BRICS, an economic alliance of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, is attempting to challenge American world hegemony. This has the U.S. moving to retain its standing in the world. One of the BRICS platforms is trying to undermine the global dominance of the U.S. backed petrodollar, which would almost certainly curtail the excesses of the female-driven consumer economy. Even Saudi Arabia has joined the fight to end the dominance of the petrodollar.
Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa are attempting to challenge American world hegemony
Normally, this would be terrible news. The economic havoc it could cause is frightening. However, in light of American anti-family policies like the promotion of feminism, anti-free market policies like the construction of myriad barriers to entry of business ownership through over-regulation, growing corporate monopolies, a rapidly growing police state and increasing authoritarianism in the United States, the arrival of BRICS is a development that could in some ways be a positive one for free societies. It could at least offer the world an alternative to the Cultural Marxism the U.S. has been promoting.
Cultural Marxism has steadily advanced in the U.S. over the last 50 years
To ensure its continued world dominance, the United States is once again meddling in Latin American democracies as it has done for the past 50 years. Business interests tied to Washington, D.C. and Wall Street are attempting to undermine leftist Brazilian President Rousseff by paying for protests against supposed corruption in the Rousseff administration. The pretense of American moral superiority is especially comical considering how deeply corrupt the United States government itself is.
However, showing once again how far American hands reach up the skirt of Lady Liberty around the world, Rousseff is fighting for her political life. You might be surprised to learn there is a long history of American interference in left-leaning governments in Latin America, even though the U.S. itself has become extremely left-leaning over the past 50 years.
The history of U.S. overthrowing democratically-elected governments in Latin America while supposedly “spreading democracy” throughout the world is an interesting and twisted story. Its involvement in Brazil is not without precedent.
Guatemala
Going back to the 1950s, 2% of the Guatemalan population controlled vast majority of the wealth of Guatemala and owned 70% of the land, in collusion with U.S. business interests. Once again showing how corporate and government interests have long conspired together, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was also on the board of the United Fruit Company at the time. His brother, Alan Dulles was the head of the CIA. United Fruit Company controlled virtually all banana growing in Guatemala.
Diego Rivera’s famous mural depicting the Dulles brothers, ambassador Peurifoy, and Eisenhower’s face on a bomb greeting Castillo Armas, who seized dictatorial power in a U.S. backed coup
In 1950, Jacobo Arbenz became the first democratically elected leader of Guatemala. Arbenz campaigned on bringing a system of land reforms which would give Guatemalan citizens a chance to own land. Arbenz himself would have to give up some of his land under the program. The election of Arbenz worried U.S. corporate interests and prompted the Dulles family to send Howard Hunt, an economic hitman down to Guatemala. This is Hunt’s own testimony as to how the U.S. government manipulated the situation in Guatemala.
So they said a decision has been made at the highest levels of our government to rid Guatemala of the Arbenz regime, and we would like you to participate in it. You will be chief of propaganda and political action.
What we wanted to do was have a terror campaign, to terrify Arbenz particularly and terrify his troops, much as the German Stuka bombers terrified the populations of Holland, Belgium, and Poland at the onset of World War II.
We sewed confusion throughout the countryside, and by this time we had aircraft flying over and dropping leaflets and doing a little harmless bombing.
The “harmless bombing” along with the U.S. backed terror campaign costed thousands of Guatemalan lives.
The U.S. government isolated Guatemala militarily and diplomatically, and in creating the Red Scare it was able to use terror and social engineering strategies to safeguard corporate interests and American economic control of Guatemala. Based on the U.S. enacting socialist policies of its own over the last half-century, this was more about United Fruit retaining economic control of Guatemala than it was anything else.
It also directly contradicts the public relations story of spreading democracy throughout the world. Arbenz, a democratically elected leader who was not as far to the left as many Democrats are in America today was overthrown, stripped naked, and exiled from his country. After having successfully overthrown the democratically-elected Arbenz, Vice President Richard Nixon went down to Guatemala to congratulate the American-installed dictators in Guatemala.
Democracy is not important to the CIA
Philip Agee was a CIA agent from 1957-1988. In this interview, he tells us how much the U.S. really values democracy in Latin America and the rest of the world:
In the CIA we didn’t give a hoot about democracy. I mean it was fine if a government was elected, and would cooperate with us. But, if it didn’t, democracy didn’t mean a thing to us, and I don’t think it means a thing today. The true goal of the United States government is control…the principle of government of the people, by the people and for the people, well that’s just silly.
You have to realize the depth of what Agee is saying. If a government doesn’t value government of the people, by the people, and for the people abroad, how could it possibly value those things at home?
This attitude is obvious today since the United States government routinely ignores the wishes of its citizens as the policies of economic control first used abroad have now turned against its own citizens. It routinely passes laws which are destroying the middle class like NAFTA and more recently, TPP. It also imports large numbers of immigrants to suppress wages.
Jose Serrano, New York Congressman talks about the attitude of the United States government abroad, which uses politicians that are bought and paid for like cheap hookers by American corporations.
How dare you haven’t allowed American corporations to buy you out. How dare you continue this arrogance that says you will never succumb to us. Don’t you know who we are? Don’t you know who these corporations are? Don’t you know your life would be better if you could drink Coca-Cola every day?
Chile
A generation after the successful blueprint for overthrowing elected leaders was laid down in Guatemala, a U.S. backed coup of democratically elected leader Salvador Allende in Chile succeeded.
Granted, Allende was the first Marxist elected in the Americas so there was cause for concern. But, in a case of the pot calling the kettle black, at the same time it was toppling leftist regimes in Latin America the U.S. was adopting Cultural Marxism through the promotion of feminism. It was also using a system of fiat currency printed by central banks. Central banks are one of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto.
Perhaps what worried the U.S. most was the Allende government attempting to extricate the economy of Chile from American corporate control. The U.S. was not going to let that plan succeed. It helped create conditions that would lead to a coup using “Track II” of CIA policy which actively looked for military leaders willing to participate in a coup.
