Category Archives: Journalism

Trench Warfare in East Ghouta

East Ghouta trench warfare. Good Lord that fighting looks brutal. Some truly vicious close-range trench warfare can be seen in this video. This what war looks like – the real thing. I will say that SAA and allied Palestinian, government and Arab Nationalist militias have very high morale from all the footage I have seen. It’s amazing as I am sure they are taking serious casualties. I saw a video today of a Syrian village of ~400 in 2011. 13% of its men were military age, and seven years later, almost all of them are dead, fighting for the government. Don’t let anyone fool you into thinking that the government forces are not taking serious casualties.

There is so much I could say about this operation. Let us just say that everything you are hearing in the US and Western media is completely biased and a lot of it is flat out lies. The civilians in the area largely support the Syrian Army and oppose the Al Qaeda-type rebels.

The rebels have been using East Ghouta for years as a base to shell Damascus. Damascus gets shelled almost every day for years now by these character. The mortars are usually just aimed at the city but in recent months a number have targeted the Russian Embassy and meeting between various Russians, military and aid organizations, in the area. It is thought that the rebels do not have the ability to target Russians with this accuracy. What is going on here is that US, Turkish, UAE, Qatari, Saudi, Jordanian and Israeli intelligence (mostly US) is working closely with the rebels in an effort to deliberately target Russians. So the US is actually killing Russians in Syria deliberately and has been doing so forever.

Mostly this shows the folly of pacifists or isolationists ever voting Republican. Republicans have been the party of the hawks ever since the Cold War and it hasn’t slowed down yet. Of course Trump shifted to ultra-hawk because he is a hard US conservative and almost all of these people are fanatical warmongers. The Republicans have been far more hawkish than the Democrats since 1946.

The Democrats may be the party of Humanitarian Bombers, but the Republicans don’t even pretend to that. Instead, it’s all about how many people you can kill, civilians or not. Civilian deaths in Syrian and Iraq skyrocketed after Trump “took the gloves off” (something Republicans always do – gloves are for soft Democratic girly men). Why was this a good thing? Why did Trump massacre all of these Syrian and Iraqi civilians and why are bloodthirsty Americans cheering for this slaughter?

When East Aleppo was liberated, there were intense negotiations at the end to rescue 12 US intelligence officers who were holed up with the Al Qaeda rebels until the bitter end. Websites even published the names of these men.

Here again, the Western media is screaming. Humanitarian corridors to evacuate civlians have been activated and regular aid convoys are getitng through. The strikes have been mostly surgical as in East Aleppo. The US is just freaking out because it’s Al Qaeda type jihadis are getting defeated in this Damascus suburb. The US wants to keep its jihadis in East Aleppo to rain mortars down on Damascus every day to show that Assad cannot even control his own capital. It’s mostly an appearances thing, but then appearances and symbolism play greater roles in warfare than most know.

There haven’t been any hospitals stricken in Ghouta. Remember when “the last hospital in East Aleppo” got destroyed 15-20 times over a period of months. It was always “the last hospital in Aleppo.” How many last hospitals in Aleppo were there? There can’t have been more than one. The artillery and airstrikes in Aleppo were mostly surgical. Many of the hospitals bombed had long since been taken over as rebel bases. This is something the US media never told you. Yes, some civilians are getting their property taken away from them, but that is because they supported the rebels. It has nothing to with ethnicity and there is no ethnic cleansing. Sunni Arabs who supported Assad are to some extent displacing Sunni Arabs who supported the rebels.

There was another false flag chemical weapons attack in Ghoutha earlier, championed by pathological liar Nicki Haley. Western officials warned of the attack earlier, a sure sign that this was another false flag. So far, all chemical weapons attacks in Syria have been rebel false flags. I have studied all of them, and I haven’t seen one attack by the Syrian government yet. The Syrian government simply does not use chemical weapons. It’s not that they are nice people. If you are a rebel or rebel supporter, you may be arrested and taken prisoner by the army and transferred to a military prison. The death rate is high in that prisoner and 10-15,000 prisoners may have already been executed, mostly by hanging. That said, chemical weapons and massacres of villagers are not the SAA’s style. They’re nasty, but they are just not that type of nasty.

Of course, a few days after the fake attack, the SAA liberated this Ghouta town and promptly discovered a chemical weapons factory.  The rebels had been producing their own chemicals and then releasing them in false flag attacks as they have been doing since the start of the war. Even the US military now admits that most if not all of the chemical weapons attacks in this war so far  were not  done by the Syrian government. Amazing – the military tells the  truth where the controlled (US Pravda) media  never does.

Ghouta is 70% cleared. Many rebels have left on buses to be bussed to other rebel zones,mostly in Idlib. A number of others have taken advantage of an amnesty program that has been offered by the government for years now. Today, 10,000 civilians fled to safety via a humanitarian corridor. The rebels have been firing at these corridors for some time now, shooting at civilians who are trying to flee. A number have been killed in this way.

1 Comment

Filed under Arabs, Conservatism, Democrats, Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Jordan, Journalism, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Palestine, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Islam, Religion, Republicans, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sunnism, Syria, Turkey, US Politics, USA, War

A Primer on Mark to Market

This is a repost from the old site:

Some conservatives, of course, are blaming the current economic chaos on too much regulation instead of the obvious cause of it that any moron can figure out, lack of regulation. This is especially popular on White Nationalist websites, where the line is that all regulation of business is evil for White people.

I would like to point that although the conservatives are reeling from this latest economic meltdown and their philosophy is in tatters (rejected by the media elite who used to support them to the hilt more than anyone else), some conservatives are starting to fight back.

The market meltdown was not caused by the lack of regulation that everyone knows caused it; instead, it was caused by the conservative bogeyman of too much regulation. But this is not going over very well. Outside of the Fanatics’ Bullpen and the Republican Party, no one is buying. Even the US rightwing media is not so stupid as to buy into this one.

