Category Archives: Conservatism

“How Far Will Killary Move to the Left?”


Another pitiful article from The Guardian. Why do British people think this is a leftwing magazine? What sort of Left is that? Tony Blair/Clintonite mushy invertebrate Centrism? If this is what passes for Left media in the UK, I truly feel sorry for you Brits.

I assume Hitlery has to move left because after all, that’s the only way she can move. She can’t really go any further to the Right. If she does, she might either fall off the edge of the Earth or be compelled to run as a Republican on the basis of truth in labeling regulations.

So Billary is already a conservative. And she is moving to the left from this rightwing starting point. I suppose that is heartening.

What I am wondering is if this is all a big scam. Democrats typically run to the left in the primaries and then from there run to right in the general election, where they spend most of the election yelling, “Hey vote for me! I’m a Republican too! But I am a better kind of Republican than this wingnut Neandertal!”

I completely hate it when candidates do this because I never know where they stand on anything.

They run left in the primaries, then they run right in the general election.

Republicans run as freakish rightwing throwbacks in the primaries, horrifying me. But my liberal Democrat friends always assure me that the Republican candidate “isn’t that conservative,” or “is sort of a Centrist” or “is kind of liberal.” I was told this by libdems about George Bush (!) when he was lying about being a “compassionate conservative” (It would have been nice if he was one, but he wasn’t.).

I was told this especially about the terrifying Mitt Romney – that he used to be a liberal, that he governed Massachusetts as a liberal – and that he really didn’t believe all this horrifying stuff he was saying in the primaries as he was running right to get the nomination. In other words, once you get past the fake wingnut chocolate on the outside, Mittens was really a creamy liberal at the center after all.

I don’t know about you, but I judge people based on what they say. When Mitt Romney gambols about in the primaries sounding like a fire-breathing Genghis Khan, I feel sheer terror about this man. Then I am assured that he didn’t really believe any of that stuff when he runs in the real election more towards the center (except for the 47% thing, but libdems told me “he didn’t really mean that”) .

I have no choice but to have to hold all of Mitt’s dittohead remarks against him and consider that he might be a very scary president. The guy acts like a damn weather-vane. He’s had his finger to the wind so long it’s getting chapped. How in God’s name am I supposed when Romney is lying, when he’s telling the truth, what his real positions are, what his fake positions are, or whether he’s a phony liberal or a phony conservative? How the Hell can I tell anything about this guy at all? The guy’s talking out probably five sides of his mouth. By the time he gets to the end of a speech, he’s probably already reversing whatever position he took at the beginning of the speech.

I don’t trust people who I cannot predict. I don’t trust people who say insane, frightening things but then say, “Oh, don’t listen to that. I’m just pretending to be a maniac. Put down the gun, please.” If you’ve taken every position on the political map, I simply don’t trust you. I have no idea how you will act once you get in office, but I will certainly hold your throwback views against you and I will consider very strongly that you might govern as feudal warlord.

I feel the same way about Hitlery. Who’s the real Killary? Supposedly the maniacally rightwing Machiavellian Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 is dead. That’s reassuring, but how do I know that is true? Even the wimpy DNC fake liberal centrist of 2008 is dead and gone. Nice to know, but says who? Hitlery has now transformed into a true progressive. Really? Prove it.

Remember how Obama campaigned on a fairly liberal platform, but then trashed it as soon as he got in and spent four years trying to go halves with the Republicans on everything? How do we know Billary won’t do the same thing?

Bottom line is I don’t trust Killary any more than I trust Romney. If candidates routinely don’t keep their campaign promises, why do they make them in the first place? If my friends keep promising me things that they don’t deliver, they don’t stay friends much longer. I tend to strangerzone those types. That’s one thing I really hate in people.

I have no idea how Billary will govern if she wins. I am a lot more relaxed about her than I am about Romney or fake centrist Jeb Bush, but I worry we will have a re-run of Obama’s first term when he pretended to be a Republican 50% of the time in the name of some noble goal called “bipartisanship.” It wasn’t catastrophic, but there were definitely some scary moments there.

