Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 14, 2019

The MoA Week In Review - OT 2019-21

Last week's posts on Moon of Alabama:

The Washington Post again laments that the U.S. coup attempt in Venezuela failed:

Venezuela’s military, despite U.S. expectations, has not turned on Maduro

Nearly three months later, Venezuela’s top-heavy military remains largely intact under President Nicolás Maduro. The once-brisk pace of defections to neighboring Colombia has slowed to a trickle. Fewer than 1,500 Venezuelan soldiers, relieved by the Colombian government of their weapons and uniforms and housed in sparsely furnished hotel rooms near the border, now sit waiting for something to happen.

The idea that the Venezuelan army would defect was always crazy. Anyone with a bit of knowledge of Venezuela could predict that it would never do so. Reports of lonely soldiers isolated in fourth class hotels in Columbia will not incite any further defections. While the random opposition guy promised amnesty for any soldier moving to his site, the U.S. seeks to arrest one of the few who did:

Venezuela’s ex-spy chief arrested in Madrid on US warrant

Venezuela’s longtime spy chief was arrested Friday in Madrid by Spanish police acting on a U.S. drug warrant a few weeks after he threw his support behind opponents of President Nicolas Maduro.
The opposition saw Carvajal’s criticism of Venezuela’s socialist government as a stimulus to prod other military figures to defect, but the country’s armed forces have remained largely loyal to current Maduro.

With the situaton stalled the U.S. is ramping up talk of a military attack on Venezuela:

US Military Attack on Venezuela Mulled by Top Trump Advisors and Latin American Officials at Private DC Meeting

EXCLUSIVE: Away from the public eye, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank hosted a top-level, off-the-record meeting to explore US military options against Venezuela.

Such talks are poor attempts to create some psychological pressure. There are no sound military options. The U.S. is not going to invade Venezuela. It will ramp up sanctions and press its 'allies' to do the same. Venezuela and its people will suffer but they will not give up on resisting U.S. pressure. The current situation will only resolve itself when the regime in Washington or in one of Venezuela's neighboring countries changes.

Use as open thread ...

Posted by b on April 14, 2019 at 17:00 UTC | Permalink

« previous page

To the MoA commenter and the US Liberace grifter that suggest using flying water tankers for the ND fire

Water weighs 8.2 lbs per gallon and falling from any height in mass onto a building, or adjoining ones, is asking for further disaster.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Apr 16 2019 1:18 utc | 101

@101 circe, did you read the article b left about buttigieg a week or two ago? it's a good read...long, but worth it..

Posted by: james | Apr 16 2019 1:47 utc | 102

What is the justification for the sanctions - are they legal, cannot be contested?

Posted by: jared | Apr 16 2019 1:54 utc | 103

@101 Poor old Bernie doesn't stand a chance against the "First openly gay president" He's got the BBC behind him...

Of course it will solidify Trump's base against him. It's all identity politics now.

Posted by: dh | Apr 16 2019 1:55 utc | 104

Circe: the gatekeeper media is against [Sanders]

As a national figure, Sanders is past the 'gate'. His problem is the bridge too far that he has to cross after his sheepdogging for Hillary.

The disgrace of phony Democratic/progressive leaders of the fake left will not fade quickly. After 8 years of Obama's "Change You Can Believe In" we got the Sanders betrayal.

As a result, dembots now have to resort to an even greater degree of shilling in an attempt to prevent a disgusted electorate from seeking alternatives to the duopoly's "lesser evil" bullshit.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 16 2019 1:57 utc | 105

Note: "Change You Can Believe In" actually delivered More Of The Same because Obama was nothing more than a faux populist grifter.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 16 2019 2:01 utc | 106

@103 james

Yes, actually, I read it top to bottom. It was excellent, but you know, I wasn't surprised by anything. It just confirmed my early intuitive perception of Buttigieg. It really bothers me the way the media is pumping him up and so many Dems falling for it. It's very discouraging. They don't see that he's being propped up to be the foil? How on earth can the not see it? It's crazy!