After his Presidential Palace was attacked by British-supplied bombers in a coup started by his own armed forces, Allende shot himself. The successful coup meant fascist General Pinochet would take leadership of the country. Pinochet rounded up Allende supporters and brought them to concentration camps. He would remain dictator from 1973 until 1990. Once again, a democratically elected socialist had been overthrown. (And a couple of generations later, after Cultural Marxism which took root in the 1960s had bore fruit, a “democratic socialist” named Bernie Sanders would be running for President of the United States with wide support.).
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger denied American involvement in the coup, however CIA documents refuted his claim:
It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup.
The U.S. backed overthrow of another democratically elected government in Chile; the siege of the Presidential palace by General Pinochet’s forces
Get Used To It, World
U.S. involvement in Nicaragua, Venezuela, and other Latin American countries has seen similar techniques used. Duane Clarridge, former head of the CIA in Latin America attempts to explain this policy when asked what right the CIA has to overthrow democratically elected leaders of other nations:
Well, that’s just tough. We are going to protect ourselves, and we are going to go on protecting ourselves because we end up protecting all of you, and let’s not forget that. We will intervene whenever we decide it’s in our national security interests to intervene, and if you don’t like it, lump it. Get used to it, world.
That statement does have a certain logic to it.
However, as these accounts have shown, national security largely has nothing to do with the American policy of toppling governments. It has more to do with protecting the financial interests of corporations who have influence in the U.S. government.
It is especially interesting that the U.S. has violently opposed far-left regimes all the while it has been promoting Cultural Marxism at home; this includes the adoption of policies which have led to the breakup of the family via feminism, undermined Western traditions, attacked Christianity, and marginalized individuality in support of the socialist collective.
At best, one could say the policies the U.S. has instituted have been hypocritical, as it undermines the principles its own formerly free society was based on while attacking other governments who do the same thing. At worst, they have been part of a long-term plan as the U.S. itself continues a Long March to socialist fascism. Perhaps it didn’t want competition.
Read More: DePaul University Has Been Ruined By Cultural Marxism
We have to be very careful when talking about the United States interventions in Latin America.
First, the context was of the Cold War, a fight to the death between Western Capitalist Democracies and Soviet Communism. I am not a fan of the destruction of elected governments but, if the United States did not intervene, i can assure you, the red menace would take over the World.
I do not agree, for instance, with the take on Brazil. As Portuguese i follow with deep interest whats happening there and make no mistake: Lula and Dilma party is as marxist as it can be and it is as corrupt as all others. Want a example of the advance of cultural marxism during this time? Slut walks also take place in Brazil now and in a recently gay parade, some of the animals that took part, placed some crucifixes in their anus…
Then, we have the Venezuelan marxist dream that is again, turning to nightmare, with political opponents being persecuted, arrested, and beaten and food and electricity being rationed. So much for another attempt to build a communist utopia…
So, in my opinion, the sooner these regimes fall, the better. Why? Just today, a newspaper reported that Podemos, the extreme left wing party in Spain, was sponsored by Hugo Chavez with at least 7 million euros in order to create, quote “bolivarian forces”. Its no surprise that this is happening because we all know that there is a clear program of expansion of marxism across the Western World. Its mind blowing that these totalitarian scum can be a part of the Spanish government, because you just have to read their program to see that every little thing we denounce here in ROK, its there to be uphold.
The major problem is that the cancer is already in the White House and in the american civil fabric. Obama is a clear marxist, Sanders is a clear marxist and Hillary is probably even worse. So, in conclusion, the fight is now taking place in our nations and not in some far country.
Hugo Chavez was popular in France. Even among some Nationalists.
How its that possible?
Ignorance is a bliss or so they say. To many uninformed Americans and Europeans, Hugo, Lula and rest of the leftist scum are/were anti-establishment. However they didn’t know their policies and how much harm those suckers have done to their countries.
I think he was seen as a resistant against the evil globalist powers.
A reflexive warmth for anyone who opposes America. Even if that person embodies everything they hate about America, wrapped in a different package.
“how much harm those suckers have done to their country…” That’s rich coming from an american. It’s a pathetic statement when you look at the current state of your own country. You people are so blinded by your own exceptionalism that you refuse to see the error of your ways. Which is why your “empire”, the richest in and largest in history, has only lasted 70 years which is pathetic when you consider the average lifespan of an empire. Your short cultural and economic impact on this world has been a disaster and apart from the internet and maybe the Panama Canal you have not contributed very much to civilisation. Feminism, political correctness, slut culture, rap culture corporate greed, Saudi Arabia/islamic terrorists. Well we have you to thank for all that. So think before you start blowing your own horn all the time.
1. We’re still here
2. Advanced and unrivled mass production techniques copied the world over, automobiles, aircraft, putting human beings on the moon, advanced farming with technology, countless space probes, the most patents in the world, advanced medicine, internet, a codified concept of individual rights that still has some power even today, highest levels of charity in the world, in history…yeah man, we suck.
We’re not perfect, but if you think all we’ve done is built a shitty canal and made the internet, you are what I’d call a “biased source”. I’m not “America right or wrong”, but your summary is laughable on even modest examination, “comrade”.
Absolutely, but the only thing I’ll disagree with you is aeronautic technology/Rocketry, credit goes to the Nazi(German) scientist abducted by the CIA via Operation Paperclip. The rest is spot on though
Sorry comrade but you are very wrong on many accounts. First I am not American. Second stop discussing with strawmen. I never said thise things from the U.S but when you come to think of it people like Chàvez have no excuse to keep their own countrymen in the poverty. Whether you like it or not Lula and his ilk are the worst enemies of the free people in Latin America. Third whether you like it or NOT despite all their defects and their short lifespan as an empire their accomplishments are inpressive beyond what many countries with real culture have achieved in their lifetime. For good or ill the U.S has shaped the XX and XXI centuries.
I’d say most people on this site don’t disagree that many of the things you listed are the worst of what America has done. Of course GoJ below points out some other things you might want to think about too.
I think what GoJ might be saying is, it’s still worth saving.
“I think he was seen as a resistant against the evil globalist powers.”
I dont see the logic in that.
“I would like to know what you think of Franco.”