For the last 6 months to year, Obama has been truly governing as a fairly liberal President, possibly because he is a lame duck. Of course he still has serious relapses – check out the TIPP fast track horror for one – but I think I am finally starting to see that Illinois Senator Barack Obama who was rated one of the most liberal people in the Senate time-traveling back at us to the now.


Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Left, Liberalism, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, US Politics

Glenn Greenwald on Why There Is No Freedom of the Press in the West

Apparently in “free” Australia, this is what happens to dissident journalists:

Any society in which it’s a firing offense for journalists to criticize the military is a sickly and undemocratic one.

They get fired. Then they lie about why they were fired, which the West always does about most anything. We need to acknowledge the incredible amount of lying that goes on in the West all the time, particularly in government and media. It’s not a free country when everybody’s lying all the time. There’s nothing free about that except freedom to lie.

The excuses offered by SBS for McIntyre’s firing are so insulting as to be laughable. Minister Turnball denies that he made the decision even as he admits that, beyond his public denunciation, he “drew [McIntyre’s comments] to the attention of SBS’ managing director Michael Ebeid.”

The Minister also issued a statement endorsing McIntyre’s firing, saying that “in his capacity as a reporter employed by SBS he has to comply with and face the consequences of ignoring the SBS social media protocol.” For its part, SBS laughably claims McIntyre wasn’t fired for his views, but, rather, because his “actions have breached the SBS Code of Conduct and social media policy”

The lying, the lying. Obviously Turnbull is the one who got this reporter fired, but as always in the West, he denies doing what he obviously did.

Then they lied about why he was fired, which also happens all the time in the West.

Notably, McIntyre’s firing had nothing to do with any claimed factual inaccuracies of anything he said. As The Washington Post’s Adam Taylor noted, historians and even a former prime minister have long questioned the appropriateness of this holiday given the realities of Anzac’s conduct and the war itself.

As Australian history professor Philip Dwyer documented, McIntyre’s factual assertions are simply true. Whatever else one might say, the issues raised by McIntyre are the subject of entirely legitimate political debate, and they should be. Making it a firing offense for a journalist to weigh in on one side of that debate but not the other is tyrannical.

Exactly. In the West, it’s illegal to tell the truth. Journalists who tell the truth will be fired and they all know it, so they all figure out what lies they are supposed to tell and then they stick to their phony scripts. Government or corporate workers who tell the truth are often fired. As I said, in the West, telling the truth is a fireable offense.

Part of this is driven by the dangers of state-funded media, which typically neuters itself at the altar of orthodoxy. In the U.S. the “liberal” NPR is, not coincidentally, the most extreme media outlet for prohibiting any expressions of views that deviate from convention, even firing two journalists for the crime of appearing at an Occupy Wall Street event.

Identically, NPR refused (and still refuses) to use the word “torture” for Bush interrogation programs because the U.S. government denied that it was; its ombudsman justified this choice by arguing that “the problem is that the word torture is loaded with political and social implications for several reasons, including the fact that torture is illegal under U.S. law and international treaties the United States has signed.” We can’t have a media outlet doing anything that might have “political and social implications” for high government officials!

In other words, they lied. The government lied and said they were not torturing anyone even when they were, the corrupt American Psychological Association, the organization of all American psychologists, went along with the torture and wrote up lengthy lying reports on why the torture wasn’t torture, in other words, why something was not what it was.

And the corrupt media, especially NPR, went along with it, all because they get government funding. A public radio station that is so rightwing that it won’t call torture torture is not liberal in any true meaning of the word. NPR is just another conservative media outlet, albeit one of the least conservative in the country. That the NPR is regarded as only prominent Left dissident or opposition media in the US is stunning.

But his reasoning shows how neutered state-funded media inevitably becomes. Here’s one of the biggest stories in journalism of the last decade, one that sparked a worldwide debate about a huge range of issues, spawned movements for legislative reform, ruptured diplomatic relationships, changed global Internet behavior, and won almost every major journalism award in the West.