The “mark to market rule”* controversy is an interesting one.

But nevertheless, mark to market is being put forward as one of the stupider regulations that supposedly either helped bring this mess on or is making it worse. So says Paul Craig Roberts (unapologetic Reaganite incredibly featured on Counterpunch) here, here and here, and Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek columnist and apologist for neoliberal globalism and US imperialism disguised as reasonable and thoughtful analyst.

Mark to market was put in to keep these corporate rats from lying about their assets and their bottom lines. Amid the catastrophes caused by the rampant accounting fraud and crime accompanying Enron and the other messes, the mark to market rule was instituted. What it means is simple: corporations have to list assets and debts as they really are, not as they think they are in their fairy tale fantasies.

What corporations were doing was this: Suppose I have assets that are worth $10X. That looks pretty bad for my bottom line, so I “re-evaluate them” with the help of some friendly local accountant firm criminals, and now automagically they are actually worth $100X. Why?

Because my accountant criminal buddies and I decided that my assets are actually undervalued, and are worth much more than the market says they are worth. So I get to fool investors, inflate my bottom line and pretend that my insolvent company is actually rolling in it.

Seems like an obvious abuse, no? Seems like a reasonable regulation, no?

Turns out after all that mark to market is sheer government evil. Evil big government is forcing angelic corporations to tell the truth about their net worth instead of lying as they always do, even in their sleep, and this harming the glorified US economy.

Nowadays, banksters and other financial criminals are holding all sorts of assets that are said to be worth, say, $100X. In truth, no one even knows what they are worth, and there is no way to figure it out. Their true value is so low that the banksters act like these assets are toxic waste.

Mark to market means they have to mark them at $30X or $2X or whatever the market says this crap is worth. But what they really want to do is lie and pretend that it’s worth $100X.

Why? Because if the corporations tell the truth about how much their assets are really worth, instead of how much they lie and inflate their worth at, investors will pound their two-bit penny stocks into the ground where they deserve to be pounded.

But that’s bad for the economy. We can’t afford to have the stocks of insolvent companies pounded into the dirt on the basis of honest accounting of assets and debits. Instead, it is necessary to lie, paint a turd to look like a Michelangelo, and keep the sucker/investors marching in the door and laying out the cash. To tell the truth will wreck the economy. To save the economy, we must legalize lying once again.

Does any of this make sense in any rational world? Of course not.

These are the rarefied debates that occupy our ruling elites in these trying times.

*I am not an economist, and I may not have correctly characterized the mark to market rule or the arguments for or against it. If you think I have this wrong, head to the comments or email and let me know.


Filed under Conservatism, Crime, Economics, Government, Imperialism, Journalism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Racism, Reposts From The Old Site, Republicans, US Politics, White Nationalism

Regime Change Fails: Is a Military Coup or Invasion of Venezuela Next?

Great article from Global Research on US machinations against Venezuela. I am not sure if the US would invade Venezuela, but under Trump, all bets are off. The man is a lunatic and so is his insane political party and he and they are capable of anything. However, if we invaded Venezuela, it would set off a big war because a lot of Venezuelans would fight back.

Chavez has distributed guns and all sorts of arms to his supporters in the barrios and rural areas. These Chavista militias train all the time.

The Venezuelan Military would not surrender. Chavez purged the ranks of all of the rightwingers and he stacked the officer corps with his supporters. This was after the first coup when the officer corps supported the coup but the rank and file soldiers did not. That and countless armed masses marching on government buildings reversed the coup quite quickly.

Speaking at his alma mater, the University of Texas, on February 1, Secretary of State Tillerson suggested a potential military coup in VenezuelaTillerson then visited allied Latin American countries urging regime change and more economic sanctions on Venezuela. Tillerson is considering banning the processing or sale of Venezuelan oil in the United States and is discouraging other countries from buying Venezuelan oil. Further, the US is laying the groundwork for war against Venezuela.

In a series of tweets, Senator Marco Rubio, the Republican from Florida, where many Venezuelan oligarchs live, called for a military coup in Venezuela.

How absurd — remove an elected president with a military coup to restore democracy? Does that pass the straight face test? This refrain of Rubio and Tillerson seems to be the nonsensical public position of US policy.

The US has been seeking regime change in Venezuela since Hugo Chavez was elected in 1998. Trump joined Presidents Obama and Bush before him in continuing efforts to change the government and put in place a US-friendly oligarch government.

They came closest in 2002 when a military coup removed Chavez. The Commander-in-Chief of the Venezuelan military announced Chavez had resigned and Pedro Carmona, of the Venezuelan Chamber of Commerce, became interim president. Carmona dissolved the National Assembly and Supreme Court and declared the Constitution void. The people surrounded the presidential palace and seized television stations, and Carmona resigned and fled to Colombia. Within 47 hours, civilians and the military restored Chavez to the presidency. The coup was a turning point that strengthened the Bolivarian Revolution and showed people could defeat a coup and exposed the US and oligarchs.

US Regime Change Tactics Have Failed In Venezuela

The US and oligarchs continue their efforts to reverse the Bolivarian Revolution. The US has a long history of regime change around the world and has tried all of its regime change tools in Venezuela. So far they have failed.

Economic War

Destroying the Venezuelan economy has been an ongoing campaign by the US and oligarchs. It is reminiscent of the US coup in Chile which ended the presidency of Salvador Allende. To create the environment for the Chilean coup, President Nixon ordered the CIA to “make the economy scream.”

Henry Kissinger devised the coup, noting a billion dollars of investment were at stake. He also feared the “the insidious model effect” of the example of Chile leading to other countries breaking from the United States and capitalism. Kissinger’s top deputy at the National Security Council, Viron Vaky, opposed the coup, saying,

“What we propose is patently a violation of our own principles and policy tenets .… If these principles have any meaning, we normally depart from them only to meet the gravest threat . . . our survival.”