Poorly. The guy had plans to invade Portugal, at least two times. From a Portuguese perspective, he was the last real danger to my nation independence.
As for his nationalist policies, he has to be understood in the same context of the discussion we are having here: the fight against communism.
Do not forget that Franco was the creator of the welfare state in Spain.
I’m just grateful I’m not replying here in Japanese, German or Russian for a start.
And let’s not forget the manufacturing process improvement philosophies & statistical data based decision making methods the top American educators introduced to post war Japan.
Indirectly giving them the means to rebuild & rebrand themselves as a manufacturing superpower.
Sure, that’s true. I give us credit for recognizing their talent, heh. But yeah. And it wasn’t all Germans, there was an extensive rocket program over here for a long while, albeit mostly private. But still, point taken.
“..it’s still worth saving.”
I would have to agree. There are no refuges and the fight will have to be done from the inside out. It would appear from national gun sales, Americans can smell what is coming.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/march-sees-record-gun-sales/
Keep in mind that since Obama was elected in 2008, Americans have purchased over 100,000,000 firearms. No trusts the US federal government. At home or abroad.
Hugo Chavez was a Venezuelan nationalist. By nationalising his country’s oil, he turned it over to the benefit of his own people rather than to foreign companies. His enemies at home are the typical Latin American robber baron class that would happily sell their own people down the drain for power.
Chavéz and his cronies sold out their own people and wrecked the country destroying the industry and introducing the poison of the welfare state. One might even think (ironically) that he was an agent of the US tasked with the destruction of Venezuela but his policies are the result of the implementation of failed philosophies…
Hugo Chavez was a typical SJW who stole the country blind.
His enemies at home were capitalists.
Hugo Chavez brought 60,000 Cuban agents to Venezuela, Is this being a nationalist? He was a corrupt murderous dictator who destroyed the country and enslaved the population.
Screw you, European and American coach potatos who say stupid things from the comfort of your capitalist countries.
I don’t pretend to know anything about Hugo Chavez regime, nor do I have ever said I supported it. Just stated that he was popular.
Also in Brazil, we see an item of the homosexual agenda not yet publicly revealed (trigger warning):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3adatEVSL9M
Actually, it happened in New York City, too, and that boy had heterosexual self-hating progressive parents:
They are going to slowly reintroduce what once was a key element of LGBTQUIDGAF; throughout the seventies, NAMBLA was a common feature of gay pride parades, and its members dominated the organizing committee of the New York City Gay Pride March ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association#Opposition ).
Disgusting. I cannot stress enough, how this sexualization of children nauseates me.
It is outright abuse and needs to start invoking jail time.
I wish every time someone asks “why do you oppose the acceptance of homosexuality in our society,” that I could show them this.
Check out Comprehensive Sex Education, brought to you by Planned Parenthood…
Yeah, I know about that. The harm that is being done to children in the service of helping Leftists disgusts me to no end.
We are most definitely kindred spirits in this regard.
One of the leftist “to do” checklists: Gay? Check. Transgender? Check. Next stop, pedophilia.
This kind of thing is supported and funded by the Marxist government.
Sorry, I don’t buy all this “fight to the death” stuff between democracies vs communism.
First of all, I don’t give a shit about democracy. I’m not a fan of it, and I think it leads to all the cultural degeneracy and “cultural Marxism” even faster than the ole Red Soviet flavor of Marxism.
Second, what victory did the west supposedly have? I posted above about how ideologies are bullshit–I don’t care about vague terms thrown around like “Marxist” “communist” “Liberal”. I care about ideas and principles.
Look at the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto:
(1) Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose
In America, one must pay thousands or even TENS of thousands of dollars to the government every year for the right to use their so-called ‘”private property”–property taxes
(2) A progressive or graduated income tax
Check
(3) Abolition of rights of inheritance
There are estate taxes and indeed the regular system of taxation waters down the ability to inherit property. Sure, I can inherit my parents bank accounts, after the government takes its 30% cut first.
(4) Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels
Civil forfeiture, excise taxes, exit taxes, and FATCA.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-05-17/why-foreign-banks-are-shunning-american-millionaires
Hell, we have gone a step further and said anyone considered a rebel can legally be killed by our president without ever being charged of a crime.Hell, we have gone a step further and said anyone considered a rebel can legally be killed by our president without ever being charged of a crime.
(5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and exclusive monopoly.
Check
(6) Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state
Department of Homeland Security has full control over transportation systems, and Snowden has revealed that every communication is monitored and recorded.
(7) Instruments of production owned by the state
The US has adopted the fascist system described in the article above where corporations own the means of production for the benefit of the elite, and the government provides military support and protection.
(8) Equal obligation of all to work
If we had this it would be an IMPROVEMENT!
(9) Abolishment of distinction between town and country
In progress
(10) Free education for all children in government schools
Check
So how exactly was it a great thing to “defeat communism” if the above is what our defeat won us?
Hell, we have gone a step further and said anyone considered a rebel can legally be killed by our president without ever being charged of a crime.Hell, we have gone a step further and said anyone considered a rebel can legally be killed by our president without ever being charged of a crime.
A point so important that it had to be said twice! heh
Ha, disqus does that when I post www links sometimes. But yes.
“my room mate Is getting paid HOURLY. ninety-eight$ on the internet.”….two days ago new McLaren P2 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here!oi2141➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsDesign/GetPaidHourly98$…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::!oi2141……
Precisely my point, we didn’t arrive at socialism and Marxism one day at the waving of a magic wand. This has been part of a plan, a Long March through the institutions which began in the 1960s, at the same time we were overthrowing socialist governments like the one the U.S. has become in 2016.
I think some misconstrued the piece as an attack on Pinochet…it was meant to point out the hypocrisy of U.S. intervention in Latin America. I agree with everyone most of these leaders we topple are terrible; however when we adopt the same type of leftist governments we are supposedly against then promote democratically elected leaders while toppling democratically elected leaders, one has to raise an eyebrow. I wish I had made that point more clearly.
People get hung up on ideologies. The U.S. grossly overplayed the threat of the Red Menace using public relations techniques identical to the ones it is using for the terror threat today.
