One piece of surprising news lately has been the announcement by Obummer that the US will move to re-establish relations with Cuba.
On the outside, this may seem like something that was a long-time coming, and has received praise from many people-except for the handful of nasty malcontents in Southern Florida and their political whores on capitol hill.
It’s clear that for fifty years that the US kept the Cuba blockade going, it was not isolating Cuba, but itself!
Year after year since the 1980s the UN General Assembly had a vote on lifting the Cuban embargo. Each year the US, along with the Zionist shit-pit and a South-Pacific micro-stan or two, voted no while the rest of the world vote to lift the embargo.
So it’s clear who has been isolated internationally, and it wasn’t Cuba.
This blockade has cost Cuba over $100 billion in revenue since it was enacted. Think of how better things would’ve be there if there was no embargo.
But as good as this sudden US about-face on a very stupid and hopeless policy seems, there’s a cause for concern. Below are some suspicious caveats
For one, it’s very important to read between the lines. Pay attention to the way Obama’s statements are written, and it’s clear that he’s not after reconciling with the Cuban government, but trying to continue the policy of overthrowing it from the inside. He speaks about the policy of sanctions as failed, and then talks about achieving ‘change’ in Cuba by ‘engaging’ with the Cuban people.
It sounds like regime change from the inside, which has been tried in Ukraine and other countries, and which left them in chaos.
There are also strategic reasons to engage with Cuba.
Cuba and Russia are again growing close economically and strategically. Russian gas companies have discussed gas exploration off Cuba’s coast. Cuba also has a barter system with Venezuela, whose government the US hates and wants to get rid of.
So this so-called engagement with Cuba is a clever ruse to drive a wedge between Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, and any other nations who support Cuba whom the US doesn’t like.
It’s also an attempt by the US to sneak enough operatives, money, and equipment into Cuba that will be used to subvert the country from within and lead to a Maidan-style scenario.
There are some clues that point to this direction, namely:
-The US isn’t lifting the sanctions totally. Only a little bit of business will be done with Cuba, and the amount of remittance money that Cuban-Americans can send to their relatives in Cuba will be raised.
-In return for this so-called ‘re-engagement,’ Cuba must release political prisoners and dissidents, as well as allow greater internet access for Cubans.
So the US will allow conditions to improve just enough to make it possible to inject saboteurs and other subversives into Cuba to work for regime change, but not enough for Cuba to see substantial change that would give credit to the Cuban government, thereby weakening opposition to it.
-A few months ago this year the US voted no against lifting the blockade on Cuba, something that it has done consistently for almost thirty years. So why the sudden change? If the US was really serious and meant well, then it would’ve abstained or vote yes. It would’ve considered lifting the blockade months or some years ago. This is all too fast, and contradictory.
-Obama said that the economic blockade of Cuba has failed to meet US objectives, and that it was the wrong policy, but at the same time he sanctions Iran and Russia ever more.
It’s clear that this so-called rapproachment is just a way to isolate Cuba from their true allies, and bring down its government.
The US will NEVER accept Cuba as it is, and the only way the blockade will be totally lifted is if the island is ruled by 100% pro-US puppets for the economic and strategic benefit of the US, and no one else, including the Cuban people.
Friday, December 19, 2014
Monday, December 15, 2014
Let's Talk About the Rich
In today’s warped and narcissistic consumer culture, idolization of the rich and powerful has been turned into a religion.
The constant TV shows and specials about this or that millionaire or billionaire keep the vast majority of the public spellbound by wealth and falsely give them the illusion that they too can be rich.
Becoming a millionaire or billionaire is taught and implanted into the heads of the public as the pinnacle of achievement. It’s the aim around which everything revolves around, no matter what the ways to get there are.
But it’s all a part of the subtle brainwashing and conditioning of the dumbed-down public to see the wealthy 1% as intelligent and hard-working people who made their riches through good decisions, judgment, and sacrifice. People are manipulated into accepting the wealthy as good, as people to be revered and respected.
The insinuation is that ‘you too may be wealthy like these people someday, so you shouldn’t talk mean about them.’
This fake carrot has been dangled in front of the gullible public for decades now. The main aim of this false premise is to force the people into shutting up and stop criticizing the wealthy and their actions. It’s also to smear any person that dares to criticize the wealthy, and who airs out their dirty laundry of fraud, deceit, and thievery for all to see as ‘engaging in class warfare,’ being a ‘socialist,’ and ‘Anti-American.’
People who criticize the wealthy are demonized as losers, as lazy, stupid, and if all else fails, jealous.
This worship of the wealthy is primarily driven by the stale myth that every wealthy person in America got to where they are because of great ideas, dedication and hard work.
But the historical facts are not as kind to the rich. Self-made millionaires/billionaires who made their money by doing something revolutionary only number about 13% in the US overall. The vast majority of them were either born into wealth and inherited it, or earned it by hook, crook, and murder.
For example, JP Morgan, the great financier of the 20th century started his fortune selling shoddy and defective second-hand rifles to the Union Army during the civil war.
The other great industrialists were no better, and the immense wealth they enjoyed came from the blood and sweat and exploitation of their legions of miserable workers and numerous dirty tricks.
Today, speculators and hedge fund managers who make tens, hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars a year are a great example of how the rich get rich.
These people are the vultures of society. They don’t do any meaningful and honest work, but get paid vast sums of money that the average worker will never see in multiple lifetimes.
There is no one in this world that deserves a salary of millions or billions of dollars a year, no one! It doesn’t matter what school they went to, how smart they think they are, and what position they’re in.
For one person to be getting so much money is terribly wasteful and unfair. How many people had to lose their jobs, retirement pensions, homes or life-savings just so one of these already-wealthy vultures could collect their $5 million bonus on top of an already disgustingly high salary of millions or billions of dollars?
How much is enough for these people? Excess wealth is a sickness, an addiction. It’s not normal at all!
No one in this world should be making more than $500,000-including salary, stock options, bonuses, etc. This amount is already way above the average working person’s pay per year.
Anyone who thinks $500,000 is too little is abnormal, period.
These excess salaries are also a drain on the economy, because it doesn’t get spent at home. It will be put into Wall St. investments and expensive goods in another state or country, contributing nothing to the local economy.
The average worker who’s given a raise will spend most if not all of that extra money locally, making the economy better.
So contrary to popular belief, the rich can’t save us. Their vast sums don’t equal more spending by the wealthy because they won’t go to the store and buy 300 pairs of jeans, twenty new cars, or buy 500 meals at a restaurant at one time. There’s a limited amount the wealthy will buy. The rest of the money they make gets saved or invested, creating no long-term value for the wider economy.
The very presence of millionaires and billionaires in any society is a sign of serious dysfunction. It means that there is a chronically uneven distribution of income, and such a situation doesn't bode well for the long-term economic well-being of any country.
My criticism of the rich is not driven by personal resentment. I’m angry at the ones who do despicable things to the people below them, and who profit from exploitation or theft.
If tomorrow I won $100 million in the lottery, my thoughts about the rich wouldn’t change. I’d still live a modest life, contribute to the community in which I live, and I’d give zero dollars to the Wall St. or hedge fund vermin.
My thoughts of rich and poor are inspired by Charles Wagner. He spoke of the bad rich and good poor and vice versa. Not all rich people are venal and greedy.
But most of the wealthy out there are jerks that just don’t care about those below them. This is especially true about the rich of today.
I recently read the results of a poll done where people were asked if they prefer socialism even though it means everyone has less or capitalism with poor people and millionaires.
Sadly, too many people opted for capitalism even though it meant that some people will end up poor. This is a sad indictment of the human race as a whole. It shows how very far we are from being truly civilized. That someone would rather have another person be poor so they themselves end up with more is just disgusting.
The rich are the ultimate representation of the materialistic disease that affects capitalist economies. It infects peoples’ mind and judgment. It makes them want more, want bigger and better everything. There’s never enough. It’s a constant race to out-buy the other person and show off that new possession, even if it leaves people in debt or ends in bankruptcy.
As long as this sick behavior is present in society, and people don’t learn to curb their needs and wants, and become modest, the rich will get away with whatever greasy methods they employ. And they will continue to be fed by the weak-willed people below them.
The constant TV shows and specials about this or that millionaire or billionaire keep the vast majority of the public spellbound by wealth and falsely give them the illusion that they too can be rich.
Becoming a millionaire or billionaire is taught and implanted into the heads of the public as the pinnacle of achievement. It’s the aim around which everything revolves around, no matter what the ways to get there are.
But it’s all a part of the subtle brainwashing and conditioning of the dumbed-down public to see the wealthy 1% as intelligent and hard-working people who made their riches through good decisions, judgment, and sacrifice. People are manipulated into accepting the wealthy as good, as people to be revered and respected.
The insinuation is that ‘you too may be wealthy like these people someday, so you shouldn’t talk mean about them.’
This fake carrot has been dangled in front of the gullible public for decades now. The main aim of this false premise is to force the people into shutting up and stop criticizing the wealthy and their actions. It’s also to smear any person that dares to criticize the wealthy, and who airs out their dirty laundry of fraud, deceit, and thievery for all to see as ‘engaging in class warfare,’ being a ‘socialist,’ and ‘Anti-American.’
People who criticize the wealthy are demonized as losers, as lazy, stupid, and if all else fails, jealous.
This worship of the wealthy is primarily driven by the stale myth that every wealthy person in America got to where they are because of great ideas, dedication and hard work.
But the historical facts are not as kind to the rich. Self-made millionaires/billionaires who made their money by doing something revolutionary only number about 13% in the US overall. The vast majority of them were either born into wealth and inherited it, or earned it by hook, crook, and murder.
For example, JP Morgan, the great financier of the 20th century started his fortune selling shoddy and defective second-hand rifles to the Union Army during the civil war.
The other great industrialists were no better, and the immense wealth they enjoyed came from the blood and sweat and exploitation of their legions of miserable workers and numerous dirty tricks.
Today, speculators and hedge fund managers who make tens, hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars a year are a great example of how the rich get rich.
