Alt Left: Francis Miville on the Need for a Do-over of the American System

He is commenting on my post here. Full Democracy in the US Will Be a Boon for Democrats and a Catastrophe for Republicans.

What I meant is an Alt Left notion of “The system is too far gone for reform. Let’s tear it all down and start over again from scratch,” which is exactly how I feel about my country.

However, I meant just the basic political system and culture. However, that would indeed take a “Cultural Revolution” if you will. And many countries had them. We had a huge cultural revolution in the 1960’s. It’s not all about Red Guards.

The sickness is baked far too deeply into the system. The State Department, the Executive and Legislature Branches themselves, the legalization of mass bribery and corruption via money-based elections, the Pentagon, the CIA, and even the FBI – they all need a wipe it out and start over again cleansing.

Look at how hard it will be to dismantle even US imperialism. Imperialism is baked into US society from top to bottom. 500 military bases overseas? Sanctions? Embargoes? Economic warfare? US control of the world monetary system via the dollar as fiat currency? The sickness of the weapons for oil deal with the Gulf Arabs, the alliance with fascist Turkey, NATO its very self (which is controlled by the US), on and on.

For instance, few know this, but the CIA is baked into all of US society at the levels of the elite class and the corporations. The elite class (the rich), the corporations, the powerful lobbies, ethnic and commodity-based, the Pentagon, the Treasury Department, the Commerce Department are all baked in with the national security state and its vast intelligence arm consisting of 17 different out of control agencies with a $30 billion budgets for scullduggery, lying, cheating, thieving, murder, and overthrowing other countries via coups of all sorts, including the fake color revolutions.

These are the people who killed Kennedy.

These are the people who run this country. The oil barons in Texas, the Silicon Valley uber-rich, the capitalist bastards on Wall Street and at the Wall Street Journal, the sick and twisted FIRE sector, the last of which basically a parasitic and non-prodcutive form of wealth creation via speculation or as I call it “a giant casino in the sky.”

That’s the US economy now – a giant casino in the sky for rich people. All the rest of us? We can go pound sand. That or get rich, which is usually accomplished by mass lying, cheating, and thieving on an individual level. We are now virtually governed by corporations and billionaires. We have billionaires taking over NASA for their own sleazy ends. We’ve outsourced everything to the billionaires and the corporations.

When you study the Kennedy Assassination, you realize that there was a vast group of people either in on it or supportive of it, and many of them have talked. A friend had lunch with LBJ’s attorney, who said Kennedy was killed by “the foreign policy establishment of the United States.” And that right there is the Deep State, and not only that, but the Deep State also encompasses all of the above via the support of the rich and the corporations for US foreign policy.

The Pentagon and the CIA work for Exxon and Elon Musk, not you and me. We overthrow foreign governments for the Richard Bransons and the Chevrons, not for you and me. How does it feel to join the US Army and become the personal army of and risk your life for Monsanto and Rex Tillerson? You died in a US war? Sucker! You died for Jeff Bezos and the Blackrock Group! You proud of yourself now, wherever you are, chump?

Because the rot and evil is so “baked in” to the system, it is going to be very hard to change. Look what happens in Latin America where they try to do similar cleansings of the oligarchies and diseased societies they created. You get coups, economic warfare, sanctions, embargoes, propaganda wars, assassination attempts, lockout strikes, color revolutions, stolen elections, lawfare, guarimbas, contra armies engaging on counterrevolution, on and on.

I am absolutely certain that at least some of those will happen if we try to do a do-over on America. The big guns are just not going to like it, and they will do everything in their power to stop it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I am especially irked when I hear so many ne’erdowells whining about their beloved Trump having been defrauded of his sure win election by the evil globalists and America’s now being in great danger to suffer a Mao-style Cultural Revolution at the hands of the “ultra-Left”.

Such a degree of abuse of words might terminate faster than we think, as English as an international communication tool fit for intelligent exchange of ideas. First of all, how come the Republican Party is “red” and any state refusing it “blue”: that seems to go together well with the US being the only country refusing to go metric.

Had America been endowed even with a tolerably good semblance of democratic system as used to be usual in Europe and still is here and there, Trump would have had no chance to be anything more than a backwater talk show animator and maybe the governor of Missouri or Louisiana turning that state into a laughingstock for the nation and triggering that state to go full radical Socialist Left the election after. Trump was imposed onto America thanks to its stochastic electoral system.

The system looks like that of the old Republic of Venice (which was more or less a kind of rigged from behind roulette-like game of chance, with the difference they claimed of chance and not of the people’s will) against a definite majority’s will by both the financial forces revolving around the Goldman Sachs bank and Netanyahu.

Netanyahu is Trump’s alter ego in the Old World (Russia playing a subsidiary role in that enterprise). He was actually a kind of Israeli governor directly imposed at international level against America’s own Zionist, but still to intelligent oligarchy just as a reminder to the nation that they are no longer sovereign and are to be treated like any African dependency where no intelligent people need apply from now on.

Alt-Right fell for that trap, bar very few thinking people. In a certain sense, Trump has been America’s first real “black” president.

They fear for a Mao-style Cultural Revolution to happen by the American ultra-Leftist forces. For the time being I see nobody on the American horizon still trying and succeeding in part to impose the cult of his personality as a kind of savior or Emperor Cyrus rather than Orange-Hue-Tan.

He is in the real position (though not in mental capacity, and probably not in mental disposition neither, as he doesn’t give a damn for his adoring crowd) to head a Cultural Counterrevolution to be followed by a Great Leap Backwards leading to the transformation of the US into the Neo-Medieval Republic of Gilead as described by Margaret Atwood in Handmaid’s Tale.

Actually I have also come on my own to your own conclusion: The US is indeed in great need of some Mao-like Old Far Left Cultural Revolution that should do away with all “olderies” and force all conservatives to acknowledge at last, through violent behavioral psychiatric techniques if need be, that there is absolutely nothing worth conserving in the US and that all has to be rebuilt from zero, and preferably from Ground Zero.

There is no single historical non-fake monument worth preserving except North Harlem’s Cloisters: the few other ones of decent colonial style have been all demolished to make room for cheaper and cheaper built and dearer and dearer sold condos, except a few that were built by slavers still having descendants caring for their property, but that kind of historical monument is rather to be classified with Holocaust Museums in my opinion.

The general infrastructure is in such a state of disrepair that bombing it all first would probably come out cheaper than getting back a working one. Most cities of the Rust Belt are already kind of bombed, so why not finish the job? There is nothing worth fireworks in the background; instead, there is everything worth fireworks in the structure.

As it is a Cultural Revolution we are talking about here, my opinion is that at the present moment no university is worth preserving. That is an euphemism: There is rather an emergency case for burning them all down, while what needs to be taught could be taught for free on the internet, preferably from as far overseas as possible. The diplomas emitted by them should be all declared void as has been done with Trump University sheepskins. Showing one in order to get any job should be an offense.

Among the olderies to be done away with first are the American religions: they are 100% crap. Their buildings should have one use – lodging and feeding the homeless. If they are no good for that purpose, they should be used as quarries for construction material by the homeless. As a general rule a new Homestead Act should apply: the first who sees a university building or a religious building that doesn’t serve the poor, let him take the ground and material for his own physical needs as if it were a vacant lot in conquered territory.

By what kind of economic miracle has America, which used to be the chief manufactured goods exporter of the world and won two world wars as such, turned into a chief exporter of only religion and mega-churches only (if we except the military sector from our equation, which is concentrated in the former Slaving South)? Has America so many saints, sages, and masterworks of timeless wisdom to be exported to the planet?

There should be only one single tax: Henry George ** 2. His equation was by the square of the value of real estate owned per owner or co-owner, which would make collectivization the only survivable solution while preserving personal liberty.

Activities not resulting in the production of physical goods, including religion, law, education, and medicine, should be declared out of reach of any lucrative enterprise and the attempt to make them lucrative classified together with prostitution. That is, either they are practiced for free as leisure, or they are charities (for real needy ones), or they are public services.

Alt Left: Chaos in Lebanon

Damn, what’s this all about? The country’s economy is in a state of collapse mostly due to a massive embargo that has been placed on it by the (((US))), which is trying to force Lebanon to throw Hezbollah out of the government. Problem: Hezbollah and its allies won 65% in the last election and control that many seats in the Legislature, so they US is demanding that 1/3 of the government throw out 2/3 of the duly and popularly elected government. It’s not going to work. Hezbollah is a permanent fixture in Lebanon with an easy support of 2/3 of the populations, including huge numbers of Lebanese Christians.

The Christians are actually split in half. Half are with Hezbollah and half are against them. The Sunnis are much more united against Hezbollah. The Sunnis in Lebanon are just awful. Total traitors and they are all with the Saudis – they are essentially the pawns of the Saudis and their raison d etre is hatred of Lebanon’s Shia, Iran, and the Shia of the Arab World.

There are articles in Israeli papers with the Israeli government saying that they need to make a massive humanitarian intervention in Lebanon to save the day, but that’s not going to go over very well since the whole reason the economy has collapsed is due to Israel.

The banks of Lebanon have been locked out of the rest of the world’s banking system by the US and France due to ties with Hezbollah. All banks in Lebanon has extensive monetary ties with Hezbollah due to the organization’s massive presence in Lebanese society. So the finance sector has been locked out of the world economy and the result has been an economic collapse.

All of this was done by (((Donald Trump))), by the way.

Alt Left: The US Doesn’t Care about Democracy and Probably Never Has

Look, you either support democracy or you don’t. To be fair though, I don’t think there are many, or any for that matter, governments anywhere on the face of the Earth who give two shits about democracy. If there are any, raise your hands and be counted. Further, I’m not sure if there are any NGO’s anywhere on the planet who give two shits about democracy. Is there one person anywhere on this Earth who cares about democracy. Note that if you support democracy, you need to support it in all cases (hopefully) and you need to oppose all anti-democratic regimes everywhere on principle.

I don’t think there are any states that follow this principle, nor do I believe there is one organization anywhere that follows this principle. Are there any persons anywhere who believe in this? I’m seriously wondering.

Look! If you don’t give two shits about democracy, fine! But you need to stop yelling about your imperial “restore democracy” projects. And you silly Americans need to quit getting behind these imperial “democracy restoration” projects. They’ve never been about restoring democracy anyway. Anyone ought to know that by now.

However, many Americans do support democracy inside the US.

Alt Left: Full Democracy in the US Will Be a Boon for the Democrats and a Catastrophe for the Republicans

I do believe there are parties, groups, and individuals, in fact 10’s of millions of them, right here in the US who very much support democracy in the US itself. Those would be people associated with the Democratic Party and the Left in the US.

Few if any persons on the Right in the US support democracy, although there are a few. The reasoning is simple.

Full democracy implemented in the US, something we have never had and never even tried to have, would help the Democratic Party and the Left in the US quite a bit. So of course they support it. But they supported it even when majorities were voting Right to be fair.

Full democracy in the US, which as I noted we have never had one day of in this silly blighted land, would be a disaster for the Republican Party.

The country is far to the left of the Republican Party. Since 2005, Democrats have held a +10% support advantage among the US electorate. With the implementation of full democracy in the US, the Republican Party will never win another national election and they will probably never control Congress again either. The only way out of this jam is to move the Republican Party somewhat to the left in order to be in line with a left-moving population.

But that probably cannot be done because it goes against the basic foundations of the Republican Party itself. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done, but they would have to turn their back on over 100 years of Republican Party policy and go all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt.

Hell, at this point, a return to Richard Nixon or Eisenhower would be wonderful, but the party is too far gone to even do that. Instead of moving left with the electorate as they should if they wish to survive, every year they get increasingly rightwing to the point where the Republican is an actual anti-democratic rightwing authoritarian party. They now don’t support democracy at all. They support some form of Latin American style rightwing hard or soft dictatorship. It’s transformed itself into an actual Latin American-style fascist political political party.

Survival against All Odds Via Computerized Election Theft

The only reason the Republicans have been winning all of that time is because they’ve been stealing elections. No way on Earth could fifteen years of +10% Democratic advantage in the electorate coincide with massive Republican wins, especially at the state level. However, it coincides almost perfectly with the rise electronic voting in the US. Since the advent of US computer voting, we have seen massive poll and election poll failures across the US, the likes of which we have never been before in this country since the advent of sophisticated polling in 1946.

The only possible explanation for the massive and unprecedented failure in in pre-election and election precinct level polling is that the Republicans have been engaged in massive election theft via computer voting machines for the last 20 years. In fact, Karl Rove is on record admitting that the Republicans have been stealing elections via computer voting machines. He said he it’s within a few points, they can try to steal it because no one notices but if it’s more than that, they don’t even try.

2020 was the most brazen election theft in US history. Republicans tried to steal elections in Wisconsin and Michigan where they were down by 8-10 points and they almost won in both cases. So this shows that the Republicans are getting very desperate. Even if Democrats are ahead by 8-10 percentage points, Republicans will still try to steal it and no one in the Democratic Party or the media will ban at eye.

They will just blab on endlessly about poll failure. In this sense, the US Democratic Party fully deserves every terrible thing that has happened to it and in a larger sense, US Democrats deserve every shitty rightwing thing that has happened and will happen to this country for being so stupid and obtuse to refuse to recognize this obvious election theft being conducted right under their noses. I have no sympathy for the US Democratic Party. They can burn it to the ground for all I care, and while they are at it, burn every one of those corporate media companies to the ground too.

The system is too far gone for reform. I’m at the “burn it to the ground and start all over again from scratch” point now. Otherwise known as creative destruction. That’s an almost Maoist point of view. Sometimes things are just too far gone for petty reformism. You need to raze it all to the ground and start all over again with a complete political and cultural revolution.

Alt Left: Why The Republican Party is Now Literally a Latin American-Style Rightwing Authoritarian or Fascist Political Party

Fascism: A Popular Palingetic Dictatorship against the Left

This is if we define fascism as any rightwing dictatorship or rightwing authoritarian system. I think it’s a good argument that any rightwing dictatorship is basically a fascist political system if we define fascism according to its excellent new definition of “a popular dictatorship against the Left.”

It also tends to have nationalist or ultranationalist palingetic properties in many cases, palingetic referring to a project along the lines of the mythic bird rising from the ashes that seeks to restore the blood and soil glory of the ancient nation before it was destroyed by insurgent anti-nationalists, typical liberals or minorities.

Trumpism, Erdoganism, and Hindutvadism: Three Fascist Ideologies

Viewed through this mirror, you can see how Trumpism, Erodgan’s Ottoman Islamism, and the BJP Hindutva regime in India are all classic fascist political parties. Note the strong support by the middle classes of all three projects, in particular the Hindutvadi one. Religion is wedded to religious bigotry in all three nations – Christianity (albeit in a mild form deeply associated with regressive Judaism) in Trump’s case, a religio-nationalist Islam in the case of Turkey and a religio-nationalist Hindusim in the case of India.

In the latter two cases, religious minorities are associated with treasonous insurgents who needed to be eliminated from the body politic, which they are seen as literally poisoning. In Trump’s case, the prejudice is not so much religious as it as against liberals and liberalism and apparently even democracy, the twin enemies of fascists everywhere dating all the way back to 1930’s Germany. Liberalism and democracy makes the nation soft and allows the national enemies, who happen to be minorities and liberals, to worm their way into the body politic and eat away at the nation itself like termites.

Alt Left: Argument: There Is No Peaceful Road to Socialism

Transformer: I saw this on Facebook with a discussion about Communism and this is a statement from a Libertarian:

The Marxist delusion of no government always leads to absolute tyranny. The anarcho-communists sweep away tolerably governments and pave the way for the Stalins, Maos, Pol Pots, Castros, Mugabes, Chavezes, etc. It’s not that they justify Stalinism, but that they justify measures that always result in Stalinism, and they still don’t have a clue as to why that keeps happening.

I disagree with his statement that the governments before these revolutions were tolerable.

The CIA supported Pol Pot.

Yes, the US supported Pol Pot the whole time they were in and for many years afterwards as guerrillas.

You are certainly free as a liberal to Leftist to oppose Marxism. A lot of people on the Left, especially liberals, are against Marxist dictatorships. There’s a good argument against them. They’re not exactly democratic.

Chavez was not a dictator at all. Venezuela under Chavez was one of the most democratic countries on Earth. Mugabe wasn’t really a dictator. The opposition always ran in every election, and Mugabe always got the most votes not counting fraud. Same thing in Russia. Putin always gets the most votes whether he steals a few or not. Same thing in Belarus. The opposition runs every time and Lukashenko always gets 75-80% of the actual counted votes. There was no fraud in the last election.