Curious, have you seen the BBC Documentary Power of Nightmares? It describes this gross overplaying of a phantom enemy with the objective of increasing power over the people.
The Power of Nightmares is one of the recommended films on my blog. It is the linchpin to this entire discussion when you see how much the U.S. blatantly lied about the communist threat. This article is just one piece of the larger puzzle I am attempting to put together.
I’m not even sure I’d call the leaders we knock out terrible. They’re just politicians, and politicians are the same throughout the world–all universally terrible. If anything, the ones we knock out, like Hussein in Iraq and Sandino in Nicaragua, and perhaps Arbenz (I’m ignorant), are far superior to what comes after them. Hell, Ho Chi Minh tried to ally with us, but we turned him into an enemy.
Also known as “Star Wars the Phantom Menace.” Does anyone wonder if George Lucas is just really clever or if he knows exactly what is going on in the world?
So you wrote the bunch of lies in order to promote your shitty blog. You are an enemy of the people of Brazil.
In terms of actually protecting their countries, getting rid of dictators like Hussein was a bad decision on NATO’s part. Sure, it helped the oil industry a bit but it also acted as a major catalyst for all the shit that’s going on now.
Dude, I support the people of Brazil running their own country without interference from the U.S. If they want to impeach Rousseff, that’s fine. What I don’t support is U.S. interests meddling in other nations’ affairs. If Brazilian citizens want to overthrow Rousseff, they have every right to. But U.S. funded protests should not be the deciding factor; the citizens of Brazil should make that decision.
nice post. Inheritance taxes werent adjusted for inflation for many decades, estate tax in NY state was only 1 mil until a few yrs ago; a big deal bc house values have been distorted so much(I think Cuomo bumped it to 3 or 4 mil now). Ive read many stories of people in flyover states having to sell the family farms bc the estate tax hadnt changed since the 70s or so…
The estate tax is utter BS. Claiming it is to keep the rich from getting too rich, but exactly as you say. Plenty of farmers whom have almost no money in the bank but a few million dollars worth of land and equipment and the government wants 30% or so of it. So the only thing to do is sell it all, give the government 30% and then go back out and look for a smaller farm to buy, or start a business as a mechanic or something.
The estate tax starts at $5.5 million. Considering 99% of agricultural production comes from large corporations, you’re not very smart for believing this common Republican lie.
In any event, I would simply force all bankers to be salaried, and have all interest generated via usury collected as a tax. This would be far better.
I understand the level of the estate tax. You are far wrong that 99% of ag production is large corporations. More and more family farms are creating LLC’s and corporations to help protect them.
The fact of the matter is that my whole family was farmers up until my dad. My grandparents on both sides and all their ancestors before them as far back as we know. My brother is still a farmer to this day.
My dad put together 700 acres to farm over his life. Most years the farm lost money and was kept afloat by his furnace sales business. He never had a lot of money in the bank and spent most of his life in the cheapest cloths he could put on his back. He never bought a brand new vehicle and no one would have ever looked at him and said, no there is a man with money. Because if you mean cash, he didn’t have much of it.
Yet the farm itself was worth over the estate tax limit. Luckily my dad put it in a trust and split it between three sons, so it was not above the limit in the way he passed his estate on. If he had just waited until he died and left it to one son, the farm would have had to been sold just to pay for itself.
Estate tax is one reason why, by the way, so many farms are being sold to corporate farms now days. Who do you think has the money and the expertise to purchase and run a small farm when the owners have to sell out due to the estate tax? Large corporate farms. Other family farmers would as well, but often they can’t get the money to do it. The ones who are especially good at it might get the money from the bank, and then they are on their way to having a corporate farm. I have seen it several times with my own eyes. I don’t know the statistics on this, but sometimes when you experience things first hand, you don’t need the statistics.
In my opinion, if you don’t want corporate farms, estate taxes need to not apply to family farms. Or we can get rid of the estate tax altogether since it’s ridiculous for the state to tax us at every turn.
You buy something? Tax. Sell something? Tax. Own something? Tax. Earn something? Tax. Die and pass on something? Tax. They literally can’t tax anything else.
Most points I agree with. I’ don’t really mind the property tax though. Where I live it tends to be relatively low and it’s a big part of how the county operates. (I’m rural). I don’t have a state property tax and there isn’t a federal property tax and so I’m not sure that stands in your argument since it isn’t the federal government mandating property tax.
I would prefer if all county taxes were done by sales tax, but the county does have to have money as well unless we want them to stop providing services. I’d rather have these services in county hands than state or federal hands. If it takes small property tax to do this, I’m fine with it. It does keep going up recently though which has to stop.
Why must these services be provided by a monopoly of coercive force? Why can’t these services be provided my multiple providers that each person has a choice in voluntarily paying for.
The services would be more efficient and less costly. Monopolies always costore for shittier services and products.
I’m not at all opposed to trying a different system for this. County property taxes go back at least to feudal England and Europe to my knowledge, paying your lord. We could try free market services. I’d want to see that laid out case. I’d also be okay with keeping it the same on the county level as it can work with conservative people in power. The reason it can work in a small county is of course the fact people know each other and there is real accountability.
I agree. I would like to see a free-market system of governance. With technology today, these kinds of services could provided by organizations regardless of geography.
I think Rothbard had some pretty good broad concepts in the Libertarian Manifesto, but there are some others that have put together some decent “nuts and bolts” kind of theories that might work for a stable system of governance (roads, security/defense, conflict resolution, utilities, etc.) without government (monopoly of coercive,parasitic force.)
“So how exactly was it a great thing to “defeat communism” if the above is what our defeat won us?”
Because if the Cold War was not won, today you would not have the freedom to attack those same principles. Like i said in the end of my post, the problem is that the marxist cancer is corrupting our culture from the inside.
As for beliefs, ideologies, ideas…they all mean to me exactly the same. Communism is a belief system and a totalitarian ideology that has to be destroyed, either in the 1960s or 1970s or in the current year, in Latin America or in the current Academic or corporate entities of the West.
I actually think that democracy and Communism are on the same spectrum.
The spectrum of politics, I presume?