These people are the vultures of society. They don’t do any meaningful and honest work, but get paid vast sums of money that the average worker will never see in multiple lifetimes.
There is no one in this world that deserves a salary of millions or billions of dollars a year, no one! It doesn’t matter what school they went to, how smart they think they are, and what position they’re in.
For one person to be getting so much money is terribly wasteful and unfair. How many people had to lose their jobs, retirement pensions, homes or life-savings just so one of these already-wealthy vultures could collect their $5 million bonus on top of an already disgustingly high salary of millions or billions of dollars?
How much is enough for these people? Excess wealth is a sickness, an addiction. It’s not normal at all!
No one in this world should be making more than $500,000-including salary, stock options, bonuses, etc. This amount is already way above the average working person’s pay per year.
Anyone who thinks $500,000 is too little is abnormal, period.
These excess salaries are also a drain on the economy, because it doesn’t get spent at home. It will be put into Wall St. investments and expensive goods in another state or country, contributing nothing to the local economy.
The average worker who’s given a raise will spend most if not all of that extra money locally, making the economy better.
So contrary to popular belief, the rich can’t save us. Their vast sums don’t equal more spending by the wealthy because they won’t go to the store and buy 300 pairs of jeans, twenty new cars, or buy 500 meals at a restaurant at one time. There’s a limited amount the wealthy will buy. The rest of the money they make gets saved or invested, creating no long-term value for the wider economy.
The very presence of millionaires and billionaires in any society is a sign of serious dysfunction. It means that there is a chronically uneven distribution of income, and such a situation doesn't bode well for the long-term economic well-being of any country.
My criticism of the rich is not driven by personal resentment. I’m angry at the ones who do despicable things to the people below them, and who profit from exploitation or theft.
If tomorrow I won $100 million in the lottery, my thoughts about the rich wouldn’t change. I’d still live a modest life, contribute to the community in which I live, and I’d give zero dollars to the Wall St. or hedge fund vermin.
My thoughts of rich and poor are inspired by Charles Wagner. He spoke of the bad rich and good poor and vice versa. Not all rich people are venal and greedy.
But most of the wealthy out there are jerks that just don’t care about those below them. This is especially true about the rich of today.
I recently read the results of a poll done where people were asked if they prefer socialism even though it means everyone has less or capitalism with poor people and millionaires.
Sadly, too many people opted for capitalism even though it meant that some people will end up poor. This is a sad indictment of the human race as a whole. It shows how very far we are from being truly civilized. That someone would rather have another person be poor so they themselves end up with more is just disgusting.
The rich are the ultimate representation of the materialistic disease that affects capitalist economies. It infects peoples’ mind and judgment. It makes them want more, want bigger and better everything. There’s never enough. It’s a constant race to out-buy the other person and show off that new possession, even if it leaves people in debt or ends in bankruptcy.
As long as this sick behavior is present in society, and people don’t learn to curb their needs and wants, and become modest, the rich will get away with whatever greasy methods they employ. And they will continue to be fed by the weak-willed people below them.
Saturday, December 6, 2014
Russia in the EU (?)
The sanctions war on Russia has brought out two separate sides that normally don’t get a lot of attention in the media.
One side advocates EU membership for Russia, and the other is against it.
Let’s examine both sides’ arguments, and whether it would make sense for Russia to become an EU member.
The first side says that if Russia wants to show its friendly intentions toward Europe, and modernize itself, it should join the EU.
First problem with this argument is the veiled arrogance that any nation outside of the EU is poor, broke, and backward; that no nation can be advanced and move forward without becoming a EU vassal.
As if Russia, with its superior rockets, impressive military technology, and well-trained technicians and scientists needs the west. All that Russia needs to advance and modernize is peace and quiet, something which the west refuses to provide.
Second problem with this argument is that Russia stands to lose a good deal of its freedom and sovereignty if it became a member of the EU, just like all the Eastern European countries lost. This has led to a situation where EU members are forced by Brussels to support politically-motivated policies which hurt their own economies.
Russia knows this, and President Vladimir Putin has also stated this simple fact in public.
Third, if Russia became an EU member it would have to submit to rules, regulations, and policies from Brussels that primarily benefit the west. Worse, Russia would have to follow US dictat since the US is the political and ideological overseer of the EU.
Russia’s entry into the EU would be a total invasion and takeover of Russia by the US and the EU by non-military means. Russia knows this, and that’s why it won’t join.
Besides, Russia has the human, technical and natural resources, infrastructure, and the culture to survive and thrive. It doesn’t need a patron to give it instructions, and a crutch to sustain it with hand-outs—which is the situation with the former ex-communist EU member countries.
The second side is against Russia’s membership in the EU, primarily the US and its Eastern European vassal nations like Poland and Romania.
These countries are afraid that if Russia joins the EU, the EU would have to let Russia play a decisive role in economic and political decision-making. This is something Russia would insist on during any EU-accession negotiations, as Russia’s economic potential and natural resources, especially in energy, would make the EU a global energy giant.
It would also insist on the EU dumping it’s outdated and stale pro-US Trans-Atlanticist mentality. A new European-only security realignment would be created in which the US has no role.
Naturally, this would make NATO totally unnecessary as a nuclear Russia would be the natural protector of the EU, and could no longer be provoked and demonized by the US as a convenient enemy. Russia would probably demand that NATO be either dissolved or Russia became a leading member with decision-making powers.
Of course this would eradicate Russia as a very cherished enemy of the US military-industrial complex, which thrives from having Russia as an officially-designated threat.
Russia’s entry into the EU would not come free for Brussels. Yes, the EU, under heavy and unrelenting US pressure would try to screw and cheat Russia in the most creative and nasty ways, but Russia wouldn’t succumb.
So if Russia ended up joining the EU on terms favorable to itself, it would have powerful influence on the EU’s foreign and economic policies. This would result in the US losing most, if not all of its influence over EU policies.
Russia in the EU would make the bloc the richest and most powerful economically and militarily. Russia would also serve as the EU’s gateway to Asia, which would make transport cheaper and quicker with less peril as opposed to sea lanes, which the US can block if it wants to.
This would also cause Asian countries, even traditional US vassals like South Korea and Japan, to switch sides as well.
The US ruling establishment is scared to death of Russia joining the EU. Such an act would undermine US influence, and seriously erode weapons sales.
And where would the US be as the number one weapons peddler and the ‘Protector of Europe?’
Personally, I don’t think Russia will ever join the EU.
Russia cherishes its independence and not being tied to some ineptly-ran, indecisive bloc. It also doesn’t want to run the risk of being exploited and aggravated on a continual basis by the EU’s virulently pro-US ‘old guard’ and their newly-minted pawns from Eastern Europe, who would undoubtedly vote Russia’s accession down because of personal and historical hatred, and pernicious US influence.
Russia also wouldn’t want itself to be an unwitting vassal of indirect US control via pro-US EU regimes. This would undermine EU cohesion and security. Taking into consideration the two US/German spy scandals of the past two summers, it’s a given that the US has spies in high levels of Eastern European governments who will do anything to prevent greater Russian and EU cooperation.
One side advocates EU membership for Russia, and the other is against it.
Let’s examine both sides’ arguments, and whether it would make sense for Russia to become an EU member.
The first side says that if Russia wants to show its friendly intentions toward Europe, and modernize itself, it should join the EU.
First problem with this argument is the veiled arrogance that any nation outside of the EU is poor, broke, and backward; that no nation can be advanced and move forward without becoming a EU vassal.
As if Russia, with its superior rockets, impressive military technology, and well-trained technicians and scientists needs the west. All that Russia needs to advance and modernize is peace and quiet, something which the west refuses to provide.
Second problem with this argument is that Russia stands to lose a good deal of its freedom and sovereignty if it became a member of the EU, just like all the Eastern European countries lost. This has led to a situation where EU members are forced by Brussels to support politically-motivated policies which hurt their own economies.
Russia knows this, and President Vladimir Putin has also stated this simple fact in public.
Third, if Russia became an EU member it would have to submit to rules, regulations, and policies from Brussels that primarily benefit the west. Worse, Russia would have to follow US dictat since the US is the political and ideological overseer of the EU.
Russia’s entry into the EU would be a total invasion and takeover of Russia by the US and the EU by non-military means. Russia knows this, and that’s why it won’t join.
Besides, Russia has the human, technical and natural resources, infrastructure, and the culture to survive and thrive. It doesn’t need a patron to give it instructions, and a crutch to sustain it with hand-outs—which is the situation with the former ex-communist EU member countries.
The second side is against Russia’s membership in the EU, primarily the US and its Eastern European vassal nations like Poland and Romania.
These countries are afraid that if Russia joins the EU, the EU would have to let Russia play a decisive role in economic and political decision-making. This is something Russia would insist on during any EU-accession negotiations, as Russia’s economic potential and natural resources, especially in energy, would make the EU a global energy giant.
It would also insist on the EU dumping it’s outdated and stale pro-US Trans-Atlanticist mentality. A new European-only security realignment would be created in which the US has no role.
Naturally, this would make NATO totally unnecessary as a nuclear Russia would be the natural protector of the EU, and could no longer be provoked and demonized by the US as a convenient enemy. Russia would probably demand that NATO be either dissolved or Russia became a leading member with decision-making powers.
Of course this would eradicate Russia as a very cherished enemy of the US military-industrial complex, which thrives from having Russia as an officially-designated threat.
Russia’s entry into the EU would not come free for Brussels. Yes, the EU, under heavy and unrelenting US pressure would try to screw and cheat Russia in the most creative and nasty ways, but Russia wouldn’t succumb.
So if Russia ended up joining the EU on terms favorable to itself, it would have powerful influence on the EU’s foreign and economic policies. This would result in the US losing most, if not all of its influence over EU policies.
Russia in the EU would make the bloc the richest and most powerful economically and militarily. Russia would also serve as the EU’s gateway to Asia, which would make transport cheaper and quicker with less peril as opposed to sea lanes, which the US can block if it wants to.
This would also cause Asian countries, even traditional US vassals like South Korea and Japan, to switch sides as well.