There’s never been any serious electoral fraud in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Haiti, Iran, Syria, or Peru or most places the US has alleged that massive electoral fraud allowed the Left to win. I can’t recall the last time the Left anywhere on Earth had to steal an election to win. It’s usually the Right who does that.

Anarcoms have never completed a successful revolution. The no government thing is supposed to be way off in the future and it’s never happened anywhere. The “Stalinism” is just the dictatorship of the proletariat. It’s part of Marxist theory. It’s not an aberration or anything. Look at Honduras, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti, Bolivia, Guyana, Peru, Mexico, Italy, Ecuador, Brazil, Chile, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Iran, etc.

There’s no peaceful way to put the Left in power. Anytime a Left government comes in, there’s this nonstop war to overthrow it, usually culminating in a rightwing fascist coup. They always ruin the economy, first and foremost. This is why orthodox Marxists regard the peaceful road to socialism as either a sick joke or a great idea that is not possible in the real world. Lenin called advocates of the peaceful road to socialism “parliamentary cretins.”

Alt Left: “The Macroeconomics of Economic Populism in Latin America,” by Rudiger Dornbush and Sebastian Edwards

I didn’t actually read the book, but James Schipper did. Below I will quote from an article from NACLA that critiques the book well.

James Schipper: Perón came back from exile, and then won the election with a landslide. Unless the Argentines are complete political idiots, this demonstrates that he tried to accomplish something for the masses. Ordinary voters may not understand much about economics, but they usually sense who is on their side and who is not.

The US, Canada, Great Britain, and Australia are three Anglosphere countries that keep voting for rightwing economics despite themselves. The masses have been harmed by neoliberalism in all of these countries, but every four years, they march off and vote for it again. I think part of the problem is that ordinary people are voting against mass immigration and other leftwing stupidities in all of these countries. They don’t realize that neoliberalism comes as an add-on to anti-immigrant policies in the Anglosphere. Voters in the Anglosphere are political idiots.

You can see why people keep voting for the Chavistas in Venezuela. Sure, the economy is a mess, but no one blames the government. 70% of the population openly state that they are Chavistas. Things may be bad now but they know that the opposition is not their friend! This is why they keep voting for Ortega in Nicaragua, Lukashenko in Belarus, and Putin in Russia. These guys are on their side, and the voters can figure that out.

James Schipper: Many years ago, I read a book called The Macroeconomics of Populism in Latin America, in which it is explained how leftist populists in LA, despite their unquestioned commitment to improving the economic lot of the poorest segment of the population, often fail because they overreach.

Wikipedia has an article called Macroeconomic Populism, which explains briefly how overambitious economic populism can backfire.

I would agree that acting too fast too soon isn’t a great idea and a slower approach might work better. But we don’t see a lot of cases of economic stupidity like this nowadays in Latin America.

Yes, I think that book is not good. One man worked for the World Bank. Their basic attitude is “Don’t rely on government to try to fix economic problems and help the poor. It fails every time.” In other words, it’s hopeless. Massive inequality a problem? Sure. What to do? Nothing! Because everything you do is going to fail. I dunno.

Here is a critique of the book:

https://nacla.org/news/2012/4/20/latin-america-unravels-populist-putdown

The book is referred to in this book review of another book as “an outdated, far-right, academically dishonest book.”

From the article.

Rudiger Dornbush, and Sebastian Edwards, two University of Chicago-trained economists.

See? They were both trained at the University of Chicago. That’s the home of Milton Friedman, neoliberalism, the Chicago Boyz, the neoliberal whiz kids who caused so much destruction all over the world, especially in Latin America. UoC/Friedmanite economics doesn’t work. Period. It causes massive inequality, significant gains for the top 20% and a serious drop in income for the bottom 80%. This is exactly what happened from 1980-1992 under Reagan-Bush. Sure, if you are in the top 20%, I would say neoliberal economics is the way to go. But if you’re not, it’s economic suicide.

They complain about D and E’s portrayal of Chile:

The most astonishing example of the book’s studied ignorance happens to be one of the most indisputable and well-documented examples of U.S. intervention: Chile.

According to Chapter 7 of Dornbush and Edwards’ book, written by Felipe Larraín (currently Chile’s Finance Minister) and Patricio Meller, the “decline and full collapse of the [Allende coalition government] experiment during the years 1972-73 is a clear consequence of the ‘successful’ overexpansive policies implemented in 1971.”

Never mind that Nixon reacted to the 1970 elections determined to “smash Allende,” telling then-CIA director Richard Helms to “make the economy scream.” Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh details the earliest destabilization campaigns, carried out even before Allende took office:

Approval was granted for a last-minute increase of the propaganda activities designed to convince the Chilean Congress that an Allende election would mean financial chaos. Within two weeks, twenty-three journalists from at least ten countries were brought into Chile by the CIA, and they combined with CIA propaganda “assets” already in place to produce more than 700 articles and broadcasts both in and out of Chile before the congressional election – a staggering total whose ultimate influence cannot be measured.

By late September, a full-fledged bank panic had broken out in Santiago, and vast amounts of funds were being transferred abroad. Sales of durable goods, such as automobiles and household goods, fell precipitously; industrial production also dropped. Black-market activities soared as citizens sought to sell their valuables at discounted prices.

Ok that’s a case of capital flight. Venezuela had the same problem. All I can say is that it upholds Lenin’s idea that the peaceful road to socialism, while a great idea in theory, simply never works in real life because the capitalists simply sabotage the economy.

Larraín and Meller mention Nixon, Kissinger, Richard Helms, I.T.T., and/or Pepsi precisely zero times in their scholarly analysis. Whereas U.S. Ambassador to Chile Edward Korry threatened that “not a nut or bolt will be allowed to reach Chile under Allende,” doing “all within our power to condemn Chile and the Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty.”

Like I said, they failed badly to include the US massive economic war it waged against Chile. The same exact program was used against Venezuela, with the same results. The sanctions on Zimbabwe and Nicaragua also caused hyperinflation.

The only hyperinflation I’ve seen lately was caused by capitalists waging economic war against the state or by US sanctions. Usually both are going on at the same time. In Venezuela, the capitalists won’t stop raising prices. They love the hyperinflation because they’ve used it to play the currency black market to make a bundle. And they deliberately created it by shutting down production and hoarding goods.

At one point, Maduro put the army in charge of enforcing price controls, and the inflation stabilized for a while, but then they were withdrawn and they went back up again. However, after floating the currency along with a drop in the value of real wages and a reduction of most people’s savings, inflation was subdued. I’d hate to see these guys’ analysis of Venezuela. In fact, Krugman is already saying that Venezuela and Argentina are modern cases of this macroeconomic populism.

The authors argue instead that all state efforts to create a decent economy will fail and the only thing that will work is neoliberalism.

The authors explain that “the message emerging from the papers in this book is clear: the use of macroeconomic policy to achieve distributive goals has historically led to failure, sorrow, and frustration.” That’s why they helpfully disabuse Latin America of its “naive confidence in the ability of governments to cure all social and economic ills.”

However, neoliberalism doesn’t work either:

Second, it is worth noting that Cambridge development economist Ha-Joon Chang has analyzed the effects of these supposedly self-defeating macro policies. He finds on the contrary that “developing countries did not do badly at all during the ‘bad old days’ of protectionism and state intervention in the 1960s and 70s. In fact, their economic growth performance during the period was far superior [3.1% in per capita GDP a year for Latin America] to that achieved since the 1980s under greater opening and deregulation [1.1% a year from 1980-2009].

…And even that rate was partly due to the rapid growth of countries in the region that had explicitly rejected neoliberal policies sometime earlier in the 2000s  – Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay and Venezuela.” In fact, when Dornbush and Edwards published their book in 1991 denouncing “overly expansive” macro policies, Latin America and the Caribbean – largely compliant to IMF diktats at that point – had already averaged an entire decade of negative 0.3% growth rate per capita (1980-1990).

If you are going to read books about economics, I recommend Ha-Joon Chang. As you can see, neoliberalism in Latin America failed completely. Even its proponents admitted that it failed, but their attitude was the usual, “We didn’t give it time enough. Give it some more time and it will start working.” Yeah, right.

Larraín and Meller focus their attention exclusively on the macroeconomic policy errors of Allende’s Unidad Popular (UP) government. Its efforts to “increase real wages and to improve Chilean income distribution failed completely,” they contend, dryly adding that it “took eight years, up to 1981 (during the ‘peak of the boom’), for real wages to recover the level they had held in 1970 before the UP government.”

Larraín and Meller omit from this account Pinochet’s post-1973 reign of terror in which tens of thousands were imprisoned and killed and an economic policy during the dictatorship that led to virtually no growth in per capita income by 1986, 13 years after the coup.

See? Neoliberalism didn’t work either. It took until 11 years after Allende for real wages to reach the level they were under Allende. Then there was an economic crash. I believe it took until 1989 for wages to reach the level they were under Allende again. That’s just a complete failure of neoliberalism over 20 years.

Perhaps the paper’s most artful flourish is the cynical use of the impersonal, passive voice. Nixon directed a comprehensive program of economic sabotage literally bearing Secretary of State Kissinger’s signature. The U.S. funded all major anti-government strikes, the CIA penetrated all of Chile’s political parties, and it courted the military to foment a putsch.

From D and E:

Real wages dropped spectacularly, by -11.3% in 1972 and -38.6% in 1973. This last figure includes a 30% cut induced in the fourth quarter of 1973, after the military coup…[B]y the end of 1971 the signals of disequilibrium were clear for a dispassionate observer. Bottlenecks appeared in strength during 1972, and 1973 witnessed the collapse of the whole experiment. Political instability mounted, and a coup ultimately replaced the UP Government with a military junta [emphases mine].

It was all Allende’s fault. All of the economic sabotage and the economic war the US waged to make the economy scream? That did nothing at all! Seems like a very bad analysis.

Guys like D and E are still writing today:

Today, U.S. scholars carry on the dubious tradition of lambasting Latin American populism, whatever its prevailing definition. Due to South America’s general drift to the left in recent years, academics make increasingly strained attempts to “recognize” and discredit it. In an October 2011 paper entitled Decreasing Inequality Under Latin America’s ‘Social Democratic’ and ‘Populist’ Governments: Is the Difference Real?,”Juan Montecino of the Center for Economic and Policy Research highlights the “arbitrary and ill-defined nature” of this endeavor.

Montecino politely dismantles the findings of economists Darryl McLeod and Nora Lustig, who purport to show that “social democratic” regimes did better than “left-populist” ones in reducing inequality in recent years. He shows that their empirical results are reversed when one runs the same regressions using data from the Economic Commission for Latin America. The paper raises questions as to whether their categories capture “anything more than a general antipathy toward one group of governments.”

In other words, they faked the data.

Unsurprisingly, this antipathy is directed toward three of the four countries Ha-Joon Chang highlights for experiencing growth after rejecting neoliberal policies: Argentina, Ecuador, and Venezuela.

Their enemies now are those three countries. Simon Johnson attacks Latin American populism in the case of Argentina:

Johnson has referred to Argentina as “a country that struggles over many decades (and whose leaders frequently rail against the world) and for which episodes of reasonable prosperity and new economic models are punctuated by gut-wrenching crises.”

In the case of Argentina’s last gut-wrenching crisis in 2001, however, the “IMF’s fingerprints” were all over it, wrote macroeconomist Mark Weisbrot, CEPR’s co-director and Argentina expert, in late 2001. “It arranged massive amounts of loans – including $40 billion [in 2000] – to support the [overvalued] Argentine peso,” writes Weisbrot. Then it “made its loans conditional on a ‘zero-deficit’ policy for Argentine government.”

By doing so, the IMF was able to “convince most of the press that Argentina’s ‘profligate’ spending habits [were] the source of its troubles.” Finally, the IMF – an organization Tim Geithner recently considered essential for promoting U.S. foreign policy – implausibly claimed it had always been against the overvalued peso and that the loans were made in order to placate the Argentine government.

The IMF caused the problem with orthodox neoliberalism and then blamed the government for “profligate spending” because they ordered it to read zero-deficit, a goal which itself caused the crisis.

See? They’re making it up.

Second, Johnson seems to portray the country as wracked by serious, ongoing difficulties. But Weisbrot et al. demonstrate that since defaulting and devaluing, Argentina – widely considered ‘populist’ – expanded 94% from 2002–11 (the fastest growth in the hemisphere), reaching its pre-recession level of GDP in three years, tripling real social spending over seven years, reducing poverty and extreme poverty by two-thirds (using independent estimates of inflation), and achieving record levels of employment.

Their paper also demolishes the myth repeated by many economists – including McLeod and Lustig – that Argentina’s success was largely the effect of a serendipitous commodities boom.

See? Populism worked great in Argentina. It also worked great in Venezuela (before the economic war combined with the collapse in oil prices killed the economy), Ecuador, and Bolivia.

The devastating policies of the past in Latin America, as well as the more successful policies of vastly more independent governments over the past decade, are intimately tied up with Washington’s control over the hemisphere and the recent collapse of its influence – especially in South America. Roger Morris, a staffer at the National Security Council until mid-1970, clarified such considerations for Seymour Hersh:

“I don’t think anybody ever fully grasped that Henry [Kissinger] saw Allende as being a far more serious threat than Castro. If Latin America ever became unraveled, it never would happen with a Castro. Allende was a living example of democratic social reform in Latin America…Chile scared him.”

The devastating economics of the past in Latin America were caused by the US waging economic war on countries that practiced populist economics. This same populism has worked much better now because the influence of the US has greatly fallen in the continent.

The U.S. government has long imposed double standards on the permissibility of social reforms. While instrumental to Allende’s overthrow abroad, the Nixon administration could boast progressive domestic achievements, including the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, widely considered one of the most important anti-poverty programs in U.S. history.

Similarly, Lyndon Johnson enacted Great Society programs at home but sent thousands of troops to the Dominican Republic in 1965 to quell an uprising demanding the restitution of the deposed social democratic president, Juan Bosch. A liberal wishing to implement land reforms, Bosch was the subject of an FBI espionage and interception operation authorized by J. Edgar Hoover in the months preceding the rebellion, as Bosch sat exiled in Puerto Rico.

See? Liberalism at home. Fascism abroad. That’s the policy prescription of the US under Democrats and liberal Republicans. Also note the FBI overthrew him. The FBI was deeply involved in the lawfare against Brazil that resulted in the false charges being filed against Lula that put him in prison. See? The FBI literally overthrew Lula in Brazil. The FBI are not just pigs; they’re the worst pigs of them all – feds. And it is a deeply political and always reactionary organization. Fuck the FBI.

Perhaps unknowingly, Johnson is simply keeping within the permissible framework of an intellectual culture that has always accommodated and justified Washington’s hypocrisy. To my knowledge, Johnson has yet to apply his support for “standing up to the banks…proposing a more responsible course of action than that preferred by the banking elite,” and “greater transparency in financial transactions” to the IMF, which has conducted most of its deliberations, meetings, and consultations in secret.

Simon Johnson is pro-IMF, like the authors of that book.

On the The New York Times website, he offhandedly dismisses Latin American populism with a reference to an outdated, far-right, academically dishonest book – all in an article that challenges the U.S. elite by praising populism. This is a compelling example of the imperial double standard that keeps “pro-populist” commentators from seeing what is going on in developing countries.

The book you are praising is referred to an “outdated, far-right, academically dishonest book.” I believe that is correct.

But even if the Times’ readers never learn of Latin America’s protracted struggle for self-determination against U.S. power, the region is now a breeding ground for the most constructive values associated with populism. More than a decade of successful revolts has allowed for the elections of independent left governments in most of South America and has brought enormous gains to the poor majority through greater economic sovereignty and democratic social reform. Or as Kissinger might put it, Latin America has unraveled.

See? For the last 20 years, excellent populist economic policies in Latin America have brought enormous gains for the poor majority. According to E and D, it should have been catastrophic.

Alt Left: Capitalism Is Unsustainable: Capitalism Has An Inevitable Tendency to Move Towards Fascism

Rightwing dictatorships and fascists are good for US corporations and the US rich. So the capitalists of the world will always support fascism when it comes down to it. Every corporation in the US will support fascism if push comes to shove. For this reason, capitalism seems unsustainable because capitalists feel that the Left has no right to rule, and when it comes down to it, they will always support fascism, rightwing dictatorships, and fascist putschist oppositions to any existing leftwing governments.

It is for this reason that I feel that capitalism, which I do not necessarily oppose on moral grounds, is unsustainable and dangerous if not an out and out menace because of the tendency of all capitalist states when posed with a threat from the Left to install a fascist state. In other words, at some time or another in most capitalist countries, a threat will always cause a rightwing or fascist dictatorship to be installed.