Joking aside, I can potentially see where you are coming from.
I would like to know what you think of Franco.
The Red Menace is taking over the world, and the U.S. is causing it. Who can look at the U.S. government in 2016 and say it doesn’t promote Marxism?
Ideologies are cover. The real issue is economic control and hypocrisy.
“The Red Menace is taking over the world, and the U.S. is causing it. Who can look at the U.S. government in 2016 and say it doesn’t promote Marxism?”
I agree with this point of your post. Is yet another stage on the war on marxism.
You are a disgusting liar. An enemy of the Brazilian people, who hates the Marxist Party and is NOT funded at all by Obama.
Obama is a marxist, and you know it very well. You know very well that he has always supported Dilma and Lula. You know it very well that their Party has introduced several pro homosexual laws and indoctrination for children at schools. Go to hell, scum.
Consider for a moment who financed the red menace. Without the US fedgov and its influencers there wouldn’t have been a red menace in the first place.
A collective must be run by someone. If you’re going to be the one running it, communism ain’t so bad. Communism is ideal for stripping a nation of its productivity and resources.
http://www.wildboar.net/multilingual/easterneuropean/russian/literature/articles/whofinanced/dee-lighted.jpg
The author is a LIAR, must be paid militant from the government or maybe simply an ignorant fool.
The US forgot about Latin America for 20 years, while Cuba and the Forum of Sao Paulo dominated the region.
Obama is a Marxist and a friend of Cuba. The whole article is CRAP.
If it were only that simple, but you cannot discuss the actions of US intervention without also looking at the impacts of US multinational corporations upon that decision making.
This has always been economic, with a candy coating of ideologies; not unlike the basis of any war.
Sure this can be said, but us involvement in Latin America goes back 100 years. Well before the cold war.
BECAUSE OF OUR GUILT! Hello!
Germany accepts millions upon millions of refugees because they were, at one point, affiliated greatly with the Nazi Party. Australia has no gun and no smoking laws because they were, at one point, a prison-island. Americans have to deal with BLM (Black Lives Matter) because hundreds of years ago, black people were either slaves or treated terribly.
The liberals are using the guilt of the Western World to control the people, and it’s working.
I still have faith that the social-justice-castle these sheep are building will crumble like a bad cookie.
its all fun and games until people get pissed and strike back – see OBL and 9-11
Our entire history of involvement in the Middle East is shameful. Fuck that place. Let them sort it out.
Agreed. If we insist on getting involved, it should be via carpet bombings or possibly even nukes. That entire region has never contributed anything to the world aside from death and misery.
Rousseff and her party are a cancer that Brazil is trying to finally get rid of. If the USA are involved or not, it doesn’t matter, these marxists must be removed. They’re corrupt, arrogant and liars. The country is suffering a recession that has affected millions of people, specially the poorer ones.
The U.S. backed overthrow of another democratically elected government
in Chile; the siege of the Presidential palace by General Pinochet’s
forces
I’m not sure I can see Pinochet as that bad of a guy, really.
The Leftist takeover of South and Central America was an actual threat at the time, and defending against it doesn’t strike me as particularly irrational. The last thing I think the nation wanted at the time, was for a creeping Red political movement, moving steadily up into Central America, and then one day, boom, Chinese and Russian troops come crashing across the Mexican border.
We can look back now and say “Mean, nasty Americans” and sometimes we’d be right, but in this hemisphere I think isolating and deposing of socialist/communist governments and movements was rational. At least at the time. Today when it’s done, the question of the article is much more relevant, given as we’re rushing into socialism at full steam.
Shit homes, if today a Pinochet Moment were to happen here, I’d probably have to turn my head and look at the flowers and not raise a finger to help one single, solitary leftist.
Pinochet is the one whose nose gets bigger when he lies right?
As far as we know.
Haha, indeed he’s despectively nicknamed “Pinocho” here.
Can you imagine a scenario where we let Allende become a Soviet satellite? With immigration the way it is today, we would be dealing with covert Soviet operatives within the ranks of Hispanics, much like the refugees in Europe.
Without opposing the USSR, they still would have fallen as communism is an awful ideology and social theory, but it may have taken much longer and their satellites would have outlasted them (which is true even today). So the USSR falls, and we have a fully red South America, no thanks.
Yep. Pinochet certainly had the right enemies. I don’t even think he was really fascist since most of them had fairly leftist economic policies. He left Chile in good shape.
Look at Argentina. The Peronists have turned one of the richest countries in the world into a third world failure.
It’s a model of compare and contrast. Anybody the Left hates becomes a “fascist!”, they have no idea what the term actually means.
Wasnt Argentina the most prosperous country in the world in the 30s while the US and Europe were mired in a depression? Did the peronists ruin Argentina, or was it the IMF and the World Bank?
Even the NYTimes had to admit it was crappy policies. As they expanded west, the middle-class was suppressed in favor of big landowners, Peronist socialist policies, protectionism that stifled trade, and the importation of European fascists after WWII.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/what-happened-to-argentina/?_r=0
come on man- no one reads the Times anymore:)
There is a difference between the government of Peron, 1945-1955 and modern Peronists, who are cultural Marxists and chronic debt takers. Peron industrialized Argentina and freed of its foreign debt, the US embassy organized their opposition. Deindustrialization and debt spiral begins strongly with the military government in 1976 supported by USA. But what few people know is that the leftist terrorism was supported also by the CIA and Mossad, and the solution was a military coup. The imperial objective is debt, so always support both sides in a fight, after the slaughter finance reconstruction.
I agree with that sentiment, but the point was we were dethroning leftists while becoming leftists in the U.S. We are in the middle of our own socialist revolution (a bloodless one so far) and will soon impose Marxism on the entire world.
We are becoming everything we supposedly faught against.
I agree. I just don’t think that in the 1950’s this was the case so much. But when we meddle today it is the height of hypocrisy. There is no enemy to rationally fight, it’s all about special interests trying to carve up the globe for some kind of crony mercantilist capital gain, or for simple raw brute political power.