Posted by: Circe | Apr 16 2019 2:53 utc | 107

@108 circe... i hate to say it, but generally people seem easily duped... the msm has an easy time of it.. all they have to do is put someone in the limelight 24/7 and maintain their squeaky clean image and presto - insta president... well, almost... it also seems money and a few other things are deciding factors too.. integrity is the very last thing.. i say that based on the track record of the past presidents in memory, and i am not an american either..

i am not sure what would happen if sanders was to make it to the presidency.. he was happy with the bombing of syria as i recall.. as as memory serves - the dynamic in ukraine - he was okay with that too... i am not convinced sanders would be any different on the foreign policy front.. but on the domestic front he has some good ideas as i understand it..

the problem for me and many others who live outside of the usa is this.. we are tired of the endless wars the usa is responsible for.. when they aren't directly screwing things up in other countries, they are making life punishing for many too.. i just read some updates on syria and unfortunately every chance the usa gets to put a fork in the wheels of positive change - they do it... the usa military is a rubber stamp for a huge amount of ugliness and by and large it seems americans are oblivious to it..

1 american dies in some foreign country and all hell breaks loose... 1000, or 10,000 or more innocent foreigners die at the hands of americans and americans don't seem to care one bit..

i hope americans don't have to suffer what their military excursions in faraway places has resulted in.. sanders at leader doesn't paint a picture any different at this point, as i see it.. and, that is the most i have ever said on sanders!!!

Posted by: james | Apr 16 2019 3:04 utc | 108


The alternative to the duopoly is Howard Shultze who's there as a second layer of foil insurance in case anyone but Buttigieg or any of the women get nominated. IOW, if Sanders makes it and the media is dead set against him, Shultze will start getting major support to steal votes and momentum from Sanders so Trump wins again. Same goes with Biden. They're the only ones that stand a chance against Trump, but Shultze is in to ensure Trump makes it.

It's all rigged. Trump is set for a 2nd term. You don't have to worry about Sanders.

Posted by: Circe | Apr 16 2019 3:06 utc | 109

@110 circe.. last line - i tend to agree with you.. the only caveat is something out of left field happens, but at this point - i agree with your last line...

john helmer has an article up on julian assange....

Posted by: james | Apr 16 2019 3:09 utc | 110


I disagree with you and jackrabbit on Sanders' foreign policy. I don't buy he's an interventionist, I trust Tulsi Gabbard's but never mind, it's a moot discussion given the rigging involved.

Posted by: Circe | Apr 16 2019 3:15 utc | 111

circe - fair enough!

Posted by: james | Apr 16 2019 3:18 utc | 112

I tapped Post instead of Preview, but meant to write that I trust Tulsi Gabbard's judgment on Sander's foreign policy, since she endorsed him in 2016. She worķs with him, so she knows him better.

Posted by: Circe | Apr 16 2019 3:20 utc | 113


I'm not interested in any duopoly candidate. Lets talk about "managed democracy" that is the reality of American politics. That's what produced the faux populists Obama and Trump.

Let's talk about where the failure of democracy has taken us: record inequality AND perpetual war.

Let's talk about third-parties and consciousness-raising (and maybe some hell-raising) and stop pretending that any duopoly candidate has the "magic touch", or even the will, to change the establishment.

By all rights, there should be a Yellow Vest Movement in every Western country. Sanders could have led such a Movement and changed everything. Instead, he bent the knee and kissed Hillary-Debra Wasserman-Shultz ass.

Truth-tellers should tell the truth. And those who claim to have principles should live by them. Sanders failed on both counts. He's part of the problem.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 16 2019 3:39 utc | 114

james @111

I don't understand this part of Helmer's post:

Assange’s lawyers are also mobilizing to have the Swedish prosecutors return to London with a new warrant ...

My understanding is that if Sweden requests extradition, that could happen very quickly and with ability for Assange to object. I'm not even sure that there has to be a viable case in Sweden, just a charge for Assange to answer.

Once in Swedish custody, USA could request extradition and it appears that that would go much more smoothy than in UK.