The US ruling establishment is scared to death of Russia joining the EU. Such an act would undermine US influence, and seriously erode weapons sales.
And where would the US be as the number one weapons peddler and the ‘Protector of Europe?’
Personally, I don’t think Russia will ever join the EU.
Russia cherishes its independence and not being tied to some ineptly-ran, indecisive bloc. It also doesn’t want to run the risk of being exploited and aggravated on a continual basis by the EU’s virulently pro-US ‘old guard’ and their newly-minted pawns from Eastern Europe, who would undoubtedly vote Russia’s accession down because of personal and historical hatred, and pernicious US influence.
Russia also wouldn’t want itself to be an unwitting vassal of indirect US control via pro-US EU regimes. This would undermine EU cohesion and security. Taking into consideration the two US/German spy scandals of the past two summers, it’s a given that the US has spies in high levels of Eastern European governments who will do anything to prevent greater Russian and EU cooperation.
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Talk is Cheap!
Iran and the P5+1 group are currently in the 11th hour of hammering out a permanent agreement that will govern Iran's nuclear program and the lifting of sanctions.
The technical obstacles have been overcome, and the main stumbling block to inking a final, permanent agreement is the refusal of the US to commit to the removal of sanctions against Iran.
It seems that the US wants Iran to be under strict international obligation to limit its nuclear work, but at the same time get only limited sanctions relief. The US wants the UN sanctions at least to stay in-force even if an agreement is signed.
This is hypocritical and unfair. The reason why the US wants the UN sanctions to stay is because it obligates all nations to abide by the sanctions, thus isolating Iran globally. It's easier for Iran to go around US or EU-only sanctions than UN ones.
Second, if these UN sanctions are lifted, the US knows that if it tries to pass more in the future it will never happen because Russia, and most likely China as well, will veto any anti-Iranian sanction resolutions from now on.
It's indeed strange that the US insists on some sanctions to stay even if an agreement is signed. This shows that there's more going on behind the scenes, and that this whole Iranian nuclear crisis is not just about Iran's nuclear program. It's also about other things.
Undoubtedly the US and the EU are using the cover of these nuclear negotiations to cajole and twist Iran's arm to be more compliant with US/EU foreign and economic policies. Should Iran relent, the west will certainly use Iran's increased access to the west, and vice-versa, as a springboard and tool to fund, form, and create 'pro-democracy' groups and other corrupt troublemakers to enact regime change inside Iran. This technique was used in Libya, with terrible results.
So those who think that these nuclear negotiations were/are just about Iran's nuclear program are naïve and foolish. There's a lot more to it than that.
Frankly, if I was an Iranian diplomat or politician, I'd be more weary and suspicious if the US DOES sign an agreement. Any entry given to the US by any country, especially a country with which the US was at odds in the past, must be strictly guarded and watched.
Judging by the back-pedaling, and refusal of, the US to commit to the total lifting of all sanctions in return for Iran's cooperation, I suspect that the US regime has changed its mind and doesn't want an agreement.
Why?
It's all about shallow politics at this point. The US currently has a democratic administration which has by now outdone the Bush regime in lies, scandal, and war-crimes. The democrats just lost control of the house and senate. The democratic party will desperately seek to restore those majorities in future elections, and that's where wealthy and influential pro-Israeli Jews come in. In order to get their money and votes, the democrats will have to do what these pro-Israeli Jews want, and the number#1 item on their list undoubtedly is NO AGREEMENT WITH IRAN.
If this happens, Obummer and Hairy Kerry will just falsely blame the failure on Iran's "intransigence" and "duplicity" and most likely put some blame on the Russians as well.
I'd like to be optimistic about the outcome of this agreement, but judging by the vile and criminal US behavior in the world just in the last 3+ years, I just don't see anything good coming out of all this talking.
All I have to say is: Iran, be ready with a powerful deterrent.
The technical obstacles have been overcome, and the main stumbling block to inking a final, permanent agreement is the refusal of the US to commit to the removal of sanctions against Iran.
It seems that the US wants Iran to be under strict international obligation to limit its nuclear work, but at the same time get only limited sanctions relief. The US wants the UN sanctions at least to stay in-force even if an agreement is signed.
This is hypocritical and unfair. The reason why the US wants the UN sanctions to stay is because it obligates all nations to abide by the sanctions, thus isolating Iran globally. It's easier for Iran to go around US or EU-only sanctions than UN ones.
Second, if these UN sanctions are lifted, the US knows that if it tries to pass more in the future it will never happen because Russia, and most likely China as well, will veto any anti-Iranian sanction resolutions from now on.
It's indeed strange that the US insists on some sanctions to stay even if an agreement is signed. This shows that there's more going on behind the scenes, and that this whole Iranian nuclear crisis is not just about Iran's nuclear program. It's also about other things.
Undoubtedly the US and the EU are using the cover of these nuclear negotiations to cajole and twist Iran's arm to be more compliant with US/EU foreign and economic policies. Should Iran relent, the west will certainly use Iran's increased access to the west, and vice-versa, as a springboard and tool to fund, form, and create 'pro-democracy' groups and other corrupt troublemakers to enact regime change inside Iran. This technique was used in Libya, with terrible results.
So those who think that these nuclear negotiations were/are just about Iran's nuclear program are naïve and foolish. There's a lot more to it than that.
Frankly, if I was an Iranian diplomat or politician, I'd be more weary and suspicious if the US DOES sign an agreement. Any entry given to the US by any country, especially a country with which the US was at odds in the past, must be strictly guarded and watched.
Judging by the back-pedaling, and refusal of, the US to commit to the total lifting of all sanctions in return for Iran's cooperation, I suspect that the US regime has changed its mind and doesn't want an agreement.
Why?
It's all about shallow politics at this point. The US currently has a democratic administration which has by now outdone the Bush regime in lies, scandal, and war-crimes. The democrats just lost control of the house and senate. The democratic party will desperately seek to restore those majorities in future elections, and that's where wealthy and influential pro-Israeli Jews come in. In order to get their money and votes, the democrats will have to do what these pro-Israeli Jews want, and the number#1 item on their list undoubtedly is NO AGREEMENT WITH IRAN.
If this happens, Obummer and Hairy Kerry will just falsely blame the failure on Iran's "intransigence" and "duplicity" and most likely put some blame on the Russians as well.
I'd like to be optimistic about the outcome of this agreement, but judging by the vile and criminal US behavior in the world just in the last 3+ years, I just don't see anything good coming out of all this talking.
All I have to say is: Iran, be ready with a powerful deterrent.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Mid-Term Misery
The US has just finished another mid-term election, with Republicans gaining a majority in both houses of Congress. Now we can all be happy because everything will change for the better. Poverty will be eliminated, unemployment rate will plummet to .002%, wages will go up like 500%, and God will once again restore the US of A to its rightful place on top of the world as his shining beacon of hope and democratic holiness.
And if grandma had a penis, she’d be a grandpa!
This election was just like the other mid-term and presidential elections: a farcical popularity contest of wealthy jerk-offs so rotted out through and through by private corporate money and corruption that I’M embarrassed for all those people who voted for these liars, on either side!
There is no democracy in the US anymore, only the perception of democracy. The wealthy, unelected elites and corporations RULE the US, and control the agenda. The recently-elected officials are their stable herd, sent out to pasture to do their bidding, and of course, to crap all over everything below and around them.
With only 37% of eligible voters turning out for the 2014 mid-term election, it’s easy to see how hopeless and despondent the American public has become. This is a truly sad indictment of what is supposed to be the most democratic country on earth.
But who can blame them? Because the truth is, there can’t be any change for the better within the current system. Regardless of all the patriotic propaganda beamed down from Washington DC and their mainstream media allies, the US system of governance, including its sacred bill of rights, is pretty much dead. It has not stood the test of time. It has been warped, twisted, and corrupted by arrogant and venal liars and freaks to serve the agenda of the wealthy and powerful.
There will not be any meaningful and lasting change for the better in the US without some type of unrest. But the longer people wait, the worse it will be. Non-violent civil disobedience is the first step.
The foundations upon which the US rests are damaged. The system has to be thoroughly reformed from the dirt up. The present dysfunctional political system has outlived its usefulness and no longer meets the needs, hopes, and expectations of most Americans. The present broken state of the country is a testimony to this fact.
Obama and the other bought-and-paid-for corporate-selected vermin can blather all they want about delusional notions of ‘American exceptionalism,’ freedom, and other kitschy pseudo-historical clap-trap, but that won’t change the truth that things are getting worse.
I EXIST in the US. I don’t look upon myself as LIVING in the US, because to live is to be happy, content, and confident of the future because the conditions in the country in which I live are conducive to such an outlook. Currently, these conditions barely exist. In fact, they slip away with each passing day.
History has shown time and again that there's a limit to how far the powers-that-be can squeeze their people. There is a limit, and when it's reached, the results won't be pretty. The US is not immune to this.
So the congress critters better change their ways or someone will change it for them, whether they like it or not. When that day comes, the FBI, CIA, NSA, the military and police forces won't be able to save them.
For now, this is just a word of caution.
And if grandma had a penis, she’d be a grandpa!
This election was just like the other mid-term and presidential elections: a farcical popularity contest of wealthy jerk-offs so rotted out through and through by private corporate money and corruption that I’M embarrassed for all those people who voted for these liars, on either side!
There is no democracy in the US anymore, only the perception of democracy. The wealthy, unelected elites and corporations RULE the US, and control the agenda. The recently-elected officials are their stable herd, sent out to pasture to do their bidding, and of course, to crap all over everything below and around them.
With only 37% of eligible voters turning out for the 2014 mid-term election, it’s easy to see how hopeless and despondent the American public has become. This is a truly sad indictment of what is supposed to be the most democratic country on earth.
But who can blame them? Because the truth is, there can’t be any change for the better within the current system. Regardless of all the patriotic propaganda beamed down from Washington DC and their mainstream media allies, the US system of governance, including its sacred bill of rights, is pretty much dead. It has not stood the test of time. It has been warped, twisted, and corrupted by arrogant and venal liars and freaks to serve the agenda of the wealthy and powerful.