These objections hold true regarding recent US coups, including in Venezuela and Honduras, Ukraine, and Brazil, among others. Allende died in the coup and wrote his last words to the people of Chile, especially the workers, “Long live the people! Long live the workers!” He was replaced by Augusto Pinocheta brutal and violent dictator.

For decades the US has been fighting an economic war, “making the economy scream,” in Venezuela. Wealthy Venezuelans have been conducting economic sabotage aided by the US with sanctions and other tactics. This includes hoarding food, supplies and other necessities in warehouses or in Colombia, while Venezuelan markets are bare. The scarcity is used to fuel protests, e.g. “The March of the Empty Pots,” a carbon copy of marches in Chile before the September 11, 1973 coup. Economic warfare has escalated through Obama and under Trump, with Tillerson now urging economic sanctions on oil.

President Maduro recognized the economic hardship but also said sanctions open up the opportunity for a new era of independence and “begin the stage of post-domination by the United States, with Venezuela again at the center of this struggle for dignity and liberation.” The second-in-command of the Socialist Party, Diosdado Cabello, said,

 “[if they] apply sanctions, we will apply elections.”

Opposition Protests

Another common US regime change tool is supporting opposition protests. The Trump administration renewed regime change operations in Venezuela, and the anti-Maduro protests which began under Obama grew more violent. The opposition protests included barricades, snipers, and murders, as well as widespread injuries. When police arrested those using violence, the US claimed Venezuela opposed free speech and protests.

The opposition tried to use the crackdown against violence to achieve the US tactic of  dividing the military. The US and Western media ignored opposition violence and blamed the Venezuelan government instead. Violence became so extreme it looked like the opposition was pushing Venezuela into a Syrian-type civil war. Instead, opposition violence backfired on them.

Violent protests are part of US regime change repertoire. This was demonstrated in the US coup in Ukraine, where the US spent $5 billion to organize government opposition, including the US and EU funding violent protesters. This tactic was used in early US coups like the 1953 Iran coup of Prime Minister Mossadegh. The US has admitted organizing this coup that ended Iran’s brief experience with democracy. Like Venezuela, a key reason for the Iran coup was control of the nation’s oil.

Funding Opposition

There has been massive US investment in creating opposition to the Venezuelan government. Tens of millions of dollars have been openly spent through USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, and other related US regime change agencies. It is unknown how much the CIA has spent from its secret budget, but the CIA has definitely been involved in Venezuela. Current CIA director, Mike Pompeo, said he is “hopeful there can be a transition in Venezuela.”

The United States has also educated leaders of opposition movements, e.g. Leopoldo López, was educated at private schools in the US, including CIA-associated Kenyon College. He was groomed at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and made repeated visits to the regime change agency, the National Republican Institute.


While the US calls Venezuela a dictatorship, it is in fact a strong democracy with an excellent voting system. Election observers monitor every election.

In 2016, the economic crisis led to the opposition winning a majority in the National Assembly. One of their first acts was to pass an amnesty law. The law described 17 years of crimes including violent felonies and terrorism committed by the opposition. It was an admission of crimes back to the 2002 coup and through 2016. The law demonstrated violent treason against Venezuela. One month later, the Supreme Court of Venezuela ruled the amnesty law was unconstitutional. US media, regime change advocates and anti-Venezuela human rights groups attacked the Supreme Court decision, showing their alliance with the admitted criminals.

Years of violent protests and regime change attempts and then admitting their crimes in an amnesty bill have caused those opposed to the Bolivarian Revolution to lose power and become unpopular.  In three recent elections Maduro’s party won regional, local and the Constituent Assembly elections.

The electoral commission announced the presidential election will be held on April 22. Maduro will run for re-election with the United Socialist Party. Opposition leaders such as Henry Ramos and Henri Falcon have expressed interest in running, but the opposition has not decided whether to participate. Henrique Capriles, who narrowly lost to Maduro in the last election, was banned from running for office because of irregularities in his campaign, including taking foreign donations. Capriles has been a leader of the violent protests. When his ban was announced he called for protests to remove Maduro from office. Also banned was Leopoldo Lopez, another leader of the violent protests who is under house arrest serving a thirteen year sentence for inciting violence.

Now the United States says it will not recognize the presidential election and urges a military coup. For two years, the opposition demanded presidential elections, but now it is unclear whether they will participate. They know they are unpopular, and Maduro is likely to be re-elected.

Is War Against Venezuela Coming?

A military coup faces challenges in Venezuela, as the people, including the military, are well educated about US imperialism. Tillerson openly urging a military coup makes it more difficult.

The government and opposition recently negotiated a peace settlement entitled “Democratic Coexistence Agreement for Venezuela.” They agreed on all of the issues including ending economic sanctions, scheduling elections, and more. They agreed on the date of the next presidential election. It was originally planned for March, but in a concession to the opposition, it was  rescheduled for the end of April. Maduro signed the agreement even though the opposition did not attend the signing ceremony. They backed out after Colombian President Santos, who was meeting with Secretary Tillerson, called and told them not to sign. Maduro will now make the agreement a public issue by allowing the people of Venezuela to sign it.

Not recognizing elections and urging a military coup are bad enough, but more disconcerting is that Admiral Kurt Tidd, head of Southcom, held a closed door meeting in Colombia after Tillerson’s visit. The topic was “regional destabilization,” and Venezuela was a focus.

A military attack on Venezuela from its Colombian and Brazilian borders is not far fetched. In January, the NY Times asked, “Should the US military invade Venezuela?” President Trump said the US is considering US military force against Venezuela. His chief of staff, John Kelly, was formerly the general in charge of Southcom. Tidd has claimed the crisis, created in large part by the economic war against Venezuela, requires military action for humanitarian reasons.