Because of capitalism’s inevitable tendency towards rightwing dictatorship and fascism and its basic contempt for democracy, I feel that capitalism itself is a problem, and capitalism itself is a danger if not a menace to democratic society and people who wish to live free of dictatorships of the rich and fascism. In other words, yeah, capitalism in the long run is unsustainable.

Alt Left: The Left Won in Mexico

AMLO’s leftwing party won a majority of the legislature just the other day. He hasn’t been a very Lefty president. He ran as one but I don’t think he has been governing as one. But just to show you that Mexico is a part of Latin America, the rich and middle class raised a huge uproar over this man’s victory. And so has the US and especially the US media.

And an overtly fascist and putschist reactionary elite of the Mexican ultra-rich, associated with the most conservative strands of the Catholic Church and social conservatism, appeared on the scene calling for a fascist coup to overthrow the “dictator” AMLO. US papers have been full of articles about how AMLO is a “dictator” and has authoritarian tendencies. Apparently it’s complete nonsense. Even the more honest members of the opposition say there’s obviously nothing undemocratic about him. He’s as democratic as any Mexican President and perhaps more so.

Also, there’s been wild cartel-related mass violence and homicide raging across Mexico for 20 years now. These break into all out warfare between gangs and the police and army, who are often on the take and working for the gangs. The gangs also kill journalists or local politicians who get in their way. The same insanity has continued under AMLO, possibly even at a lower level, and while it was barely mentioned before, not AMLO is letting the cartels spin out of control and is allowing violence and homicide to rage across the land. For this reason he needs to be ousted.

But they get people all riled up about this more or less lies. Anyway, crime is rarely a state’s fault and once crime goes completely out of control, there’s not a whole lot you can do about it short of imposing an extreme totalitarian and authoritarian dictatorship. In El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, and Brazil the mass crime and high homicide rates have nothing to do with the governments. They occur under both left and rightwing governments.

Leftwing governments leave and rightwingers come in and the crime stays the same. The opposite happens and crime stays the same. But heavy crime is only weaponized against leftwing governments. Crime in Venezuela is just as bad as in rightwing El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, but only in Venezuela has it been the fault of the governments. All of those governments have tried everything they could, but when crime goes completely out of control, there’s not much the state can do short of outright dictatorship.

I was shocked but then not so much. Of course the Mexican Right is fascist. It’s just that they haven’t had a real Left government in since Cardenas in 1936. The ghosts of the Revolution are dead and the party of the Revolution, the PRI, turned corrupt and rather un-revolutionary, though the basic changes of the revolution were allowed to remain unchanged.

When the PRI couldn’t win an election, they simply stole them. The Leftist PRD, running Cardenas descendant, won the election in 1986, but the PRI declared the election flawed and said it had to be counted over. The government retreated for two weeks and said nothing. When it was over, a PRD victory had suddenly turned into a PRI win. In other words, they stole it. The “liberal” New York Times cheered it on and said there had been massive fraud in favor of Cardenas while it cheered for the “democracy” of the PRI stealing an election.

Alt Left: The Playbook of US Imperialism: Everything They Say Is the Opposite of What Really Happened

This analysis is based on the theory that US imperialism and Western imperialism for that matter is basically fascist. Not that our societies are fascist themselves because we have managed to insulate ourselves from this. But European jerkoffs spend most of their time running around the globe trying to deny the Third World even the barest social democracy that has made Europe so livable.

Modern Western Liberalism: Liberalism at Home, Fascism Abroad

How else you can you explain how Europe attacked social democracy in Latin America in Mexico, Haiti, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia, El Salvador, Honduras, Peru, and Colombia? Social democracy at home, fascism abroad. This is the project of the Europeans nowadays, and NATO spearheads this project. In the US it is similar, social liberalism at home, fascism abroad, at least for the Democratic Party. Canada has something between social liberalism and social democracy, and their politics is for this project at home and fascism abroad.

When reporting about hot button issues abroad in the West, keep in mind that everything you read about countries the West is hostile to is really the opposite of what really is or what really happened.

Everything Is the Opposite of What It Really Is

With fascists and fascist supporters like the US, everything is the opposite of what it really is.

Elections That Never Make Sense

Rightwing governments that use fraud to steal elections are restoring democracy.

Leftwing governments that win elections always win due to fraud because of course they cannot win any other way. As soon as they get in power, no matter how much freedom they allow, they are always authoritarian dictatorships. The elections that government has, even if they are models of fair elections, are always marred by massive fraud.

Rightwing governments that overturn these legitimate elections and steal them for the Right are always uncovering the massive fraud. The resulting election theft is called by the New York Times and US government “restoring democracy.”

When the Venezuelan fascist coup overthrew the democratic government of Hugo Chavez in 2002, the US government and the New York Times lauded the “restoration of democracy and end of dictatorship” that the fascist coup (the fascist coup was a restoration of democracy) against a democratic government (the democratic government was a dictatorship) represented.

The US/NATO Fascist Playbook: Mysterious Snipers Shooting at Both Sides

Fascist gangs usually supported by the US and/or NATO, a fascist military organization in Europe, open fire on both security forces and and either left or rightwing rioters. Fascist forces often fire on their own people and blame it on the government as a pretext for a coup to overthrow the government. This is what happened in the US-supported fascist Maidan Coup in Ukraine. When the fascist gangs open fire, the US turns it into leftwing security forces opening fire on leftwing mobs and security forces.

See the 2002 coup in Venezuela, where fascist gangs operating from overpasses shot and killed 32 people, all Chavista protestors or Chavista Venezuelan security forces, then feverishly blamed the government forces for shooting at their own supporters and comrades in arms. The US media tripped over itself reporting how the Left had opened fire on itself, massacring 32 of their own people. It took some time to straighten it all out.

Sanctions

The local fascists and the US also destroy the economy with economic war or sanctions, and then the US and the fascists scream that the Left government has destroyed the economy with its “socialist policies.” Of course it was really the economic war and the sanctions, but no matter. Even notice how all US articles on the Iranian and Venezuelan economies blame the government for the economic and social crisis that was deliberately caused by US sanctions?

Syria

In Syria, gangs of Al Qaeda-linked Islamists (Salafist Islamist like Al Qaeda and ISIS linked forces resemble fascists in many ways) raided villages full of government supporters and murdered everyone inside. Then these same forces screamed that the Syrian government had raided an opposition village and killed all the opposition people inside. The US and Western media then flooded the news with reports that the war criminal Assad has committed another massacre.

There have been 10-20 huge massacres of whole villages in the Syrian Civil War. The US, the West and the Islamists all claim that they were all done by Assad. If you go to Wikipedia and look up all of these massacres, it will tell you that they were all done by Assad.

I researched every one of those massacres in depth.

They were all done by the Free Syrian Army, who are Al Qaeda linked Islamists who burned down churches in every city and town they conquered. The villages massacred were inhabited by Sunni government supporters, Alawites, and Christians. All three groups were feverish supporters of the government. The US continues to state that all of these cases were massacres of opposition supporters by Assad’s forces.

That’s like I set your house on fire and then stand outside screaming about what an arsonist you are as you try to put out the fire. I call the fire department and they arrest you for arson while you’re hosing the building and thanking me, still holding kerosene and matches, for being such a good citizen as they walk by back to their trucks.

The Ties Between Fascism and US Imperialism Are Deep

This is basically how the US and all other forces linked to Western imperialism run their foreign policy. And every government in Europe that is a member of NATO, I’m talking to you. NATO is basically a fascist army. As you can see, the ties between fascism and imperialism are deep. In modern imperialism, the West goes around the world installing fascist and rightwing dictatorships and supporting fascist forces that are trying to overthrow leftwing governments. Not all of the governments it supports are fascists, but all are rightwing, at least in Latin America.

Alt Left: Yes, There is Little Classism in Muslim Countries (Because It’s Against Islam)

James Schipper: Was it really very different (highly classist) in Islam?

Yes, Islamic countries are just not like that.

I can’t think of any Arab country that is like that.

No North African country is like that.

Neither Malaysia nor Afghanistan nor the Caucasus nor Xinjiang nor the Stans is not like that. However, Afghanistan was feudal or semi-feudal until recently. That’s why Communism was fairly popular there. An outsider went there in the 1950’s, and he saw groups of young men chanting with their fists in the air, “Kill the rich!” I suppose the Communist revolution did a land reform and got rid of this feudal land tenure system.

Communism was an easy sell in Bosnia and Albania, but Islam is weak there.

Corruption is a bad problem in the Arab World and a rich elite bled Lebanon dry for decades, but they are widely hated, and there is little to no class hatred in Lebanon.

I can’t see any class hatred in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Somalia, Jordan, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or even in UAE.

I’ve never heard of any real classism in the Sahel, but no one there has any money anyway.

The only African countries with a history of classism were the apartheid states of Rhodesia and South Africa, but there it was racialized, and the classism was imported from Christian Europe. Classism among the Whites of these states themselves was not a problem.

Angola has become very unequal due to oil wealth, but the system is not popular, and most people are ending up poor. They had a successful Communist revolution that remained in power for a long time. The anti-Communist rebels didn’t even have much ideology. Jonas Savimbi of UNITA started out as a Maoist and switched to rightwing capitalist to get money from the West for his revolution.

Africa just doesn’t have a history of European classism. It was always a relatively egalitarian village society. Sure, the chiefs were rich, but they were supposed to provide for everyone.

All of the Gulf Arab states have such extensive social democracies that in a lot of cases, you hardly even have to work. Education and health care is free and housing may be subsidized. UAE is a very rich country and capitalism roars right along, but I don’t see a lot of class hatred. For one thing, everyone in the Gulf is well-off.

As I said, it was different before. Read Ghassan Khanafani (one of the founders of the PFLP) on the lives of fellahin or peasants in debt bondage in semi-feudal Palestine in the 1930’s. Nasser did a land reform in Egypt in the 50’s and he was a hero all over the Arab World. People said they went to Yemen in the 1960’s, and there were Nasser portraits everywhere in the homes of working class people. Nasser’s land reform set off a wave of land reforms in the Arab World. In Syria and Iraq, they were done by the socialist Baath Party. There was never much resistance to the Baath’s socialism. There were large state sectors and good social democracies. Even Saddam was basically a socialist.

Bangladesh is a problem. Pakistan has been discussed but it is Indianized and Hinduized. The same problem may be going on in Bangladesh. The class hatred is vicious in India, but it’s coded as caste hatred instead. So Pakistan and Bangladesh have a sort of Hinduized Islam. But the poverty and class hatred is not nearly as bad in those two states as it is in India and Nepal.

Bahrain and Indonesia are problems for whatever reasons but in Indonesia they had to kill 1 million Communists to get their crappy rightwing capitalist dictatorship. And in the last several years they have been led by a social democrat.

Turkey does have problems with its capitalist class in terms of exploitation of workers. After World War 2, there was a Communist revolution and the Commies almost won. However, there is a huge underground Leftist and Communist movement that regularly sets the factories and yachts of the rich on fire! They’re quite popular. The Kurdish PKK was also Left. Islam is rather weak in Turkey though, and Turkey is Europeanized. Erdogan is actually quite socialist. He’s more socialist than Biden. His brand is Islamism is heavy on the social justice end.

 

Alt Left: Christianity Is Anti-Capitalist?

Christianity Is Anti-Capitalist?

James Schipper: Still, theologically, Christianity is not a capitalism-friendly religion. There is nothing in the NT which encourages wealth accumulation or expresses admiration for the rich. In earlier times, there were very rich monasteries but also monastic orders which are committed to poverty, such as the Franciscans. These monasteries were rich for the same reason that Harvard and Yale are very rich. They became rich through donations and bequests.

Sure, theologically it may be so, but in practice, capitalism, extreme inequality, and class hatred have been accommodated in Christian countries quite easily.

You can say that Christianity is against capitalism all you want, but it hasn’t worked out that way in the West.

Social democracy was an easy sell in Europe, but the US is worse classwise than any European country. In the US we almost have a celebration of inequality and that’s somehow been accommodated with the Christianity, which seems weird. The Gospel of Wealth the Evangelicals practice here strikes me as downright heretical though. If Jesus was around, he’d reject it.

Feudalism lasted a long time in Europe, and early capitalism in England was horrible from the 1300’s-1800’s. England is terribly classist even today, but there’s a huge backlash. Thatcher was burned in effigy all over the UK when she died. Can you imagine that happening with Reagan in the US? The class hatred in the UK is pretty raw.

Classism in France was awful, but they killed their rich, and now it’s socialist.

Germany never had a vicious capitalist class. The Kaiser put in the first social democracy in the late 1800’s. It went over easily.

Italy’s never been all that classist, nor has Greece. After World War 2 in Italy, Communists were set to win local elections all over Italy but the US CIA got involved and there was massive election fraud that cheated them out of a victory. But Eurocommunists have been running states in Italy for decades, especially in the North. They’ve had a heavy emphasis on small business at the expense of big business and it’s worked great. I had a commenter on here who owned a small factory in a northern state and he loved the local Communist government. And he was a capitalist! In Greece, the Communists almost won a revolution.

I don’t think Eastern Europe has been classist. Communism went over easily there.

Communism went over easily in Yugoslavia too, though it was a modified form. It was also very popular. I know people who lived there, and they loved it. They almost won in Turkey too.

The Baltics are not classist and neither is Scandinavia. That area is all based on egalitarianism.

Spain and Portugal were classist, but there was a civil war in Spain, and it’s a pretty socialist country right now.

There was a Leftist Carnation Revolution in 1974 that overthrew Salazar’s fascism and a Leftist regime was nearly installed. It was very popular.

Alt Left: Iran Has No Nuclear Weapons Program

Here.

Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Pretty much everyone agrees with this, including the UN. They did have a research program in which they were simply studying the feasibility of building one which also included a lot of basic researcher into how to build one but it was dismantled long ago. The best guess is that the nuclear weapons program occurred during the Iran-Iraq War. But it was dismantled after the war. They never built anything at all. They just did some basic research into how to build a bomb. If you know anything about building these things, there’s a lot more to it than that.

However, the (((biggest liars in the universe))) have decided to pitch a huge lie about “Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” which, as noted, simply does not exist. They have a nuclear energy program, but that’s not the same thing. They’ve never built a single object, mechanism, machine, or facility in any nuclear weapons program, and even basic research in this area ended 30 years ago. Ayatollah Khomeini said it was immoral for Muslims to have nuclear bombs, so he forbade the state from building one. The new leadership under Ayatollah Khameini has reaffirmed that stance.

Nevertheless, the Jews have decided to push a huge lie about Iran having a nuclear weapons program for decades now. It’s not known why they are doing this. Do they actually believe their own lies like most psychopaths and of course the Jews are psychopaths? Do they know that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program but have decided to lie and say they have one anyway?

The (((Americans))), of course, have gone along with this lie from Day One, as have the US (((media))) and the US (((government))). Americans, their media, and their state are all completely Zionized, so this is no surprise. There’s not that much difference between US Gentiles and US Jews when it comes to this sort of thing. Most US Gentiles are Jewy as Hell. They may as well be 500 years kosher.

And America is nothing if not a Jewish country. In fact, Americans themselves could be seen as a “Jewish” people. When you walk, talk, think, and act like a Jew, what difference does your denomination make? Jewishness is more of a spiritual matter than a racial or religious one, and Americans are Jewish in spirit. Hence, the near-complete Zionization and Judaization of our country, the complete linkage of the Pentagon and the IDF, our allowing Israeli intelligence to penetrate near every aspect of our government without lifting a finger to stop them, our outsourcing of most of our surveillance and counter-terrorism functions to Israeli “private” firms that are deeply linked to the state, on and on.

The truth is we got penetrated by Israeli intelligence in the early 1980’s, and the infection has only grown worse with time. At this point the host and the infectious virus are for all intents and purposes the same thing, completely merged, and as tangled as a lawn full of ivy.

So the US media and state has been blaring about this nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons program for decades. Once again, do they really believe this? Psychopaths believe their own lies, and our leaders are all psychopaths. Do they know it’s not true? And if so, why are they lying and saying there’s a program when there’s not? One answer may be that saying there’s a nuclear program is a good excuse to put sanctions on the regime.

Another reason may be that it is true that a civilian peaceful nuclear energy program can be converted into a nuclear weapons program, although it might take quite a bit of time. But you have a head start with that peaceful program. Is this the reason? I’m really not sure.

But all Israeli pronouncements about the Iranians being “three months away from a bomb” are complete nonsense. I have no idea how far away they are from a bomb, since they don’t even have a program to make one. They are enriching uranium at 60%? So? You need to enrich it at 95% to make even the tiniest trace of fissile material. Assuming the Iranians started a nuclear weapons program from scratch now and utilizing their civilian foundation and possibly their old research as a starter kit, how long would it take them to make a bomb? Who knows? But before we even start talking about such things, let’s present some good evidence that they even have a program in the first place.