There will not be any meaningful and lasting change for the better in the US without some type of unrest. But the longer people wait, the worse it will be. Non-violent civil disobedience is the first step.
The foundations upon which the US rests are damaged. The system has to be thoroughly reformed from the dirt up. The present dysfunctional political system has outlived its usefulness and no longer meets the needs, hopes, and expectations of most Americans. The present broken state of the country is a testimony to this fact.
Obama and the other bought-and-paid-for corporate-selected vermin can blather all they want about delusional notions of ‘American exceptionalism,’ freedom, and other kitschy pseudo-historical clap-trap, but that won’t change the truth that things are getting worse.
I EXIST in the US. I don’t look upon myself as LIVING in the US, because to live is to be happy, content, and confident of the future because the conditions in the country in which I live are conducive to such an outlook. Currently, these conditions barely exist. In fact, they slip away with each passing day.
History has shown time and again that there's a limit to how far the powers-that-be can squeeze their people. There is a limit, and when it's reached, the results won't be pretty. The US is not immune to this.
So the congress critters better change their ways or someone will change it for them, whether they like it or not. When that day comes, the FBI, CIA, NSA, the military and police forces won't be able to save them.
For now, this is just a word of caution.
Monday, October 20, 2014
'Bad Commies' vs. 'Good' Capitalists
Because of the events in the Ukraine, there has been a lot of propaganda swill churned out against Russia in the west, their supposed still-communist government, led by Stalin v2.0 named Vladimir Putin.
It’s no secret that US foreign and economic policies are dismal failures. Those failures, along with the international debacles and embarrassments that the US has racked up, have led it to absurd levels of political, public, and historical manipulation and lies in order to cover up its failures, gross incompetence, and plain scumbag-ness.
One of the most recent and enduring propaganda tools is to suggest that Russia is a crypto-communist state where nothing has changed, and is still being led by Joseph Stalin clones. Russia’s communist past is constantly brought up as a PR cudgel against that country. The past crimes of Soviet communists are superimposed on alleged crimes of Russia under its current leadership.
On TV channels, Sunday morning talk shows, debates, newspapers and blogs, all sorts of communist crimes are being rehashed in order to demonize Russia because it doesn’t want to be a slave of the US/EU.
So today I’ll list some accusations against communist governments and then find an instance of the same behavior in the US/west.
Accusation#1 – Communist governments killed a lot of people!
This is the main gripe people have with communism. It’s not an unfounded accusation, but is being used selectively, and more often than not exaggerated. First, name me a revolution where the new regime didn’t persecute/kill off the members/sympathizers of the prior one. There aren’t any. It’s just part and parcel of victors’ justice.
Second, and more importantly, people should look at all the violent revolutionary right-wing juntas the US trained, armed, and brought to power in Latin America, Asia and the Mideast; juntas who ruled by terror, who massacred people, disappeared them, tortured, raped. The US then protected members of these regimes from accountability and prosecution. Some members of those regimes still live comfortably in sunny Florida and elsewhere in the US—Orlando Bosch, the terrorist who bombed a Cuban civilian airliner, then found refuge in the US, is a good example.
Another example is the US revolutionary war and its aftermath. That revolution certainly wasn’t peaceful. Afterwards, half a million people fled themselves, or were told to leave by the new regime. Thousands who stayed, but didn’t see eye-to-eye with the new post-colonial authorities were imprisoned, tortured, and killed. This is something they won’t teach in US history class.
Accusation#2 – Communists overthrew democratically-elected governments and invaded countries!
From 1917, the US and certain western countries tried to interfere in Russia’s internal revolution by sponsoring anti-Bolshevik armies. Winston Churchill once remarked that ‘communism must be strangled in its crib.’ During Italy’s first democratic election after WW2, the US organized a huge propaganda campaign against the socialist party. People were flooded with propaganda and fake threats that the Italian socialists were under Stalin’s direct control; that if they come to power churches will be shut down and religion outlawed, that Soviet troops will occupy Italy.
Italy was threatened by the US that if it didn’t vote the right way, US aid would be cut off, and sanctions would follow. This same threat was used repeatedly later on in other countries where a leader or government not to the US liking won, or was projected to win a popular election.
After the end of communism in Eastern Europe, the US used the threat of withholding aid unless the people in those countries elected governments who were not socialist/communist, even though such parties had majority support. Early 1990s Bulgaria is one of those cases.
In 2006 Hamas won the Palestinian elections, fair and square. The US didn’t like this outcome. It refused to recognize the results, and cut off aid to the Palestinians. Along with Israel, it effectively put the West Bank and Gaza on military, diplomatic, financial, and political lockdown.
In 2009 Manuel Zelaya, the democratically-elected president of Honduras was overthrown by a pro-US coup with the US providing behind the scenes assistance because he wanted to usher in reforms that the US and its corporate allies didn’t like.
And of course, we have the Ukraine, a country which until February 2014 had a democratically-elected government. But since that government didn’t want to take orders from the US, it was overthrown by a pro-US unelected junta which has gone on to threaten half the country, launch a violent war against its own people, and most likely was complicit in the killing of 300+ people when its fighter jet shot down Malaysian flight MH17. Yes, that previous democratically-elected government was corrupt, but since the current one is as well, and add to that criminally insane, the corruption charge was just PR bullshit.
Also, former Eastern European countries never fail to forget and remind everyone that they were invaded by Russia, and how the Russians illegally seized power in Eastern European countries. Then why did those same countries join the illegal US invasion of Iraq? Why did they aid and abet the US in bombing Libya and Syria in order to overthrow the governments there? By doing so, they were acting no worse than the so-called Soviet invaders.
What most people don’t seem to know is that the socialist/communist ideology alone wasn’t enough to ruin any economy. Whenever a communist country popped up, the first move western countries, especially the US made, was to immediately sanction it. This was followed up with creating deliberate roadblocks in order to hamper any socialist country’s development. Sabotage, acts of economic terrorism followed. Blockades and bans, such as the one currently still in effect against Cuba, has cost socialist countries hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue and opportunities for development and modernization. This led to shortages of revenue, and eventually to the lack of basic goods and services.
Another nasty tool the west used were loans to socialist/communist states with exorbitant interest rates. In some instances, they refused loans and forced countries to seek loans from private banks which charged loan-shark rates as well. All these tricks were used to impoverish and debilitate socialist/communist countries, cause misery and chaos, and finally regime change--the main goal of the rough treatment.
We will never know how socialist countries would’ve turned out if they weren’t deliberately sanctioned and had their economies hampered and sabotaged by US and their allies. We will never know how things would’ve turned out if socialist countries were left alone and allowed to pursue their own way, without being molested by the US and its bought whores.
And what exactly has wonderful US-style capitalism done in the last six years? Did it not con the world into fake and risky investments which crashed the world economy and bankrupted countries? How many people lost their retirement benefits and pensions because of this? How many countries were forced to swallow massive amounts of IMF debt which they cannot repay, and were forced to sell of valuable public-owned enterprises to the lowest bidder when they couldn’t pay off those loans? Countries which were promised wealth and prosperity if they adopted democracy and the free market system are still languishing in debt, unemployment and hardship, decades later! Add to that the fact that many older people in formerly communist/socialist countries yearn for the old system. What does that tell you?
Accusation#4 – In communist countries there’s no free speech and the press is censored!
Newsflash! Media censorship exists in every country.
What are we to think when journalists in the US and other democratic countries are forced, under threat of arrest, to name their confidential sources of information if the US government doesn’t like what they wrote? What about the journalists that are muzzled and fired for presenting a view that the US government, an allied country’s authorities, or a private interest close to the government doesn’t like? All these things have, and are, happening in the US and the west.
What about the fact that major US newspapers, including the New York Times have, up to the present, printed US government propaganda without any fact-checking or research whatsoever? Iraqi WMDs, Libya, Ukraine are just a few examples where US and other western governments have deliberately manipulated public opinion in their favor by releasing fake and unsubstantiated news stories.
Recently, a German journalist admitted that the US and its European allies wrote propaganda stories which were pro-US, then handed these stories to journalists to be published under their names with no fact-checking or research whatsoever. These stories were blatantly false. Those journalists were beforehand bribed with money and other favors to get them to act as propaganda bullhorns for the US. From these sources we got the standard anti-Russian fare that has been all the rage in the US and European media lately. These false news stories today influence the world-view of the average US/EU citizen. They create a false reality which could very well lead to more misunderstanding, and possibly more death and violence in the future.
Great Britain has deliberately blocked journalist Glenn Greenwald, who published the Snowden revelations, and his partner from flying, detained them at airports, confiscated their equipment, and threatened them. No charges, no due process, nothing; just detention without any specific reason for hours or days.
In communist countries, the government censored the media. In the US and other democratic countries the media censors itself willingly in return for access to, and favors from, their governments.
Accusation#5 – In communist countries, there’s no freedom of religion!
Communist governments saw religion as reactionary because the religious organizations traditionally allied themselves with the wealthy elites in the country. Religious organizations benefited from this arrangement, which also made religious organizations naturally anti-communist, especially in Europe.
When communism was established in any country, the authorities tried to root out any defiant clerics who openly sympathized with the old regimes or who agitated against the new one. Although the same has happened in pro-US dictatorships as well.
Later on, the church was told that as long as it didn’t get political, and didn’t use its position to preach against the system, it would be left alone. This arrangement held, and priests were even given monetary stipends by the communist governments in order to keep them quiet. Some priests even went so far as to become informers for the state.
Generally, as long as the church stayed out of politics and didn’t preach sedition, they were left alone by the communist authorities. I’m sure this rule also applies to churches in democratic countries as well.
During the cold war, the US along with other western democratic countries, used the churches in Eastern Europe to disseminate anti-communist views and propaganda. This would’ve explained the harsh measures taken against the church by communist governments. How would the US government feel if Russia or China secretly used churches in the US to spread anti -government views and sedition?