And the director of news and current affairs of BBC says they likely would not have reported the story, one that — in addition to all those other achievements — happened to have enraged the British government to which the BBC must maintain fealty.

Exactly. All state media must suck to the state or lose its funding and get its staff fired. So state media is generally made up of state propaganda outlets in most countries, a major dilemma.

A different aspect of what the Australia firing shows is the scam of establishment journalists in defining “objectivity” to mean: “affirming societal orthodoxies.” Journalists are guilty of “opinionating” and “activism” only when they challenge and deviate from popular opinion, not when they embrace and echo it (that’s called “objectivity”).

Yep, in the West, journalists are fired for defying popular opinion. The reason given is that when you become a dissident journalist in the West, you are no longer objective! Incredible. And in the West, the term “objectivity” is defined as being an echo chamber for public opinion and rich and the powerful. As long as you are sucking up to these entities, you are “objective.” Unbelievable.

That’s because, as practiced, “journalistic objectivity” is compelled obeisance to the pieties of the powerful dressed up as something noble.

Then Greenwald gets down the real meat of his argument: the West’s omnipresent exceptionalism and high horse riding.

But what is at the heart of McIntyre’s firing is the real religion of the supposedly “secular West”: mandated worship not just of its military but of its wars. The central dogma of this religion is tribal superiority: Our Side is more civilized, more peaceful, superior to Their Side.

I am so glad he said this because I have been thinking this for so long now but I have never been able to put it into words. Finally, after 57 years, someone does it for me. This is so true. To be an American means you must worship all of America’s wars. Most importantly, you must support an entity called “the troops.” There is nothing special about American soldiers. They are trained and hired killers, just like all military men. An army is only as good as the government commanding it. Lousy governments have lousy armies because the governments are always compelling the military to engage in lousy, sleazy conflicts. A good government has a good army. It will only enter into conflicts when it feels it is on the side of justice.

The American notion is that there is something inherently noble about American servicemen. This is nonsense. A US soldier is only as decent as his commander in chief. Soldiers are bad soldiers when they are fighting on the wrong side of a conflict or for evil objectives. Soldiers are good soldiers when they are ordered to relatively obey the rules of war and to engage in conflicts on the side of justice. So the US serviceman is simply an automaton who follows whatever orders he is given. When he is fighting for evil, which is a lot of the time, he’s a bad guy. When he’s fighting for good, he’s a good guy. He has no inherent positive, decent or moral essence.

When US soldiers fight for the bad guys, one should certainly not “support the troops.” Probably the best thing to do in that case would be to campaign to bring the troops home. Yet in America you always have to “support the troops.” That means that whatever conflict the military is involved in any on Earth, all Americans have to support it! Why? In order to “support the troops,” that’s why. So you see that America has elements of a totalitarian country.

This is the religion — of militarism and tribalism — that is the one thriving and pervasive in the West. The vast, vast majority of political discourse about foreign policy — especially from U.S. and British media commentators — consists of little more than various declarations of tribal superiority: we are better and our violence is thus justified.

Exactly. Nail, meet hammer. Once again, I have been thinking this most of my life, but no one has ever articulated it in quite those words.


Filed under Australia, Britain, Conservatism, Europe, Government, History, Journalism, Liberalism, Military Doctrine, Modern, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Regional, Republicans, Sociology, US Politics, USA, War, World War 1

Why Elizabeth Warren Can’t Win and Why Hitlery Is Not a Liberal

From the Internet:

Here are some of the problems Warren will face if she runs:

