Category Archives: Republicans

The Free Market Is the Best System on Earth


These people are literally eating dirt because that is how poor and starving they are. But the free market works great. The system that doesn’t work is called Communism or socialism. The system that “works” is called free market capitalism. It’s working great in Haiti, isn’t it?

Aristide came in and raised the minimum wage. That was when the CIA said enough and plotted to overthrow him.

Then he tried to give every kid a glass of milk every day at school. That hardened America’s resolve even more. Haitians must eat dirt! We can’t have them drinking milk! Drinking milk? That’s Communism! Capitalism is about eating dirt! Aristide had to go. He was trying to feed his people! The nerve of that Commie!

The corporate media started up a propaganda war calling Aristide a Communist. Well obviously he was a Communist. Only a socialist would try to feed his own people! A capitalist would want them to eat dirt!

Then he started building schools. In his few years in office, Aristide built more schools in 8 years than had been built in the previous 188 years since Independence. The CIA said, “That does it! He’s building schools! This Commie has to go!” Of course he was a Commie. Only Commies build schools.

Capitalists don’t believe in schools. They think they should all be run by the free market as private education. I once surveyed the Republicans in the US Senate. Every single one of them,  even the most liberal Northeasterners like Specter and Stowe, were awful on Education. They voted No on every single Education bill. As you can see, Republicans don’t believe in Education. They send their kids to private schools. The hard truth of the matter is that US conservatives don’t believe in public education.

Every time capitalists or rightwingers take over a government, the first thing they start hacking and slashing away at is education. It’s number 1 on the chopping block.

During the Cultural Revolution, one of the great things they did was to build schools all over China, especially in the rural areas. Mostly they built elementary schools, to a lesser extent junior highs, and to an even lesser extent, high schools. That is why if you go out to rural China now, many people will praise the Cultural Revolution.

One more thing: During the Cultural Revolution, the economy grew by 10% a year.

Since Deng’s capitalist reforms, tens of thousands of the schools that were built during the Cultural Revolution were closed down. These are the reforms that everybody says are the greatest thing since sliced bread. What’s so great about the reforms? What’s so great about shuttering 90,000 schools?

Capitalist propaganda is a joke. It’s pitiful. Communism is a failed system that doesn’t work, but capitalist works perfectly. And any attempts to fix capitalism’s endless failures is called “socialism” and as we well know, socialism fails everywhere it is tried. So there is no way to even fix the free market’s countless deficiencies. We are stuck with them.


Filed under Americas, Asia, Asian, Capitalism, Capitalists, Caribbean, China, Chinese, Conservatism, Economics, Education, Government, Haiti, Health, History, Latin America, Left, Marxism, Nutrition, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Scum, Socialism, The Americas, US Politics, USA

India: A Threat to America

I used to think this site was over the top until I started doing some research.

But the worst part of all was when I started meeting and actually befriending Indians in India. Although in some ways, these men were really nice guys and good friends, I would have to say that they all had a bad side. And that bad side was that, in some ways, they were lousy people. They were all committed to the project of replacing American workers with Indians.

One man had a friend who was running a company in the US. They had an office in Chicago with only a few staff. All staff were Indians. All other staff were outside of the US in India. This company may have had 100’s of employees, and they did not hire one single American. Because this is the Indian way. Indians want to come to the US, open up businesses and hire only their own kind. They will never hire one American. I told a relative about that and he shook his head. “They’re traitors,” he said. “Why do we even let these parasites into our country?” Then he thought a bit. “You know,” he said. “These are exactly the kind of  immigrants we don’t need.”

I was appalled at the hatred that these Indians had for the West, for the British, and for America. They hated Western medicine. One man refused to go to Western hospitals. He only used Ayurveda medicine. The hatred for the West, for the White man and for Christianity was some of the worst I had ever seen. I don’t think there are many people on Earth who hate us and our culture more than these Indians do. I was stunned and freaked out. I had no idea they felt that way.

All of these men were high caste Brahmins. My one friend always had a scam going. Every time I talked to him, he was cooking up some new make money scam. None of these were panning out. He was utterly driven to make money. Further, his whole social circle was greedy as Hell. He was making $18,000/yr (6 times the average wage in India) as a journalist at a paper, and all of his friends were criticizing him for not making enough money. He felt ashamed and humiliated.

