Category Archives: Labor

Seeing Yourself or Your Associations as Superior Is Very Proscribed in US Society

Lee: Well, basically every Chinese have this “I am superior and these people are inferior” thing…

HongKonger and Taiwanese thinks they’re superior than mainland Chinese; Shanghainese think they’re superior than all the rest of the country, city folks think they’re superior than rural folks; Southerns thinks they’re superior than Northerners and vice versa; science students thinks they’re superior than liberal art students; kids think my parents/dogs/toys are superior than yours… basically everyone finds something superior about themselves.

I have no doubt rednecks also feel superior than other people. I think it’s the competitive nature in human. Whether people say it out loud or not is just a matter of personality. I heard that American culture encourage people to brag about themselves.

We don’t really have that in this country. I can’t think of any state in the US where people think they are better than other people. And I can’t think of any region in the country that thinks it is better than other regions.

You aren’t supposed to think like that if you are an American.

STEM students think that their major is the only rational one. They would like to make it so that STEM and business are the only things that are offered at a university. I doubt if STEM people think they are better than Liberal Arts students. They just think that Liberal Arts degrees are useless and a waste of money.

I have two Liberal Arts or Humanities degrees – three is you count teaching.

1. Journalism.

2. Teaching.
3. Linguistics

I have hardly met one single person who has ever told me that those degrees are useless or stupid or who ever said that their degree was better than my degree.

Rednecks don’t really think they are better than other types of people, at least not that I am aware of.

A lot of Americans don’t like people from some states or regions or maybe they don’t like city people or country rednecks, but they won’t say it is because I am superior to them. They will say that people from some state are living in the Dark Ages or they are backwards, racist people. They’re not really inferior – they just have a point of view that is not compatible with modern society.

A lot of liberals hate conservatives, and conservatives hate liberals. But liberals don’t think they are better than conservatives to my knowledge. We just think they are backwards, wrongheaded people with a frankly disgusting and immoral point of view. They’re not inferior though. We might say they are bad. But bad doesn’t mean inferior. It means they have a political view that you feel is very harmful and dangerous.

Conservatives think the same about liberals. But I am not aware that conservatives think they are superior to liberals. They just think we are bad, wrongheaded or even evil. But in the US, evil doesn’t mean inferior. In this sense, it means that the liberal POV is so pernicious and dangerous that it is going to be harmful to society.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough how much American society opposes bragging, talking about superior people and inferior people, or acting like you are better than other people. If you go around all the time talking about how you or your state or your region or you ethnic group or your college major is superior to other states, regions, ethnics or majors, pretty soon you will not have any friends. I learned this pretty early on in life.

If I went out today and starting talking about how Californians are superior to people from other states, it would be very soon that someone would tell me to shut up. And I live in California!

I couldn’t even say the West is better. People would tell me to shut up then too.

Of course if I say Whites are better, I will get told off in a hurry. Or Germans, or British, or whoever. I am going to get told off before I even say much of anything along those lines.

Certainly if I said my college majors were superior to some other inferior majors, I would get told to shut up too.

I heard that American culture encourage people to brag about themselves.

You are not supposed to talk about the superior people and the inferior people in the US. It’s called “putting on airs” and it is looked down upon to a profound degree. Nobody, but nobody, but nobody likes it! You will get told to shut up real quick, and if you don’t learn your lesson, soon no one will talk to you.

Now granted, rich and middle class people think they are better than poor people. A lot of Whites or Asians think they are better. There is still some ethnic chauvinism around.

Nevertheless, I have had a low income for decades. I talk to people who make very good incomes sometimes, and they are very friendly to me. Some of them were even quite close to me, as in relatives. My income situation is not brought up. I am intelligent, highly educated, and polite, and a lot of higher income people think people like that are interesting people regardless of their income. So while I do not have much money, I probably act like someone who makes more money than I do. My income may be low, but my behavior is middle class, at the least.

Sure people think in this superior-inferior way, but you won’t hear people talk like that a whole lot. It is considered in very bad taste to brag about how rich you are or even to visibly look down on people of lower classes. If you do so openly, you are going to get told to knock it off in one way or another. I guarantee that you will be very disliked.

There was a guy at my junior college whose parents were rich. I went on a ski trip with him and other students to Colorado. From early on in the trip, he bragged all the time about how rich his family was. It wasn’t long before everyone on the whole trip hated him. People talked about him a lot behind his back. Others started making subtle remarks telling him to knock it the Hell off. I roomed with the guy and three other guys. Towards the end of the weeklong trip, I made some oblique comment about how his bragging about being rich was really angering a lot of people in the group and that people had been communicating this to him all week. I didn’t come out and say it. Instead I said it in a sort of hidden code. He figured out what I meant, and he told me in an annoyed tone that he had gotten the message loud and clear.