Hypocritically, the US encouraged the church in communist countries to be political, something the US government would’ve never allowed on its own soil or on that of their allies. If they did so, they’d at least lose their tax-exempt status, and at most be arrested.
Also, during the Bush years, we saw the US government use popular preachers to sell its pro-war and other conservative policies in return for access to the White House and other hand-outs from the government, like George W. Bush’s granting of money to religious organizations for charity work.
As for religious freedom in the west, how much discrimination was encountered by immigrants to the US who weren’t Protestant? Catholics were discriminated against heavily because they were feared to be more loyal to the Pope than the US.
Look at the instances of discrimination against Muslims in the US and Europe, like the banning of headscarves, protests against the construction of mosques, vandalism of mosques, and accusing Muslims of being involved in a US-wide conspiracy to force Sharia law upon the country.
This foolishness even led to a congressional hearing chaired by the ignorant Peter King on the Islamization of America. He gathered all sorts of Christian fundamentalist, neo-con, and Jewish-zionist kooks and bigots, as well as 'experts' who terrorized the naïve public with scary stories, supposed evidence, and horrific predictions on how Muslims aim to turn the US into an Islamic country by force.
This has led to attacks against Muslims, both verbal and physical. It has also led to undercover FBI agents being placed in mosques all over the US to eavesdrop and inform on the doings of Muslims.
Accusation#6 – Communist regimes imprisoned and tortured dissidents, locked them up in camps or kicked them out of the country!
Violent right-wing governments worldwide sponsored and aided by the US did the same. US allies also did the same. Look at the secret rendition flights the CIA flew to Eastern European countries like Poland, Lithuania and others, where terror suspects were tortured, with disregard for human rights laws. Guantanamo Bay is still open; a place where prisoners were water-boarded, tortured and treated like garbage--and still are. Bagram air base in Afghanistan, and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq are examples of US love of torture and extreme interrogation techniques used on enemies.
As far as jailing and persecuting dissidents, look at what was done to Bradley Manning for revealing US war crimes in Iraq. Look at Edward Snowden’s predicament. (ironically, it’s Russia who offered Snowden refuge and a new life) Look at the treatment Julian Assange has been subject to; all three people have one thing in common: they exposed US deception and crimes, nothing else. Dear US allies have behaved just as bad. Poland was not too long ago fined 235,000 Euros in compensation to the two terror suspects tortured on its soil.
But we can even go father back in time. The treatment of Edward Snowden and others is reminiscent of Philip Agee, who in the 1970s published a book about CIA operations and named names. For these revelations he was hounded and expelled from multiple democratic western European countries, under pressure and orders of the US, of course.
Accusation#7– The Soviet Union was imperialist!
And what was Great Britain? What was Turkey? Japan? What was/is the US if not imperialist? An Imperialist country is one which conquers, controls, and exploits other nations, near and far. By this simple definition, the US is an imperialist nation. Look at Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the various micro-stans of the Pacific. In the past, the US subdued and controlled the Philippines and Cuba. It also overthrew and controlled through friendly puppets Latin American governments.
The Soviet Union never sought to conquer and subdue countries beyond its immediate periphery. Surrounded by hostile neighbors, the Russians tried to retain as much control over nearby countries to serve as a buffer zone between them and their enemies. That’s why the Soviets setup Moscow-friendly governments in Eastern Europe after WW2. Some of those countries served as bases and highways for foreign invaders, and the Soviets wanted to shut those bases and highways down. This is not the same as taking over a country just to exploit its resources as did the British and French in India and the far east.
So those who insist that past Soviet political, military, and economic influence over Eastern European countries made the Soviet Union imperialist, then the present US political, military, and economic influence over Eastern European countries makes the US an imperialist country as well.
Accusation#8 – Communist countries were militarized and kept people from traveling freely!
Okay. So if you’re an American, try to travel to Cuba, Iran or North Korea, and see how free you really are. One thing that truly free and democratic countries don’t do is ban/forbid their citizens from traveling to any country, even if that country is authoritarian or even an enemy. The most the US or any other country can do, is advise or warn people who want to travel to those countries about the risks, but nothing beyond that. Democratic countries certainly don't threaten or punish their citizens for traveling to any country. But if the US allows its citizens to freely travel to Saudi Arabia, a country ruled by probably the most nastiest and repressive government there is, then it’s truly beyond me why Cuba and Iran, who are way more moderate, are on the no-go list. Could it have something to do with the fact that those two countries don’t want to kiss US ass? Nah . . .
Tell all those people who mistakenly found themselves on the terrorist no-fly list how free they feel. These people are effectively trapped within the US, unable to leave.
As for being militarized, it was the US which started the arms race which helped bankrupt the Soviet Union, and now seems to be bankrupting itself. As for militarization, look at what has been going on in the US since 9/11. The military budget has grown to record heights, the over-glorification of the military is sickening. In elementary, middle and high schools, ROTC drones and military recruiters swarm the campuses. Yellow ribbons, military recruiting commercials, shows and movies glorifying military operations are all part-and-parcel of a militarized society. Military parades and salutes at ball games and other public gatherings are everywhere.
The US is the biggest weapons dealer in the world. It causes crises and tensions and creates fake enemies and straw men in order to scare and force unsuspecting dupes worldwide to buy US-made weaponry; weaponry they don’t need and damn well can’t afford. All the while social programs are cut, austerity measures enacted so that a country can pay for useless and over-the-top weaponry they don’t need; all so they can prove what faithful and good US allies they are!
Add to that the bad habit of the US deploying its military everywhere as ‘help,’ but in reality it’s just a racket to inject US firepower and influence into a part of the world in order to exploit a natural resource, setup a strategically-located base, or push out foreign competitors (As is happening in Africa currently where US wants to push out Chinese investments). Makes you wonder about that whole Ebola scare, doesn't it?
The US is also in the process of militarizing its allies, and remilitarizing Germany and Japan, who up until now were obligated by treaty to have only a peace time army. The US, seeking to exploit these nations’ military power, and budgets, is prodding and enticing them into a militarist mindset. It does so by provoking both Russia and North Korea and other hapless countries. It uses those countries’ responses, which are sure to be full of anger or at least warning, to scare its allies into arming themselves to the teeth. This process is currently under way in Japan and Germany.
The most ominous part of the militarization of US society is that, unbeknownst to most of the US public, the president can now use the military to apprehend and/or kill anyone anywhere in the world deemed a threat, including US citizens. This has already been done.
For the US/western public, the Berlin wall remains a symbol of the perfidious lengths to which authoritarian communist governments went to to keep their citizens locked up behind the iron curtain.
But the true story of how, and why, the Berlin Wall came to be in 1961 is more nuanced. Western propaganda states that the wall was built to prevent people from East Germany from defecting and fleeing. But in reality, East Germans were free to travel to East Berlin regularly for years. But over time, this led to labor shortages in certain fields because East German-trained professionals went to work for West German companies which paid better.
Also, most of the East German workers didn't defect. They came home at the end of the day back to East Germany.
Add to that the fact that the free access between East and West Berlin allowed western/US agents to cross into East Germany and cause acts of terrorism and sabotage, the East German authorities got fed up and sealed the border.
Even US officials quietly admitted that the Berlin Wall made East Germany safer and most likely prevented another war.
Speaking of walls, why hasn't the benevolent and eternally wonderful US/EU done anything to condemn Israel for erecting the apartheid wall inside the West Bank, effectively cutting off Palestinians from their own land and de facto annexing it to Israel.
To this day, Israel hasn't been held accountable for building this wall, which is even worse than the Berlin Wall was. At least the Berlin Wall wasn't used to steal land!
Accusation#9 – Under communism, people were poor. They didn’t have anything!
When the other accusations are explained and debunked, the accuser turns to this one as a last-ditch attempt to exonerate their warped and uninformed worldview.
Yes, in a socialist/communist country foreign consumer goods weren’t plentiful, and certain items were not sold. That’s because socialist/communist governments were concerned with the basic practicalities, and were not materialistic/consumer-oriented societies. But were many of these goods necessary?
The next time you go to the store, look around and ask yourself: how much of the stuff in that store people actually need. What can you do without? I guarantee that the majority of the crap there is either frivolous or just plain useless.
People in capitalist countries have been conditioned to think they need a constant stream of stuff, but in reality, they don’t. A century of psychological manipulation and subtle mental queues that appeal to, and amplify, a person’s most base instincts and insecurities is being used to sell people things they don’t need or that are harmful to them.
Also, people shouldn’t confuse poverty with the absence of consumer goods, or access to them. People in socialist/communist countries had free health care, education, full and permanent employment, and guaranteed retirement and pensions. Sure, they didn’t have glitzy housing and the luxury goods, but is an iPhone, cheese-in-a-can or a Barbie doll really more important than those previously-mentioned benefits?
Many people in western societies, especially in the US, see themselves as poor just because they can’t afford everything that they want. They also assume that people in other countries who don’t have the things Americans have are also poor. This is a sick attitude, and there are people out there with this mentality. It’s also ignorance of other peoples’ cultures and mentalities. Westerners and Americans just can’t fathom the possibility that to other people and cultures, western toys and gadgets are not as important, or seen as wasteful, childish or unnecessary; a view that is actually very astute and correct. The western mind hasn’t evolved to see things this way yet, I guess.
Plus, as I’ve said to my relatives recently, democracy doesn’t equal store shelves full of stuff. There are authoritarian countries with despotic, capitalist free-market true-believer governments where stores are full of all the things you’d see in the US. Capitalism shouldn’t be seen as synonymous with democracy and freedom. Seeing it as such is incorrect.
Also remember that communism isn't a Russian-created, or Eastern philosophy or system. It is a political/economic philosophy born in the West, and was meant to be applied in the west.
What I’m totally sick of and pissed at are the deluded and uninformed ignoramuses out there that see things as black and white. The worst, smelliest, and annoying offenders are those shitheads who can recite communist crimes by rote while holding the USA as a paragon of virtue and goodness who has done no wrong.