  • The Democratic Party brass, which used to be legitimately called liberal, now stands roughly where the wingnut conservative side of the Republican Party Brass stood in the 70’s. I’ve watched them be actively shoved down that road by conservatives moving the goal posts every single time there’s been negotiations over the past 50 years. This shift is intentional and it is enforced by silent, implied (so as to not be actionable) threats to “give our money to your opponent if you don’t comply.”
  • The simple reality is that neither party can reasonably be called liberal in any sense when you look at the actions (votes) they take.
  • Both sets of party brass are corporate fascists based upon their actions (votes). One side is a bit better at hiding that until you start looking at their votes, where their money comes from, and asking loudly “Who profits from this!?”
  • The terms “liberal” and “conservative” as descriptors of the two political parties are utterly useless to citizens because they are entirely orthogonal to the descriptions which actually matter to citizens: pro corporate fascism or against corporate fascism.
  • We the people won’t even get to look at much less vote for any real reform candidate because who gets to “run” is quite literally controlled by corporations thanks to Citizens United.
  • Ms. Clinton plays with corporate bribers in the ways they demand to be serviced.
  • Even if Warren were to declare, she won’t get millions in funding to run a campaign because she’s made it clear that she’s not going to service corporate fascists the way that the rest of “our” Congress does.
  • If Warren tries to run a populist campaign as Obama did, the multinational corporate bribers of “our” Congress will spend billions in negative advertising and use every rotten trick they’ve created to silence her…including buying up ever bit of prime air time as Monsanto and Co. did in the recent elections on G.M.O. labeling.

Bottom line: In this “election,” as in the last two “elections,” we’ll be offered a “choice” between a blatant corporate fascist and one who’s less blatant.

Here’s some of the things which will not be done by the next president select:

  • Student loan forgiveness on any large scale.
  • Stopping the international game of three card monte played by multinational corporations so as to evade all legitimate taxation.
  • Stopping the corporate takeover by fiat of our sovereign right to regulate products and services for the protection of our citizens.
  • Repealing the Bush era law which prohibits Medicare from negotiating drug costs.
  • Repealing the Sherman Act exceptions which allow Certificate of Need laws to exist.
  • Or anything else which serves citizens over corporate fascists.

Most “Democratic Party liberals” are not even liberal at all. They are not even Centrists. They are 1970’s conservative wingnuts. In other words, they are conservatives. The people that the Republicans call “liberals” are just conservatives too, albeit they are less conservative than the Republicans. So we have two conservative parties, one more conservative and the other less conservative. The less conservative one is called Communist, socialist, liberal, Leftist, etc.

The only place on Earth where lesser conservatives get called Communists is in shitholes like Latin America or the Philippines. Everywhere else on Earth, there is usually some sort of socialism in place. Bottom line is that the US is now a banana republic shithole and has been one for some time now.

It is truly pitiful that conservatives get routinely lambasted as liberals to such extent that most milder conservatives now run from the liberal label. They aren’t even liberals anyway, but it’s sad that the Republicans have turned the word liberal into poison.

The spectacle of conservatives calling other conservatives Communists and threatening an armed revolution to overthrow the lesser conservatives with the true rightwing extremists is truly pitiful and idiotic. That most Americans actually believe that the lesser conservatives are “socialists”* is sad and sorry and makes you wonder how the American IQ can be so high. On the other hand, this is the way things have been in Latin America for over a century now.

*Polls show that Americans are about as retarded as Latin Americans who have long been the stupidest people on Earth. As an example, 53% of American idiots say that moderate conservative Barack Obama is a socialist. That’s almost like saying the Earth is flat.


Filed under Capitalists, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Government, Latin America, Law, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Scum, Socialism, Sociology, US Politics, USA

America, the Fake Democracy

The First Amendment is null and void.

The freedom of the press belongs to whoever can afford to buy a printing press.

As in most capitalist countries, the US media has been owned throughout much of US history by the 1%. This is another example of the insanity of the capitalist mode of development. Under capitalism, all or almost all of the media will always by run by the 1% rich and the biggest corporations. So really you have an effective dictatorship of the Rich.

There is no opposition media in the US because the opposition cannot afford to buy any TV stations, large radio stations, daily newspapers or newsmagazines. That is why so much of the US media looks the same. You’ve listened to one news station, you heard them all. You watched one news station, you watched them all. You read one daily paper, you read them all. You read one newsmagazine, you read them all. It took me so long to figure this out. One day it dawned on me: They’re all saying the same thing!