We are very much a class-oriented society, but we are supposed to pretend that we are all equal.

Americans probably hate Communism more than any other people, but there is this odd attitude in the US that we are somehow a classless society or at least that class is something that doesn’t even exist here. This is seen in the attitude of so many Americans that they are “middle class.” A guy making $15,000 a  year might describe himself as middle class. Republican politicians making $400-500,000 a year routinely describe themselves as middle class. It is as if the rich and the poor are not even there – instead everyone is this sort of hazy, floating, undefined middle class sort of person.

I lived in a working class White community for a while. There were a lot of well to do people there who had high paying jobs. Everyone was very nice to everyone else, even the trashmen, the clerks in the 7-11’s, and gas stations, basically all of what you would call lousy, low paying jobs. It is quite amazing to see how polite an attorney will be to a trashman or gas station clerk in a town like that. There is also this attitude in White culture that “you never put down a man for working at a job.” It goes along with “any job is a good job.” If you had a good job and treated the trashman or gas station clerk with this superior to inferior disdain, a lot of people would see you and think very poorly of you. It is just not something you are supposed to do.

Once I asked my mother if she thought anyone was inferior. “How about some serial killer on death row?” I asked. She shook her head. “It’s not a matter of superior and inferior. He’s not inferior – he’s just bad. It’s a moral matter or right and wrong, good and bad.”

I am aware that Chinese think like that along with Asians in general. Indians are notorious for this thinking. It may be common in some other parts of globe. Americans consider this sort of thinking to be a sign of a backwards culture.


Filed under American, Asians, Chinese (Ethnic), Conservatism, Culture, East Indians, Higher Education, Labor, Liberalism, Political Science, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology, South Asians, USA, Whites

US Foreign Policy Has Always Been Far More Rightwing Than US Domestic Policy

Jason Y writes: Possibly the Democrats in the US need the US NAM’s for votes, but they don’t need NAM’s in other countries.

US foreign policy has always been far more reactionary than US domestic policy. This contrast is especially stark when looking at the Democratic Party.

The Cold War made this so much worse. The Republicans said any leader who liked labor unions or raised the minimum wage was a Soviet-supporting Communist who needed to be killed or removed via a coup. And many were killed and especially removed via coups.

At the same time, the Republicans spent most of the Cold War screaming at the Democrats for being Communists or at the very least Communist sympathizers or fellow travelers. The Democrats ran scared all through the Cold War, always terrified of being called “soft on Communism.” So they tried to out-Cold War the Republicans and bent to try to out-hate the USSR.

Hence, the Democrats went along with Jonathan Foster Dulles reactionary Containment Project he initiated in the late 1940’s. Foster Dulles was a very rich man who came from old East Coast money. He was also a very rightwing government official. US foreign policy followed Dulles dictum from the 1940’s on, so our foreign policy was molded on a template created by a reactionary from the ruling class.

When Reagan came in, he updated Containment with actual Rollback, and we got Contras, wars in Mozambique and Angola, etc. The Reaganites kept accusing the Democrats of being soft on Communism, and once again, the Democrats ran scared. The horrific Central American projects of the 1980’s, where the US government set up and helped run rightwing death squads that raged across the land, murdering tens of thousands of civilians, was mostly run by some of the most liberal men in Congress, especially the shameful super-liberal Alan Cranston of California and Chris Dodd, the very liberal Connecticut “Senator from Aetna.”

Keep in mind that US foreign policy was reactionary even before the Cold War.

FDR, one of our finest presidents, was a reactionary on foreign policy. He supported the murderous dictator Somoza in Nicaragua, and he made the famous comment, “Somoza may be a bastard, but he’s our bastard.”

Liberal President Woodrow Wilson was not only a reactionary and a proto-humanitarian bomber, but he was also a very racist man domestically. In modern terms, Wilson would be a flat out White Supremacist out of American Renaissance.

The liberal reformer Teddy Roosevelt continued the Monroe Doctrine that declared all of Latin America to be effectively colonies of the US. His famous statement, “Walk softly but carry a big stick,” referred to his reactionary bullying, aggression and immiseration towards our quasi-colonies in Latin America.