So I would think that Assange and his lawyers would object to Sweden's re-opening the case and requesting extradition.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 16 2019 4:00 utc | 115

@116 jr - i think this is where helmer is coming from.. he basically says it in the next breath..
"Assange’s lawyers are also mobilizing to have the Swedish prosecutors return to London with a new warrant, so that this can stretch out the legal wrangling in London for long enough to reach a new British election. If won by Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party forms a new government, Assange may benefit from a decision to move Assange’s prosecution to the UK courts, and then to release him."

i think that is what helmer thinks.. you might be right on how quick the turnaround can be.. i don't know these kinds of details to these issues.. i am sure someone knows..

Posted by: james | Apr 16 2019 5:26 utc | 116

It took me almost an hour to compose a comment. Then I was infirmed the session had expired. So I refreshed the page. Unlike other websites, this one just loses everything. But the prospect of redoing mt comment is disheartening. So that's that.

Posted by: sarz | Apr 16 2019 8:00 utc | 117

France 24 interviews Rafael Correa on Assange, eng. 11 mins.

Correa gives some info about the history .. “Just after a week of taking office he (Moreno) had a meeting with Paul Manafort” (says Correa) …. Correa describes the issue correctly as a ‘human rights’ one.

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 16 2019 8:27 utc | 118

Jonathan Cook on

The UK’s hidden role in Assange’s detention

February 2018, sets some of the record straight. Short.


Ny wrote to the CPS: “We have found us to be obliged to lift the detention order … and to withdraw the European arrest warrant. If so this should be done in a couple of weeks. This would affect not only us but you too in a significant way.”

Three days later, suggesting that legal concerns were far from anyone’s mind, she emailed the CPS again: “I am sorry this came as a [bad] surprise… I hope I didn’t ruin your weekend.”

In a similar vein, proving that this was about politics, not the law, the chief CPS lawyer handling the case in the UK, had earlier written to the Swedish prosecutors: “Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!”

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 16 2019 8:42 utc | 119

James @117

I think it means that the Assange lawyers are preparing for the return of the Swedish prosecutors.

An extradition to Sweden would be much easier and quicker for the UK. The following extradition (from Sweden to UK) can be instantaneous and would only be prolonged so as not to embarrass the UK too much. It appears that either Sweden doesn't want to play along or that the letter signed by the 72 MPs & Lords calling for a extradition just didn't have any impact with the populace (or both).

Posted by: ADKC | Apr 16 2019 11:25 utc | 120

Correction @121

I should have said: "The following extradition (from Sweden to US) can be instantaneous and would only be prolonged so as not to embarrass the UK too much."

Posted by: ADKC | Apr 16 2019 13:35 utc | 121

@118 sarz.. hopefully lesson learned.. i am sorry that happened to you.. it has happened to me too, so now, if i write a long piece and want to make sure it gets posted, i copy my post before i lose it.. if you hit the back button, you can retrieve it too..

@120 noirette.. thanks for the link to jonathan cooks article..

@121/122 AKDC.. thanks.. yes - that might be the thinking... however hopefully the uk sees the purpose of sweden re-initiating the charges and says no to that too.. i suppose that is what wikileak lawyers would argue..

Posted by: james | Apr 16 2019 15:40 utc | 122

I see battle lines are being drawn over the 2020 POTUS election by MoA commentators. One of the false progressive fronts, the Center for American Progress, was documented in sabotaging Sanders in 2016 and is at it again, as documented here. And this item further reports "As Sanders 2020 Campaign Gains Steam, Corporate Democrats Reportedly 'Growing Increasingly Nervous,'" which means the Money Power is getting worried it won't be able to sidetrack Sanders this time. One of the most important aspects of the coming election is the American public's bipartisan support for Medicare For All, which was reflected in the reception Sanders's received at Fox News Townhall held yesterday in Pennsylvania.

There are excellent grounds for disliking Sanders over his positions related to Empire, but his domestic policy positions are very good and as documented threaten the Money Power, which is what must be done. The Money Power is THE ENEMY of everyone on the planet not allied with it. It's waned and waxed for several millennia and is now past its greatest point as it's now losing its grip on Eurasia. None of the declared D Party candidates for POTUS are ideal, but several are certainly agents acting for the Money Power--Biden and Harris top that list.