That’s why I don’t get why the current governments in Eastern Europe bow down and listen to every US order and each piece of pathetic and false Russophobic propaganda when there’s so much proof of US criminality all over the world. How can a Polish or a Romania politician think that the US is good while ignoring the death, destruction, and total disregard for democracy the US is guilty of in places like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Latin America and others? How can these so-called democratic leaders lament past communist atrocities in their countries, yet ignore and deny atrocities committed by the US and their allies? Either these so-called leaders are willfully ignorant or bought off puppets. Either way, they’re also criminally negligent, and can be bought up on war crimes charges if there was any true justice in the world. Hiding behind past victim status while carrying out war crimes, or aiding and abetting other who commit them is just disgusting.
In this age of information, no one can claim that they were uninformed or didn’t know, as the clueless and slimy Hillary Clinton opined when asked about the bad intelligence concerning the imaginary Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
It’s no secret that US foreign and economic policies are dismal failures. Those failures, along with the international debacles and embarrassments that the US has racked up, have led it to absurd levels of political, public, and historical manipulation and lies in order to cover up its failures, gross incompetence, and plain scumbag-ness.
One of the most recent and enduring propaganda tools is to suggest that Russia is a crypto-communist state where nothing has changed, and is still being led by Joseph Stalin clones. Russia’s communist past is constantly brought up as a PR cudgel against that country. The past crimes of Soviet communists are superimposed on alleged crimes of Russia under its current leadership.
On TV channels, Sunday morning talk shows, debates, newspapers and blogs, all sorts of communist crimes are being rehashed in order to demonize Russia because it doesn’t want to be a slave of the US/EU.
So today I’ll list some accusations against communist governments and then find an instance of the same behavior in the US/west.
Accusation#1 – Communist governments killed a lot of people!
This is the main gripe people have with communism. It’s not an unfounded accusation, but is being used selectively, and more often than not exaggerated. First, name me a revolution where the new regime didn’t persecute/kill off the members/sympathizers of the prior one. There aren’t any. It’s just part and parcel of victors’ justice.
Second, and more importantly, people should look at all the violent revolutionary right-wing juntas the US trained, armed, and brought to power in Latin America, Asia and the Mideast; juntas who ruled by terror, who massacred people, disappeared them, tortured, raped. The US then protected members of these regimes from accountability and prosecution. Some members of those regimes still live comfortably in sunny Florida and elsewhere in the US—Orlando Bosch, the terrorist who bombed a Cuban civilian airliner, then found refuge in the US, is a good example.
Another example is the US revolutionary war and its aftermath. That revolution certainly wasn’t peaceful. Afterwards, half a million people fled themselves, or were told to leave by the new regime. Thousands who stayed, but didn’t see eye-to-eye with the new post-colonial authorities were imprisoned, tortured, and killed. This is something they won’t teach in US history class.
The US/EU has been supporting and coddling the Israeli
regime for sixty-plus years. They have underwritten one of the
longest-running, brutal, racist, and oppressive neo-colonial occupations in the history of
the world. Yet the US and their pals
have the nerve to point a finger at Russia for annexing Crimea, a territory
that historically was (and by popular
referendum wants to be) part of Russia, and which in the past was attached
to Ukraine without any approval by anyone living there at the time.
Accusation#2 – Communists overthrew democratically-elected governments and invaded countries!
From 1917, the US and certain western countries tried to interfere in Russia’s internal revolution by sponsoring anti-Bolshevik armies. Winston Churchill once remarked that ‘communism must be strangled in its crib.’ During Italy’s first democratic election after WW2, the US organized a huge propaganda campaign against the socialist party. People were flooded with propaganda and fake threats that the Italian socialists were under Stalin’s direct control; that if they come to power churches will be shut down and religion outlawed, that Soviet troops will occupy Italy.
Italy was threatened by the US that if it didn’t vote the right way, US aid would be cut off, and sanctions would follow. This same threat was used repeatedly later on in other countries where a leader or government not to the US liking won, or was projected to win a popular election.
After the end of communism in Eastern Europe, the US used the threat of withholding aid unless the people in those countries elected governments who were not socialist/communist, even though such parties had majority support. Early 1990s Bulgaria is one of those cases.
In 2006 Hamas won the Palestinian elections, fair and square. The US didn’t like this outcome. It refused to recognize the results, and cut off aid to the Palestinians. Along with Israel, it effectively put the West Bank and Gaza on military, diplomatic, financial, and political lockdown.
In 2009 Manuel Zelaya, the democratically-elected president of Honduras was overthrown by a pro-US coup with the US providing behind the scenes assistance because he wanted to usher in reforms that the US and its corporate allies didn’t like.
And of course, we have the Ukraine, a country which until February 2014 had a democratically-elected government. But since that government didn’t want to take orders from the US, it was overthrown by a pro-US unelected junta which has gone on to threaten half the country, launch a violent war against its own people, and most likely was complicit in the killing of 300+ people when its fighter jet shot down Malaysian flight MH17. Yes, that previous democratically-elected government was corrupt, but since the current one is as well, and add to that criminally insane, the corruption charge was just PR bullshit.
Also, former Eastern European countries never fail to forget and remind everyone that they were invaded by Russia, and how the Russians illegally seized power in Eastern European countries. Then why did those same countries join the illegal US invasion of Iraq? Why did they aid and abet the US in bombing Libya and Syria in order to overthrow the governments there? By doing so, they were acting no worse than the so-called Soviet invaders.
Finally, what democratic
governments did the Soviets overthrow? Poland—a politically unstable
country ruled by army colonels, or Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary—all
ruled by monarchs or puppets sympathetic to Nazi Germany, and whose territory and
soldiers were used against Russia?
Western governments, and especially the US, have setup and funded pro-democracy NGOs in Russia and elsewhere. On the surface, the mission of these organizations is to promote democratic principles and good civil society. But in reality, those organizations have acted as intelligence-gathering/political activist fronts for their foreign government sponsors.
These organizations have constantly interfered in domestic politics and elections in other countries, have organized protests against governments and politicians whom the western governments found unreceptive to their dictates and orders, and who didn't want to put western economic/political/strategic interests first. These organizations also funded and trained subversive protest groups to undermine host governments not to the liking of western governments, especially that of the US. They've also supported/funded pro-western candidates for elections. All these acts are in violation of international laws and a blatant interference in a nation's internal affairs.
Russia certainly doesn't interfere in the US elections, or funds pro-Russian subversive organizations masquerading as democracy promoters in the US, whose aim is to elect pro-Russian politicians and enact pro-Russian policies.
President Putin, finally fed up with this nonsense, showed these NGOs the door. That's one of the reasons he's being vilified and demonized in the west as a dictator. Ironcially, the US has the same laws against foreign-sponsored NGOs operating on US soil. All NGOs who are funded in any part by a foreign government or act on behalf of a foreign government must register as 'agents of a foreign power,' (except israhell, of course). But when Putin passes such laws, he's labeled as a dictator who is destroying democracy.
But how would citizens of the US, or some other western country feel if the Kremlin setup Russian NGOs within their borders which meddled in those nations' internal affairs, national elections, and manipulated public opinion in favor of pro-Russian candidates and policies, and sponsored/encouraged protests and political unrest? Would western countries allow this? Would they not kick out these Russian subversives?
Accusation#3 – Communism ruined countries’ economies! Western governments, and especially the US, have setup and funded pro-democracy NGOs in Russia and elsewhere. On the surface, the mission of these organizations is to promote democratic principles and good civil society. But in reality, those organizations have acted as intelligence-gathering/political activist fronts for their foreign government sponsors.
These organizations have constantly interfered in domestic politics and elections in other countries, have organized protests against governments and politicians whom the western governments found unreceptive to their dictates and orders, and who didn't want to put western economic/political/strategic interests first. These organizations also funded and trained subversive protest groups to undermine host governments not to the liking of western governments, especially that of the US. They've also supported/funded pro-western candidates for elections. All these acts are in violation of international laws and a blatant interference in a nation's internal affairs.
Russia certainly doesn't interfere in the US elections, or funds pro-Russian subversive organizations masquerading as democracy promoters in the US, whose aim is to elect pro-Russian politicians and enact pro-Russian policies.
President Putin, finally fed up with this nonsense, showed these NGOs the door. That's one of the reasons he's being vilified and demonized in the west as a dictator. Ironcially, the US has the same laws against foreign-sponsored NGOs operating on US soil. All NGOs who are funded in any part by a foreign government or act on behalf of a foreign government must register as 'agents of a foreign power,' (except israhell, of course). But when Putin passes such laws, he's labeled as a dictator who is destroying democracy.
But how would citizens of the US, or some other western country feel if the Kremlin setup Russian NGOs within their borders which meddled in those nations' internal affairs, national elections, and manipulated public opinion in favor of pro-Russian candidates and policies, and sponsored/encouraged protests and political unrest? Would western countries allow this? Would they not kick out these Russian subversives?
What most people don’t seem to know is that the socialist/communist ideology alone wasn’t enough to ruin any economy. Whenever a communist country popped up, the first move western countries, especially the US made, was to immediately sanction it. This was followed up with creating deliberate roadblocks in order to hamper any socialist country’s development. Sabotage, acts of economic terrorism followed. Blockades and bans, such as the one currently still in effect against Cuba, has cost socialist countries hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue and opportunities for development and modernization. This led to shortages of revenue, and eventually to the lack of basic goods and services.
Another nasty tool the west used were loans to socialist/communist states with exorbitant interest rates. In some instances, they refused loans and forced countries to seek loans from private banks which charged loan-shark rates as well. All these tricks were used to impoverish and debilitate socialist/communist countries, cause misery and chaos, and finally regime change--the main goal of the rough treatment.
We will never know how socialist countries would’ve turned out if they weren’t deliberately sanctioned and had their economies hampered and sabotaged by US and their allies. We will never know how things would’ve turned out if socialist countries were left alone and allowed to pursue their own way, without being molested by the US and its bought whores.