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, Central America, Cold War, Conservatism, Democrats, Fascism, Geopolitics, Government, History, Labor, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Nicaragua, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USSR

How the Right Uses Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric to Further Its Reactionary Goals

I am not going to discuss here the rightwing use of anti-immigration policy as a way of politicizing racism, nor as a means of splintering the working class and getting a lot of workers to vote for the parties of the ruling class by voting for rightwing anti-immigrant politicians. Both of those are well-known goals of anti-immigrant discourse.

Not that anti-immigrant discourse is all bad. There are times when immigration is out of control and things need to be brought under order. The use of foreign workers are temporary low wage scabs to increase profits, the abuse of the refugee program, large numbers of problematic immigrants coming to a country, immigrants straining government services, illegal immigrants, environmental degradation by mass immigration, changing the nation’s ethnic and cultural character via mass immigration of foreigners, all of these things are examples of some of the negative effects that can occur via unregulated or poorly regulated immigration.

What I wish to talk about here is something different: anti-immigration rhetoric as a rightwing diversion from rightwing projects, in this case to dismantle the state.

A wildly corrupt and outrageous rightwing parliamentary coup followed by a blatantly corrupt trial of the head of the former president resulted in a hard rightwing putschist state pursuing a radical reactionary project of dismantling all of the progressive reforms of the leftwing PT government under President Lula. Since then, public institutions have been systematically defunded even when they were already underfunded to start with in part because Brazil has never once taxed the rich in its entire existence as a nation. So public services are collapsing due to defunding in the same way that public entities collapsed under rightwing Sam Brownblack in Kansas and the NHS is presently collapsing in the UK due to a death by a thousand cuts via the Tory government.

Public frustration over the collapsing state is at a high level. At the same time, many new immigrants have been coming into Brazil due to the rightwing and US-created collapse of the economy there.

You need to understand about immigration in Latin America. It does not have the racist overtones of the debate here in the US about immigration. Also the income differences between the countries of Latin America are not vast. Latin American nations consider all Latin Americans to be part of a single ethnic mixed race people sharing a single Latin American basic culture. In many countries, the immigrants speak the same language as the residents. This makes even mass immigration much more of a “meh” issue in Latin America than it is here. All Latin Americans are brothers, ethnically, culturally and often linguistically, so why not let your brothers into your house when they desire shelter from a storm?

Hence, even White Argentina has been taking in large numbers of mestizo immigrants from Peru and Bolivia lately with a promise to soon legalize them all. Even heavily White Costa Rica has taken in 1-2 million mestizos from its neighbors who are either impoverished or devastated by street crime with an apparent promise to normalize most of them. Venezuela took in many Colombians fleeing war and poverty without batting an eye, and Colombia took in many rightwing Venezuelans fleeing Chavismo. Except in Mexico, immigrants are seldom deported in Latin America. The idea is to house, integrate and even legalize them as soon as possible.

Nevertheless, the line of Venezuelan immigrants has turned into a flood in some cities.

Brazil’s rightwing gangster state has made clever use of the problems of mass Venezuelan immigration by deviously blaming the collapsed public services (devastated and defunded by rightwing evisceration) on the masses of Venezuelan immigrants! This is apparently not true at all. The immigrants are not overwhelming public services and causing them to collapse. Instead the public services are collapsing via gutting by the rightwing state.

But the government has the people whipped into a wild nativist frenzy over this. This is in spite of the fact that Brazilians and Venezuelans are probably little different ethnically – both being some mixture of Black, White, and Indian. The result has been daily attacks on Venezuelan immigrants in some cities and most recently a spate of high profile arson attacks on buildings housing Venezuelan immigrants.

This could be called attacks on immigrants as a diversion from anti-people rightwing projects. It’s a way of getting people to look the other way and scapegoat innocent people while the state is dismantled by the rich.

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.

1 Comment

Filed under Americas, Argentina, Brazil, Britain, Central America, Colombia, Conservatism, Corruption, Costa Rica, Economics, Europe, Fake Guest Workers, Government, Illegal, Immigration, Labor, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Legal, Mestizos, Mexico, Midwest, Mixed Race, Peru, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, South America, US Politics, USA, Venezuela, Whites

Crimes of the US-supported UN in Iraq and Haiti

The UN is also completely controlled by the US. Notice that they went into Iraq after our Nazi-like war of aggression and subsequent occupation and colonization of Iraq. They went in there to give the UN’s stamp of approval to this sickening and completely illegal war of conquest. I am so happy that Zarqawi bombed the UN building, killing the UN official assigned to give cover to the occupation of Iraq along with 41 other UN thugs.