This reality is befouled by the nonsense that there is a deep gap in the US media between the “conservative” media and the “liberal media.” Not one real Leftwinger in the US believes in the lie of the Liberal Media. There is no liberal media, except maybe on social issues.

What you have here are competing views of the world between “conservative” and “liberal” wings of the US rich and big corporations. Obviously hardly any rich people and no corporations are truly liberal so there really is no liberal wing of the rich, and there are no liberal corporations. There can’t be. Why not? Due to the laws of economics. The laws of economics state that each class tries to further its own interests at the expense of the other classes. The corporations are basically a wing of the 1%, and it’s the 1% who run them anyway. Since the entire US media is run by the 1%, 100% of major US media exists to promote the economic interests of the 1% at the expense of the 1%.

Russia actually has a vigorous opposition media. Opposition spokespeople are quoted every day in the US. The opposition runs daily papers in Russia. There are a number of opposition daily papers, often printed in English, on sale every day all over Moscow for anyone to purchase. Many of the English-language Russian websites are run by the opposition, often out of Europe, particularly out of Finland and the Netherlands. The English language Russian online media is overwhelmingly pro-opposition, these sites are large, and they get quite a bit of web traffic. I am not sure who reads them, but they do get high traffic.

Can you name me any high traffic websites in the US that are run by the opposition in the US? There aren’t any.

If I want to hear the news of the US opposition, where can I turn the radio dial? Ok, one station, Pacifica, that has to beg to stay alive.

Now I want to watch US opposition TV. Where on the cable spectrum can I find an opposition TV station in the US? Answer: There are none!

I would love to get an US opposition daily or even weekly paper. Where can I buy one? Nowhere! At least not in my town.

I want to subscribe to an opposition newsmagazine. Where is one that I can subscribe to? Nowhere! All the US newsmagazines are saying exactly the same thing.

Have you noticed the large marches containing 10,000’s of people in Moscow? When was the last time you saw a US opposition march of tens of thousands in the US? I can’t remember.

The only time we will get an opposition TV, radio, newspaper or magazine media is if one day we elect a real leftwing president. Then the whole media will revolt and go opposition. You will see huge marches in the tens or hundreds of thousands in US cities.

As long as the US state is comfortably rightwing, there will never be any opposition media in the US.

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America
Ashley Lutz | Jun. 14, 2012, 9:49 AM | 335,820 | Business Insider
That’s consolidated from 50 companies back in 1983.
But the fact that a few companies own everything demonstrates “the illusion of choice,” Frugal Dad says. While some big sites, like Digg and Reddit aren’t owned by any of the corporations, Time Warner owns news sites read by millions of Americans every year.

1. GE
6. CBS

232 media execs control the information media of Americans!

I wonder how many of those 232 media execs are Jews?


Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Economics, Eurasia, Government, Journalism, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Russia, US Politics, USA

Hitlery Clinton


We on the Left despise this neoconservative warmonger, but we are all going to hold our noses and vote for her anyway. She is so much worse than Obama, and she was an awful Secretary of State. She’s a monster.


Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Iran, Iraq, Iraq War, Left, Libya, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Obama, Pakistan, Political Science, Politics, Regional, US Politics, US War in Afghanistan, War

The Looting of Russia

The recently assassinated Russian opposition politician Nemtsov’s political party was disliked by probably 95% of Russians. The last time he ran for President, he got a whopping 1% of the vote. Nemtsov represented the Western/Jewish/Russian Mafia looting of the country under the radical free market politics of Boris Yeltsin when a group of carpetbaggers consisting of the West along with cosmopolitan representatives of International Judaism stripped the country bare until there was virtually nothing left to steal. The West stole a lot of the Russian assets, so it is not all down to a bunch of Jews looting the place, however it should be noted that the brain trust behind the looting program was a US Jewish economist named Jeffrey Sachs.

But International Zionism was also a very important group of looters. They used Russian Jewish oligarchs inside Russia (who were helped by many Russian Gentile fellow travelers) to work with a group of rich and powerful Jews in Washington DC, New York, London and Tel Aviv. Some of the money stolen by the West also ended up in Munich. The looters were mostly bankers, oligarchs, billionaires and neoconservative politicians.