And what exactly has wonderful US-style capitalism done in the last six years? Did it not con the world into fake and risky investments which crashed the world economy and bankrupted countries? How many people lost their retirement benefits and pensions because of this? How many countries were forced to swallow massive amounts of IMF debt which they cannot repay, and were forced to sell of valuable public-owned enterprises to the lowest bidder when they couldn’t pay off those loans? Countries which were promised wealth and prosperity if they adopted democracy and the free market system are still languishing in debt, unemployment and hardship, decades later! Add to that the fact that many older people in formerly communist/socialist countries yearn for the old system. What does that tell you?
Accusation#4 – In communist countries there’s no free speech and the press is censored!
Newsflash! Media censorship exists in every country.
What are we to think when journalists in the US and other democratic countries are forced, under threat of arrest, to name their confidential sources of information if the US government doesn’t like what they wrote? What about the journalists that are muzzled and fired for presenting a view that the US government, an allied country’s authorities, or a private interest close to the government doesn’t like? All these things have, and are, happening in the US and the west.
What about the fact that major US newspapers, including the New York Times have, up to the present, printed US government propaganda without any fact-checking or research whatsoever? Iraqi WMDs, Libya, Ukraine are just a few examples where US and other western governments have deliberately manipulated public opinion in their favor by releasing fake and unsubstantiated news stories.
Recently, a German journalist admitted that the US and its European allies wrote propaganda stories which were pro-US, then handed these stories to journalists to be published under their names with no fact-checking or research whatsoever. These stories were blatantly false. Those journalists were beforehand bribed with money and other favors to get them to act as propaganda bullhorns for the US. From these sources we got the standard anti-Russian fare that has been all the rage in the US and European media lately. These false news stories today influence the world-view of the average US/EU citizen. They create a false reality which could very well lead to more misunderstanding, and possibly more death and violence in the future.
Great Britain has deliberately blocked journalist Glenn Greenwald, who published the Snowden revelations, and his partner from flying, detained them at airports, confiscated their equipment, and threatened them. No charges, no due process, nothing; just detention without any specific reason for hours or days.
In communist countries, the government censored the media. In the US and other democratic countries the media censors itself willingly in return for access to, and favors from, their governments.
Accusation#5 – In communist countries, there’s no freedom of religion!
Communist governments saw religion as reactionary because the religious organizations traditionally allied themselves with the wealthy elites in the country. Religious organizations benefited from this arrangement, which also made religious organizations naturally anti-communist, especially in Europe.
When communism was established in any country, the authorities tried to root out any defiant clerics who openly sympathized with the old regimes or who agitated against the new one. Although the same has happened in pro-US dictatorships as well.
Later on, the church was told that as long as it didn’t get political, and didn’t use its position to preach against the system, it would be left alone. This arrangement held, and priests were even given monetary stipends by the communist governments in order to keep them quiet. Some priests even went so far as to become informers for the state.
Generally, as long as the church stayed out of politics and didn’t preach sedition, they were left alone by the communist authorities. I’m sure this rule also applies to churches in democratic countries as well.
During the cold war, the US along with other western democratic countries, used the churches in Eastern Europe to disseminate anti-communist views and propaganda. This would’ve explained the harsh measures taken against the church by communist governments. How would the US government feel if Russia or China secretly used churches in the US to spread anti -government views and sedition?
Hypocritically, the US encouraged the church in communist countries to be political, something the US government would’ve never allowed on its own soil or on that of their allies. If they did so, they’d at least lose their tax-exempt status, and at most be arrested.
Also, during the Bush years, we saw the US government use popular preachers to sell its pro-war and other conservative policies in return for access to the White House and other hand-outs from the government, like George W. Bush’s granting of money to religious organizations for charity work.
As for religious freedom in the west, how much discrimination was encountered by immigrants to the US who weren’t Protestant? Catholics were discriminated against heavily because they were feared to be more loyal to the Pope than the US.
Look at the instances of discrimination against Muslims in the US and Europe, like the banning of headscarves, protests against the construction of mosques, vandalism of mosques, and accusing Muslims of being involved in a US-wide conspiracy to force Sharia law upon the country.
This foolishness even led to a congressional hearing chaired by the ignorant Peter King on the Islamization of America. He gathered all sorts of Christian fundamentalist, neo-con, and Jewish-zionist kooks and bigots, as well as 'experts' who terrorized the naïve public with scary stories, supposed evidence, and horrific predictions on how Muslims aim to turn the US into an Islamic country by force.
This has led to attacks against Muslims, both verbal and physical. It has also led to undercover FBI agents being placed in mosques all over the US to eavesdrop and inform on the doings of Muslims.
Accusation#6 – Communist regimes imprisoned and tortured dissidents, locked them up in camps or kicked them out of the country!
Violent right-wing governments worldwide sponsored and aided by the US did the same. US allies also did the same. Look at the secret rendition flights the CIA flew to Eastern European countries like Poland, Lithuania and others, where terror suspects were tortured, with disregard for human rights laws. Guantanamo Bay is still open; a place where prisoners were water-boarded, tortured and treated like garbage--and still are. Bagram air base in Afghanistan, and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq are examples of US love of torture and extreme interrogation techniques used on enemies.
As far as jailing and persecuting dissidents, look at what was done to Bradley Manning for revealing US war crimes in Iraq. Look at Edward Snowden’s predicament. (ironically, it’s Russia who offered Snowden refuge and a new life) Look at the treatment Julian Assange has been subject to; all three people have one thing in common: they exposed US deception and crimes, nothing else. Dear US allies have behaved just as bad. Poland was not too long ago fined 235,000 Euros in compensation to the two terror suspects tortured on its soil.
But we can even go father back in time. The treatment of Edward Snowden and others is reminiscent of Philip Agee, who in the 1970s published a book about CIA operations and named names. For these revelations he was hounded and expelled from multiple democratic western European countries, under pressure and orders of the US, of course.
Accusation#7– The Soviet Union was imperialist!
And what was Great Britain? What was Turkey? Japan? What was/is the US if not imperialist? An Imperialist country is one which conquers, controls, and exploits other nations, near and far. By this simple definition, the US is an imperialist nation. Look at Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the various micro-stans of the Pacific. In the past, the US subdued and controlled the Philippines and Cuba. It also overthrew and controlled through friendly puppets Latin American governments.
The Soviet Union never sought to conquer and subdue countries beyond its immediate periphery. Surrounded by hostile neighbors, the Russians tried to retain as much control over nearby countries to serve as a buffer zone between them and their enemies. That’s why the Soviets setup Moscow-friendly governments in Eastern Europe after WW2. Some of those countries served as bases and highways for foreign invaders, and the Soviets wanted to shut those bases and highways down. This is not the same as taking over a country just to exploit its resources as did the British and French in India and the far east.
So those who insist that past Soviet political, military, and economic influence over Eastern European countries made the Soviet Union imperialist, then the present US political, military, and economic influence over Eastern European countries makes the US an imperialist country as well.
Accusation#8 – Communist countries were militarized and kept people from traveling freely!
Okay. So if you’re an American, try to travel to Cuba, Iran or North Korea, and see how free you really are. One thing that truly free and democratic countries don’t do is ban/forbid their citizens from traveling to any country, even if that country is authoritarian or even an enemy. The most the US or any other country can do, is advise or warn people who want to travel to those countries about the risks, but nothing beyond that. Democratic countries certainly don't threaten or punish their citizens for traveling to any country. But if the US allows its citizens to freely travel to Saudi Arabia, a country ruled by probably the most nastiest and repressive government there is, then it’s truly beyond me why Cuba and Iran, who are way more moderate, are on the no-go list. Could it have something to do with the fact that those two countries don’t want to kiss US ass? Nah . . .
Tell all those people who mistakenly found themselves on the terrorist no-fly list how free they feel. These people are effectively trapped within the US, unable to leave.
As for being militarized, it was the US which started the arms race which helped bankrupt the Soviet Union, and now seems to be bankrupting itself. As for militarization, look at what has been going on in the US since 9/11. The military budget has grown to record heights, the over-glorification of the military is sickening. In elementary, middle and high schools, ROTC drones and military recruiters swarm the campuses. Yellow ribbons, military recruiting commercials, shows and movies glorifying military operations are all part-and-parcel of a militarized society. Military parades and salutes at ball games and other public gatherings are everywhere.
The US is the biggest weapons dealer in the world. It causes crises and tensions and creates fake enemies and straw men in order to scare and force unsuspecting dupes worldwide to buy US-made weaponry; weaponry they don’t need and damn well can’t afford. All the while social programs are cut, austerity measures enacted so that a country can pay for useless and over-the-top weaponry they don’t need; all so they can prove what faithful and good US allies they are!
Add to that the bad habit of the US deploying its military everywhere as ‘help,’ but in reality it’s just a racket to inject US firepower and influence into a part of the world in order to exploit a natural resource, setup a strategically-located base, or push out foreign competitors (As is happening in Africa currently where US wants to push out Chinese investments). Makes you wonder about that whole Ebola scare, doesn't it?
The US is also in the process of militarizing its allies, and remilitarizing Germany and Japan, who up until now were obligated by treaty to have only a peace time army. The US, seeking to exploit these nations’ military power, and budgets, is prodding and enticing them into a militarist mindset. It does so by provoking both Russia and North Korea and other hapless countries. It uses those countries’ responses, which are sure to be full of anger or at least warning, to scare its allies into arming themselves to the teeth. This process is currently under way in Japan and Germany.
The most ominous part of the militarization of US society is that, unbeknownst to most of the US public, the president can now use the military to apprehend and/or kill anyone anywhere in the world deemed a threat, including US citizens. This has already been done.
For the US/western public, the Berlin wall remains a symbol of the perfidious lengths to which authoritarian communist governments went to to keep their citizens locked up behind the iron curtain.
But the true story of how, and why, the Berlin Wall came to be in 1961 is more nuanced. Western propaganda states that the wall was built to prevent people from East Germany from defecting and fleeing. But in reality, East Germans were free to travel to East Berlin regularly for years. But over time, this led to labor shortages in certain fields because East German-trained professionals went to work for West German companies which paid better.
Also, most of the East German workers didn't defect. They came home at the end of the day back to East Germany.