War preparations are already underway in Colombia, which plays the role of Israel for the US in Latin America. The coup government in Brazil increased its military budget 36 percent and participated in Operation: America United, the largest joint military exercise in Latin American history. It was one of four military exercises by the US with Brazil, Colombia, and Peru in Latin America in 2017. The US Congress ordered the Pentagon to develop military contingencies for Venezuela in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act.

While there is opposition to US military bases, James Patrick Jordan explains, on our radio show, the US has military bases in Colombia and the Caribbean and military agreements with countries in the region; and therefore, Venezuela is already surrounded.

The United States is targeting Venezuela because the Bolivarian Revolution provides an example against US imperialism. An invasion of Venezuela will become another war-quagmire that kills innocent Venezuelans, US soldiers, and others over control of oil. People in the United States who support the self-determination of countries should show solidarity with Venezuelans, expose the US agenda, and publicly denounce regime change. We need to educate people about what is really happening in Venezuela to overcome the false media coverage.

Share this article and the interview we did on Clearing The FOG about Venezuela and the US’ role in Latin America.  The fate of Venezuela is critical for millions of Latin Americans struggling under the domination of US Empire.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers are co-directors of Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.


Filed under Americas, Asia, Bolivarianism, Capitalism, Caribbean, Chile, Colombia, Democrats, Economics, Europe, Geopolitics, Government, Imperialism, Iran, Journalism, Latin America, Left, Obama, Peru, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Revolution, Socialism, South America, Ukraine, US Politics, USA, Venezuela

Three Major Recent False Flag Attacks Staged by the US and Its Allies

In the  US-supported coup against the Venezuelan government in 2002, the Opposition managed to station some snipers on a bridge who shot their own people and Chavistas, US/fascist style.

US-supported thugs did the exact same thing in Syria and Ukraine – snipers on rooftops or in buildings fired on both police and demonstrators and then blamed it on the government in both cases. To this day the corporate media in the West continues to insist that Chavistas on the bridge fired on Opposition people (and their own supporters?), Syrian government police on rooftops fired on demonstrators below (and their own police?), and the Berkut Ukrainian police fired on demonstrators below (and their own police officers?).

All of these are lies, and all of these were false flag attacks to blame the opposition for a human rights outrage. All three were planned and supported by the US.

In the case of Syria, the snipers were Saudis and they were smuggled across the border.

In the case of Ukraine, the snipers were NATO forces carrying musical instrument cases all firing from one building. They were later allowed to leave without opposition by the new government. I have seen footage of these “musicians” (snipers) leaving the building and heading to planes back to where they came from. In Ukraine, the snipers were sent by NATO and came from Lithuania, Poland, and Georgia. NATO trained these snipers in Poland a couple of months before.

Some of the Georgian snipers are now on record saying that they were part of this false flag attack. They say they were tricked into firing on the two groups of people and now they feel betrayed. Of course, not one single media outlet in the West has reported on these Georgians testifying that they were the NATO snipers who fired on the people below. The killings were then used to justify a coup in the Ukraine in which a pro-Russian government was replaced by a Nazi Russophobic Ukrainian nationalist regime. The US cooked up these whole plot a few months before. A woman named Victoria Nuland was the go-to person for this plot. She started working on the plot several months before.

In the case of Syria, the massacre at the demonstration was blamed on the Syrian government and was used to justify a civil war against the Syrian government. To this day, all of the Western media bar none blames the attack on the demonstrations on Syrian police.

So there you can see three different false flag attacks that were planned by the US and its allies (especially NATO) using the same technique – snipers in a tall building or on a roof firing on both government supporters and security personnel and opposition demonstrators.

People say there is no such thing as false flags. Well there are three false flags right there, and two of them are in the last decade.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

Leave a comment

Filed under Americas, Conspiracies, Ethnic Nationalism, Eurasia, Europe, Fascism, Geopolitics, Georgia, Journalism, Latin America, Left, Lithuania, Marxism, Middle East, Nationalism, Nazism, Near East, Poland, Political Science, Regional, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South America, Syria, Ukraine, USA, Venezuela, War

Hillary Clinton Staged a Coup Against the President of Honduras for Raising the Minimum Wage

The President of Honduras was recently removed by a coup sponsored by “liberal Democrat” Hillary Clinton. His crime? He raised the minimum wage. After the coup, the US and the Honduran government set up death squads that rampaged through the country murdering leftwingers. They should have named these killers Hillary’s Gang because that’s what they were. The recent election in Honduras was a completely fraudulent stolen election, obvious to anyone with open eyes. Trump promptly declared it free and fair and pledged support to the new government. Meanwhile, the reincarnated rightwing death squads of Central America continue to rage across the land and the murders of leftwingers continue unabated.

You would not believe how many governments the US has staged coups because they dared to raise the minimum wage.

How many Americans know this? Name one US media outlet anywhere at any time that has reported this clear fact. There is not one. Conclusion: the US has a completely controlled media run by the corporate-wealthy-state apparatus called the Deep State, otherwise known as The Foreign Policy Establishment of the United States.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

Leave a comment

Filed under Central America, Democrats, Fascism, Geopolitics, Government, Honduras, Journalism, Labor, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics

Politico Magazine Advocates for the Reintroduction of Slavery in America


For those of you who don’t understand what the article is arguing for, it’s called indentured servitude. It was common in the past, but is now outlawed in most places that are not Third World ratholes, and it is now considered to be a form of slavery.

Unbelievable. I knew this country was getting more and more rightwing, but this is crazy. Are there any limits to how far right they go?

The piece was written by Eric Posner and Glen Weyl.