Why are the Iranians leery about inspections? Because the US has been known to pepper these inspection teams with spies. The WMD inspection teams that inspected Saddam’s nonexistent facilities were seasoned with US spies. Recently the Iranian government found plutonium in the toilet area of one of the plants in their nuclear program.

An American female member of the inspection team was the last person in that bathroom. They thought that she was going to release the plutonium in the facility but was thwarted and had to get rid of her stash. If she had scattered plutonium in the facility, the US would have sent another team in right away. The new team would have found the plutonium, and then the US could yell, “Iran has plutonium, so they are making nuclear weapons!” So the Iranians don’t trust these “UN inspectors” very much.

As you can see, the fake charge about the nuclear program resulted in an agreement that all of the EU signed onto, so it looks like the entire West has bought into this Jewish lie about the fake nuke program. Who knows what they know? Do they know it’s all fake? Do they think the program is real? Who knows? But look how the fake charge about the nuclear weapons program has enabled the West to put massive sanctions on Iran. So it’s been quite useful. But why are the Israelis so eager to bomb a peaceful nuclear energy program?

Are they so stupid that they really think it’s a weapons program? That’s what they tell everyone. Are Jews really  that stupid or are they just playing dumb like they always do? With people like that who lie as often as they breathe, it’s almost impossible to figure out what they really believe about much of anything. It’s like analyzing a psychopath. Pretty soon you’re lost in a house of mirrors.

Alt Left: Lousy People Make Lousy Countries

If you want to know just how shitty a group of people are, just give them their own country and see what they do when they get a hold of it. Israel is the nation of the Jews. It’s one of the worst countries on Earth. What does that tell you? Turkey is the nation of the Turks, the Gulf Arab countries are the countries of the Gulf Arabs, and India is the country of the Indians. Three of the worst countries on Earth by far, in the running with (((that shitty little country))).

Israel sucks because it’s full of Jews, and this is how Jews act if you give them a country.

Turkey sucks because it’s full of Turks, and this is how Turks act if you give them a country.

Gulf Arab countries suck because they’re full of Gulf Arabs, and this is how Gulf Arabs act if you give them countries.

India sucks because it’s full of Indians, and this is how Indians act if you give them a country.

Why does Mexico blow? Because it’s full of Mexicans, that’s why.

What other reason could there be? Every nation is created by the people who make it up. If the people suck, you get a crappy country. If the people are decent, you tend to get a pretty good country. The only times this might not be true is when the majority oppose the state, but that’s not the case in any of the above nations except Bahrain, where the majority Shia oppose the awful government.

Colombia sucks because it’s full of Colombians.

Guatemala sucks because it’s full of Guatemalans.

El Salvador blows because it’s full of Salvadorans.

Honduras sucks because it’s full of Hondurans (although to be fair, most of the people oppose the state).

Haiti sucks because it’s full of Haitians. Now, I happen to like Haitians in a political sense because 92% of them are Lavalas, and they almost all hate their horrible government, but it’s still true that Haiti is full of some pretty low quality people.

Brazil blows because it’s full of Brazilians, a half good and half bad people. Looks like the majority tips bad though because they just voted in a picture- perfect model of Mussolini.

And don’t give me this: “Oh the people are wonderful! It’s just their terrible government!”

But people aren’t set in stone. Germans and Japanese used to be the worst people on Earth, and now they’re some of the best. But I’m not quite so hopeful about some others. Haitians, for instance, may be problematic for a long time. But electing a Lavalas leader would sure be a step forward.

“Oranges and Lemons,” by Alpha Unit

Humans are among the few mammal species unable to synthesize Vitamin C from glucose. All of our Vitamin C has to come from our diets. If you were somehow to end up with no Vitamin C in your diet whatsoever for a prolonged time – say, three or four months and counting, indefinitely – it is no exaggeration to say that the repercussions could be dire.

Without Vitamin C we can’t make collagen, and without collagen your body can’t repair your skin, bone, cartilage, ligaments and tendons, blood vessel walls, and teeth. You need fresh food in your diet, either from plant or animal sources, to get this done.

Wherever you find people going without fresh food for long periods, you’ll find Vitamin C deficiency, or scurvy.

Scurvy has been prevalent throughout much of human history. It likely began to occur in humans during the development of agriculture. According to biologist Thomas Jukes, once people in temperate zones adopted an agrarian lifestyle they were able to store grains for use during winter. They were also able to spread into other temperate regions previously uninhabitable due to the lack of food supply during winters.

But because stored grains are extremely low in Vitamin C, it is likely that these ancient peoples developed scurvy during the long winter months because grain dominated their diets.

During long journeys or overland campaigns, such as the Crusades, scurvy inevitably appeared.

The first written account of a disease likely to be scurvy comes from the Eber Papyrus of ancient Egypt, dated to 1550 BC. The Papyrus not only diagnosed scurvy but prescribed that its victims be given onions, which contain Vitamin C.

Throughout maritime history, people had to figure out not only how to transport themselves across seas and oceans but how to stay healthy along the way. They were clearly relatively successful at both. Millennia ago, Austronesians were the first humans to invent oceangoing vessels; they colonized a large part of the Indo-Pacific region. Early Polynesians were superb seafarers and traveled thousands of miles exploring and settling the region we know as the Polynesian Triangle (drawn by connecting the points of Hawaii, New Zealand, and Easter Island).

Somali seafarers developed extensive trade networks, and Somali merchants at one time led commerce between Asia and Africa. Chinese merchants sailed the Indian Ocean and traded throughout Southeast Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, and East Africa.

How did ancient seafaring peoples deal with scurvy?

Stefan Slater writes that Polynesian seafarers relied on freshly caught fish, crustaceans, and octopi, and would sometimes slaughter some of the animals they were transporting for breeding stock. Jin Ding, Chaojan Shi, and Adam Weintrit report that the diet on Chinese sailing ships included green tea, which contains more Vitamin C than black tea. They also say that Chinese ships began to carry gardens with them, growing soybean sprouts, which are high in Vitamin C.

So there is some evidence that ancient seafarers knew the importance of keeping fresh vegetables and meat in their diets on long voyages.

For Europeans, it wasn’t until the Age of Sail that the problem of scurvy truly came into focus. Wealth and national interest were at stake in ways they hadn’t been before.

Advances in naval technology and a rush for exploration and conquest brought Europeans the “plague of the sea.” Scurvy was the main occupational disease of what historians call the European Age of Exploration. More sailors died of scurvy than all other causes combined, including battles, storms, and other diseases.

Jason A. Mayberry makes the case that a unique confluence of conditions made scurvy and seafaring a deadly combination for Europeans. In his essay “Scurvy and Vitamin C,” he draws upon the work of Stephen Bown, author of Scurvy: How a Surgeon, a Mariner, and a Gentleman Solved the Greatest Medical Mystery of the Age of Sail.

First, countries had difficulty maintaining sufficient crews for their naval vessels, so they relied on impressment: the taking of men into the military by compulsion, with or without notice. It had been legally sanctioned in Britain since the time of Edward I.

It was basically kidnapping. Gangs of men would go into port towns looking for “recruits.” They would club a man and drag him back to the ship. The man’s family might have no idea what happened to him, and many of the men never made it back home.

Some had experience at sea, some didn’t. Some were in poor health to begin with, being homeless, convicts, or elderly. On average a third of a ship’s crew was made up of impressed men.

Even the men who volunteered for naval service were often in poor health. Many would volunteer in order to secure a place to sleep and get regular meals. Sometimes boys who were orphans or runaways would join.

A second reason that Vitamin C deficiency was hastened during this period were the working conditions on ships. Discipline was harsh and included flogging, keelhauling, and starvation. The body needs more Vitamin C when it is under stress, and sailors had heightened stress in the form of physical exertion, exposure to the elements, fear of battle, and sleep deprivation.

The third and main factor in the development of scurvy was clearly the diet onboard ships. What mattered most for food supplies was that the food be storable for long periods without spoiling. The nutritional content of the food was of little concern for those in charge. What was most important to them was to maintain a suitable labor force at the least possible cost.

A typical weekly ration for a sailor, according to Bown:

  • 1 lb. hardtack (biscuit) daily
  • 2 lbs. salted beef twice weekly
  • 1 lb. salted pork twice weekly
  • 2 oz. salted fish 3 times weekly
  • 2 oz. butter 3 times weekly
  • 4 oz. cheese 3 times weekly
  • 8 oz. dried peas 4 times weekly
  • 1 gal. beer daily

Sometimes the rations included dried fruit or barley meal. But the lack of fresh fruits and vegetables left the diet almost completely devoid of Vitamin C.

Compounding this problem was that even the food sailors had access to wasn’t always fit to eat. Spoilage was a huge problem on ships. Ships were a dark, damp, and sometimes waterlogged environment for sailors and their food, and this led to moldy, worm-eaten bread, or other dried foods. Meat would begin spoiling almost as soon as it left port, no matter how salt-laden it was.

European navies did provide surgeons and surgeon’s mates on ships, but most of a surgeon’s time was spent caring for battle wounds instead of focusing on the treatment and prevention of disease.

All of these factors made scurvy the leading cause of death during the Age of Sail.

The onset of scurvy is a slow progression, Bown and others inform us, usually appearing after 60 to 90 days of a Vitamin C-deficient diet. This is when the body’s lingering stores of Vitamin C are depleted. The initial symptoms are fatigue and muscle aches. Upon waking, a scurvy victim’s joints will ache.

During the second stage, his gums begin to swell and will bleed with slight pressure. The teeth become loose at the roots. He also feels pain throughout his joints and muscles.

During the third stage, the gums begin to rot. They also bleed profusely. The victim’s flesh becomes gangrenous and will spontaneously hemorrhage. His skin, especially on the legs and feet, develop ulcers that turn gangrenous. As connective tissue fails, long-healed broken bones begin to refracture, and long-healed wounds begin to reopen. The legs cramp so severely that the person cannot walk.

At this point the person is in excruciating pain.

In the final stage of scurvy, the person gets a high fever. His skin develops black spots and he begins having tremors. He will drift in and out of consciousness for a while, and then he dies.

An estimated two million sailors died of scurvy between the 15th and 18th centuries. The science at the time was of very little use in treating them – even though various people throughout European history had made the connection between citrus fruits and the prevention of scurvy.

On July 8, 1497, Vasco da Gama set sail from Lisbon, Portugal, in search of a passage to India. On January 11, 1498, the fleet anchored off Mozambique. After five weeks at sea, the crew began showing the symptoms of scurvy.

Fortunately, some weeks later, they arrived at Mombasa, on the coast of Kenya, where they met local traders who traded them oranges. Within six days of eating them, the crew recovered. Da Gama left Africa and began his voyage across the Indian Ocean to Kozhikode (or Calicut to Westerners).

After staying in India for four months, da Gama left for a three-month journey at sea in which scurvy killed many of his sailors. On January 7, 1499, the ships anchored at Malindi, Kenya, where the sailors, remembering their previous cure in Mombasa, asked for oranges. Still, more sailors died of the disease “which started in the mouth.” Six months later the survivors made it back to Lisbon.

Did Vasco da Gama alert any ship owners or controlling authorities of what he had discovered about treating scurvy? No one knows.

Sir Richard Hawkins had discovered a cure for scurvy in 1593 when it appeared in his crew in southern Brazil. He reported that oranges and lemons had been a remedy for his men. To whom did he report this? What did they do with the information?

The Dutch had known about the value of citrus fruits since at least the late 16th century. According to J. Burnby and A. Bierman, who wrote “The Incidence of Scurvy at Sea and Its Treatment,” the Dutch East India Company bartered for lemons in Africa and also established vegetable gardens and orchards in their colonies to provide fresh citrus to their ships. How did the Dutch manage to keep this knowledge to themselves? Was that their intention?

Burnby and Bierman also write about an Elizabethan merchant, Sir Hugh Plat, who had an interest in botany and gave bottled lemon juice to the commander of the first fleet of the English East India Company. It was only the crew of the flagship, Red Dragon, which received a daily allowance of lemon juice. It was also the only crew that remained relatively free of scurvy. What did the English East India Company do with this information?

In the early 1600s John Woodall, a surgeon for the same East India Company, described the symptoms of scurvy and recommended that ships’ surgeons inform Governors of “all places they touch in the Indies” that the juices of oranges, lemons, limes, and tamarinds be used as medicine for scurvy.

The East India Company actually supplied “lemon water,” as it was called, for its ships until 1625, when the Company chose not to provide it because “the woman supplying it wanted 12d. a gallon above the usual price.” The return voyage of 1626 was badly afflicted with scurvy because they had bought tamarinds in the East Indies which they presumed to be as effective as lemons. All sour fruits and even acids such as vinegar were erroneously thought to be cures for scurvy.

J. F. Bachstrom, a Lutheran theologian and physician, wrote in 1734 that there was only one cause of scurvy – the absence of fresh fruits and vegetables for a long period. No drugs would help, nor would mineral acids. Were any companies or government entities aware of his findings? If so, did they take them seriously?

Europe was slowly making headway against this problem nevertheless. In 1739 James Lind, a former physician’s apprentice, volunteered for the Royal Navy and was designated a surgeon’s mate. After seven years in that position, he was promoted to surgeon on HMS Salisbury. It was on this ship that he performed his famous scurvy experiment.

Lind showed an insight ahead of his time by understanding that, to develop a cure, treatments must be compared simultaneously in similar patients. He had envisioned the concept of clinical trials, as rudimentary as his idea might have been.

After eight weeks at sea, and when scurvy was beginning to take its toll on the crew, Lind decided to test his idea that the putrefaction of the body caused by the disease could be prevented with acids. He divided 12 sick patients into six pairs, and provided each pair with a different supplement to their diet: cider, vitriolic acid (diluted sulfuric acid), vinegar, sea water, two oranges and one lemon, or a purgative mixture.

Only the pair who took the oranges and lemons improved.

You would think that Lind had established a clear connection between citrus and scurvy and that the Navy would have taken immediate action. But neither happened.

Lind continued to believe that there were multiple causes of scurvy. He also advocated a method of preserving the virtues of oranges and lemons that involved boiling the juices. Unbeknownst to Lind, boiling destroyed the active ingredient in citrus juices – Vitamin C. When the boiled juice was tried on ships as a preventative measure and found lacking, people began to dismiss the whole idea that citrus fruits were effective against scurvy!

In 1753 Lind published his Treatise on the Scurvy, considered a classic of medical science. But it took the Royal Navy over 40 years to adopt Lind’s recommendations. This happened under the direction of Sir Gilbert Blane, who had been appointed Physician to the Fleet.

Blane was familiar with Lind’s work and had the power and initiative to bring about change, Mayberry states. He organized an experiment on HMS Suffolk on a 23-week trip to India. The sailors were given a mixture of rum, water, sugar, and lemon juice. A few sailors developed a slight case of scurvy. They were given additional rations of lemon juice and the scurvy was quickly cured.

With the results from the HMS Suffolk and the power of his position, Blane was able to ensure that fresh citrus juice became a staple in the British Navy. For the British, scurvy had finally been conquered.

The question remains: why did it take so long, when so many had found the cure time and time again?

Burnby and Bierman note that there was the view among ship owners and government authorities that seamen were expendable. They also suggest that seamen themselves might have been reluctant to take part in experiments that might have settled the issue. But they mention other considerations, mainly the problem of “sheer impracticability.”

How does one store many thousands of oranges and lemons on an overcrowded man-of-war laden with guns, gunpowder, and shot? Using the juice of citrus fruits was certainly a space saver but it readily became moldy, especially under poor storage conditions, which were usually the case.

Speaking of practical considerations, how long can it be practical to treat your work force as if they are expendable? There were no sailors’ advocates at the time to make it impractical for businessmen and governments to do so. Nothing stopped or even slowed Europe’s exploration and colonization, so losing sailors to scurvy was just one of the costs of doing business.

Alt Left: Stupidity about “Sex Trafficking”

This term has been grotesquely abused lately, starting with feminists, who equate all prostitution with “trafficking” and then the federal government, which passed a rather silly law 5-10 years against “sex trafficking.” Increasingly what you are seeing in the media is a complete conflation of  prostitution and “sex trafficking.”

In particular, anyone pimping minor females is said to be “trafficking” no matter whether there is any coercion at all. Trafficking was originally supposed to mean women who were being essentially enslaved, kept prisoner, held against their will, and forced to prostitute themselves for others. Basically sex slaves. There are a lot of forms of this coerced and imprisoned sort of prostitution in  the world, and it is an ugly thing to be sure!