Add to that the fact that the free access between East and West Berlin allowed western/US agents to cross into East Germany and cause acts of terrorism and sabotage, the East German authorities got fed up and sealed the border.
Even US officials quietly admitted that the Berlin Wall made East Germany safer and most likely prevented another war.
Speaking of walls, why hasn't the benevolent and eternally wonderful US/EU done anything to condemn Israel for erecting the apartheid wall inside the West Bank, effectively cutting off Palestinians from their own land and de facto annexing it to Israel.
To this day, Israel hasn't been held accountable for building this wall, which is even worse than the Berlin Wall was. At least the Berlin Wall wasn't used to steal land!
Accusation#9 – Under communism, people were poor. They didn’t have anything!
When the other accusations are explained and debunked, the accuser turns to this one as a last-ditch attempt to exonerate their warped and uninformed worldview.
Yes, in a socialist/communist country foreign consumer goods weren’t plentiful, and certain items were not sold. That’s because socialist/communist governments were concerned with the basic practicalities, and were not materialistic/consumer-oriented societies. But were many of these goods necessary?
The next time you go to the store, look around and ask yourself: how much of the stuff in that store people actually need. What can you do without? I guarantee that the majority of the crap there is either frivolous or just plain useless.
People in capitalist countries have been conditioned to think they need a constant stream of stuff, but in reality, they don’t. A century of psychological manipulation and subtle mental queues that appeal to, and amplify, a person’s most base instincts and insecurities is being used to sell people things they don’t need or that are harmful to them.
Also, people shouldn’t confuse poverty with the absence of consumer goods, or access to them. People in socialist/communist countries had free health care, education, full and permanent employment, and guaranteed retirement and pensions. Sure, they didn’t have glitzy housing and the luxury goods, but is an iPhone, cheese-in-a-can or a Barbie doll really more important than those previously-mentioned benefits?
Many people in western societies, especially in the US, see themselves as poor just because they can’t afford everything that they want. They also assume that people in other countries who don’t have the things Americans have are also poor. This is a sick attitude, and there are people out there with this mentality. It’s also ignorance of other peoples’ cultures and mentalities. Westerners and Americans just can’t fathom the possibility that to other people and cultures, western toys and gadgets are not as important, or seen as wasteful, childish or unnecessary; a view that is actually very astute and correct. The western mind hasn’t evolved to see things this way yet, I guess.
Plus, as I’ve said to my relatives recently, democracy doesn’t equal store shelves full of stuff. There are authoritarian countries with despotic, capitalist free-market true-believer governments where stores are full of all the things you’d see in the US. Capitalism shouldn’t be seen as synonymous with democracy and freedom. Seeing it as such is incorrect.
Poverty and homelessness in the US and Western Europe is
increasing. People are unemployed, and having a harder time providing the basic
necessities. On more than one occasion I was approached by people asking me if
I can buy them something to eat, here in the good old rich USA!
I’d be willing to bet that there are tons of impoverished people
living in capitalist countries throughout the world today for whom the basic amenities
that an Eastern European government offered its citizens during the communist
years would be the ultimate in luxury!
Ironically, incidents of homelessness in communist countries were rare or non-existent.
Accusation# 10 - Communist countries were technologically backward!
This is more of a cheap-shot than accusation.
In the western world, communist countries were looked upon as uncreative, unsophisticated, and primitive as far as technology and innovation went.
But just a cursory glimpse at history shows that this is not true.
Question: Which country started the space race, launched the first satellite, first rocket, first living organism, first man into space, and conducted the first spacewalk?
Answer: The Soviet Union
Not the US, France, Great Britain or Switzerland.
The Soviet Union's pioneering space exploration and research set the stage for, and inspired, the US space program. It also shook the US enough that they actually started educating their people better in math and science so they could keep up with the Soviets.
Soviet scientists, engineers, and technicians were/are some of the best in the world. By the 1960s the Soviet Union was very close to achieving economic and technological parity with the west.
The US saw this, and got scared. So it started to turn up the heat on the cold war. In the coming decades the US deliberately did everything it could to ruin the Soviet Union's economy. It lured the Soviets into the arms race, which unfortunately led the Soviet government to put an increasing number of brains and muscle power, materials, time, and money into weapons research, development, and manufacture.
This left too few people and resources for civilian development, leading to the lack of consumer goods, and general shoddiness and lack of quality in the ones produced.
Nevertheless, Soviet weaponry was of good design and quality, some of it quite ahead of its time. So obviously human intellect and technical expertise weren't the reasons for the Soviet Union's economic problems.
We'll never know what the Soviets would've achieved if they weren't manipulated by the US/west to squander their efforts on weapons, and instead put most of their ingenuity and resources into the civilian economy.
Even today Russia makes the best rocket engines on earth. They're so good that the US uses them to send its domestic rockets into space. Russia banned the sale of these engines recently to the US because of the sanctions the US passed.
The US also uses the Russian Baikonur space facility, and Russian-built Soyuz rockets to send US astronauts and equipment to the International Space Station.
Even East Germany back in its heyday managed to domestically design and build its own 386 computer.
Of course, we'll never know what further technological advancements the communist countries would've made if left alone to live and develop in peace without being deliberately saddled with ridiculously exorbitant interest rates on loans, sabotage, sanctions, and blockades by the west.
Ironically, incidents of homelessness in communist countries were rare or non-existent.
Accusation# 10 - Communist countries were technologically backward!
This is more of a cheap-shot than accusation.
In the western world, communist countries were looked upon as uncreative, unsophisticated, and primitive as far as technology and innovation went.
But just a cursory glimpse at history shows that this is not true.
Question: Which country started the space race, launched the first satellite, first rocket, first living organism, first man into space, and conducted the first spacewalk?
Answer: The Soviet Union
Not the US, France, Great Britain or Switzerland.
The Soviet Union's pioneering space exploration and research set the stage for, and inspired, the US space program. It also shook the US enough that they actually started educating their people better in math and science so they could keep up with the Soviets.
Soviet scientists, engineers, and technicians were/are some of the best in the world. By the 1960s the Soviet Union was very close to achieving economic and technological parity with the west.
The US saw this, and got scared. So it started to turn up the heat on the cold war. In the coming decades the US deliberately did everything it could to ruin the Soviet Union's economy. It lured the Soviets into the arms race, which unfortunately led the Soviet government to put an increasing number of brains and muscle power, materials, time, and money into weapons research, development, and manufacture.
This left too few people and resources for civilian development, leading to the lack of consumer goods, and general shoddiness and lack of quality in the ones produced.
Nevertheless, Soviet weaponry was of good design and quality, some of it quite ahead of its time. So obviously human intellect and technical expertise weren't the reasons for the Soviet Union's economic problems.
We'll never know what the Soviets would've achieved if they weren't manipulated by the US/west to squander their efforts on weapons, and instead put most of their ingenuity and resources into the civilian economy.
Even today Russia makes the best rocket engines on earth. They're so good that the US uses them to send its domestic rockets into space. Russia banned the sale of these engines recently to the US because of the sanctions the US passed.
The US also uses the Russian Baikonur space facility, and Russian-built Soyuz rockets to send US astronauts and equipment to the International Space Station.
Even East Germany back in its heyday managed to domestically design and build its own 386 computer.
Of course, we'll never know what further technological advancements the communist countries would've made if left alone to live and develop in peace without being deliberately saddled with ridiculously exorbitant interest rates on loans, sabotage, sanctions, and blockades by the west.
* * *
That’s about all that I can come up with, but I’m sure there are other accusations that can be hurled upon communism and socialism. But I’m also sure those accusations can be countered by-comparison. Also remember that communism isn't a Russian-created, or Eastern philosophy or system. It is a political/economic philosophy born in the West, and was meant to be applied in the west.
My aim in this essay is not to excuse nor condone acts of
violence and inhumanity committed by any regime in any system, past and
present. It’s not to glorify communism/socialism
as the only, and best solution, while ignoring its flaws. Doing so would make
me no better than the misguided and foolish disciples of capitalism.
What I’m totally sick of and pissed at are the deluded and uninformed ignoramuses out there that see things as black and white. The worst, smelliest, and annoying offenders are those shitheads who can recite communist crimes by rote while holding the USA as a paragon of virtue and goodness who has done no wrong.
Such an attitude doesn’t only show profound ignorance; it’s
downright criminal. Such an attitude is a denial and betrayal of all the
innocent victims of US warmongering, and that of US-sponsored regimes. Such an
attitude is on full display currently in Eastern Ukraine, where the civilians,
and their neighborhoods, were shelled with tactical missiles meant to destroy
cities by the US/EU supported Kiev regime forces. These people don’t matter to
the US and the west. These people are branded as figments of the Kremlin’s
imagination; they don’t exist to the US and their vassal governments in Eastern
Europe. But yet those victims are real, and they are dead, killed by US and
western criminal connivance.
That’s why I don’t get why the current governments in Eastern Europe bow down and listen to every US order and each piece of pathetic and false Russophobic propaganda when there’s so much proof of US criminality all over the world. How can a Polish or a Romania politician think that the US is good while ignoring the death, destruction, and total disregard for democracy the US is guilty of in places like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Latin America and others? How can these so-called democratic leaders lament past communist atrocities in their countries, yet ignore and deny atrocities committed by the US and their allies? Either these so-called leaders are willfully ignorant or bought off puppets. Either way, they’re also criminally negligent, and can be bought up on war crimes charges if there was any true justice in the world. Hiding behind past victim status while carrying out war crimes, or aiding and abetting other who commit them is just disgusting.
In this age of information, no one can claim that they were uninformed or didn’t know, as the clueless and slimy Hillary Clinton opined when asked about the bad intelligence concerning the imaginary Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
It must be remembered and taken as holy writ that the US has
no friends; it only has subordinates. Anyone who stands in the way of the
pursuit of US interests, or aspires to be an equal, is an enemy. Vladimir Putin found this out the hard way.
Those who submit to US control are rewarded. Those who don’t
are punished with sanctions and regime change.
That’s the extent of US democracy and freedom, and of course capitalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)