Weyl works at Microsoft Research and teaches at Yale. I know nothing about this person, but I assume they might be coming from a somewhat Silicon Valley Libertarian mindset

Posner is out of Harvard and Yale also. He is a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago, a bastion of reaction in the Economics Department, which birthed the economic Rosemary’s Baby named Milton Friedman, a loathsome man who was part of the brain trust behind recent mass move to neoliberalism. Friedman was basically a Libertarian. He’s widely praised all over the corporate media, but make no mistake about it, the man was a literal monster.

It turns out that UoC’s Law School is just as bad as its execrable Economics Department. Both are known as bastions of conservative scholars of both law and economics. Posner’s father was Richard Posner, a federal judge. He was a Reagan appointee and was on George W. Bush’s short list for appointees to the Supreme Court. He must have been quite conservative to make it onto Shrub’s Supreme Court list.

He recently wrote an insane article in Slate called The Case Against Human Rights arguing that we need to get rid of our freedom of speech.

Although some say Posner is a liberal Democrat, others say he is generally viewed as a conservative legal scholar. However, he seems to hate Donald Trump.

Reviewing some of his publications, I found him hard to characterize.I felt that he came across as a rightwinger. He’s not a liberal, or if he is the word liberal needs to be tossed in a bonfire and burned up forever as meaningless. If he’s a Democrat, he’s a conservative Democrat. But keep in mind that the monsters in the Killary Clinton wing of the DNC type of nightmarish neoconservative warhawks bill themselves as liberal Democrats.

N.B. I just did some more research and it appears that Posner is best characterized as some sort of Libertarian.

With his colleague and partner in crime co-author, he has written a book about International Law that seems to state that there is no such thing and that every country can interpret international law in whatever way benefits it most. Which is what the United States has always done anyway. We’ve never followed international law. Show me one time when the US followed international law to do anything.

These are the people who are shaping our country!

The other man is out of Microsoft Research. He’s apparently another reactionary, this time the usual Silicon Valley Libertarian “liberal Democrat” type. It’s beyond me how these Libertarian Democraps in Silicon Valley are liberal in any way, shape, or form.

How? Because they bellow for the rights of silly millennials to categorize their sexuality and gender as 40% this, 30% that, and 30% some other weird thing? That’s what Silicon Valley Libertarian Democrats are all about. They’re Cultural Left Democrats, but in most other ways, they are just corporate Libertarian monsters like all the rest of the corporate goons. Libertarian philosophy is the cancer of the Generation X’ers. It’s their fatal flaw. Vast numbers of them have been infected with it. Even many Gen X’ers who call themselves liberals or even Leftists often call themselves Libertarians.

I would like to point out one other thing. Both authors are out of the Ivies – Harvard and Yale.

You are well aware that the Silicon Valley Dystopia is actually the ultimate utopia of Late Capitalism. This is literally their dream society, if you can fathom that. This is as good as Late Capitalism gets. This is the hideous model that everyone else in the world needs to emulate and strive for.

And it’s complete crap in so many ways.

I have been told that the creators and promoters of Silicon Valley as the ultimate capitalism Land of Oz are mostly out of the Ivy League schools such as Harvard and Yale.

I am not sure how true that is, but if it is, then the Ivy League types are prominent in shaping our country in this monstrous direction.

Presumably, they are all tied in with neoliberalism/Libertarianism, the mindset of Silicon Valley which is glossed over with a pretty liberal Democratic paint job. Don’t be fooled. Silicon Valley is simply the latest manifestation of the endlessly shapeshifting neoliberal beast. It’s particularly dangerous because with that faux liberal Democrat sheen, it has the potential to pull a lot of decent but naive liberal and even progressive people into its foul spider web.

These two have co-authored a book out recently titled Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society. It’s probably not about a just society at all, and I worry about their notion that uprooting democracy is a good thing even if that has always been the standard view of the ruling classes. I doubt if they are talking about uprooting capitalism at all. It’s probably about the promotion across of this cancer called the “gig economy” which, trust me, is a very bad thing. It’s just he latest groovy idea cooked up by Silicon Valley Libertarians. It sounds very appealing but upon analysis, it’s a catastrophe for workers. It amounts to all of us putting ourselves and everything we own on the open market for use or rental. This mirrors what Marx said workers do in capitalism anyway, but it’s never been so open, blatant and galling as this.

Here’s the blurb from the book. It’s looking bad already, and I haven’t even read one page.

It shows how the emancipatory force of genuinely open, free, and competitive markets can reawaken the dormant nineteenth-century spirit of liberal reform and lead to greater equality, prosperity, and cooperation.


They show how the principle of one person, one vote inhibits democracy, suggesting instead an ingenious way for voters to effectively influence the issues that matter most to them.

Here’s where the democracy hatred comes in. Well the bourgeois have hated democracy since the onset of suffrage, so this is nothing new. Remember how France revoked suffrage at the best of their ruling class in 1848 very soon after it was granted? It’s just now that the anti-democratic language is gussied up in groovy hipster talk. You won’t get to vote anymore, but that’s a good thing! How taking away your right to vote is actually a good thing for you. I can see the subheads already.

Only by radically expanding the scope of markets can we reduce inequality, restore robust economic growth, and resolve political conflicts. But to do that, we must replace our most sacred institutions with truly free and open competition.

Um, no. So the way to reduce inequality, stabilize the political system and make everybody rich is to go to a full-blown radical free market across all of society.

Forget it. This is more of the Libertarian swill they have been selling us for decades.

