similarly saw ‘Asian hordes’ swarming the barricades of western ‘civilization’.

Michael Albert, Prophet

Michael Albert is a French economist who coined the term Rhine capitalism. Twenty years ago, he looked into a crystal ball and foresaw the future. He spoke of 10 years of “ultra-liberalism,” by which he means radical, free market, laissez faire, neoliberal capitalism, initiated by the Devil Ronald Reagan in 1980.

After he wrote the book, we have had another 20 years of this insane brand of capitalism, a system which has failed nearly everywhere it has been tried on the planet. Yet both parties are utterly committed to the suicidal course of neoliberalism.

As you can see, Albert foresaw its collapse. All of us on the Left did. The Left has been writing for years saying that the system is going to blow up sooner or later. With a system like that, all it can do is blow up. That’s how it’s designed to work. Unless there are major changes in the neoliberal system, its crises will only get worse and worse. Inequality will grow greater and greater, poverty will worsen, and the periodic crises will come more frequently and worsen in severity.

What’s fascinating that is that Karl Marx predicated all of this to the T way back in the 19th Century. His analysis of capitalism has yet to be matched. At the same time, 99% of your typical Moronicans don’t realize that Marx praised capitalism nearly more than anyone in history. His praise rings to the skies and surpasses even the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. The world had never seen such a dynamic and adaptable system, he wondered aloud. Nevertheless, he felt that its flaws outweighed its strengths and that it had fatal flaws programmed right into the system.

Now, how many of you knew that Karl Marx praised capitalism to the skies? Almost none of you. That’s what is called miseducation by a society (the US) that operates on the propaganda model. The propaganda model is most closely associated with the US media. See Noam Chomsky for more on this thesis.

Albert, from Capitalism Against Capitalism (1993):

The largest banks know, however, that they are literally ‘too big to fail’ and can count on a helping hand from government if the worst comes to the worst…Thus, in yet another intriguing but ominous irony of history, 10 years of ultra-liberalism have resulted in a US financial system whose future may only be assured with the help of federal government handouts

Moronicans are so stupid that they don’t realize that the present model of capitalism is collapsing right in front of their eyes. Sure, it can trudge on, capitalism always does, but what kind of society will we inherit? We are already dismantling most to all of our infrastructure, including education (!), health care (!), highways, the safety net, the police (!), the fire department (!), game wardens, state parks, you name it, if it’s public, it’s going down.

Conservatives everywhere on Earth and all down through time have only ever dreamed of a 3rd World society. The ultimate conservative wet dream is a 3rd world country, with the state dismantled and the rich cavorting amidst the ruins of the wailing poor, sick, starving and dying in the mud and shit.

There are many reasons why conservatism is complete shit, but that’s one of the biggest ones of them all. And you want to know why I’m not a conservative?