But that silly federal law conflated that with any prostitution of minors. So “sex trafficking” is not just sex slavery but it’s also prostituting of minors. Which seems a bit silly. How are minors being “trafficked” if they are not being held against their will? It’s ridiculous. The crime should be something like Prostituting a Minor, along those lines. Perhaps that’s a serious offense, I have no idea. But it sure isn’t “trafficking.”

Increasingly I have seen articles, many coming out of Texas, about big roundups of “sex traffickers.” They were rounding up 50-60 men at once and the guys looked pretty ordinary. That’s an awful lot of “traffickers” to round up at once. When they do round these guys up, they usually only catch a few at a time as they are hard to catch and not particularly common anyway. So I did some research. It turned out that of those 60 men, only one of them actually trafficked in prostitutes, and even he was just prostituting minors. I have no idea if coercion or imprisonment was involved. The other 59 men were guilty of…get this: buying a teenage prostitute!

Look I’m not saying that buying an underage prostitute should be legal. But you should have to prove that he knew that she was underage or by her appearance, she could not possibly have been 18. The bizarre thing about these laws is that in many states, it is perfectly legal for any adult man to have sex with a 16-17 year old girl as long as he does it for free and doesn’t pay her. The minute he gives her some money for her treasures, it’s a crime!

Even knowingly buying an underage prostitute is not “trafficking” in any way, shape, or form. It’s a crime called “Buying a Minor Prostitute.” How in the Hell is buying a whore “trafficking?” It’s absurd.

To tell the truth, many prostitutes with pimps may be being trafficked. That’s because many pimps won’t let the girls in their stables free. They threaten to hunt them down, beat them up, or kill them if they run away from the pimp. Any prostitute in a situation like that with her pimp is indeed being trafficked.

Now buying a teenage prostitute is an odd crime. Minors are not allowed to legally prostitute themselves, but many do it anyway. And 50% of minor female prostitutes are Black. Blacks are only 13% of the population. So there’s massive over-representation of Black teenage girls in minor prostitution. Quite a few of those girls probably have psychopathic tendencies too, or will develop into psychopaths when they are adults because we are not supposed to diagnose psychopathy or any other  personality disorder in minors. Fully 45% of adult female prostitutes are psychopaths. Newsflash: whores aren’t very nice women. They not even very nice people.

A lot of them are simply criminals and ripoffs and all sorts of petty thievery and female prostitution go hand and hand. In my opinion, a prostitute and a thief are the same thing. This is what the female psychopath becomes: Histrionic Personality Disorder, the “Mata Hari” or “femme fatale” disorder. Basically what I would call a thieving whore. Many female strippers, porn stars and other sex workers are also female psychopaths or have high scores on the PCL.

Many male porn stars are the same. This was observed as far back as the 1970’s and 80’s. If you look at those old porn movies, look at how mean and evil so many of those male porn stars are. And look at how crass, loud, brassy, and cold the women are. That’s the typical whore personality: hard, cold, brassy, callous, cynical. It looks like a damaged woman. Their emotions look shut down and they’ve gone hard.

Alt Left: The Rind Et Al Study on Long-term Effects of Child Abuse: Its History and Ramifications

A famous study on childhood sexual abuse was done 20 years ago by Rind et al. I think I still have a copy of it on my desktop here.

It provoked wild outrage. Even the idiotic American Psychological Association denounced it, notable as one of the most anti-scientific statements this anti-scientific organization has ever issued. Even the US Congress got in on the act. The Congress passed a resolution condemning the study! Congressmen, mostly Republicans, stood up and denounced it forcefully.

The problem? The study came up with the wrong answer. In other words, the truth was wrong and society preferred to believe pleasant lies over unpleasant truths, so the paper was condemned for discovering the wrong facts.

Usually when theory and facts do not match up, we say that the theory was wrong and go back to the drawing board.

However, in this case and with all ideological arguments by ideologues and politics types, when the theory and the facts don’t match up, the facts are wrong, and the facts are not the facts! Why? Because the theory is said to be automatically a priori true. The theory must be true. It cannot be false. So the facts must be wrong and we need to change the facts, wipe out the truth, and say that reality isn’t real, instead, what is real is some fantasy world that doesn’t  exist.

A number of fake “studies” were undertaken by other behavioral “scientists” taking about the Rind findings and finding fault with this or that conclusion. None of the fake studies denouncing it were worth a hill of beans. That they made it into the journals at all shows that pathetic anti-scientific nature of the social sciences, sadly also including Psychology, which has been trying to become more of a science for a long time now.

But by the very fact that it is a social science means that Psychology will always be a fake science in some ways because its findings have to do with people, and the science of people will always be twisted by politics, ideology, bias, and mostly emotional reaction.

It’s hard to get emotional about a new finding in math or physics. Who cares! But findings in the social sciences are inherently emotional because we are always emotional about ourselves and our fellow humans, and anything people are strongly emotional about will always be tainted by bias, propaganda, politics, and ideology. In other words, lies. This is why the social sciences will always be doomed to the charge of being fake sciences and will always carry the guilty burden of physics envy.

Ritter et al conducted a meta-analysis of a huge number of studies on the effects of childhood sexual abuse on children as adults. Child abuse was mostly defined as sexual abuse below age 13, so sex with teenage girls and boys, a massive minefield, was left out.

The available evidence shows that consensual sex with teenage girls and boys and adults causes little if any damage to teenagers. This behavior is illegal not because it is harmful to the teens, as I doubt that it is. Instead it is outlawed because society’s morals say that members of society do not wish to live in a society where adults are free to have sex with teenagers of various ages.

It’s seen as unsavory, unpleasant, disgusting or revolting, and often morally wrong. But this behavior is not psychologically disordered in any way. This is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one.

Unfortunately we are now in the midst of a truly insane mass hysteria around the sexuality of teenage girls in which 90% of the population has thrown reason out the window and gone batshit insane, out and out lies are widely believed, and science and facts are no where to be seen.

In fact, the people who quote the science and the facts about this question are attacked as pedophiles! Because I guess only pedophiles believe in science and truth when it comes to this sort of thing. If you don’t want to be called a pedophile, just spout the usual lies about this subject. As long as you keep lying and don’t ever resort to facts, you’re in the clear!

Fact: nothing published in an academic journal has ever produced evidence suggesting that teen/adult relationships are harmful or predatory. Literally not even one. Anthropological and historical studies all over the world have found that such relationships are common in many societies and no harm was reported in any society ever studied.

How do I know this? I’ve studied them. A particularly large one was done out of Germany in the 1950’s. You can find this evil science of banned truths on the Net, though I can’t tell you where to look. The pedo advocate sites have links to it, but I don’t want to send you there. I suspect the motives of those who wrote this study, but the science seems good.

Furthermore, historically speaking, I’ve learned from the Psychohistorian sites that teen/adult relations were normal in most of the world including the West up until 1900. Zero harm was reported.

Sadly, mass molestation of children was also reported in the West from Roman and Greek times until 1900. Under the crowded urban conditions that arose with the onset of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution, where families were packed together in tiny spaces, a great deal of molestation went on. I’m not happy about this at all, but it’s notable that no ill effects were observed in Greece and Rome until the pre-1900 West.

Perhaps the reason for this was that molestation of children was simply an expected fact of life. If you grow up as a female and get molested and all of your woman friends also got molested, it’s seen as a normal thing. There’s usually nothing inherently wrong with this behavior absent physical damage. Things that are normalized in any society tend to cause little if any damage.

I disagree here with some folks like psychohistorians who argue that all sexual abuse of children under any circumstances, normalized or condemned, results in inevitable terrible lifetime damage to the person. They also believe that many other things experienced in childhood cannot but cause horrible lifelong damage.

I doubt if that is true. If you grow up in a society that normalizes this or that behavior, outside of extreme perversion, aggression, and sadism, it’s probably seen as normalized and shrugged off. In other words, the damage of most of these things is relative and depends on the degree to which your society condemns or pathologizes the behavior.

However, for small children, the true victims of child molestation, it is quite different.

Granted, the victims were interviewed when in college so the abuse was a long ways away. Conceivably if they had interviewed them earlier as minors, they would manifested more damage. The findings were shocking:

Rind et al found that the long-term effects of child sexual abuse were typically neither pervasive nor intense, and men reacted much less negatively than women. Ritter et al also found that less than 10% of victims were traumatized. The most common effects were shame, blame, and confusion.

To explicate that further, the effects were shame about having been abused, blame for themselves for allowing it to happen to them, and confusion about the abuse itself.

The confusion may manifest in various ways. A female friend of mine from 10 years ago was molested. Of course she absolutely hates my guts now, but that’s not an unusual reaction for women who get involved with me in some way or another. I’m used to it.

She told me that she was molested by a pedophile in her church group when she was 8 years old. The molester was a young man and he does appear to have been a pedophilic or preferential molester. She told me, “It’s confusing because it feels good but it’s wrong.” This is part of the thinking behind the confusion that kids experience after being abused.

She also told me that she had completely gotten over it by age 50, but she seemed to have gotten over it much before then. I knew two other women (I actually got involved with these two whereas with the other one it was more email and hot phone conversations) of the same age who were sexually abused as girls, one by a probable pedophile and the other by her opportunistic teenage older brother. They both told me that they had gotten over it by age 50 but implied that they had gotten over it much before then.

The shame, blame, and confusion are apparently short-term effects in most victims, and at the very least have dissipated by college age.

The implication is that children or minors may experience those effects for some time in their youth, but these effects mostly go away by adulthood, and there is no lasting damage in almost all (90%) of cases. The study also found that where the molestation was consensual or non-coerced, there was little if any long-term damage. However, when coercion was involved, damage was much more likely and could easily last into adulthood or perhaps an entire lifeftime.

Unfortunately, pedophiles have gotten a hold of the Rind et al study and like to wave it around to try to push for legalization of child/adult sexual relations.

That’s not my intention here. I don’t care if most victims get over it. Good for them. I’m happy that they are not damaged in the long term.

Nevertheless, this behavior still needs to be outlawed because I don’t want to live in a society where adults are allowed to have sex with young children below age 13. I don’t have to have a reason. I just don’t like it. That’s all the reason I need.

Alt Left: Why US Conservatism Fails – Social Conservatism/Support for Working Class Whites and Neoliberalism Are Always Incompatible

There Is No Society

Margaret Thatcher summed it up well when she said, “There is no society.” This is what all conservatives want. They want there to be no society at all. It’s odd because this white picket fence White America they all want to go back to was a society if there ever was one. So all rightwingers want to get rid of society (as it’s bad for business) but then the paradises they all want to go back to had deep societal structures.

Why US Conservatism Fails – Social Conservatism/Support for Working Class Whites and Neoliberalism Are Always Incompatible

Just as Keynesian economics, social liberalism, and even social democracy always inevitably pave the way for and give ground to neoliberalism in the future, social conservatism and neoliberalism are never really compatible, at least not in the US. Another problem for Republicans is selling their project to working class Whites while pushing a project – neoliberalism – that is designed by its very nature to devastate all workers but the working class first and foremost.

Hence the Republicans claim to speak for the White Working Class while pushing the very economics that is causing declining life expectancy, opioid addiction and overdose epidemics, complete social degeneration, and economic wreckage in White working class America. The Republicans have always done this by getting working class Whites to vote for them on social issues. But then the Republicans never really get around to fixing any of the social issues.

Abortion legal yet? Of course not.

Got a handle on illegal immigration?

Porn illegal? You kidding?

Social degeneration arrested? You must be joking.

Divorce and single parenthood? Pull the other one.

Drug abuse, sales, and use? Please.

For abortion, porn, and illegal immigration, the Republicans don’t want to fix any of these issues. They just want to say they will and then never do it. The daughters of the rich get abortions too. I’m sure the rich love their porn, depraved degenerates that they are. And Republicans will never fix illegal immigration because their corporate and small business supporters want to keep the illegal flow coming for the cheap wages and control over labor.

Divorce, single parenthood, social degeneration, drug use, sales, and abuse, including opioid use and overdose epidemics? Curiously, the neoliberal economics that Republicans push tend to directly cause all of these forms of cultural decay and degeneration.

US Conservatism Will Always Be Incoherent

As usual, conservatives are incoherent. The problem isn’t capitalism, it “state capitalism” or “state interference in the market.” This is the Libertarian idiocy. Yet every time there’s a crisis in the market – and under neoliberalism there will be more than ever – the capitalists all go running to the state with their hands out asking for the workers to bail them out. The only thank you the workers get is a giant IOW for trillions of dollars they have to pay back that they loaned to the capitalists.

I go to rightwing blogs all the time and I see them flailing about. Many are starting to figure out that neoliberalism is utterly corrosive of all of the socially conservative values that they wish to cultivate.

Neoliberalism will always support mass immigration and illegal immigration to keep wages down.

Neoliberalism will always oppose any moral structures in society because the more we let it all hang loose, the more consumers we have.

Neoliberalism will never be race realist because capitalists care absolutely nothing whatsoever about race. It means nothing to them. The only color capitalists have ever cared about is green.

I see them flailing around, searching for something, anything – that will give them their social conservatism while keeping their free markets. Huey Longism, “agrarian socialism”, distributism, antisemitic campaigns against “banksters” that leave the rest of the neoliberal economy alone, on and on.

They want the usual starvation of the state with low taxes and no social programs, but that always results in no society at all or something that looks more like Somalia than Norman Rockwell.

They decry the pain that neoliberalism has inflicted on the White working class while refusing to recognize that neoliberalism had anything to do with it.

They never have any solid proposals about anything because their love of neoliberalism, a small or near-zero state, no regulation, etc. always runs afoul of their desires to limit immigration, slow the decline of the White working class, arrest the decay of values and behavior, and adopt some sanity on race, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity because the two things are utterly incompatible.

You either have one or the other.

You can’t have both.

Alt Left: Keynesianism, Social Liberalism, and Even Social Democracy Will Always Give Way to Neoliberalism

Keynesianism, Social Liberalism and Even Social Democracy Will Always Give Way to Neoliberalism

Keynesianism isn’t sustainable because the inevitable reactions against it will always swing neoliberal. So Keynesianism simply gives way to neoliberalism. Not to mention that they entire corporate class despises Keynesianism so they wage war against it the whole time it’s in. The corporate class wants neoliberalism and only neoliberalism all over the world. They have since the 1500’s. My brother had to read various tracts for his political science degree. One was by a businessman in Italy in the 1500’s.

He could have been Donald Trump or Ronald Reagan. He had no use for the state at all and preferred it to exist at as low a level as possible. He wanted absolutely nothing out of the state and mostly just wanted it to get the Hell out of the way and leave him alone as much as possible. He had no use for society either, as he felt it didn’t even exist. All that existed was money and the things you could buy and sell with it. So you see, capitalists haven’t changed since their birth in nascent form in Italy 500 years ago. They’ve always been the same and they’ll always be the same. It has to do with a Marxist notion called “the laws of economics.”

Alt Left: The Death of Social Democracy in Europe

If you haven’t noticed, there’s no more social democracy or democratic socialism in Europe. Probably the only thing left is Belarus, Moldova, Turkey, and Russia. Possibly Iceland because they told the banks to go pound sand. Greece elected a Leftist government, Syriza, that quickly went full-blown neoliberal, reportedly out of necessity. What has happened to social democracy is something that any Marxist could have predicted – the incompatibility of even trying to have any sort of socialist society in the midst of a capitalist economy.

The fate of social democracy is the what has always been the fate of social liberalism in the US and its counterpart in Canada and Australia. All of these variants have never been anything but reactionary on foreign policy – smashing the slightest sign of liberalism anywhere in the world if it even dared to peek its head out. Many governments in Latin America were overthrown for the crime of raising the minimum wage.

And most of these were overthrown by “liberal” Democratic governments. Bill Clinton set the stage for the overthrow of Aristide. Aristide’s crime? He dared to raise the minimum wage. He had investments in some factories there. So did Hilary. Hilary overthrew Honduras. The crime? Raising the minimum wage.

Even FDR, the most progressive President of the 20th century, was a raving reactionary freak on foreign policy. “Somoza may be a sonofabitch, but he’s our sonofabitch.”

Teddy Roosevelt was progressive at home but an imperialist brute overseas. “Walk softly and carry a big stick.”

The standard formula for all of these countries has always been some form of liberalism at home combined with hard right or ultra right policies that favored rightwing dictatorships, death squads, the genocide of the Left, and out and out fascism overseas. Liberal at home, reactionary abroad. And now Joe Biden, one of the most liberal Presidents in modern memory, is already treading down the same worn path.

And now the social democracies have undergone the same transformation that social liberalism, etc. has had from the start. One gets the feeling that liberalism or socialism at home in a capitalist country will always have to co-exist with ultra-right, pro-fascist politics overseas. In other words, a foreign policy of imperialism.