  • The free market is never the road to reduced inequality – in fact, the freer the markets, the more the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
  • The freer the markets, the more unstable the political system becomes as extreme inequality and market as politics gives rise to the Marxist prediction of the right going further right and the left going further left which the marketization of politics automatically produces breathtaking corruption in the state. Pretty soon you have the 1930’s in Europe with Hard Left and Hard Right thugs fighting in the streets. Wait. We have that in the US right now!
  • The freer the markets, the less rich most everyone is. The wealth shifts up to the top 1%, while the top 20% also makes out quite well. The bottom 80% gets completely screwed. The economy becomes a board game where the upper classes spend all their time transferring more and more money and stuff out of the hands of the lower 80% and the people at large represented in the state into their own grubby hands. Racial neoliberalism results in the wild enrichment of those at the top, the decimation of the middle classes and the reduction of huge segments of society to near pauperism via economic immiseration. Free markets don’t make everybody rich. All they do is turn your country into Latin America.

The book’s got a blurb from the Indian CEO of Microsoft:

I have always been motivated to find ways to unite the power of technology and markets with the goal of creating a more egalitarian society. This book offers the most intriguing vision I have seen to date in uniting these apparently contradictory strands.

–Satya Nadella, Chief Executive Officer, Microsoft

A blurb from the head of Microsoft. That should serve as a warning. You think this Indian goon cares one whit about egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is the antithesis of the corporate ethos. If you advocate it, your shareholders can fire you for violating your corporate charter. Nadella is probably some sort of a Libertarian is what I am thinking.

Perhaps the most ambitious attempt to rethink democracy and markets since Milton Friedman…

–Kenneth S. Rogoff, author of The Curse of Cash

That first sentence ought to be a giveaway for what this scam is probably really all about. Comparing these authors with Milton Friedman is probably intentional and should be a heads up to what these two sneaky chameleons are all about. I know nothing about Rogoff, but the seeming praise for the Friedmanstein human monster should be a giveaway. Rogoff is also probably some sort of Libertarian.

These two cretins recently wrote an article for the New Republic on how to reduce income inequality. I’m not far into it yet, but apparently the solution is…open borders! Now you see how Libertarian reactionary with fake neo-Centrist masks sell their poison. The New Republic is a liberal magazine. For quite some time, they went Clintonite DNC Centrist to the point where I could not bear to read them. The magazine was long run by Israel-firster (((Martin Peretz))) and ~20% of the articles were about (((you know who))). It gets annoying after a while. I am not sure where they are at now, but I am sure their politics is categorized as liberal. So a liberal magazine is running poisonous articles by two devious Libertarians deliberately designed to appeal to liberals.

See how this scam works. This is like what they did with the Council on Cultural Freedom in the Cold War. A number of magazines, often literary and political mags, were essentially set up by the CIA. A very prominent one was the Paris Review. These magazines were de facto run by the CIA for many years. The CIA used these quite liberal magazines to attack Communism during the Cold War. Many people who worked at these magazines were never even aware of how they were being turned in marionettes.

Here the ruling class – the capitalists, the corporations and the rich are trying to sell their class politics to liberals and progressives as part of a progressive project. The problem is that a lot of decent liberals are going to get fooled by this scam.

So Libertarians are arguing for the return of indentured servitude. What’s next? Out and out slavery? I suppose if two free individuals enter into a contract for indentured servitude, it’s a-ok with “No Harm Principle” Libertarians. Somehow such an agreement is not harmful to anyone involved.

Eric Posner is the 4th most cited Constitutional scholar in the US. And this is how he thinks. The ideologues who run our system are monsters.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.


Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, European, Government, History, Journalism, Labor, Law, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Marxism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA

Why Would Anyone Like America?

Good question!

Answered on Quora. I got a comment on this article from a woman that I think is very interesting. First she said, when I think of America as a person, I feel very uncomfortable. And well you should! Narcissists and sociopaths make a lot of people shiver. Then she tried to answer the question of how in heck did this country end up this way. She traces Radical Individualism, the true and only religion that America has ever had, to the type of immigrants who came to our shores. She may be onto something.

If you are conservative to reactionary, it’s a great place to live, as the US is clearly one of the most rightwing places on Earth and has been for a long time. Do you believe in radical individualism or “let em die” Libertarianism. America is the home for such things. America is one of the most callous countries on Earth and its foreign policy has always been vicious and wicked. It believes that there one set of rules for it and another set for its enemies.

It commits Nazi-like wars of aggression against its enemies all the time. America is the worst bully on the planet and has been for a very long time. America has always been for the rich and the corporations and has always treated its workers, poor, low income, and minorities like complete garbage. It hasn’t even treated its middle classes very well, but it took them forever to figure it out.

The hatred of working people and unions in the US is off the charts. This one of the only countries on Earth that actually hates labor unions. America is one of the only countries on Earth that hates government. Any time the government tries to help the people, Americans react in rage and revolt. This is one of the only countries on Earth where people hate paying taxes because that means that they have to share with other Americans. Americans are the most aggressively selfish people on Earth.

This is one of the only countries on Earth that actually hates public education (because it helps the people), and it has been rolling it back and privatizing it ever since. Botswana is the only country besides the US that does not have a government health system. This is because Americans are so callous that they don’t care if other Americans get sick or die. The message is that if you are not rich, you don’t deserve healthcare and you need to die.

American foreign policy has only helped the top 20% of the people in the countries it engages. Anytime any country tries to help its workers or its ordinary people in any way, for example trying to help the 80% bottom instead of the 20% top, it gets attacked in one way or another by the US.

A prime example is the minimum wage. Many nations in Latin America have been attacked by the US for simply daring to wage the minimum wage! Aristide in Haiti raised the minimum wage and built more schools in eight years than in the previous 200. For these crimes, death squads were sent against its people, killing thousands of them, and kidnapping Aristide at gunpoint.

The President of Honduras raised the minimum wage. For this, he was ousted by a US coup, imprisoned in a foreign embassy and threatened with death, a new coup government was put in by the US, and the US set up death squads that have now murdered over 1,000 people.

Any time a country tries to do anything nationalist to keep from being a colony of the US and its allies, the US attacks it. The US wants to keep most of the Earth in bondage to the US, their resources plundered, their people immiserated, so all of the wealth in the land goes to the US. America is the new Roman Empire and most of the world is made up of our vassals.