A young Indian man was working with me on some programming jobs, but he was doing lousy work even though he thought he was the greatest coder on Earth. I kept having to fix his programs, and I don’t know the foggiest thing about programming. But I was able to debug ASP scripts somehow. You just figure out the logical system that it was using and how it worked, then you try to see where the guy went wrong. It wasn’t as hard as I thought.

He had a good side too, but he was a typical Indian.

He was insanely competitive, and he kept demanding that I make calls all over my town to drum up business and then run all of the competing businesses out of town using him as cheap labor. He was pushier than 50 Jews rolled up into one. A customer stiffed us, and he blamed me. The customer didn’t pay us for the work, so we got ripped off. I didn’t get paid, so he didn’t get paid. He demanded that I pay him anyway. I did, over time. I paid him out of my pocket. My last payment went to him in London, where he escaped to. I saw a photo of him at the time. He was living like a king.

All of these men were great patriotic breast-beating high caste Hindus, but after a while, they were all bugging me to get them the Hell out of Indian and into the US. Apparently India was not so great after all? Now and again one of them would confess that India was more or less a shithole, and they would do anything to leave.

Although in a lot of ways I was appalled by these men, I must say that they all had a good side. Some of them had bigger good sides than others. The journalist was actually an author, and he could write very well. There was a part of him that was really a great human being, and he could be the best friend you ever had. The programmer could be very warm and amiable too, sort of like your best friend. The other fellow ran a company, and he could be pleasant too. I can’t say that any of them were bad people because their good sides were so appealing. But that down side was something nasty and ugly.

I still don’t know what to think of these people. I don’t think they want the best for our country. I think they see us more as competitors than partners. Bottom line is I don’t trust them. And what they are doing to the IT industry is catastrophic. The ethical level among Indian IT workers and business owners is abysmal. The owners are on a par with Mafioso. A lot of the grunts are not ok. They see themselves at war with the White workers at the workplace, and many of them hate our country.

It is very common for an Indian manager to come into a company and then slowly fire all the White workers and replace them with Indians. This happens all the time in IT. These people wrote the book on nepotism. You would think that would be illegal in the US, but since it’s good for the corporate bottom line, we can have anti-White Jim Crow and anti-White job discrimination all we want to. The Indian H-1B jobbers run body shops where the workers are treated horribly, like little more than animals. The workers are deeply abused by the owners, apparently because this is how the workplace is run back in beautiful Bharat.

Almost every H-1B Indian is a liar. All of his documents, test scores, diplomas, etc. are faked. Most of them say they have a “Masters Degree in Computer Science.” These fake degrees are given out by corrupt Indian diploma mills that have sprung up all over India. A “Masters Degree in Computer Science” is a 6 month basic IT course right out of high school. That’s it. That’s all it is. It’s not a real Masters Degree in any real world sense. Worse, the corporations all know these H-1B’s are lying. They know the Masters Degrees are fake. But they don’t care. The corporations play along so they can get cheap labor.

Many of these Indian programmers can’t program their way out of a paper bag. I have heard many US programmers complain about having to go in and fix the spaghetti code that the Indians cooked up. A lot of times the whole thing has to be rewritten. Typically the corporation has the Indians do the coding, and then they either ship it out like that, or they have an American go over it. The American often has to do heavy fixes and even rewrite the whole mess. I am trying to understand how running a business like this even makes sense.

If they ship it out, it’s often junk code that makes lousy programs. The list of Indian-coded applications and projects that have failed over the last 15 years is stunning. Quite a few companies got rid of most of their White workers and replaced them with Indians. Soon their major projects were failing badly, and a number of these companies went bankrupt or out of business.

It’s all being done in the name of cheap labor. All of the Democratic Party and all of the Republican Party are 100% behind the H-1B job destruction program, a neutron bomb aimed at the heart of US IT workers. All Presidents, Democratic and Republican, have supported it. I have never heard the slightest whiff of protest from the Congress or Executive Branch about the H-1B Job Destruction Program.

Usually the vacancies fill up quickly, and the lying IT corporations go to Congress and the media with their hands out begging for more workers. They spin a big lie about a “massive shortage of US programmers.” It’s the biggest lie ever told. The unemployment rate among US programmers is quite high now. Sure there’s a shortage. There’s a shortage of programmers who will work for the crap wages they pay these Indians.

Every year, the lying media dutifully writes up this huge sob story about the IT worker shortage and how we need to import more Hindu job thieves in order to fire more Americans and trash the lives or more US workers. You never see one article in the US “free press” that exposes this scam for what it is – the biggest lie ever told. The media will quickly whip up a big scare story about the IT worker shortage, and soon the President and Congress will issue statements saying they are taking action to solve this urgent problem that we are not firing enough good US workers so we can replace them with hack foreigners. Soon the cap will be raised another 50,000, and the fake crisis will fade away.