Most of Europe is whored to the ultra-rightwing NATO. The EU is for all intents and purposes the civilian state and NATO is the Defense Ministry of that state. Even Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are hard right countries when it comes to their NATO alliance. Finnish foreign policy has always been rightwing, a legacy of their hatred for Russia. Dutch, French, British, and Spanish foreign policy have been horribly rightwing forever now under social democratic and conservative governments both. Indeed in Europe, there is little difference between the two.

Spain strides around Latin America like a brute. Apparently they still think they rule the place as they once did.Most of this involves threats, arm-twisting, sanctions and whatnot every time countries try to assert more control over their resources, which are inevitably being exploited by Spanish corporations. Bolivia’s nationalization of oil and gas is instructive in this regard. The social democratic Spanish government was just as reactionary as the conservative one.

The French are cruel and colonialist towards their former colonies and do not allow any independent governments to form there, especially in Africa. The French and Canadians were deeply involved in the overthrow of Aristide in Haiti, apparently for the crime of raising the minimum wage. In addition, France is still demanding that Haiti repay it for its losses when the slaves of Haiti were freed and the slave-holding families were massacred. France is a social democracy.

The Dutch held a phony inquest in the M17 false flag shootdown where a Ukrainian fighter jet shot down an airliner in order to blame it on Russia. The EU was also deeply involved in this plot and especially the coverup. As were the British and in particular the BBC, the official organ of the British state. The British stole $4 million in gold from Venezuela by confiscating it. British foreign policy mimics US foreign policy in every reactionary thing we do. The UK is a social democracy.

Italy led the charge against Qaddafi and helped steal billions of his gold reserves. Italian corporations also quickly tried to get on Libya’s oil. Italy is a social democracy.

100% of the EU is sanctioning Venezuela for the crime of trying to create a social democracy in America’s backyard. No socialist country would ever sanction Venezuela. Same with Nicaragua. They’re all sanctioning Nicaragua too. Nicaragua’s even less socialist than Venezuela and Norway’s probably a lot more socialist than Venezuela.

So you see, these countries may have some sort of socialism at home (increasingly threadbare) but in foreign policy, it’s straight up full-blown reaction and imperialism, support for rightwing dictatorships and out and out fascists. The reason is simple. The economies of all EU countries are based on their multinational corporations.

Multinational corporations want nothing but rightwing dictatorship, preferably fascist, when they cannot elect hard Right democratic states. These corporations will not tolerate the slightest socialism or even liberalism overseas because they all operate on a predatory model towards the Third World.

Hence the foreign policy of all of the EU “socialist” countries is all about what’s good for the corporations that run their economies. Their corporations wish to go abroad and rape, ruin, exploit, destroy, and stripmine the economies of the Third World by exploiting their resources such that the corporations get almost everything and the countries themselves barely get a nickel.

This has always been the model and it always will be the model. So the EU social democracies have the same problem of the Democratic Party – while they can be leftwing at home to some extent, they all go hard rightwing and pro-fascist and rightwing dictatorship overseas due to their fealty to the corporations that run their economies.

Alt Left: Evidence That Israel Attacked Syria and Lebanon With Nuclear Weapons

RL: The fertilizer only blows up if you mix it with fuel oil.”

Sun Tzu: And this fact free and science free statement takes the gold medal for complete ignorance about Ammonium Nitrate properties.

RL: [The August 2020 Beirut explosion]… was when Israel dropped a tactical nuclear weapon on Lebanon’s wheat supply in silo in the Beirut port. And Hezbollah was blamed…You also fail to notice Robert Lindsay belief in the Israeli Nuke theory @Feb28 6:14 #212. That bit of misdirection was proven false soon after the incident.

Jackrabbit: The nuke theory is known to be false without a doubt. The characteristics of the fireball match that of an Ammonium Nitrate explosion and no radiation was reported.

Sun Tzu: There was no mysterious explosion in Beirut in August 2020. There was a predictable “waiting to happen” detonation of an Ammonium Nitrate Nitrate load unprofessionally stored for years in a port facility near a highly dense population center. There is wilful or criminal neglect of legal and well established international norms and regulations for the storage of dangerous goods UN placards 1942 / UN 2067. What exactly set it off, among the plurality of anecdotal and hearsay versions, is for forensic investigators to determine.

No Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizer Explosion

There was no fireworks factory in the area. The explosion looks nothing at all like a fertilizer explosion. Ammonium nitrate sends up a yellow cloud and this cloud was reddish brown, which makes sense as according to Lebanese intelligence, the warehouse it hit was full of bags of rocks and dirt masquerading as fertilizer. Lebanese intelligence, as noted, said there was no fertilizer.

Anyway, the crater that was blown was so wide it probably could not even have been blown with 280 tons of fertilizer instead of the 2.8 tons that was said to be in there. In other words, the amount of fertilizer said to be in that warehouse was not large enough to blow a crater that size. In addition, the characteristic mushroom cloud seen afterwards is only seen after nuclear blasts. No other weapon can produce such a cloud.

RL: The fertilizer only blows up if you mix it with fuel oil.”

Sun Tzu: And this fact free and science free statement takes the gold medal for complete ignorance about Ammonium Nitrate properties.

Everything I have ever heard says it has to be mixed with fuel oil and then a flame or spark has to be thrown onto it. Otherwise nothing happens. If you drop a bomb on it, it’s like dropping a bomb on a pile of sand. Also notice that the liars who made up this story changed the story after a couple of weeks after this fact came out. The new story said that fuel oil had been absolutely mixed in with the fertilizer mix a couple of years before.

Furthermore, neither ammonium nitrate nor any other explosive device can blow a hole that deep in solid rock.

Evidence for an Israeli Attack with a Tactical Nuclear Weapon

A mining engineer wrote a column saying that no known explosive could blow a crater that deep in solid rock. In fact, all known explosives blow upwards when they hit solid rock. The engineer said that because explosives can’t penetrate down into solid rock, holes must be bored deep into the rock. The explosive is placed deep inside the rock and detonated, as they can blow upwards into rock. The only known explosive that can blow a huge crater in solid rock is a tactical nuclear weapon. This includes bunker busters, which are actually small tactical nukes.

Syrian intelligence told another journalist team that the Beirut blast was caused by Israel bombing Beirut with a “new and experimental weapon.”

They also said that the explosion looked a lot like the one in Syria prior. I have seen photographs of that blast. The two explosion clouds look very similar. It is thought that Israel dropped a tactical nuke on Syria in that attack. I do not know what the target was.

The Russians were suspicious so they sent a team to the site. At the bomb site, the team did find low levels of radiation that could only have come there from a nuclear weapon. Based on video of the blast and the radiation found at the blast site, the Russian team concluded that Israel had bombed Syria with a tactical nuclear weapon. However, the Syrian government has never officially reported this.

No radiation was found in Beirut, sure, but also none was not found, as nobody even looked for any!

Anyway, with tactical nukes, you will only have small amounts of radiation in and around the crater after a day or two. They will linger for a week or so and then disappear. I am aware of a team from the US that arrived in Beirut by plane a day or two after the explosion. They had a lot of equipment with them, including radiation counters. The Lebanese military denied them entry to the country.

The nuclear arms control branch of the UN reported a large wave of radiation at their station in Sicily right around the time of the blast. I saw a printout from their data. The amount of radiation was consistent with either a nuclear explosion or a nuclear reactor failure.

An arms inspector for this UN agency, a Berkeley professor of Physics, reported told a team of journalists that Israel had dropped a tactical nuke on Beirut. The Italian government told a team of journalists that Israel had dropped a tactical nuke on Beirut. An addition, both Lebanese intelligence and the Lebanese military told a team of journalists that Israel had dropped a tactical nuke on Beirut.

Evidence for an Israeli Attack with No Mention of Tactical Nukes

Richard Silverstein reported that his source deep inside the Israeli government reported told him that Israel bombed Beirut and that the target was a Hezbollah missile depot. Israel was basically saying that the fertilizer report was a lie and what really happened was a missile depot was blown up.

Another team of journalists was told by Saudi and UAE intelligence that Israel attacked Beirut and blew up a Hezbollah missile depot. So these two intelligence agencies are also saying there was no fertilizer blast.

The Hezbollah missile depot story was put out by Israel in case the fake fertilizer story washed out. It did wash out, but fools keep repeating it anyway. The purpose was to blame Hezbollah for the blast and casualties by endangering the Lebanese people by carelessly storing missiles at the harbor, thereby leading to a loss of popularity for Hezbollah. This does not seem to have worked. All the usual idiots are sticking with the insipid fertilizer story.

A team of journalists was told by the Pentagon that Israel had attacked Beirut. No mention was made of a nuclear weapon. A group of generals then relayed this information to President Trump. Very soon afterwards, Trump said that the Beirut explosion was the result of a military attack.

Seven Different Countries and the UN Tell Five Different Teams of Journalists That the Blast Was Due to An Attack, with Most Saying It Was an Israeli Attack

We now have people from seven different governments telling five different journalist outfits that the blast was a result of an attack on Beirut.

UN: UN nuclear weapons control agency released a graph showing a large radiation release in the area at their station in Sicily. A US arms inspector for this agency reported that Israel dropped a tactical nuclear weapon on Beirut. (Journalist 1 – Veterans Today)

US: Generals report blast caused by attack on Beirut. Perpetrator and weapon used not named. (Journalist 1 – Veterans Today)

Italy: Government reported that Israel attacked Beirut with a tactical nuclear weapon. (Journalist 1- Veterans Today)

Lebanon: Government, military, and intelligence reported that Israel dropped a tactical nuclear weapon on Beirut harbor. Intelligence said there was no ammonium nitrate in the sacks. There were only sacks filled with rocks and dirt, a result of a six year long Mossad plot the culmination of which was the nuclear bombing of the harbor.

Israel: Source deep inside government said that Israel bombed a Hezbollah missile depot. (Journalist 2 – Richard Silverstein)
An Israeli newspaper quoted a rightwing Israel Congressman as saying that Israel attacked Beirut. I am not sure if he mentioned a missile depot. He also said, “That blast was huge. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think we attacked them with a nuclear bomb.” He was laughing and dancing a victory dance when he said that. That is a very suspicious statement. (Journalist 3)

UAE: UAE intelligence reported that Israel bombed a Hezbollah missile depot. (Journalist 4 – Asia Times)

Saudi Arabia: Saudi intelligence reported that Israel bombed a Hezbollah missile depot. (Journalist 4- Asia Times)

Syria: Syrian intelligence reported that Israel attacked Beirut with an unknown experimental weapon and that it resembled the blast from an attack on Syria a year ago. That blast was later proven by a Russian team of having been a tactical nuclear weapon. The two mushroom clouds look almost identical (Journalist 5 – Voltaire Network)

To reiterate:

Five different teams of journalists were told by seven different governments and the UN that there was at an attack on Beirut.

The same teams were told by five governments and the UN that the attack was the result of Israel bombing the harbor.

Two teams were told by three different governments that Israel either attacked Beirut with a tactical nuclear weapon or with a new and experimental weapon.

One team was told by two different governments that the attack was conducted by Israel with a tactical nuclear weapon.

The “No Bombing Attack” Theory

Wow, talk about complete nonsense! Jets were both heard and seen by hundreds and possibly thousands of Beirutis.

There is video of the Armenian Quarter where men are pointing up in the sky – presumably at jets – and soon afterwards, a terrible blast is heard and debris is flying in the street.

There is a video where you can hear with your very own ears the sound of a fighter jet – it sounded like an F-16 to my ears – roaring in for about 10 seconds, followed by the huge blast. The people making the video can be heard asking, “What’s that?”

How is that hundreds to thousands of Beirutis reporting hearing or seeing jets prior to the blast? Are they all hallucinating?

Why are men in Beirut pointing up to the sky at unknown objects, followed by a huge blast that sends objects flying. Did all of these people hallucinate?

Did I hallucinate when I heard the clear sound a fighter jet for 10 seconds on a video followed by an explosion?

Did the UN fake a graph showing a radiation spike at its Sicily station?

None of this makes sense.

Furthermore we have statements from sources in six different governments telling five separate teams of journalists that the explosion was due to an attack on the harbor, with most of them adding that the attack was done by Israel. Are five different teams of journalists making this up? Were five separate teams of journalists fed false information that Israel attacked Beirut? How likely is any of that?

There were 3-4 US spy planes over Lebanon at the time. They showed up several hours before the attack and left several hours afterwards. US spy planes do not commonly fly over Lebanon. What were they doing there?

The Backstory

A few weeks prior, Israel said that if Hezbollah attacks Israel again, Israel will attack Lebanese economic targets.

Two weeks later and a week before the attack, Israel staged a fake Hezbollah attack on the border. They said a Hezbollah team had tried to plant a bomb on the border but they were eliminated by Israel. Hezbollah said there was no team. This attack was apparently completely made up.

Three days later, Netanyahu issued a speech in which he threatened Hezbollah in some of the strongest language ever used.

Four days later, Israel drops a tactical nuclear weapon on the Beirut harbor, blowing up the grain silo that contains all of Lebanon’s wheat supply for the next month. Notice that this is an attack on the economy.

1. Israel threatens to attack the Lebanese economy if Hezbollah attacks again.

2. Israel stages a fake Hezbollah attack on the border, which can now be followed via the threat by an attack on the Lebanese economy.

3. Israeli leader threatens Hezbollah in a speech containing some of the strongest language ever used.

4. Israel bombs a grain silo in Beirut harbor that contains the next month’s grain supply = attack on Lebanese economy.

Jackrabbit: You also fail to notice Robert Lindsay belief in the Israeli Nuke theory @Feb28 6:14 #212. That bit of misdirection was proven false soon after the incident.

It is most certainly was not proven false.

In fact, seven different states and the UN told five different teams of journalists that the blast was due to a military attack on the harbor, with most saying it was an Israeli attack.

Three different states and the UN said or implied to two teams of journalists that Israel bombed Beirut with a tactical nuclear weapon.

It’s imperative upon the doubters to prove that multiple governments lied and/or that multiple teams of journalists lied or were all fed the same false information. Most of these teams have a good record for advocacy, and half of the governments put out quite reliable information.

The Mossad Plot That Started It All

A team of journalists was informed by Lebanese intelligence that this whole episode was a Mossad plot dating back several years. They discovered that nothing about this ship made any sort of sense. All of the documentation about it was fraudulent, forged, or dishonest. Nothing added up. Mossad purchased a ship in Cyprus. Then they went on a rendezvous of three different countries, supposedly buying fertilizer. The last stop was in Georgia, where the ship purchased 2,800 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. This is the ultimate source of the “fertilizer” on the ship.

There is a problem with this: Ammonium nitrate fertilizer is not manufactured anywhere in Georgia, so the ship literally could not have bought this cargo there.

According to intelligence, there never was any fertilizer. Instead, the sacks were filled with rocks and dirt. The rocks and dirt labeled ammonium nitrate fertilizer were placed in the warehouse at the dock. They reportedly sat there for a number of years as buyers for the fertilizer supposedly fell through. Obviously there were no fertilizer buyers because there was never any fertilizer in the first place.

In addition, the ship’s owner, a Russian, went bankrupt and lost possession of the ship. This Russian ship owner may have been in on the plot. The fertilizer then had no owner.

Lebanese courts thought that the fertilizer was a hazard and issued a number of orders to remove it from the warehouse. None of these orders were followed. It is hard to explain this part of the story.

That part of the port of Beirut is owned by Lebanese Maronite Falangists, hardcore opponents of Hezbollah who formed the pro-Israel Southern Lebanese Army that enforced the Israeli conquest and annexation of Southern Lebanon. Hezbollah forced the Israelis to leave via continuous deadly or injurious attacks and the SLA had to flee for their lives. Most of them were quickly taken in by Israel but a few went to the US. One was arrested and imprisoned a few years ago when he came back to Lebanon. He was the head of a notorious prison in Southern Lebanon where resistance fighters were imprisoned and tortured.

It is certainly possible that these Falange worked with Israel on this plot. They may have been involved in the refusal to remove the “fertilizer.” We must also note that since the Falange control that part of the port, there is no way that Hezbollah could have stashed missiles there. So the “Hezbollah missile depot” story cannot possibly be true.

The figure of 2,800 tons is important. As noted, the crater of the blast was so large that it is dubious whether even 280,000 tons or 100 times that amount of ammonium nitrate could have blown a hole that big. And no amount of ammonium nitrate could have blown that deep crater in the solid rock below.  As noted, only a nuclear bomb, tactical or otherwise can blow a hole in solid rock. This is why all known bunker buster bombs are actually small tactical nuclear weapons. They have to be.