Remember when the US staged a coup to over throw Aristide in Haiti? His crime? He raised the minimum wage. This even angered the Clintons, as the Clintons have assets in low-wage factories in Haiti. He also built more schools in eight years than had been built in the previous 200 years. Any country in our Monroe Doctrine backyard that tries to help its people in any way is usually called Communist and attacked by the gangsters in the Pentagon and CIA.

After Aristide was overthrown, the US put in a new government and formed a new military because “liberal Democrat” Bill Clinton had forbidden Aristide to have a military! With no military, this set him up for a coup cooked up by the CIA with a fascist army operating out of Trujillo-land, I mean the Dominican Republic.

The CIA helped reform the Tonton Macutes reformed, who soon set about murdering Aristide supporters. In a short period of time, the reformed Macutes murdered over 3,000 Aristide supporters. During this period, the criminal UN were called in to ratify the US coup. UN soldiers from three different countries stood by and did nothing while the Macutes death squads raged across the land. In fact, the UN army spent most of its time on the edges of the huge slums trying to keep the people from fighting back against the death squads. In this way, the UN army was actually part of the death squad apparatus, pacifying the slums and encircling them so the death squads could murder with greater impunity.

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 Caribbean, Democrats, Dominican Republic, Geopolitics, Government, Haiti, Iraq War, Labor, Latin America, Law, Military Doctrine, Politics, Regional, US Politics, USA, 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

I Fired an Employee When I Learned She Voted for Trump. Is This Illegal?

Answered on Quora.

It is absolutely not illegal in most states of the United States, although a few states do have laws protecting political beliefs. But in general, political beliefs are not a protected class. In some countries in Europe, you cannot fire people for their politics, but in most of the world, of course you can be fired for your political beliefs. Especially in an at-will state like California, which is hire at will, fire at will, you can fire anyone for any legal reason or for no reason at all.

And they do just that. It’s happened to me a number of times. I’ve been fired more than once for what I could only conclude was the fact that the boss simply didn’t like me. And there didn’t seem to be much I could do about that fact, that is, there didn’t seem to be any way to change my behavior so this person would like me. They just hated me at my core essence self, and when someone hates you at that base level, they’re gone forever and there’s no retrieving them.

I have even been fired for refusing to go along with Labor Code violations. My time was increased from 8 to 16 hours a day. Actually one shift was fired, and two shifts’ work were piled on me. I was forced to work 8 hours a day overtime. Forced overtime is illegal in California. I would put in maybe 9–10 hours of the 16 hour shift and go home, as was my legal right since they were breaking the law. Didn’t take them long to fire me.

I have been studying people who get fired from jobs I worked at and my friends who got fired from jobs. In ~90% of cases, I concluded that the person was not being fired for just cause but they were only being fired because the boss or co-workers or often both simply did not like the person. I think maybe only 10% of firings are due to true egregious and inexcusable work performance.

They never say they are firing you because they don’t like you. Instead they just make up a bunch of lies about “poor performance.” It doesn’t matter how good your performance is, if they want to get rid of you, you always have “poor performance” no matter how well you do your job.

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 California, Labor, Law, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA, West

“Rowing,” by Alpha Unit

Anyone who has not rowed in a really close boat race cannot comprehend the level of pain. – Dan Topolski

In 1936 the United States Men’s Olympic eight-oar rowing team won the gold medal in Berlin. These rowers from the University of Washington were the sons of laborers, farmers, loggers, and shipyard workers. They had beaten their acclaimed arch-rival, Berkeley. They had prevailed over elite East Coast rowing teams. They had defeated Great Britain, whose Olympic team were oarsmen from Oxford and Cambridge. People who read their story are moved and inspired by it, seeing it as a story of underdogs who came out on top.

Perhaps it is. But rowing began as a “blue collar” pastime. Rowing contests had long been popular with sailors and fishermen and in fact dated all the way back to ancient times. But the modern sport of rowing was created by working class men in eighteenth-century England. They were ferrymen and taxi service providers on the River Thames.

Boatmen began to compete with one another, first for pleasure, to see who would arrive at his destination first. The races became popular and started to attract crowds. Rowing evolved into a bona fide sport when wealthy enthusiasts began offering prizes to the winners. By the 1820s Oxford and Cambridge had established their famous Boat Race.

Rowing eventually caught on in the United States, too, initially in the port cities of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. It was one of the first sports to become popular here, particularly among those who could afford it; Yale University started the first collegiate rowing club in 1843. The oldest intercollegiate athletic event in the country is the Harvard-Yale Regatta, established in 1852.