I don’t think many people are all bad, and these Indians were very confusing because their good side was often very appealing and decent. And then there was that ugly side – yikes!

The best way to sum it up is that I am very wary of these people, and I think they are up to no good. Sure they want to come here. So they can leave their shithole and get rich. This benefits me how? They want to come here to the US, practice nepotism, hire only their own kind and not even hire one single American.

I am extremely dubious and cynical about these people, and I am convinced that on some deep level, there is something that has gone terribly wrong with them. Most have been warped by a lousy culture that has turned them into twisted, greedy, scamming, callous, rude, conniving, selfish, clannish people. I am not convinced that have a win-win attitude towards us. Maybe more of a win-lose.

Someone needs to tell me why we need to keep importing these people by the tens of thousands every year. I am not sure I see the upside.


Filed under Asia, Corruption, Culture, Democrats, East Indians, Fake Guest Workers, Government, Immigration, India, Journalism, Labor, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, South Asia, South Asians, US Politics, USA, Whites

“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

A Baffling Recent Murder Case in the Northeast


That case is weird as Hell.


Filed under Crime, Murders, Northeast, Regional, Republicans, USA, Vietnam War, Weirdness

“The Trouble With Henry Cabot Lodge,” by Nominay

This article is by Nominay, a veteran commentator at Beyond Highbrow. He has his own site where he posts mainly about the JFK assassination but also on current events and in defense of liberalism generally. His blog is called The Endangered Left. This piece originally appeared there.

Did the tentacles of the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy reach into the State Department? Unfortunately, I harbor suspicions that Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. was involved. As JFK’s 11th hour Ambassador to South Vietnam, Lodge joined the Kennedy administration just in time to make matters worse for that country. Kennedy is often blamed, and rightly so, for the lukewarm consent he gave for President Diem to be overthrown in a coup, but the manner in which his consent was brought about, and what was done with that consent once it was given, was used against Kennedy by his own representatives at State. Chief among them was Henry Cabot Lodge, who worked in concert with the CIA division in Saigon.

What Kennedy knew to some extent in the lead up up to Diem’s assassination was that Lodge and the CIA had flattened the flexibility he sought for his options to remain open. As Kennedy had seen it, there was still a slight chance that diplomatic relations between his administration and Diem’s could be restored, and there was no apparent leader to succeed Diem who offered any hope for an improvement. Kennedy resorted to threatening Diem with a pull out of US troops in South Vietnam in order to bring him back in line with the US effort there, but also to save Diem from his own government.

He wanted a coup to be avoided if a way to reverse Diem’s declining popularity and support was possible. Still, Kennedy had not opposed a coup however, which, per assurances given to him, would see Diem upon resignation being provided safe passage out of the Presidential palace and into exile.

As hopelessly divided as the Kennedy administration was over how to “govern” South Vietnam, Kennedy liked Diem personally and had known him since 1951. As a Congressman, JFK visited Vietnam to learn more about the fight there against the communists, when the struggle belonged to France. Now, in 1963, with the US having replaced France, Kennedy was trying to use his insight from that failed, foreign intervention to determine the best action to take in what was precipitously becoming a confusing quagmire.

These problems with South Vietnam had always discouraged Kennedy from widening a US presence there the way nearly his entire administration wanted, which was a full scale war upwards of 210,000 troops. Kennedy refused to entertain the idea of an engagement anywhere close to this magnitude no matter what the conditions on the ground were. Even as he gave the order to increase more military advisers there, Kennedy was demanding from his top brass that they provide him with a withdrawal plan that included a tight timetable.

Once he became US Ambassador to South Vietnam, it didn’t take long for Henry Cabot Lodge to decide that he just wanted Diem gone and for the US to engage more militarily. Convinced that a more robust front against the communists and better treatment of the South Vietnamese people by its leaders was the solutions to their problems, Lodge saw Diem as the obstacle to his vision of some kind of victory.

But Lodge made his biggest difference for the Kennedy administration before he even joined it. At the end of 1962, just when National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy was fleshing out his ideas for a diplomatic approach to Cuba with President Kennedy, Lodge – who learned about this from an official who worked closely with Bundy – told a lawyer affiliated with an anti-Castro Cuban committee that JFK was seeking to normalize relations with Cuba. In other words – peace with Castro – not overthrow Castro.