The purpose of the US military is to threaten any nation that tries to help itself or its people with annihilation. That’s what you are signing up for when you join the military. Thing is that Americans love all of this. They cheer for it, for this is the essence of US patriotism or jingoism. Even US liberals support almost everything that I wrote above. I am always shocked when I speak to US liberal Democrats by how much they have bought into the patriotic reactionary swill.

The basis for all of this is something called radical individualism. US foreign policy is based on something called US imperialism that says that the US is dictator the world and most of the countries in it are slaves and colonies of the US. The American people love radical individualism and US imperialism. Even many liberal Democrats do. Almost all liberal Democrats support US imperialism to the hilt.

All of this is maintained by a completely controlled media controlled by very rich people and huge corporations. This media is viciously anti-people and only supports the rich and the corporations – the only two groups the US has ever represented and fought for.

We have never had a single day of democracy in this country. We started to finally head that way in the 1970’s and 1980’s, and the rich and the corporations founded think tanks and wrote many papers on how to shut down radical democracy in the US. The results of this are, among other things, mass voter disenfranchisement and Jim Crow style voting restrictions designed to keep Black people from voting.

Since 2000, the wealthy and corporate elite discovered voting machines and started stealing elections this way. They have been doing it ever since and it has only gotten worse with time. In 2000, the Supreme Court legalized an actual theft of an election. In 2016, many states went to court to stop recounts in states that were obviously stolen by Republicans with voting machines. Courts in all of these states ruled that recounting the stolen elections was illegal.

Almost every state in the US is radically gerrymandered so that democracy is shattered. For instance, a Democrat could win the popular vote and still lose 86% of the seats to Republicans. This is the case in Alabama, Wisconsin, Virginia, and many other places. The Republicans only need two more states, and then the rich and the corporations will write a constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution to take out everything democratic in it to perpetuate continuous rule by reactionary rich people and corporations. At that time, democracy will have surely died.

With the election of Donald Trump, we see an actual American fascism taking shape. Of course this fascism has always lurked in the background, and in fact I would say we have always been a fascist country or at least a radical rightwing authoritarian country in many ways. But this is the most overt fascism we have seen in the US in a very long time.
The hatred for democracy runs deep in the bones of Americans and right now, maybe 1/3 of the population is overtly fascist. I would say that America has always been a great country for rightwingers, as it has been a far rightwing country for most of its history. The jingoists, patriots, and flag wavers are almost all rightwingers and always have been. This is their paradise and it always has been.

That is why rightwingers, reactionaries, and fascists have been flooding to the US for many years now. This is considered to be the Rightwing Dreamland of the rich and corporate classes the world over. In fact, our immigration policy was deliberately set up for many years to favor rightwingers and reactionaries and to keep leftwing immigrants out. This only made the country more and more rightwing. Incredibly, the Democratic Party supported this favoring of rightwing immigrants and opposing of leftwing immigrants.

The Democratic Party and Democratic Presidents have been part of the whole process above for most our history. They just push it forward less hard and sometimes they tinker around the edges to do something for the people. We had a large populist uprising from 1910–1920 in the US and then again in the Great Depression. For the first time in its history, the US government actually worked for the people and did many things to benefit the common man instead of just taking money from the bottom 80% and giving it to the top 20% or even 1%, which has been the American Way from Day One.

I would say that if you are a conservative or even a “liberal” who thinks all of the above is the greatest thing since sliced bread, you are correct. America is your paradise. A lot of people love this conservative – reactionary or even now fascist or Libertarian land. It’s their oyster. It’s the apple of their eye. I don’t blame them for feeling that way.

But it has always puzzled me how liberal or leftwing Americans could love this wildly reactionary country. I believe they have been brainwashed by patriotism and bullied into going along with the project. I have seen many liberals and even out and out Leftists shouting jingoistic tripe, screaming that America is the best country on Earth (83% of Americans believe this silliness), and ordering anyone who disagrees to leave the country. The enforced jingoism runs deep.

But really what is there to like here for a liberal to progressive person? Honestly not even one single thing. How could the most rightwing country on Earth be some leftwing paradise? It makes no sense.

So there you have it. America is great for rightwingers. This is their ultimate dream. For liberals and especially for progressive people, it has always been a dystopian Hell, one of Dante’s nine circles.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.


Filed under American, Caribbean, Central America, Conservatism, Culture, Democrats, Education, Fascism, Geopolitics, Government, Haiti, Health, History, Honduras, Immigration, Imperialism, Journalism, Labor, Latin America, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Military Doctrine, Modern, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US, US Politics, USA

Jews and the Hollywood Sleazeathon

This whole sordid episode of the unfolding of mass Hollywood sleaze among heavily-Jewish Hollywood and media men is interesting. And yes, they are heavily Jewish. I counted up recently and 41% of the 21 men accused (nine out of 21) recently were Jews. Of course, Gentile men are complete pigs too, but this does seem to cement the conservative stereotype of Hollywood Jewish men as depraved, secular, liberal Jews.

Back in the 1950’s, Hollywood and acting was considered to be seedy business and as such, many Christian Gentiles thought it was too sleazy to get involved in. Jews apparently not being encumbered by such moral anchors, moved readily into the business. This is the Jewish argument – that a number of fields that Gentiles avoided due to being seen as sleazy or morally tainted quickly became filled with Jews. Banking being one example.

Also Jews had already captured Hollywood in an actual conspiracy from 1900-1920.  Five Jews from Galicia ended up controlling most of the industry. The conspiracy was hatched at a time when Jews were very tribal and were frankly a menace. They took over Hollywood and the newspaper media at this time. This efforts were funded by some wealthy Jews mostly out of New York. They also made runs on Wall Street and commercial banking.