True, I just see deposing leftists as the beginning of the Long March back in the 50s and 60s. What’s the first thing you do if you want to dominate the world? Eliminate the competition. The Neocons based their entire philosophy on the premise that the ideals of individual freedom failed a la Leo Strauss and we had to go back to a collective held together by a great myth a la Reinhold Niebuhr in the 1960s. (Working on that for a future article.) The CIA was also deeply involved with the spread of feminism (a tenet of Cultural Marxism) in the 1960s.
Eliminate the competition.
That’s a neutral thing though. Sometimes it’s rational, sometimes it’s the act of a sociopath.
Agree with everything else.
Pinochet was a hero. He killed many communists this is a good thing as every communist government engaged in genocide against their own people as well as bringing utter misery to the survivors. It pains me that everyone stomps upon the memory of mi generale Pinochet. So what that the USA supported him, if you are drowning to you judge whoever pulls you from the water?
I am not attacking Pinochet as much as I am attacking the U.S. policy of toppling socialist leaders abroad, horrible as they may be while adopting socialism at home starting in the 1960s. I am also attacking the hypocrisy of “promoting” democracy while removing democratically elected leaders.
The point you highlight is important because most of this America-is-the-bad-guy stuff ignores the flaws in the other guy. They are not necessarily good just because our hands aren’t clean.
I find that this article steps into a bit of a trap by assuming that “democratically elected” confers some sacrosanct status, as if the results of a democratic process can never be terrible. Last I checked, slavery and Jim Crow laws were the results of a democratic process. And, the growing cultural marxism that this article laments is also being implemented democratically. So saying democracy = good is as foolish as saying any action America takes is good just because America took it. The truth is unique in each circumstance.
I also pick up an undertone in pieces like this that cheers America’s adversaries. Even if we’ve established that America is bad, have we really established that China, Russia or India is good? I’m not so sure that I’d prefer to answer to any of those masters over the one I have. And, more importantly, if I were living somewhere that is not America, but is where these new masters seek to exert influence, I would be very hesitant. It is foolish to think that America is the only government that meddles in the affairs of other nations, and so ending American influence may open a Pandora’s box. Personally, I favor scaling things back a bit as far as American interventionism goes, but I’m not under any illusion that abandoning Africa to the Chinese, for example, is necessarily going to have a better result on the net than the status quo. In fact, I could envision several scenarios where it could be much worse.
The problem with the Critique theory of the Left is that they do not account for time and context, they start with the axiom that Intervention Is Evil If Done By America and go forward. It’s a flawed premise from the get go.
This may be true, but CIA involvement had more to do with IT&T losing insane profit margins as Allende sought to make it a government held asset. Pinochet happened to be a momentary stroke of luck as the CIA was discussing “what to do about Allende” long before elections were even held.
Proof?
I did research on this via FOIA, but here you go on the quick:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1978/4/5/the-discreet-lies-of-itt-pii/
Do your own FOIA search, as it is readily available. Reading the cables from the CIA is particularly damning. They specifically address the issue of IT&T becoming an asset of the Socialist Chile government.
ITT set up the telephone systems in South America and were trying to protect their investment from being nationalized. I don’t see a problem with it. Considering how much foreign cash bolsterd Clinton’s and Obama’s coffers, it’s laughable.
That was my point exactly. You asked “Proof?” and you got it.
You are comparing the 70’s to Clinton and Obama today and only bolstering what I pointed out about the influence of multinational corporations. IT&T were protecting their profit margins as they had made back their investment many times over. It’s all about what tail wags the dog.
You see, John, you assume my intent in pointing out what went on between the CIA and IT&T as if I’m some bleeding heart liberal that is saying “Oh poor, poor Allende.” which is an erroneous jump in logic. Part of how Allende came to power was from CIA miscues leading up to the elections, but that happens when you allow CEOs to set foreign policy.
Pinochet transformed Chile into one of the most free prosperous countries in the world. Compare the standard of living between Chile and oil rich socialist Venezuela. Attributed to Pinochet’s strong “caudillo” leadership and elimination of radical left gorillas.
Yep. He dealt with violent leftists like they need to be dealt with, and while the Left here recoils in horror, I think he did precisely the right thing in precisely the right way. Scared the living shit out of leftists the world over, and I say, good for that.
Chile needed stability and order. M.I.R. the main gorilla group and its Marxist intellectuals at the universities would have caused civil war without direct Pinochet action.
Chilean here.
Analyzing Pinochet’s regime is a bit complex – the mainstream agreed to condemn him, and it’s fine, because he and his henchmen did terrible things. One thing is getting rid of a bunch of Marxist terrorists who tried to destroy the country, and another different was going after their families. Old people, pregnant women, teens, tortured, burned, murdered. That was unnecessary. Pinochet was like “do as you wish” and his most psychopathic subalterns (Particularly Manuel Contreras, the most wicked of all) let it loose.
But on the other hand he was who summoned a group of economists formed in the US, the so-called “Chicago Boys”, and they rebuilt the economic system and the Constitution. And that economic system brought us prosperity, like it or not.
In the end the coup d’état was necessary; moreover, it was asked -people in the streets threw corn to the soldiers, yelling them “chickens” for not bringing down Allende-. Soviet weapons were hid under supplies, Cuban soldiers walked free on our streets. You may say Chile is the Venezuela that never came to be, and the opposition of the Army was key on that – in fact Chávez succeeded because he had the Army on his side, unlike Allende. I don’t know how much truth there is on CIA collaboration claims, but the coup was going to happen either way, with or without the US support.
Thanks for your comment.
I thnk the Venezuela comparison was to illistrate what would have been the end result in economic terms if Allende was left to his own devices.
Disclaimer: I have an old friend living in Madrid who was a young officer in Chile at the time. He mentioned that Allende, his Cuban comrades and his local Marxist thugs were doing alot of murder and terrorism themsevles. It wasn’t a one sided affair, but no one ever mentions the lefts antics. They got shot enough by soviet block weaponary to know who was backing them. I asked him about American involvement as well, but he didn’t see any on the ground. Biggest contribution he said, “was the US not embargoing or interfering.”