While the geopolitical situation occupies most at MoA, US midterms are almost always referendums on the sitting POTUS's first term's domestic policies, which was the point of Sanders's Fox News appearance. Policies favored by bipartisan majorities will be opposed by Congressional GOP and vetoed by Trump if they get to his desk, which is why I expect Medicare For All and Green New Deal at minimum to be election issues--both of which happen to be opposed by Pelosi and her Corporate/Money Power Democrat allies. With luck, she'll continue her opposition and commit political suicide in the process.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 16 2019 19:47 utc | 123


I can't understand why everyone thinks Sanders is for Empire and intervention. In 2016, Tulsi Gabbard endorsed him and campaigned with him. She is very much against intervention. I can bet you, that if she drops out of the race later, she will endorse him again. Don't any of you trust her judgment?

Posted by: Circe | Apr 16 2019 20:52 utc | 124

@karlof1 - interesting.. thanks.. yes - based on sanders foreign policy positions, i am not a fan, but i think he has great ideas domestically speaking...

on a different note - sst - pat langs site... i see posts with comments, but am unable to read the comments.. is this a new feature of pats site? i know he wanted to change from disqus to typepad... but is this the end result? can others read the comments?

Posted by: james | Apr 16 2019 20:55 utc | 125

@circe - i like tulsi and what she has said.. yes... i trust her judgement at this point..

Posted by: james | Apr 16 2019 20:56 utc | 126


I see the comments

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 16 2019 21:09 utc | 127

thanks jr... it looks like i have been blocked from seeing them!! pat lang is a very petty fellow! i already knew that.. oh well..

Posted by: james | Apr 16 2019 21:12 utc | 128

I think MoA readers know that today there is no real separation between the domestic issues and international issues. Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Arab monarchies influence and US MIC, and Security State all influence US domestic politics to ensure that Empire needs come first.

IMO politicians and pundits that seek to separate the two are playing games.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 16 2019 21:42 utc | 129

Tulsi is not opposed to war, intervention, or regime-change, she just wants it to be done carefully:

Tulsi has always emphasized the need to have a clear plan and look at all possible outcomes before going to war. Too many times the U.S. has rushed into regime change war without an intelligent analysis of the potential effects.
In fact, she still serves in the military via the Hawaiian National Guard.

She is against arming a Jihadi proxy army in Syria but has also called Assad a "brutal dictator" - suggesting that she might continue regime change efforts by other means.

Tulsi has not called for a reduction in Military spending. In fact, Tulsi seems unconcerned by the new Cold War:

Tulsi strongly believes the United States and United Nations have a duty to defend the sovereignty of Ukraine from Russia. Russia's invasion, occupation, and further threats are an extreme danger to Ukrainian self determination.

Tulsi has also called for an independent investigation into Russia’s attempts to influence our elections

<> <> <> <> <> <> <>

No duopoly candidate is worth a damn. We need to change the SYSTEM, not the mouthpiece.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 16 2019 21:57 utc | 130


Your points are manipulative and selective. Your links don't support your arguments. Tulsi's military secret is no secret - did you just did out? There is more - Tulsi comes from a military family and also from a people and land that were conquered and colonised - whose people adopted the US military and who became a dis-proportionate part of the military. But it is her experience that forms her politics and her views.

In the end Tulsi may disappoint but her stated policies are the best in the campaign for those that wish to end the wars.

Posted by: ADKC | Apr 16 2019 22:26 utc | 131


First, Tulsi has no chance to win.

Second, given the first point, her candidacy only bolsters the corrupt system.

Third, it's clear that will so many progressives running, the mainstream candidate(s) has a better chance to win, and that win will mean a national stage and platform to build on for 2014.

Fourth, Sanders is considered the "front runner" among the progressive side of the Party and he sucks up enough mind share from the others that he becomes a spoiler. He was a sheepdog in 2016 and now he shares that role with all of the others (whether they choose to see that or not). EVERY progressive-leaning voter now has a candidate puppy that they can bond with - shutting out third-party alternatives.

Lastly, the duopoly know EXACTLY how this will all play out. It plays out just how they want it to - with another 4 years for Trump and a hand-picked Democratic Party front-runner for 2014.

You are welcome to waste your time and energy on whatever duopoly candidate appeals to you.