Because of the cost of boats, equipment, maintenance, and training facilities, rowing was expensive. But people liked watching it in the same way people enjoy watching other expensive sports like auto racing. (In fact, NASCAR has similar origins to that of rowing – ordinary working people deciding to race one another while transporting certain goods.)

In competitive rowing, the boats, or shells, come in two types. In a scull, a rower has two oars. In a sweep boat, each rower has one oar. Each seat in the boat is numbered according to its position going from bow (front of the boat) to stern (back of the boat). Where there is a coxswain, he or she occupies an extra seat, usually at the very rear, facing the direction the boat is headed, while rowers face the rear.

For sculls there is the single (one rower), the double (two rowers), and the quad (four rowers). For sweep boats there is the pair, the coxed pair (two rowers and a coxswain), the four, the coxed four (four rowers and a coxswain), and the eight (eight rowers and a coxswain).

The coxswain (COX-un) or cox is smaller than the rest of the team but is a vital addition to the boat. This person’s main job is keeping the boat in its lane. If it moves out of its lane it can be disqualified, so the cox keeps it straight, steering it by pulling wires attached to the boat’s rudder. The safety of the boat and everyone in it is the cox’s responsibility. The cox is also the voice of the boat: he or she calls out instructions to the crew and motivates and guides them till the end of the race.

Take, for example, the men’s eight. At the front of the boat are the bow pair, seats 1 and 2. At the back of the boat are the stern pair, seats 7 and 8. The rower closest to the stern, in seat 8, is the stroke. The stroke sets the pace for the crew. Everyone else follows his timing, placing their blades (oars) in and out of the water exactly when he does.

The stroke establishes the crew’s rate (number of strokes per minute) and rhythm. In addition to having great stamina he is one of the most technically sound members of the boat.

The rower directly behind the stroke in seat 7 closely follows the rhythm set by the stroke and helps transmit the rhythm to the rest of the boat.

The middle rowers (numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6) are the heaviest and most powerful rowers. Their nickname is the engine room. These rowers, being closer to the centers of mass and buoyancy, have less effect on boat movement so they don’t have to be as technically proficient. They can concentrate on pulling as hard as they can.

The bow pair are the stabilizer of the boat. The hull is narrower at the front of the boat and rowers can easily feel any subtle movements there. The bow pair have to be able to make appropriate adjustments while keeping in sync with the stern pair. Bowmen are usually smaller than the rest of the rowers.

From the start of the race the cox is instructing the team, letting them know when and how to adjust their rowing and at times telling them who’s ahead or behind and by how much. He drives them forward, and they’re going to need it. Not long after they begin rowing, every fiber of their bodies is going to be screaming at them to give up.

Pain is an inescapable part of sports. But with rowing, there are no “time outs” for pain. The race doesn’t shut down because people are in pain. You brace yourself for the pain and when it comes – and it surely will – you begin to fight it. Rowing is essentially a contest to see who can endure the most pain. That’s what some rowers say. Here is rower John Seabrook’s well-known observation:

Marathon runners talk about hitting “the wall” at the twenty-third mile of the race. What rowers confront isn’t a wall; it’s a hole – an abyss of pain, which opens up in the second minute of the race. Large needles are being driven into your thigh muscles, while your forearms seem to be splitting. Then the pain becomes confused and disorganized, not like the windedness of the runner or the leg burn of the biker but an all-over, savage unpleasantness.

As you pass the 500-meter mark, with three quarters of the race still to row, you realize with dread that you are not going to make it to the finish, but at the same time the idea of letting your teammates down by not rowing your hardest is unthinkable.

Yes, rowing is about pain. But sometimes a crew doesn’t just keep pushing ahead through pain; they actually rise above it.

Legendary rowing coach Ky Ebright said that a boat cannot be jerked through the water. There is a rhythm of the water and everything must flow smoothly. And sometimes a team will begin to adjust to each other through what Michael Socolow calls a nonverbal and unconscious “cooperative physicality.”

If one rower barely drops his hands, somewhere else in the eight, another will slightly raise his to maintain balance and harmony. The process is automatic. Every single stroke is slightly different, with numerous tiny, simultaneous adjustments constantly occurring, until a crew move beyond conscious adjustment and into the realm of unspoken sensitivity to their environment and teammates.

With all eight oars in sync like this, a team can reach a moment when the boat seems to lift out of the water, says one rower.

…Then all of a sudden the race is over and you don’t remember anything about the race except that you ended up two boat lengths ahead.