Another Chilean here. I agree 100%. Some unnecessary evil was done during the regime. But a greater good was achieved by avoiding a possible civil war and economic disaster in the years to come. Thanks to the neoliberal economic reforms that Pinochet endorsed along with the “Chicago Boys”, the so-called “Miracle of Chile” happened brought us great prosperity. But not without a cost. Still today Chile is one of the most unequal countries in the world in terms of income, and still we have a big political/economical ideology polarization between the people.
Ideology is such bullshit.
People will rail against how “communism must be nuked off the planet” and “terrorists must be wiped out”; meanwhile, they support the very tenants of communism and terrorism at home. (And many times what is labeled as “communism” abroad is simply the working class trying to grasp a little more power and wealth than the poverty wages they receive from an elite ruling class).
There are *VERY* few Americans who truly believe in a “free market” economy, without taxes and tariffs and licenses and barriers to entering as a supplier or buyer. And yet these same people will hypocritically criticize others and want to go to war or murder them for simply wanting to keep some of their own oil, or bananas, or gold, or whatever they happen to have beneath their dirt.
Good article.
There are *VERY* few Americans who truly believe in a “free market”
economy, without taxes and tariffs and licenses and barriers to entering
as a supplier or buyer.
Here’s one. In fact, keep all the controls off of me, outside of very basic laws against theft and violence and fraud. Laissez Faire all the way (except that I do believe in borders).
The problem with those abroad trying to keep some of their own shit is that their movements get snatched up by strong men lickety split, and they never get what they set out to get. If there were some true benefit to them I can see it, even if I disagree with it, but they always get the shaft. From being stirred out of lethargy to becoming cannon fodder, while those at the top of the pig pile simply shake hands and change places.
Ha, I was actually thinking of you when I wrote that.
Yes! Protect my property rights then leave me the fuck alone. I don’t want your shitty public education for my kids, your shitty health plans, or any of the rest. Seriously – fuck off slavers.
That’s my take.
Expansion of public services is about control and graft. They do not give a damn about results or consequences. “Double down” and demand more is the answer to everything.
Laissez Faire is good in theory and I highly lean towards it, but at the same time it doesn’t take into account the ever breeding idiots dragging everybody down with them without our intervention. These people aren’t capable of being productive self sufficient members of society. Without establishing a floor for these people to fall on, we’d all drop into the basement. We have idiots that riot when their sportsball team wins. Can you imagine the madness when they run low on food. Look at the riots and lawlessness in refugee camps. It’s impossible for somebody to establish a stable enterprise in those conditions. That’s what is coming if we don’t placate the masses with basic cable and foodstamps.
2nd Amendment for crime
People went to private charities just fine and there were not hordes of impoverished people laying in the streets in 1880.
The social “safety net” argument is flawed, because it discounts the history of the poor prior to its existence in the U.S. Life wasn’t so bad here, the morals and values were such that people were ashamed to ask for help nearly instinctively, and private charity picked up the tab for the truly, truly destitute. It worked fine.
I think you are looking at history through rose colored glasses. Industrialization coincided with lots of poverty. People wandered in search of work. “To deal with the growing numbers of wandering poor, urban police departments in the late 1800s started allowing poor people to sleep in their stations. In the 1880s over 600,000 people did so.” (“Poverty.” Encyclopedia of the United States in the Nineteenth Century. Ed. Paul Finkelman. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2001. U.S. History in Context. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.)
Plus we are talking about a where there were very little consumer goods, low life expectancy, and lack of modern conveniences (indoor plumbing, electricity, etc.). A lack of safety net is not compatible with a modern, technologically advanced society.
Industrialization arose when the world was already in poverty, it did not cause it, and in fact as time progressed it gave birth to a large and burgeoning middle class. Prior to the industrial revolution life was a complete shit hole.
You’d have a point if those governments and “freedom fighters” had improved the lives of their countrymen, not put a yoke on their heads and robbed their country blind, making their former robber barons and elites look like little naughty school girls in comparison.
Is that you bro?
It most certainly is.
I dipped off the radar for a few days in paradise.
I’ve come back with quite a new outlook.
You got hitched to a woman with 3 kids by 4 men in the interim, didnt you?
“Love…exciting and new…come aboard…we’re expecting youuuuu!”
I just said “ewwww” out loud.
The funny thing is, the most disgusting part wasn’t the woman with 3 kids by 4 men, but the idea of hitching.
nice reference.
http://gifsoup.com/view/147329/abraham-kills-isaac.html
This article demonstrates gross ignorance of international finance capital and its machinations since the defeat of Germany and Japan in 1945. It cannot be stressed enough that World War II began because the Axis powers did not want to be part of ANY international finance system, BRICS or Pound Sterling (which then functioned very much like the USD today).
The very first United Nations Conference held at Bretton Woods in 1944 created the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. It was believed that by prohibiting any nation from refusing to participate in the global financial system, and by doing so by fixing exchange rates between the world’s countries, peace could be insured.
The ultimate goal was and is a flexible fixed exchange rate decided upon on 5-year basis. The fixed exchange rate would be accounted for by member nations replacing their foreign exchange reserves (AKA the National debt) with a UN reserve currency similar to Keynes’ Bancor and what will likely be the IMF Special Drawing Rights.
In 1961, the book Prospect for America: The Rockefeller Panel Reports was published. Henry Kissinger was the chief editor. The book is basically the blueprint of the New World Order, and in it the ultimate goal is a world of regional blocs like the BRICS nations, which disintegrate into “smaller units of government” to use Libertarian propaganda.
The United States has been ruled by international finance capital since World War II, and USD hegemony was used to push the world towards globalism. You’ll note that it was Kissinger who “opened up China” and began their ascent as a slave labor driven industrial machine.
But, using a national currency as the world’s primary reserve currency has major drawbacks for everyone. Since the Nixon Shock, the standard of living of middle America has been declining every year. Wall Street has gotten rich not by investing in infrastructure, but skimming off the top of the 75 trillion dollars of global trade settled each year. When “free markets”, development loans, and “foreign aid” didn’t get rogue countries on board, we bombed them.
The BRICS consortium is a political plot created by Goldman Sachs. The conflict between them and the US is staged. Global recession and/or depression will persist, with the solution being sold to the people in the form of a formalized UN system as was originally planned.