This of course was a total reversal from the intent in 1961 with the Bay of Pigs invasion, and the subsequent sabotage campaign of Cuba’s military resources, along with hair-brained attempts to assassinate Castro. This lawyer friend of Lodge’s in turn told a leading Cuban exile militant sponsored by the CIA named Felipe Vidal Santiago. Naturally, Santiago was beside himself with rage as were his fellow, rebel soldiers. This info undoubtedly upset their CIA handlers as well.

Lodge’s credibility to Castro’s enemies as a reliable informant rested on his esteemed career and pedigree. The grandson and namesake of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and the descendant of three, other US Senators, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. was elected first as a Massachusetts Congressman, then as a Senator himself in 1944. A leader of his party, Lodge, in 1952, drafted 5 star General and World War II hero Dwight Eisenhower to run for President, and served as his campaign manager. Although Lodge lost his Senate seat that year to John F. Kennedy, his stint as a recruiter and campaign manager succeeded in electing the general President. Lodge then served as Ambassador to the United Nations in Eisenhower’s cabinet for 7 years.

Lodge’s temperament in the arena of international politics during this time, is telling. As noted in Wikipedia:

…Lodge supported the Cold War policies of the Eisenhower Administration, and often engaged in debates with the UN representatives of the Soviet Union. During the CIA sponsored overthrowing of the legitimate Guatemalan Government, when Britain and France became concerned about the US being involved in the aggression, Lodge threatened to withdraw US support to Great Britain on Egypt and Cyprus, and France on Tunisia and Morocco, unless they backed the US in their action.

When the Government was overthrown, the United Fruit Company [a CIA front] re-established itself in Guatemala. These episodes tainted an otherwise distinguished career [up to that point] and painted Lodge as a face of US Imperialism.”

Lodge returned to electoral politics in 1960 as Richard Nixon’s running mate, losing again to Kennedy in a close election. Lodge somehow ingratiated himself to his opponent, the victor, however, and by 1963 was a fox lying in wait to guard a hen house in the Kennedy administration.

Lodge of course was a very intelligent and savvy man. He had to know the implications of declassifying such a sensitive, working policy of Kennedy’s to a close associate of Cuban radicals who were working in concert with the CIA to assassinate Castro. Lodge’s disclosure of a possible diplomatic restoration with Cuba was an irresponsible breach of the highest order, and it probably led to his back channel on the plan to kill JFK. In this context it is easier to understand Lodge’s hubris defying JFK’s instructions on relations with Diem and other Vietnam-related directives. JFK thought that Lodge would not survive his position as Ambassador, but instead, it was Kennedy who would not survive to replace Lodge.

Strategist Roger Stone has been involved in national political campaigns since the late 1960’s. At age 16 he was tapped by Connecticut Governor John Davis Lodge (Henry Cabot Lodge’s brother) to run the state’s “Youth For Nixon” organization. A prodigy campaign worker with a talent for dirty tricks, Stone was ingratiating himself to major players in the Republican party when he was barely out of his teens. By his mid-20’s he was a trusted confidant to President Nixon … and of his longtime mentor, John Davis Lodge.

In Stone’s best selling book The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, he recalls part of a conversation he had with Davis Lodge that is at once outrageous and chilling:

In 1979, we sat in his Westport, Connecticut home enjoying a cocktail. I knew that JFK had planned to fire ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge upon his return from Texas on November 24, 1963. I also know that Lodge knew why he had been summoned to see the President. I couldn’t resist asking John Lodge about his brother.

“Did you ever ask your brother who really killed Kennedy?” I said.

His lips spread into a tight grin. “Cabot said it was the Agency boys, some Mafiosi.” He looked me in the eye. “And Lyndon.”

“Did your brother know in advance?” I asked.

Lodge took a sip of his Manhattan. “He knew Kennedy wouldn’t be around to fire him. LBJ kept him at his post so he could serve his country.”

In his renowned book JFK and the Unspeakable, author James Douglass adds content confirming what Kennedy’s intentions were on this issue from another vantage point. In it, Douglass writes:

JFK’s death in Dallas preempted several decisions he was ready to make in Washington the following week. The first was the question of how to deal with his rebellious ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, who wanted to escalate and “win” the war the president had decided to withdraw from.