Both of these were stopped because Gentiles were quite anti-Semitic in those days, and anti-Semitism was  both highly adaptive and necessary against Jews waging ethnic warfare against other groups. Word got out among Gentiles that the Jews were making runs on Wall Street and the Gentiles simply stopped selling seats to Jews. Of course the Jews had long ago stopped selling their seats to Gentiles. So the run was stopped, but Wall Street now is quite Jewish. Quite Jewish is not the same thing as being run by Jews. Wall Street is not run by the Jews the same way that Hollywood and the media are. Wall Street is full of Gentiles, mostly White men.

Later on, the Jews made runs on banking in the US. Once again, anti-Semitic Gentiles blew the whistle on them and simply stopped selling banks to Jews. The Jews were unable to get very far in US commercial banking, so Jews have never run the banks in the US the way they did in Europe for a long time. However, the Jews were able to make a significant penetration of financial banking before they were stopped once again by alarmed anti-Semitic Gentiles. Jews are much less tribal nowadays, which is good for them and us. Tribal Jews cause anti-Semitism like night follows day. Nevertheless, the remains of their earlier tribal forays can be seen to this day.

All of these episodes were laid out immaculately in Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent and later in The International Jew, which is actually not a bad book. I also do not consider it be more anti-Semitic than it needed to be. He opposed  pogroms will all of his force and mostly the book was a plea for Jews to stop being so tribal and work together with Gentiles. “Come, Jews! Join us Gentiles and together we will build a great America!” He says at one point. Ford comes across as more exasperated than anything else. Of course the paper and the book are now tagged as evil anti-Semitic publications. Be that as it may, I have read the book and a lot of back issues of the paper and I concluded that much of what Ford said was simply true. The tone of the paper was cynical and exasperated too.

For the crime of telling the truth and exhorting Jews to give up their vicious ethnic warfare and work to build a better country (“Jews! Stop being Jews, and start being Americans!” he exhorts at one time.) the Jews tried to kill Ford. There was an attempt to murder him by running him off the road on a country lane in the 1930’s. It was widely thought that Jews were behind the murder attempt.

This shows you that when Jews are viciously tribal, Gentiles absolutely must become anti-Semitic in order to stop their conspiracies and schemes. If Gentiles don’t organize to stop the Jewish plots, the Jews will take over most of your country and economy. So in that sense, anti-Semitism is not just adaptive but also necessary. Of course, as Jews get less tribal, anti-Semitism becomes a lot less important down to where it is probably not necessary anymore.


Filed under Anti-Semitism, California, Cinema, Conspiracies, Europe, History, Jews, Journalism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, The Jewish Question, US, USA, West

Who Is This Man?


Who is this man?

This man is no longer alive, having died recently. What is he famous for? What was his profession? Where did he live most of his life?


Filed under Celebrities, Journalism

HBD: Do IQ Tests Have a Cultural Bias? If So, How Do They Need to Be Reformed?

Answered on Quora.

We must talk about two types of scientific thinking.

The first type are the intelligence researchers, the top names in the field, and people who actually study the issue. They write in journals like Intelligence. Charles Murray, Philippe Rushton, Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn, and James Flynn are some of the top names in this field. I keep up with the field, and Flynn, discoverer of the Flynn Effect, is actually an acquaintance, so I know what I am talking about.

These and a few others are actually the most respected names in the field. However, outside the field, Murray, Rushton, Lynn and even Jensen are often pilloried as racists, and the popular line is that their work is pseudoscience or scientific racism. However, in the intelligence community, they are regarded as the top names of all, their work is regarded as excellent science, and their views are regarded as valid hypotheses about race and intelligence that are worth investigating.

Although the genes versus environment matter for IQ has not been sorted out (the above names are some of those fighting it out), the argument in the journals about whether the tests are culturally biased or not was settled long ago. The leaders of the Pure Environment group such as Nesbitt ran up the white flag a while back on the cultural bias issue. Nesbitt never talks about cultural bias anymore and accepts that the tests are valid. Instead, he argues about different things. He simply argues that the scores are correct, but the differences are due to environment, not genes.

The problem here is that just about nobody is monitoring the actual debate in the intelligence community and the journals, so a huge disconnect has emerged between popular scientists and journalists who write on this subject and the experts in the field.
The former continue to insist that the tests are biased despite the fact that the matter was settled in the journals for some time now. The people writing in the popular press are either not following the debate in the journals or they are and they are lying (I cynically suspect the latter). To be honest, there are a few radicals in the community who continue to insist that the tests are biased, but they were defeated as a group a while back. There are only a few holdouts left.

Almost everyone who knows about the issue follows the debate in the press, but almost none of them bother to dig into the actual debate in the books and journals, so you get this huge disconnect between how the state of the debate is portrayed in the popular press and the actual state of the debate in the field.

Long story short, the debate has been settled for quite some time now in the field (15–20 years), and the cultural bias folks mostly admitted they were defeated, acknowledged that the tests were not biased, and moved on to other arguments. But popular opinion has not caught up with the science, so flat-out lies such as that the consensus among intelligence researchers is that IQ tests are biased continue to be peddled as fact, and most readers are not educated enough to figure out that they are being lied to.

The tests are correct. There are indeed differences in average intelligence between the races. The debate’s over on that too for quite some time now. Instead the debate has shifted to whether these differences are due to genes, environment, or both.
Popular opinion is lost back 15 years ago, anyone who says there are documented intelligence differences among the races is shouted down as an evil racist, and massive attempts are made to destroy their lives and careers for stating a simple fact of science. James Watson was a recent casualty. It’s pretty depressing when people are getting fired for telling the truth, but it happens all the time in our PC Culture where the truth is often Outlawed Speech, and patent lies masquerade as fact.


Filed under Culture, Intelligence, Journalism, Psychology, Race Realism, Science