The Westerners were motivated purely by greed but also possibly by extreme Russia-hatred due to 70 years of Russian-hating propaganda in the West.

The Jews were apparently motivated by revenge against Russian Gentiles as Russian Jews and Gentiles have been locked into a vicious circle feud for centuries. When Putin finally declared war on some of the Jewish oligarchs, they quickly moved millions of dollars of assets out of Russia right smack into the hands of cosmopolitan International Jew Lord Rothschild.

Jewish neoconservative sociopaths like Richard Perle then used their position in the US government to threaten Russia in a variety of ways, including war. The reason was because Richard Perle is a cosmopolitan International Jew and Putin was going after the assets of cosmopolitan International Jew Khodorovsky. So Perle tried to manipulate the US government into a war with Russia on behalf of the Jewish people.

Now you understand what people talk about when they raise the “canard” of Jewish dual loyalty.


Filed under Conservatism, Corruption, Crime, Economics, Eurasia, Jews, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russia, The Jewish Question, USA, Zionism

The Dual Loyalty Charge Against the Jews

Now you understand what people talk about when they raise the “canard” of Jewish dual loyalty. It’s not a canard! Wherever they reside outside Israel, Jews will always have dual loyalty. The primary loyalty of the Jews is a cosmopolitan one, a loyalty the tribe of International Jews. Loyalty to the land in which they are living will always come second.

This does not mean that Jews are always traitors. Even in World War 1, many Jews fought very bravely for Germany. Jews in the West have supported almost every war the West has waged, and US power Jews mix their loyalty to Jewry with an extreme US nationalism that manifests itself as neoconservatism.

But the notion that the Jews always put loyalty to the homeland second in favor of loyalty to a cosmopolitan tribe of international wanderers without a home is always very disturbing to nationalists of any land where the Jews reside. This is one reason why nationalists of any land with Jews in it typically target the Jews. This was true for nationalists in both Europe and the Arab World. The nationalist always sees the Jew as a traitor, and he is not completely incorrect in that assessment.


Filed under Conservatism, Israel, Jews, Middle East, Nationalism, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, The Jewish Question, USA, War, World War 1

Israel’s Dark Future: Democracy in the Jewish State is Doomed


Everything in this article is 100% correct, and the future as predicted in the article looks to be set in stone and there is nothing that can be done about it. Both strategies, that of the Right and that of the Left, are probably doomed. The strategy of the Right is to ignore Israel’s bad behavior and continue to support them come Hell or high water. This will simply embolden the Israeli Right into believing that they can do whatever they want to and there will be no consequences. The strategy of the Left is to punish Israel slowly and by this punishment, they will force Israel to settle the conflict. This also is unlikely to work as the Israeli Right will just dig in their heels and conclude that the whole world hates Israel. They frame this belief on the notion that the whole world is made up of Gentiles and that Gentiles hate Jews, have always hated Jews and will always hate Jews. Gentile hatred for Jews is apparently constitutional. As was said about the Poles, the Pole learns anti-Semitism at his mother’s breast. Israel Jews see Gentiles as nearly emerging from the womb as full-blown anti-Semites.

There is not much you can say to someone who insists that you hate them or that almost everyone hates them. You can continue to insist that you do not really hate the person, but the person will never believe you. You can tell them that most people actually don’t hate them at all, but their mind is already made up. Once the Jews decide that you are anti-Semite, whether innocent or not – and 90% of those accused of anti-Semitism are innocent – you will never be able to argue your way out of it. The Jews will continue to insist that you hate them until their dying day. All contrary evidence will be ignored and the Jews will always dig up old comments to “prove your hatred.” Suppose your friends and lovers were always data-mining your relationships for “proof of your hatred.” Most of us have said nasty things to our friends and especially our lovers. But insults and criticism in a relationship is not proof of hatred. Perhaps it is a sign of hatred; perhaps it is not. In life, many people who love you the most, more than almost anyone will ever love you in this world, will end up saying some pretty awful things to you. That doesn’t mean that they hate you. It just means that they care and that human relationships, friendships and love affairs are not simple things.