That the fertilizer was ammonium nitrate is also important. An Italian chemist noted that ammonium nitrate leaves a large yellow cloud when it blows up. The cloud in the explosion was red-brown. The chemist thought that may have been due to the Hezbollah missiles blowing up. But as we now know, there were no Hezbollah missiles. Lebanese President Auon himself said there was no missile depot at the port.

The Aims of the Attack

Also, note that the “fertilizer explosion” or “Hezbollah missile depot blast” occurred only a week before a corrupt UN investigation team was due to convict Hezbollah for killing former President Hariri. However, Hezbollah was framed for this crime as Hariri was actually killed by an Israeli drone overhead. This would be a one-two blow for Hezbollah. Hezbollah would be blamed twice in a week for serious catastrophes that befell the land. The idea was to make Hezbollah lose all its support.

In the event of the fertilizer explosion story, the intent there was to blame the Lebanese government. “The Lebanese government killed 1,000 Lebanese people!” This was then very suspiciously followed by a US-led color revolution supposedly outraged over the government ineptitude that caused the explosion in which a mere 3,000 paid demonstrators managed to overthrow the government. US government regime change specialists were spotted at these demonstrations with huge grins on their faces.

As soon as the government of Lebanon was overthrown, the (((Rothschild-controlled))) President Macron of France flew in and immediately began strongarming the Lebanese government into setting up a new government without any Hezbollah supporters. Lebanon was specifically threatened with consequences if they did not set this government up.

The US then put crushing sanctions of Lebanon that wrecked its economy. With the addition of a banking crisis that also collapsed the economy, the idea was to wreck the economy to make people so angry they would throw out the pro-Hezbollah government. It hasn’t worked yet.

In other words, the entire aim of the attack was to get Hezbollah out of the Lebanese government and marginalized in Lebanese society.

Very Suspicious Concurrent Attacks

The very next day after the attacks, US forces blew up several grain silos in Syria. Note that Israel’s attack blew up Lebanon’s entire supply of grain. So the US attack on Syria’s grain is concurrent with an Israeli attack on Lebanese grain. The US blowing up Syrian grain silos does not fit with an accidental fertilizer explosion. Why would we bomb grain silos because some fertilizer blew up?

In the next couple of days, a series of fires broke out at food warehouses in the southern Shia part of Iraq. Israel or the US is suspected. So the connection? In all three cases, food supplies for pro-Iranian populations were destroyed. The Lebanese people support Hezbollah by 65%. Their food was blown up. Syria supports Iran. Their bread was blown up too. The Shia in Southern Iraq support Iran. Their food supplies caught fire. The day after, a huge Iranian-owned mall in the UAE went up in flames. Israel or the US is suspected again.

Lebanon: Attack on Hezbollah and the people of Lebanon for supporting Hezbollah and Iran by blowing up the country’s supply of bread.

Syria: Attack on Syria, a pro-Iranian government, by blowing up the country’s supply of bread.

Iraq: Attack on the Iran-supporting Shia of Iraqi South by destroying their food supply.

UAE: Attack on Iran by setting an Iranian-owned shopping mall on fire, destroying it.

Why would an accidental fertilizer explosion just happen to destroy a country’s food supply. Why would it be followed by attacks on the food supply of two other populations which just happen to support Iran? Why would it also be followed by the destruction by fire of a shopping mall in the UAE that just happens to be owned by Iran?

All four of these attacks were obviously coordinated. Accidents are not followed by coordinated attacks destroying similar things that got destroyed in the accident. All attacks were against either Iran, or pro-Iranian armed groups, governments and populations.

Starting to get the picture?

The Coverup

A team of journalists was told by the Lebanese military and intelligence that all parties had agreed to cover up this incident and go with the fake fertilizer story. The Lebanese government wanted to cover it up so as not to spread panic in the population. Also it made the government look very weak in the face of Israeli aggression. Hezbollah wanted it covered up too because they have no effective response or deterrent now that the Israelis are using nuclear weapons against their adversaries.

They felt it would lead to disillusionment and defeatist thinking on the part of the Lebanese people with a resulting loss of support for Hezbollah: “Hezbollah is impotent to defend us against Israeli nuclear weapons, so why support them? Let’s just surrender. The war’s over.” In addition, Iran also wished to cover it up because they have no effective response to Israeli nuclear weapons either and admitting this might lead to similar disillusionment and defeatism on the part of the population. “Just surrender to the US and Israel already. We can’t win.”

As noted above, there is excellent evidence that Israeli dropped a tactical nuclear weapon on Syria about a year before the Beirut blast. The Syrian government has not admitted this for the same reasons as the Lebanese, Hezbollah, and Iran above.

Israel will of course never admit to using tactical nuclear weapons for fear it would set off an increase in anti-Israel sentiments in the world. However, considering how Israel-cucked the US and increasingly the EU is, not to mention the Arab sellouts and traitors, I think a lot of the world would probably cheer that Israel was nuking the Arabs.s

The US will also not admit to using tactical nuclear weapons. Any mention of this will be relegated to the usual conspiracy theory tinfoil hat territory. We reasonably fear an increase in anti-US sentiment after such a revelation. But considering how US-cucked the Europeans are, I’m wondering if they wouldn’t cheer that America is dropping nukes on those dirty Muslims.

Israel started using tactical nukes as early as 2008 when they used them against the Hezbollah resistance. A very suspicious blast was investigated soon afterwards by a Russian team and they indeed found abnormal levels of radiation at the site. The Russians concluded that Israel had used a tactical nuclear weapon against Hezbollah.

There is now excellent evidence that the US used a few to several tactical nuclear weapons (bunker busters) against Al Qaeda’s cave fortifications at Tora Bora. In addition, we now know that the first US use of tactical nuclear weapons was in the first Iraq War in 1991, when we dropped a tactical nuclear weapon 13 miles east of Basra. This marked the first use of a tactical nuclear weapon by a military in the modern era.

Alt Left: About Those “Iran-backed Militias”

That phrase doesn’t mean much. All it means is that this is an armed group in the Middle East who opposes US and Israeli hegemony. This includes Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, the Afghan Shia militias, and the PMF division of the Iraqi Army.

None of those groups takes orders from Iran. The group that we bombed does not take orders from Iran and they receive neither funding nor weapons from Iran. They are simply allied with the Iranian government.

In the case of the Houthis, there are Iranian advisors embedded in the group that help them plan and carry out some attacks. Iran sends weapons prototypes of missiles, rockets, and drones and then the Houthi modify them into their own native products. There are also Iranian advisors embedded in the Houthi forces.

In addition, Iranian advisors help the Houthi carry out some attacks. For instance, Iran helped plan and carry out the Houthi attack from Yemen against the Aramco oil refinery in Saudi Arabia. The US said Iran launched the attack from a base in Southern Iran, but that’s not true. We made that up because we would rather blame Iran than the Houthis for the attack.

It is important to realize that the US government, especially the State Department, CIA, and Pentagon, lie constantly when it comes to US foreign policy against nations we consider our adversaries. And all major US news organizations get a lot of their foreign policy stories directly from the CIA.

Look up Operation Mockingbird. In this plan, the CIA had most of the top journalists in the US on its payroll, so in essence, the CIA was controlling almost every major press organ in the US. The owners of these media groups knew that they were under CIA control, but they didn’t mind because the US media always agrees with whatever aims the CIA and State Department has as the CIA and the American ruling class and corporations share the same aims. When it comes to opposition to US foreign policy in regard to our adversaries, there is no major opposition media in the US. Our press is as controlled as PRAVDA was in the USSR.

That is why it is important to be dubious to say the least about any foreign policy news story you read about a nation deemed an enemy of the US. Every single story you read about that country or group is going to be propaganda in one way or another. Stop believing the US media! Stop believing the US government! Stop believing the Pentagon! They’re all lying to you.

Alt Left: More on Republican Election Theft Via Voting Machines

The Republicans have been using voting machines to steal elections since 2002. Apparently they have access to the software in the ESS machines somehow. And it looks like ESS is in on it. Diebold was in on it in the past. All the voting machine companies are run by radical rightwing Republicans. The plot started with Karl Rove and Jack Abraham’s HAVA or Help America Vote Act in 2002.

Our elections haven’t been right ever since. This is an operation being run by Karl Rove. Rove is on record as telling a woman that when it is within 3%, we can steal the election, but when it is more than that, we can’t because it looks too bad. But in this last election they tried to steal elections where they were 8-10 points down, so I guess they’re even chucked that courtesy.

The voting machine companies are in on it too, in particular ESS. They are owned by members of the Bush and Romney families, so it looks like the Bushes and Romneys are in on the election theft. McDonnell at least knows about. Trump stole the election in 2016 with machines. Same with Bush in the 2004 election. I do not think the Republicans have access to the Dominion machines anymore now that they have been sold. That’s why Georgia elections are pretty fair.

Look up a book called Red Shift. It documents the whole plot.

No one believes it. People I know have been screaming at the major media and the Democratic Party for years about this, but no one will touch it with a 10 foot pole. It’s “conspiracy theory.” Also these clowns say we can’t admit to that because “It will cause Americans to lose faith in our democracy.”

A lot of those Republican state governments were stolen in the same way. Now they are so gerrymandered that the Democrats can’t possibly win. To get back control of the Wisconsin Legislature, Democrats have to win 65% of the vote in the state – that’s how gerrymandered it is. A simple 51% won’t cut it anymore.

The “massive poll and exit poll failures” only started in 2002 with the placement of voting machines in our elections. Before that they were on the money. Aggregate polls and exit polls are never off in any fair election. When the results don’t match the aggregate polls and exit polls, it’s always due to fraud.

The Democrats are insane. They are willing to let the Republicans completely destroy the country and even our democracy so “Americans won’t lose faith in our democracy.” Idiots!

Alt Left: Israeli Ship Attacked in the Persian Gulf

First of all, Iran is not interested in directly striking US forces. Yes, they are committed to ejecting the US from the area, but that project has been outsourced to its armed allies in the region, should they wish to carry it out. Hezbollah, the PMF, and the Houthis are interested in attacking the US and they don’t take orders from Iran anyway. Instead the base attacks are being done by small underground Shia guerrilla groups and no one seems to know who they even are.

After the US bombed the Iraqi Army in Syria, falsely blaming it for mortar attacks on US bases, soon afterwards, an Israeli sea liner was attacked in the Persian Gulf. There were several small holes maybe three feet across in the hull. First reports said that the ship hit mines. It’s not from mines because the damage is above the water line and mines have to blow up underwater.

The information I am getting from Iranian sources is that the attack was done by either drones or cruise missiles. I don’t know who carried it out or from where. Yes, the possibility exists that it is a US or Israeli false flag and we or Israel attacked the ship, but there are some reasons that might not be true. First of all, The owner is one of the richest men in Israel, and he is very close to the head of Mossad, Yossi Cohen. So it may be a symbolic strike.

Why would they US or Israel do a symbolic strike against the head of Mossad? That doesn’t add up. It’s a very sneaky thing to do and it’s just the sort of symbolism-laden attack that devious intelligence agencies like to carry out. A lot of intelligence agency operations is psychological operations intended to terrorize and terrify the enemy. That is why intelligence agency attacks often occur on certain devious anniversaries of significant events. It’s like a murder mystery. They’re leaving clues. It’s also very creepy and the intent of intelligence agencies is to creep out the enemy.

Also, note that for his shipping company,  having  his ships attacked like this is nothing short of disastrous. International shipping operates in tight schedules and deadlines and the idea that your ships have a tendency to get attacked is extremely bad for this man’s business as ports may not want to accept his ships due to the hazards.

A couple of months ago, an Iranian hit team eliminated a high ranking Mossad officer in Tel Aviv and managed to escape.

This follows an earlier attack a year ago where Iran helped the Taliban shoot down a US CIA spy-plane in Afghanistan. “Ayatollah Mike” Mike DeAndrea, a high ranking CIA agent who runs the Iran file, was said to be on the plane along with five other CIA officers. The claim was discounted in all of the Western press, and he was said to be quite alive. However, my information is that Mike has not been seen since that attack, so I am thinking he was killed.

I used to think Mossad was the best spy agency, but I must say that Iran intelligence is getting pretty damn good. They figured out that Mike was on that CIA plane and gave the Taliban missiles to shoot it out. Sounds like Iranian intelligence has penetrated the CIA somehow.

They knew who that Mossad colonel was, what kind of car he drove, and where he would be at a given time and place. No one knows any of these things, and the names of Mossad officers are not made public. It sounds like Iranian intelligence has penetrated the Mossad!

And now this ship is hit, a ship owned by one of the richest men in Israel who is also close to the head of Mossad, Yossi Cohen. Looks like a symbolic strike at Mossad again. I wonder how many people know that the man who owns this ship is tight with the head of Mossad. That can’t be common information.

Alt Left: Why Do “Liberal Democrats” Support US Foreign Policy to the Hilt?

Why do Americans support US foreign policy? Part of it might be apathy. They simply can’t be bothered. Americans don’t seem to care how many bombs we drop or people we kill as long as no Americans are getting hurt or killed. It’s a pretty sociopathic way of looking at the world.

Actually, it is not so much that they don’t care as they are brainwashed. Just about every “liberal Democrat” I know supports US foreign policy to the hilt. Every bomb we drop, every person we kill. They back it all the way. As finding out the truth about US foreign policy necessitates figuring out the constant to  regular lies, tricks, provocations, and false flags, a reality-based assessment of US foreign policy quickly starts looking like very quickly like conspiracy theory.

Most “liberal Democrats” reject all so-called “conspiracy theory,” no matter how true it is, even when the MSM uncovers it.

Of course it is the MSM pushing all of these lies, scams, tricks, cons, and false flags, so they almost never blow the whistle on the conspiracy theory. Even when they do, no one seems to care. I remember the NY Times proved that the mortar attack that killed the US contractor was done by ISIS, not be the PMF. Most “liberal Democrats” I know just said so what, the PMF has probably done other bad things.

Liberal Democrats are horrific on foreign policy. Democratic Party foreign policy has always been reactionary. But all the Democrats in Congress go along with it and so does the media. It’s very hard to get Congressmen to go against US foreign policy, and the media basically never does, as they get most such news from the CIA anyway. Remember Operation Mockingbird?

There is a “bipartisan foreign policy consensus.” It was smashed with Vietnam, and the Deep State regarded this with horror and spent decades trying to get rid of the “Vietnam Syndrome.”

Now the consensus is back. Part of the problem is that in order to go against US foreign policy, you need to side with the so-called enemies of America. When Democrats go against foreign policy, Republicans immediately accuse them of supporting the enemies of America.

But it all goes deeper than that. I’ve thought about it a lot and when liberal Democrats can oppose US domestic policy, they are not saying America is bad. America’s just fine. It’s just the evil Republicans who are bad. America itself is still good. It’s just been hijacked by bad people.

But when you attack US foreign policy, you are attacking the Army! And basically you are saying that America is bad, America is evil. Because foreign policy is never seen as basically good but only bad when it gets hijacked by bad people called Republicans. Instead it’s that US foreign policy under Republicans and Democrats is always 100% good. It’s always America itself that is doing this or that BS overseas. In order to attack US foreign policy, you have to say that America itself is bad or evil.

The vast majority of liberal Democrats don’t want to say that. A lot of them just believe the “America is 100% good” line. Others probably don’t want to be seen as traitors and America-haters. Patriotardism is the religion in America, even among liberals. And exceptionalism is the foundational myth of America that never went away.

Bottom line is “liberal Democrats” are complete crap. There’s nothing liberal about them! I respect Republicans more than these phonies. Republicans come right out and say they’re reactionaries and then act like them. At least they are consistent and true to their word. Liberal Democrats claim to be progressive but govern as reactionaries.

Ever notice that BLM and other woketards never attack US foreign policy? Like not even one time? Ever notice that they don’t even talk about economics? See? All they talk about is divide the working class Identity Politics Cultural Left insanity. Which for some odd reason gets the complete support of the US corporate class for reasons that are still uncertain for me. Those “hip, woke” corporations are still totally reactionary, like all corporations, on economics and foreign policy. They’re just left on cultural BS that doesn’t effect their bottom line or basic philosophy.

Alt Left: Blockbuster Report: Who Are the Iraqi Shia Guerrilla Groups That Are Attacking US Bases in Iraq?

Biden bombed the Iraqi Army in Syria on the Syrian border yesterday. Anywhere from 1 Iraqi Army soldier was killed and two were wounded. The only known casualty is a Sunni member of that division. The force there is known as the PMF, a pro-Iran militia that was formed a few years ago to fight ISIS in Iraq. The US calls the PMF an “Iranian militia,” but that’s not what they are. They were formerly independent but now they have been incorporated into the Iraqi Army itself. Probably most members are Shia, but there are also Sunnis, Christians, Yezidis, and Sabeans, in addition to both Kurds and Arabs in the PMF.