Welcome to the Rabbithole.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 16 2019 22:58 utc | 132


The policies matter - Tulsi's campaign is a way to convey those policies to the masses. Sulking about the system doesn't achieve anything.

Look at all the time you've wasted on Trump? So it must matter.

It is quite likely that both candidates in the 2020 election will be anti-Russia and pro-War and that the American people will be all in, baying for blood, voting for the candidate that offers them the most death and destruction. You must see that is a real possibility? A strong showing for candidates that advocate an anti-war message at least mitigates that too some extent. If you can show me a different, practical way to achieve more then I'm all ears.I

But you can't manipulate and cool people

Posted by: ADKC | Apr 16 2019 23:20 utc | 133


Posted too early. Should have continued:

But you can't manipulate and fool people into agreeing with you, and you can't walk away from the process and imagine you are having any effect.

Posted by: ADKC | Apr 16 2019 23:23 utc | 134


candidates that advocate an anti-war message

I just explained @131 that she's NOT anti-war. She's against regime-change ops that fail and harm the local population.

It seems that you're blinded by your emotional investment in her candidacy.

you can't manipulate and fool people into agreeing with you

I'm not. I've explained my position to a sophisticated audience. You just don't agree with it.

She may be the best candidate in the race in terms of pointing out US regime-change disasters BUT she's still running as a Democrat.

You're ignoring my criticisms of the duopoly. In doing so, you pretend that they mean nothing. That "managed democracy" or "the illusion of democracy" is unimportant. And that the fact that we've been played time and time again is of no concern. This time it's different! LOL.

you can't walk away from the process and imagine you are having any effect

You would say the same to the Yellow Vest protesters?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 16 2019 23:50 utc | 135

Have not seen this posted: reports as breaking news April 17, 2019 1:58 am

Assange wins the 2019 GUE/NGL Award, EU Journalism Award for journalists and whistleblowers sponsored by EU Parliamentarians

Posted by: LIkklemore | Apr 17 2019 0:09 utc | 136

Makeshift @136

You're the one that hasn't addressed by points - you've just retreated to your selective manipulation points.

The gilets jaunes are ordinary people who voted and engaged and very definitely have not walked away. What you are doing is separating yourself from the mass of Americans so you can say you were right - how does that help to achieve change or even an American version of the gilets jaunes?

I've already asked you to show me a better, practical way to achieve something more - I'm asking again? You want to change the system - tell me how? Tell me what you are doing to change the system?

Posted by: ADKC | Apr 17 2019 0:13 utc | 137

ADKC @138

"Makeshift" should be "Jackrabbit" - apologies, bizarre auto-corection!

Posted by: ADKC | Apr 17 2019 0:16 utc | 138


Wow. Now it's all about me, huh? Now I'm the bad guy and have to defend what I'm doing to change the system.

Just 'cause I said the Emperor has no clothes. Now, I have to tell you how I'd dress him?

You're doing the same thing that Circe and donkeytale did for their favorite candidate. To them, Sanders is the only viable candidate to defeat Trump so EVERYBODY has to get on board the Sanders bandwagon.

They actually have a better argument than you do for Tulsi. Why don't you guys have thrash it out and get back to us?

In any case, I've already made my point: "managed democracy" relies on money and "lesser evil" voting, and no duopoly candidate (that has any chance to win) will change anything. Those who put their trust in Obama, Sanders, and Trump have seen that their populist rhetoric is worthless. It's time for a change to the SYSTEM itself (like the Yellow Vests are pushing for).

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 17 2019 0:42 utc | 139

Jackrabbit @149,

I'm probably a lot older than you and I can tell you that for the whole of my life it has been time to change the system. It isn't so easy as just wanting change, it isn't easy even if you campaign and take to the streets or engage in more direct action. My relatives and family lived in an area (but mainly in border) where there was armed fighting to achieve change (change was not achieved, just death, evacuation, fear). And as you get older, you do become much more aware of your physical limitations and the impossibility of achieving change as an individual.

Change requires two things. The first is crisis - this could be financial (2008 was a huge missed opportunity), war (hugely expensive or lost) - these things happen very rarely. The second thing is you need to be part of the masses - not a set of isolated individuals - otherwise you can't act collectively. Without crisis and collective purpose change probably can't be achieved.