Robert Kennedy has commented on his brother’s loss of patience with an ambassador who would not carry out his instructions, or even give him the courtesy of a response to those instructions:

“The individual who forced our position at the time of Vietnam was Henry Cabot Lodge. In fact, Henry Cabot Lodge was being brought back – and the President discussed with me in detail how he could be fired – because he wouldn’t communicate in any way with us … The President would send out messages, and he would never really answer them … [Lodge] wouldn’t communicate. It was an impossible situation during that period of time.”

According to RFK, the President in consultation with the Attorney General had already made the decision to fire Lodge: “We were trying to figure out how to get rid of Henry Cabot Lodge.” It was only a matter of “trying to work out how he could be fired, how we could get rid of him.”

President Kennedy was scheduled to meet with Lodge on Sunday afternoon, November 24, as soon as JFK returned from his trip to Texas, and Lodge from his post in Vietnam. Kennedy had prepared for his encounter with Lodge by inviting to it a strong dissenter to the Vietnam War, Under Secretary of State George Ball. He talked to Ball by phone on Wednesday night, November 20, right after the White House reception for the judiciary, making sure that the most anti-war member of his administration would attend the Sunday meeting with Lodge.

It was his successor as president, Lyndon B. Johnson, who instead presided over the Sunday, November 24, meeting with Henry Cabot Lodge.

Before this meeting occurred however (and before John F. Kennedy would be assassinated), Lodge had another meeting to attend – in Honolulu while en route to DC – on November 20-21. It was just after this Honolulu conference to discuss Vietnam with other administration officials that Cabot Lodge was observed in a peculiar scene:

“In Hawaii on Nov. 21/63…shortly after lunch Honolulu time, U.S.Ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge made a long distance call from the lobby of the Royal Hawaiian Hotel…This distinguished diplomat had access to phones in privacy from his room or the military circuits at no cost…yet he was seen, according to the Honolulu Star Bulletin, with a stack of quarters in his hand putting coin after coin into a pay phone…

Lodge was the only person of the seven member policy-making body to stay at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel…the others stayed in the military quarters.” *

Henry Cabot Lodge deserves further scrutiny as a character in this saga of assassination and conspiracy. He was detrimental to JFK’s safety by putting him on disastrous terms with the Central Intelligence Agency, over Cuba. Lodge’s role was unique in providing the CIA with the impetus to kill the President. Kennedy’s adversaries within the government, chiefly at the CIA and Pentagon, had a commitment to win the cold war at all costs. This is not just the view of conspiracy theorists, but also of multiple, government insiders, including JFK’s very own pick to represent him at brokering a peace deal with Castro – William Atwood. In Anthony Summer’s book Not In Your Lifetime, he quotes former UN Ambassador Atwood, as saying:

“If the CIA did find out what we were doing [talks toward normalizing relations with Cuba]…they might have been impelled to take violent action. Such as assassinating the President.”

What we’ve since learned from Summer’s interview with Atwood however is that the CIA did find out what they were doing…and we know how the agency found out, and from whom.

Et tu, Henry? Fox in the henhouse: Henry Cabot Lodge,   A saboteur in the Kennedy State Department.

Et tu, Henry? Fox in the henhouse: Henry Cabot Lodge, A saboteur in the Kennedy State Department.


Filed under Americas, Asia, Asian, Britain, Caribbean, Cold War, Cuba, Democrats, Europe, France, Geopolitics, Government, History, Latin America, Military Doctrine, Modern, Politics, Regional, Republicans, SE Asia, SE Asian, The Americas, US, US Politics, Vietnam, Vietnam War, War

Russia’s Stupid Opposition

Russia’s dumb opposition is “uniting” apparently to win election and overthrow Putinism. The problem is that even if they all unite, they will not get more than 15% of the vote. No more than 15% of Russia is opposed to Putin and a number of those opposed to him are on the Right.

The Russian opposition, which US liberal Democrats can’t get enough, are sort of the Russian version of the US Republican Party. Their economics program is the same economic program as the Republican Party, although they are liberal on social issues. So it’s Republican Party economics plus the Western Cultural Left, which is more or less the platform of the US Democratic Party now anyway. They are taking the worst of the Right and mixing it with the worst of the Left, so we get the worst of both tendencies.

Much has been made of Boris Nemtsov’s political party. Nemtsov had and has the support of no more than 5% of Russians. Nobody liked him, nobody wanted him. He represented the Western/Jewish/Russian Mafia looting of the country under the radical free market politics of Boris Yeltsin.


Filed under Democrats, Eurasia, Left, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Russia, US Politics, Useless Western Left

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