The group that Biden attacked is not really the group that carried out the attacks on US bases. US bases have been getting rocketed and mortared recently for some months now. The attacks are being claimed by shadowy, illegal underground Shia guerrilla formations. The US claims that these guerrillas are nothing but the PMF in disguise, but that’s not exactly true.

The following information about the nature of the illegal Shia guerrilla formations attacking US bases in Iraq comes from Elijah J. Magnier, a 30-year veteran war correspondent who has deep contacts in the Iranian and Iraqi governments and also in the PMF. His reporting has generally been on the money in the past. He is quite straightforward and puts little if any spin on his material, so it tends to be quite objective.

First of all, you must understand that Iraq is a very weak state and the Presidency is even weaker. Many Iraqis have decided for themselves to act independently to wage attacks on US forces, as they are seen as occupiers. The Iraqi government has ordered the US forces to leave Iraq, but the US has thumbed its nose at Iraq and says it’s not leaving! What arrogance. Hence, patriotic-minded Iraqis have taken it upon themselves to form guerrilla formations to attack the US bases and Embassy.

The question I have been asking for a long time now is, “Who exactly are these shadowy underground Shia guerrillas? Are they really just the PMF as the US  says?”

I have now learned who these groups are, but it is complicated.

As noted, many Iraqis have taken it upon themselves to act independently to attack US bases and embassies. In this role they are acting independently of the Iraqi Army and the PMF because the Army and the PMF are not interested in attacking the US in Iraq at the moment for a variety of reasons. These guerrillas are mostly Shia and use Shia names and symbols. They do not take orders from Iran. They don’t take orders from anyone.

To give you an example of their independence from Iran, Iran is not happy that these Shia guerrillas are attacking the US Embassy because Iran is opposed to  attacking anyone’s embassies or diplomatic missions. This is one lesson they have learned from 1979. However, these guerrillas march to their own drummer. They simply do what they want.

These guerrilla groups are known to locals because they operate in certain locales, so these are local Shia Iraqis who have formed illegal armed formations. They are very hard to find and catch because when they are not moonlighting as guerrillas, they hide in the Iraqi Army, the federal police, and the PMF. The Iraqi government is not interested in uncovering these forces anyway.

So the guerrillas are members of the Iraqi Army, federal police, and PMF who go off on their own to moonlight as guerrillas and carry out attacks on US targets and then return to their units to hide. They operate independently of all three units of the security forces.

One major question is where do they get their arms and funding. All of Iraq is a weapons depot anyway, so weapons should not be hard to find. I assumed that they were getting funding and arms from Iran, but I was wrong. The funding and arming of these Shia guerrillas who are attacking our bases comes directly from the Iraqi government itself. Nevertheless, even though they take a paycheck from the Iraqi government, they act on their own. They use Iraqi  military weaponry on their own too. They take it from Iraqi security forces arms depots.

If you are wondering why the Iraqi government doesn’t step in and disarm or at least try to find these Shia guerrillas, the truth is that no one can go against these groups. They are too powerful and have too much support. Look at the situation with Moqtada al-Sadr. The Iraqi government cannot tell Sadr what to do either. He’s too powerful. He gets to do whatever he wants. As I noted above, political and military structures in Iraq are weak.

There are different tendencies in the Iraqi Shia, and it comes down to the individual level. Even within the PMF itself, there are Iraqi Shia who are obedient followers of Iran, others that are pro-Iran but act independently, and others who are anti-Iranian Iraqi nationalists associated with the Marjaya religious establishment around Ayatollah Sistani in Najaf. There are also Sunnis and members of other confessions.

Also, the PMF takes orders from the Iraqi government, not from anyone else, including Iran. None of the “Iranian-backed militias” ever took orders from Iran. They would meet with the Iranians and Iranians might give them a list of possible attacks they might carry out. Then they could choose from the list. For example, to show you how that these groups do not take orders from Iran, wanted the Houthis to advance on San’a early in the war, but the Houthis decided not to turned them down as they thought it was too risky at the time.

Iran doesn’t even give orders to Hezbollah. But they don’t need to as Iran and Hezbollah have aims and philosophies that are in great accord with each other.

Alt Left: That $15/Hour Minimum Wage

The Democrats are trying to push a bill that will raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hour. This is part of the Push for Fifteen movement sponsored by labor and the Left in general, especially the Bernie Sanders crowd.

This is part of the Democrats’ $1.9 billion COVID relief package. I generally support this, and the $1,400 is certainly much needed, especially around these parts, as in, my humble abode.

However, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Krysten Sinema of Arizona, the  two most conservative Democrats in the Senate, vow to oppose the $15/hour minimum wage. Well, good for them! See? Here I am, rooting for the most conservative Democrats in the Senate. I think that shows more than anything else how insane and extreme the modern Democratic Party is on so many issues. I never support conservative Democrats on anything!

Manchin somehow always manages to get re-elected in a state that Trump won by 39 points in 2016 and 29 points this time around. But West Virginia has a long tradition of electing conservative Democrats. Remember Robert Byrd? Sinema managed to win in purple Arizona, long a very conservative state, home of Barry Goldwater after all. She probably won by billing  herself as a conservative Democrat. Just to show you that conservatives are as woke as liberals nowadays, Sinema is openly bisexual. The Culture War is over. The Left won. Time to pull down the flag and go home, social conservatives.

Manchin and Sinema are proposing an $11/hour minimum wage. Well that lifts families of one and two persons out of poverty at least. It leaves families of three $1,000 short and families of four $4,500 short. I don’t mind this compromise. I’d prefer $12/hour, but I will settle for $11. Anything’s better than $7.25/hour.

Mitt Romney and Tom Cotton (Tom Cotton! He’s one the most rightwing people in the Senate!) are proposing a slow increase in  the minimum wage to $10/hour in 2025. I guess it raises at ~60 cents an hour. That seems awful meager.

And it’s also linked to E-Verify, and mandates all employers to use it. I believe it submits the worker’s Social Security # if he even has one and sees if they are eligible to work in the US.

You realize that illegal aliens engage in mass identity theft of other people’s social security #’s, right? You all think that’s ok? Why is that ok? How would you like it if some crook who sneaked into your country illegal was using your SS# to steal a job from an American citizen or legal immigrant.

This E-Verify is utterly reasonable. How this is unreasonable is beyond me. Insanely, the ACLU went to court to put an injunction on E-Verify at the federal level, apparently because it messes up sometimes. Oh, my God! Something doesn’t work right all the time! So let’s throw it out and never use it!  Try applying that to every object you own and see how that works.

I completely support full implementation of E-Verify at the federal level. Maybe then we can get a lot of these damned illegals to self-deport.

For some insane reason, the Democratic Party is opposed to E-Verify! Why?! Do illegal aliens automatically have a right to work in this country? No other country on Earth allows such nonsense. Go to any country on Earth and try to work if you’re not a citizen or a legal immigrant. Good luck with that. But we are America, and the whole damn world has a right to sneak in here anytime they want!

Biden also opposes E-Verify. Why, for God’s sake? What in the Hell is their reason? What good reason is there to oppose such a completely reasonable measure?

The present minimum wage is way too low. It’s $ 7.25/hour. It’s been stuck there since 2009. Obviously it needs raising. Question is by how much. It is stated that the present minimum wage is not a living wage. I haven’t the faintest idea what a living wage even means. What in the Hell does that mean?

$7.25/hour definitely puts a single worker above the poverty line. That’s all I think the minimum wage should do. Poverty level is ~$13,000/year for one person. Try living on that sometime. Good luck!

Family of two? $17,420. With the present federal minimum wage, a family of two would live in poverty. That’s not ok. You would need a minimum wage of $9/hour to lift that family out of poverty.

Family of three? $23,000. Well, you would need a minimum wage of $11.75/hour to lift them out of poverty.

Family of four? $26,500. You need a minimum wage of $13.50 to raise that family out of poverty.

What is the purpose of a minimum wage? If it is to keep one person out of poverty, the present wage is fine. If it is to keep a family of two out of poverty, we need to go up to $9/hour. If it is to keep a family of three out of poverty, we need a minimum wage of $11.75/hour to raise them out of poverty. Is it to raise a family of four out of poverty? Then we need to raise it to $13.50/hour.

We can also go by the historical minimum wage. It was at its highest level in 1968, when it was the equivalent of $12.20/hour. I say to raise it to that level. Raise the minimum wage to $12.25/hour to match it with the highest it ever was in the past.  Reasonable, right? It also lifts a family of three out of poverty, though a family of four is still $2,000 below the poverty line.

Someone needs to tell me what the ideal purpose of the minimum wage is? To raise a family of one out of poverty? A family of two? A family of three? A family of four?

Here in California, we have a minimum wage of $12/hour. That’s $24,000/year. That seems like quite an acceptable minimum wage for these parts. I would certainly be happy to make that much money.

I’m quite dubious about a $15/hour minimum wage. That just sounds way too high. Why not raise it to $50/hour then if we are going to keep jacking it up. Why stop at 15?

Alt Left: US, UAE, Saudi, and Israeli Support for ISIS in Syria and Yemen

In Yemen, the UAE and Israel have formed an alliance. The UAE has been close to ISIS for a long time. A while back, 3,000 ISIS fighters were moved from Syria to Yemen by the Saudis and UAE to help fight the Houthis. At the moment, the UAE-Israel alliance is supporting ISIS in Southern Yemen.

The southern army that the US, the UK, UAE, and Israel are supporting is mostly ISIS. They were used to defeat Al Qaeda in the south for whatever reason, and of course they have been used against the Houthis. Marib is ready to fall again because the pro-Saudi Hadi forces never wanted to fight in the first place and are now refusing to fight to save Marib.

This army has been mostly hired mercenaries, often Sudanese, for a long time. Others are tribal fighters who are just in it for the money. They don’t seem to fight very well, possibly because mercenary armies tend to be lousy armies. Many of the tribal fighters have been going AWOL recently, saying they’ve been used.

The Houthis besieging Marib and calling on the mercenary army that give up and fight with the Houthis. They are calling them”misled brothers who were led astray by propaganda.” This is very smart of the Houthis. Get the other army to surrender and go over to your side!

At the moment, the mercenaries are largely simply refusing to fight at all in Marib and the Houthis are advancing. The other day they were not just refusing to fight but they were fleeing the scene of the battle. The mercenaries who refuse to fight and are running away from battle are presently being bombed  by the Saudi Air Force. The Saudis are bombing their own mercenary army!

If the Houthis take Marib, the pro-Saudi forces are screwed badly. So Israel and the UAE are now assembling a large ISIS army to supplant the tribal forces that were formerly in the army. This ISIS army may be sent into try to save Marib.

The Israel-UAE forces are starting to get worried. Yes, you heard me right.Once again, we see Israel supporting ISIS. The UAE has been supporting ISIS forever now. The UAE and Israel recently conquered and annexed Yemeni territory on Socorro Island off the southwestern coast. The Israelis are rumored to have set up a base there. Yes, you read that right. Israel and the UAE have literally conquered Yemeni land, stated that they own it now, and have set up a base there. And you wonder why I hate these Israelis so much…

The US has been supporting all of this of course.

Israel openly states that they are supporting ISIS in Syria. They want ISIS to take over and defeat Assad. In the Bukmal corridor of US-occupied Syria, the US has been training ISIS for a long time. They just give them a new name and send them out to fight. Whenever Assadist forces or pro-Iranian elements of the Iraqi Army got close to Bukmal (ISIS Central), the US has bombed them. In two incidents, 30 Iraqi Army soldiers were killed and in another, 30 members of a pro-Assad militia were killed.

Major intelligence agencies, including the CIA, recently met with ISIS and confirmed that they will support ISIS taking up arms again in Eastern Syria.

The US has conducted bombing missions in conjunction with ISIS attacks on Syrian forces. That’s why the US is now called the Air Force of ISIS.

ISIS killed two Russian generals a while back with sniper fire. There’s no way ISIS could do that on their own. The US must have helped them.

US Special Forces regularly drive by ISIS positions and do nothing, as there is an informal true in many areas.

The US allowed ISIS to occupy an area north of Bukmal for a long time and refused to attack them for many months while they attacked Assad.

Finally after months of extreme pressure, the US started attacking ISIS.

So you can see, the Deep State relationship with ISIS is very strange. We support ISIS in Syria and Yemen, but we also attack them sometimes a while back in all three countries. This is typical Deep State stuff. Support a group and then attack them sometimes if they get too out of hand. It’s interesting that ISIS in Syria and Iraq rarely attacks US forces. I wonder why?

Alt Left: Jewish Pro-Israel Political Power in the US: Some Recent Trends

Most Presidents come into office shekeled to the hilt in one way or another. Hence most US Presidents owe the Jews bigtime for their election. The Jews bribed them. So they don’t want to offend this group and the only way to do that is to support Israel to the hilt.

Lately support has been plunging among Democrats and young people, even young Jews. The Jewish Establishment in the US (some of the worst humans on Earth) is visibly worried about this trend. There are all sorts of projects to reverse this trend. The disgusting ADL headed by Abe Foxman is in the forefront of most of these efforts. They usually involve some sort of lying, cheating, stealing, sleazy hardball amoral tactics, fakery, conspiracy, saying one thing and doing another, etc. They can usually count on the US media and the US government to mirror whatever the Hell it is that the US  Jewish establishment wants to do.

Alt Left: About That “Russian” Hack of Our Sensitive and Classified Data

You know the story where they say “Russia” hacked into all of this secret government websites? Got some news for you. It didn’t happen.

They’re lying through their teeth. The had no idea whatsoever who did it or if they did, they didn’t want to put the finger on them. It was an extremely sophisticated operation beyond the reach of many countries, granted. And it could only have been by a sophisticated country, grant it.  But look at the evidence.

“It has all the hallmarks of a Russian operation.”

They keep saying this about everything that happens that they don’t understand. I guess “hallmarks of Russia” just means some sophisticated operation. They’ve never presented any evidence that Russia was behind any of these things they’ve accused it of. They just put the finger on them whenever they figure out who did something. They failed to present any evidence whatsoever of any Russian involvement in this attack. IT people who looked at the internals of the attack said it was sophisticated, but there was no evidence to pin on Russia.

So, Russia didn’t do it. Ok? Take my word on that.  So who did it?

We have now figured out who seems to have done this massive spy operation. All roads in the investigation lead to…Israel! I don’t know the details right now but it has something to do with that Four Winds company and their software. The company is Israeli-owned. The software is written by Israelis. Whitney Webb  has all the details, as usual. Check her out. She’s a “conspiracy theorist,” but  every single thing  she writes checks out.

I was talking to a very connected former Marine on the phone one time a while back. I have no idea why he talked to me. He seemed to know just about everything about everything, specializing in intelligence and especially military matters. I brought up Israeli influence in the US, and he said, “Yeah we got totally penetrated by them in the early 80’s, I think 1983, and we’ve never been able to get rid of them since.”

We have literally handed over the locks and keys to this country to Israel. They get whatever the Hell they want.  We’ve given them backdoors to much of our state dealings. There are rumors that they spy and gather blackmail material on high up US government officials.

It’s particularly outrageous how we have handed over our spy network and security apparatus to these people. Homeland Security. You got it. I was stunned when I did research on Homeland Security. Almost all of their apparatus had been handed over to Israeli firms. Much of our internal spying apparatus in the US has been handed over to Israeli firms as has  airport security, etc.

A lot of the training our rather brutal police forces has been done by Israel, which probably accounts for the brutality. The idea is that Homeland Security and the US state are using all of these apparatuses to spy on us and do security for us. But the nuts and bolts were outsourced to Israel. You don’t think they might be listening in?

I’d trust one of those people as far as I could throw them. They’re some of the least trustworthy people out there. I assume that Israel has simply taken over a lot of our internal security and spying operations. Phone network spying? Check, Israeli. Cell phone network? Check, Israeli. It seems Israel could have access to much of our phone communication. And why are they running our security apparatus, say at airports?

There are a lot of new surveillance mechanisms and apparatuses coming online. Scary stuff. Guess who’s in back of a lot of them? Yep. Israel.

It was Israel who penetrated all of those secret US sites and classified material. I don’t know why they bothered. They could have just asked and we probably would have handed it over. Israel’s been spying on us for a very long time now. My understanding is that the government is pretty well “penetrated” by Israeli spies. Further a number of American Jews in the US government have repeatedly been caught acting as de facto agents of Israel, in other words, agents of a foreign power. That’s illegal but no one persecutes them because Jews get to do whatever they want to in these stupid country.