This moment is what rowers call swing. This, more than anything else, is the goal of rowing.

Rowers will tell you that they’ve only experienced swing in perhaps three or four races in their entire careers. You can’t conjure up swing or force it to happen. You have to have some other way to get through. Trevor Teller tells what keeps him going until he’s over the finish line.

The reason I never stop is because giving up before the end would make all the pain pointless.

1 Comment

Filed under Alpha Unit, Britain, Europe, Guest Posts, History, Labor, Regional, Sports, USA

Mexican Indians Are Not a Problem in the US or in Mexico

Trash: Mexican Indians of certain tribes would be a close second (to US ghetto Blacks).

Mexican Indians do not really act bad at all. We have lots of them around here and they cause almost no problems whatsoever. They are these short, dark, rather squat, very reserved,  and stoic ancient  people with ancient village traditions that go back forever. The men are, very masculine in a sense of being tough as nails and stoical but almost androgynous in another sense of being almost painfully quiet and passive to an extent that is nearly feminine.

They are very relaxed, and you often see two Mexican Indian men walking down the street with their arms around each other. That’s not considered gay at all. Gender roles are quite a bit more relaxed than with mestizos. I hear some of those Indian cultures down there even accept their local version of transvestites and some of those Indian cultures are nearly matriarchies. Women are everywhere running everything. They run outdoor markets for instance.

Of course, they have a terrible problem with alcohol. You can see them late at night sometimes stumbling around drunk. In fact, some of the local gang punks I knew around here had made a habit out of “rolling paisas.” The “paisas” are the Mexicans who barely speak English, often Indian. “Paisa” basically means an illegal immigrant. They work heavily in the fields so much so that they have monopolized them and are hostile to others who try to work there.

One of my White friends worked in the fields for a bit, but he said the work was very hard and there was no way to keep up with the paisas, who had it down somehow. Also the paisas had monopolized the fields, and they let Whites know they were unwanted.  They would try to drive you off the job. There was quite good money to be made on piecework if you worked extremely fast. Some of the paisas are now using meth out in the fields to work faster.

The gangsters would go out at 3 AM after bars closed and look for “paisas to roll.” They would see one stumbling down an alleyway drunk (they are mostly on foot and many have no cars) at 3 AM after the bars let out. They would roll him by hitting him and knocking  him over and  then rifling his pockets for money. Paisas typically do not have bank accounts because they are illegals, so they keep all of their earnings in their pockets all of the time (they get paid in cash). They paisas are typically not badly injured in these attacks, but they might lose $300. Also they will not go to the police because they were drunk and illegals are scared of going to the police.

For the most part, they simply will not talk to you even if you try to talk to them. Some of them still speak their Indian languages, which sound completely insane and nothing like Spanish. I was walking by a store one night and I saw several Indian men in a circle speaking what sounded very much like Chinese! I asked them in Spanish, what language they were speaking, and although they did not want to talk to me, they said Trique. Trique sounds Chinese because it has tones like Chinese and other East Asian languages. I even asked them in Spanish how well the different Trique languages could understand each other. They answered, but their basic attitude was, “Get lost.”

There is not much crime in their villages either. They deal pretty harshly with criminals there. A lot of the women are not pretty, particularly as they age as they age very poorly. But some of the young women are strikingly beautiful, although there is a tendency to be fat. Those hot young Mexican Indian women will not have anything to do with a White man. They won’t talk at me or look at me or anything. They seem to only date Indian men.

The whole problem with Mexicans comes from mestizos, many of whom are 50-70% White. It’s not really a race thing with Mexicans so much. More like a culture that is pure crap, like Black culture. It’s not nearly as bad as Black culture, but I don’t like Mexican or Chicano (Mexican-American) culture, sorry. It’s just not for me. I have grown up around it my whole life, and I don’t like it. Some of my best friends growing up were Mexican or half-Mexican.

I even had Mexican girlfriends are dated half-Mexican teenage girls. They were both 15 years old. I later had a 1/4 Mexican girlfriend. But all of those people pretty much just acted like White people. They had fully assimilated into ordinary California American culture. One 15 year old girl was into Chicano culture, but it was not that bad back then. She was a gang girl, and she used to fight other girls! Haha! She sure was devoted though. Too bad I only knew her for a weekend.

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.

1 Comment

Filed under Alcohol, American, Amerindians, California, Crime, Culture, Depressants, Hispanics, Illegal, Immigration, Intoxicants, Labor, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mixed Race, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology, USA, West, Whites