In France there is a crisis because the French way of life, culture, etc. is being dismantled. But the collective togetherness that you find in the communes of rural French formed the collective base from which the gilets jaunes sprang.

My impression of the US is that it's people are at present too divided and blame too directed towards the individual rather than policy. Hopes for solutions seem also (unreasonably) placed in the election of an individual, rather than a collective group.

Probably, every commentator on MoA believes that the system has to change - How to change the system and what that change should be are the difficult questions?

So, I've told you what I think: you wait for the crisis, while waiting you engage with your follow citizens and don't set yourself apart and you advocate for policies you want and support the candidates & groups whose policies are the best fit?

Now, for the third time of asking, how would you achieve change?

Posted by: ADKC | Apr 17 2019 1:17 utc | 140

We could do this all day ... every day. There are 19 candidates (so far) that have announced their intention to run for the Democratic nomination in 2020.

Who else has a candidate that they are passionate about? Don't be shy! Booker? Warren?, Yang? Harris? Each so outstanding and earnest!! How could anyone resist?

Just don't look behind the curtain. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 17 2019 1:18 utc | 141

Jackrabbit @140

Just to add - I never said you were the bad guy and I don't in anyway think that you are the bad guy.

Posted by: ADKC | Apr 17 2019 1:20 utc | 142

@142 I kinda like Beto but I wouldn't call it a passion. I can't vote anyway.

Posted by: dh | Apr 17 2019 1:33 utc | 143

dh @144--

Beto's a Corporatist Democrat trying to conceal himself inside a Populist shroud.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 17 2019 1:36 utc | 144

Jackrabbit @142,

Evasion, but that's okay. The US election has always been your main (practically sole) interest since I've been on MoA.

But the issue was how to change the system? This is difficult for you to answer because it is difficult for everyone to answer. It's okay to say "I don't know!"

Posted by: ADKC | Apr 17 2019 1:42 utc | 145


OK, since you're getting all teary-eyed now...

First, most people will not change. That's a truth that is as difficult as it is important. They will follow authority and the official narrative until reality bites them in the ass OR they have a stake in the establishment and therefore want to block change. It's important to understand what you face but also important not to waste time with people that are not ready to change.

Second, save as many as you can. Being on social media means getting the word out. Hopefully some will hear it. Just commenting and refuting bullshit provides a thread that may help a few (hopefully) to break free. It's kinda a moral duty cause but also practical: as more people "wake up" they start to form a group that is influential. Studies show that a social group can initiate changes with only about 10% support.

Third, support alternatives. Alternative media. Alternative payment systems (crypto-currency), alternative political parties, alternative governance systems (some interesting blockchain work being done in this regard), etc. As more people do so, the world changes. Change YOUR world and tell people about it so they learn to change theirs too.

Lastly, don't let the system or those who are wedded to it get you down.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 17 2019 1:52 utc | 146

@145 Didn't he make some derogatory comments about Netanyahu? So many runners it's hard to keep up.

Posted by: dh | Apr 17 2019 1:56 utc | 147

Posted by: Circe | Apr 16, 2019 4:52:00 PM | 125

"In 2016, Tulsi Gabbard endorsed him and campaigned with him. She is very much against intervention. I can bet you, that if she drops out of the race later, she will endorse him again. Don't any of you trust her judgment?"

Not in the slightest. Unlike you and most others, I'm not an authoritarian follower and not an electoral fundamentalist, so it's not possible for me to trust anyone from a class of proven indelible liars, which is all that system politicians are or ever can be. I'd be willing to bet any amount of money if I had it that a President Gabbard would do nothing to end the wars and roll back the empire, quite the contrary. We already know what a President F-35 would do. Your ongoing religious faith in the electoral system (indeed in its most extreme scam version, the Democrat Party) is the best proof you don't really oppose the status quo at all.

(Continued support for the proven failure of electoralism, and for continuing ecocide (as in the case of any version of the green cancer/"growth", green capitalism, "Green New Deal" fraud), are the two best litmus tests for whether someone wants the status quo or not. There are no alternatives available within the system, only from completely outside it and truly in opposition to it.)