Once the Jews decide that the world hates the Jews because the world is made up of ugly anti-Semite Nazis, there is not much the world can do to disabuse the Jews of this delusion. The Jews will simply embrace their pariah state and conclude that the reason for it is simple anti-Semitic bigotry and not Jewish bad behavior. At any rate, many Jews live to be hated and love to be hated. The worst thing you can do to a Jew is take away his sense of victimhood. This is nearly more precious to him than his soul, and the Jew will nearly kill to retain his eternal sense of victimization.

There are logical reasons for this. Once anti-Semitism disappears, the Jews go too. The Jews only exist due to anti-Semitism. And anti-Semitism, as long as it is not too deadly, generally serves to strengthen the Jews by enabling them to circle the wagons, refuse to assimilate or marry out or move to the biggest Jewish ghetto ever created in the Levant. The more you persecute them, the more they get paranoid and hostile and band together against everyone else. And the more you hate and persecute Jews, the worse they act. Anti-Semitism tends to bring out the ghetto in any Jew. And Israel is an example of a modification of the old saw that you can take the Jew out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the Jew.

At any rate, the future in the land of Palestine/Israel looks utterly hopeless for those who side with justice, peace or the Palestinians. There literally is no future there, or there is only a future that will get worse and worse. I am looking down that tunnel, squinting, and I swear that all I see is black. It’s a black tunnel with no end that seems to go on forever or at least into the forseeable future. Tomorrow – and all of the tomorrows ahead as far as we can see – is looking pretty bleak in the Holy Land.


Filed under Anti-Semitism, Arabs, Britain, Conservatism, Democrats, Europe, Government, History, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jewish Racism, Jews, Left, Middle East, Middle Eastern, Modern, Obama, Palestine, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, Social Problems, Sociology, The Jewish Question, US Politics, USA, War, Zionism

What Is a Patriotard?

I love this word. From the Urban Dictionary. I agree with most of this definition, but sadly I would say that most liberals I know are also patriotards just like this. You simply cannot oppose US foreign policy in the United States. If you oppose our foreign policy, that means “you hate America.”

And most liberals will tell you that too, just like conservatives. Most liberals I know support US foreign policy 100%. They seem to support it more when a Democratic President is in power, but they support most foreign policy under Republicans too. And when they oppose foreign policy, they are often quiet about it, as if they are frightened and ashamed. My father was an ADA liberal, but he backed US foreign policy 100%, in all of its most crazy and reactionary forms. He hated the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and he supported the US armed coup that removed Aristide from power in Haiti. He even supported that Bush’s insane Iraq War and he tried to start a fistfight with me over it, calling me a traitor.

I will say that he turned against the Vietnam War, but he waited until 1968 to do so like most antiwar types. My father was what you call a “Cold War Democrat.” They are and were much more common than you think.

The common line that Republicans say that liberals hate America and especially that they hate US foreign policy does not appear to be true.

Most liberals support the Democratic Party, and their foreign policy is about as horrible as the Republicans’. This is something called “the bipartisan foreign policy consensus” that was put in after World War 2, mostly by Harry Truman and one of the worst Americans of the last century, a Republican who served under Eisenhower named John Foster Dulles, who singlehandedly launched and maintained the Cold War.

Under Truman, US policy was bad enough. This was when the containment doctrine was set into place, Greece was destroyed and 50,000 Leftists were murdered by reactionary Monarchists supported by the US, the Korean War was engaged, China was threatened with nuclear weapons, and the wartime spy service was turned into the CIA.It was Truman who is more responsible than any other man for the birth of the National Security State.

Dulles thought Containment was too wimpy. He wanted war, or rollback, or liberation. Liberation meant the placement of a Far Rightwing Monarchist, authoritarian or fascist state, preferably a dictatorship, to make sure the country did not go Communist. It was Dulles who set in stone the crazy US policy that if you were not with the US, by default, you were with the USSR. You’re with us or against us. This ended up labeling much or all of the Nonaligned Movement as Soviet supporters and fellow travelers. Dulles was a monster and set off 45 years of diabolical US foreign policy, which by the way did not change even 1% with the fall of the USSR.