"I can't understand why everyone thinks Sanders is for Empire and intervention."

Because of his decades-long and ongoing record of being for Empire and intervention, with only slight lulls during Republican administrations. I can't understand fact-averse partisan fanbots like you. In just the last few days I posted a link itemizing Sanders' pro-war record going back through the 90s, and Karlof1 posted a video of Sanders openly saying he opposes Palestinian rights because "it would be the end of Israel, and I support Israel." That's as openly Zio-fascist as it gets.

But then, you've previously admitted (in the case of the fake Yemen resolution) that facts mean nothing to you. Typical religious Dembot/electoralist.

Posted by: Russ | Apr 17 2019 6:52 utc | 148

Jackrabbit @147

Technology has always come with change and promises of an undefined better future but always humanity ends up more controlled and oppressed.

"Social Media" has been involved in change - that's why Soros colour revolutions always have a heavy use of Social Media. The result is violence and fascism and new markets for the Empire. Change is not necessarily good, it depends on what that change is.

"Alternative" is just a word and doesn't mean anything. Communism, fascism, neo-Liberalism, Trump, Clinton, Ari Grandism, music, food, drink, drugs, Bbmaj6/9, culture can all be alternatives, anything can be an alternative - "Alternative" is just meaningless.

"Cryptocurrency" and "blockchain" are the only meat in your sandwich but they won't deliver freedom - they will just deliver more control. Blockchain's main "benefit" (imo) is it's ability to provide uniqueness and authenticity of data. It will be able to provide a universal DRM-type uniqueness (effectively, meaning an end to digital copying and doubling down on copyright control), all of your digital "possessions" are likely to become indistinguishable from "currency" (effectively the end of infinite, free duplication) and, with the addition of quantum computing, the ability to have the most detailed, accurate records of an entire individuals life constantly available and constantly updated becomes easily achievable.

What, I suppose, you imagine will be some sort of utopian future (you don't actually say), is actually, I would suggest, far more likely, to turn out to be a dystopian nightmare.

But what is most apparent is what your "philosophy" doesn't address, in any way, the main issue which is facing Americans, the West and the world today, which is:- that the US/Western system is beginning to fail and how should the West/US respond (i.e. will it be more war, regime change, chaos, etc. or will it be cooperation with the rest of the world and the management of decline).

Posted by: ADKC | Apr 17 2019 14:34 utc | 149


I think you're wrong. The move to a global decentralization is accelerating. Few had heard of bitcoin 10 years ago. Today there are tens of thousands of people working with the new technology and tens of millions have a crypto account.

Most the tech guys have a social libertarian outlook and are very wary of government control. They are a global community and all the code is open source.

The move to decentralization (of currency, of media/social media that have become control points, etc.) will exacerbate social and financial stresses that are already apparent and, in turn, increase the move to decentralization. It's a feedback loop. Some authoritarian countries may be able to slow it within their country but they will find that:

those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable
- John F. Kennedy (not an exact quote)

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 18 2019 1:13 utc | 150

Jackrabbit @151

And what does "social libertarian" have to do with Bitcoin and Blockchain,...oh yeah, pedophilia and silk road activities. (You will find these activities if you research the backgrounds of the Bitcoin Foundation Board).

Bitcoin is a just neo-liberal project.

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't use Bitcoin, just that if you expect Bitcoin to usher in a utopia, then you are seriously mistaken. Bitcoin will accelerate the atomisation and individualisation of society. Very attractive for serial killers and pedophiles, not so beneficial for those that wish to see true community and collectivism.

You should have noticed that Bitcoin has a Cantillon effect for early adopters, that it allows for the extraction of capital from countries that can ill afford such extraction, that you can evade your taxes, etc.

I expect that Blockchain will merge with a Universal Basic Income (UBI) but the outcome will not be a world of more freedom but one of more control and, despite UBI, more poverty.

However, I have sympathy with your dreams. I thought the same when I was busy programming my ZX81 - I was the only one who had one - what an advocate I was - what a future lay in store for humanity - how seriously deluded I was!

Posted by: ADKC | Apr 19 2019 18:58 utc | 151

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.