The standard US liberal argument was that the US did a lot of bad things during the Cold War, but we had to because if we did not, the Soviets would have taken over that country. This implied that with the fall of the USSR, we would finally be forced to stop acting so bad and could go back to being the World Nice Guy that liberals think we are.

However, when the Wall came down, US foreign policy was exactly the same as it was during the Cold War which implies that all of our wickedness came not from a realpolitik Cold War with the USSR but instead derived directly from US imperialism acting on behalf of US capitalism in the form of the US corporations and the elite rich.

By the way, most US liberals that I have met defend US imperialism. They tell me that “a lot of US investment dollars are at stake” in various countries, and that is apparently why we have to be so reactionary and vicious when we stage coups, launch revolutions or assassinate foreign leaders, usually for doing something like raising the minimum wage.

Yes that is correct. The US staged coups in Haiti and Honduras in the past 20 years. The reason for the coups? Aristide and the Honduran President both raised the minimum wage. Apparently according to US bipartisan foreign policy, raising the minimum wage means you are a Communist. I swear to God this country is nuts.

The only people who qualify as “America-haters” are Leftists like me who truly do oppose the Elite/Corporate Fake Managed Democracy and its imperial, reactionary foreign policy. If opposing such things makes me an America-hater, then I guess I am an America-hater. If that’s the definition of the word, I would say that a lot more Americans ought to sign up to be America-haters.

Urban Dictionary patriotard:

An American who is easily manipulated by appeals to superficial pro-American sentiment. Is often a jingoist and rarely if ever opposes any US military action; dismisses all who oppose such military action as liberals or Un-American.

Typically rejects out of hand any criticism of his country’s foreign policy, no matter how justified, unless the criticism is that America isn’t being ‘tough’ enough in some way. Confuses support for the people and/or the founding values of his country with support for his country’s government, especially if his political party of choice (almost always the Republican Party) is in power.

Uncritically swallows propaganda and slogans representing the above mindset – for example: America is ‘Hated For Our Freedoms’ and the troops are ‘Fighting For Our Freedoms’.

Tends to place far greater importance on the trappings of patriotism (American flags, etc.) than on protecting the Constitution or upholding America’s founding values.

Worships the US military. Often a Fox News fan.


Filed under American, Americas, Caribbean, Central America, Cold War, Conservatism, Culture, Democrats, Economics, Government, Haiti, History, Honduras, Imperialism, Latin America, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA, USSR

Robert Stark Interviews Ogi Ogas


Ogi Ogas  received his Ph.D. in computational neuroscience from Boston University, where he designed mathematical models of learning, memory, and vision. He is co-author of A Billion Wicked Thoughts . He was a Department of Homeland Security Fellow and conducted biodefense research at MIT Lincoln Laboratory. He was also a contestant on the game show Who Wants To Be a Millionaire.


Topics include:

How Ogi analyzed web searches, web sites, erotic videos, erotic stories, personal ads, and digitized romance novels.

How his study is the most extensive since Alfred Kinsey’s in the 1950’s.

How censorship and barriers to sex research used to come primarily from social conservatives but now often comes from cultural liberals.

How men and women’s brain’s are wired differently.

How men’s desires are primarily visual while women’s are more psychological.

How physical arousal can contradict psychological arousal in women.

How women’s desire’s and what they find attractive in men are more influenced by culture than men’s.

The attraction to youth and how barely legal porn is the only subscription genre to survive the proliferation of tube porn.

The misconception that homosexual men are women in men’s bodies.

Homosexual porn.

Why heterosexual men are surprisingly interested in tranny porn and penises.

The theme of domination in porn and how it’s viewed by women and both heterosexual and homosexual men.

1 Comment

Filed under Conservatism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Liberalism, Neuroscience, Political Science, Pornography, Science, Sex, Sociology