The entire BRICS consortium is about fixing exchange rates. This is done by limiting the amount of money member countries can create. Ceding this sovereignty to supranational authorities is suicide, and we should resist with all our strength the rising tide of globalism.
Let us follow Plato’s Laws. Possession of foreign currency should be a capital offense. If you want to trade with foreigners, barter. Money is a political concept, the very projection of sovereign power. It should not fall into the hands of these international hyenas who have no loyalty to any creed or people, and demonstrate enormous hostility to all that is good, beautiful, and true.
Caveat, comrades.
How would it be a bad thing if our government was limited in the amount of money it could create?
The major negative effect is that it allows bankers to extract more money from the economy via usury. What is not commonly understood is banks don’t lend deposits. Loans create deposits. When a bank issues a loan, via double entry bookkeeping, they give you the money, and count that debt as an asset on their balance sheet. Along with that money created comes a future interest obligation, which can easily be equal to the face value of the note.
To properly control bankers, sovereignties must always run deficits that approximate the level of money creation exercised by banks via lending.
Fixed exchange rate systems don’t limit how much money banks can lend, they only limit what member countries can create via fiscal deficits.
As you can see, this allows for the globalist regime to exert enormous control over the global economy.
Note: all liberal and libertarian theories of money are lies.
A secondary effect, and the reason this plan was put into motion, is it would prevent a country like the Third Reich from repudiating foreign war indemnities and rapidly building an army, navy, and air force.
It is for this reason the bogeyman of hyperinflation is such a major component of mass propaganda and one of the best psyops ever.
Since the Nixon Shock, the standard of living of middle America has been declining every year.
While not commenting on the rest of your comment, which seems very well thought out and which I’ll need to consider further, the point quoted above has always made me chuckle when I hear it. I was around in the 1970’s. They sucked hind tit. Period, end of sentence. The 1980’s saw a huge explosion in the middle class and prosperity raining like mana from heaven for a large portion of the population. Today your typical middle class family has 2+ automobiles, 4 televisions, several computers, pays paltry sums for fuels if you use a man-hour worked scale of purchasing power compared to the 1970’s, is connected to everyplace on earth instantly, and all live in the house they wish to. The 1970’s was a lot more dreary and drab economically, and by the end of them, it was Stagflation and the resigned feeling of defeat.
“The 1980’s saw a huge explosion in the middle class and prosperity
raining like mana from heaven for a large portion of the population.”
Not true, only made possible by easier credit, the entire credit card industry was deregulated in the last year of the Carter administration. No easy credit, no fake boom we’ve enjoyed since the Reagan admin
Yeah, actually it was true. My grandfather’s paycheque increased a lot across the 1980’s, above and beyond inflation, while in the 1970’s he was just treading water while doing back breaking hours (he was a diesel mechanic). I was doing fantastic once I hit the entry level market (being a wrangler hand on a ranch at the time paid $9.00 an hour, which in 1983 was fucking great pay for a young buck in high school). Didn’t own a credit card, meanwhile, prices were coming down a lot on most things that were “fun” and suddenly I could afford to not look poor all the time and even afford to buy my own (admittedly, beater) car. The 1970’s SUCKED. There was plenty of credit in the 1970’s and anybody could get a credit card quite easily in the mid to late 1970’s, every single shop and gas station had credit card “manual” swipers. The only hard card to get at the time was American Express, and that’s wasn’t (at the time) a real credit card. I do agree Carter made it easier.
I’m talking about, on average, and in particular the economic phenomenon known as the Triffin Paradox. The rapid rise of the value of the dollar caused demand for our exports to collapse, and rapid deindustrialization. By the 1980s, USD hegemony was in full swing, and trickle down economics began to work its magic.
There is a major contrarian point to yours however. In the 1970s, a man could still easily afford to have a housewife and family. We may have many more toys, but many of the most important things have become utterly unaffordable. We also have the phenomenon Charles Murray discusses in Coming Apart. The cognitive elite have all moved to a few major metropolitan areas, where high paying jobs are plentiful but the cost of living is astronomical compared to the 1970s.
Regardless, as we transition to a UN fixed exchange rate system, the dollar will be devalued, and many of the cheap imports you describe will cease being as affordable as they are today.
Look into it, and do check out the book I mention. You too are a good writer, but I think you may have more time than me to shed light on these ideas.
Godspeed.
You should avoid going too far in attributing power to the globalists. Of course they do want to crush every rival and everyone who wants freedom from their shackles. But this does not imply that the BRICS is another phony. IMO, the globalists are trying to take control of the likely next number one – Zuckerberg is learning Mandarin Chinese -, and the challenge is to retain autonomy from them, which is hard for China as it needs the US to keep buying its free shit.
You don’t understand, the BRICS monetary union is a fixed exchange rate system. This is what they have agreed upon. There are already IMF papers published on how to integrate their fixed exchange rate system into the IMF SDR system.
Autonomy means nothing. This is the goal of globalism – autonomy without sovereignty. We will have a world of Catalonias. They have their own customs, language, and cuisine, but no monetary, legal, or military sovereignty.
Glad to see the author has swallowed the lefts narrative. You should speak to Chileans who lived through it. Pinochet is a hero to most.
Allende was a communist stooge who brought in thousands of Cuban military advisors and tons of soviet weaponry. He won a third of the vote and was elected due to the split in of the political parties and quickly used his victory to turn Chile into soviet puppet state. The Chilean Supreme Court agreed he was violating the constitution and Allende refused to desist and asked his supporters to “seize the means of production.” The military was asked to intervene as majority of the population was not on board what Allende was doing. But Pinochet is the leftist boogey man for not allowing a Castro like figure to drag their country into a shit-hole communist state under foreign assistance and soviet influence. How is that working out for Venezuela these days? Chavez may be dead, but his family is $2 billion ahead.
People need to realize that the Cold War was less about good vs evil and more about a battle to control the world between rich capitalists and communists. It is no coincidence that globalism picked up steam soon after the Soviet Union fell. The rich capitalists were merely continuing with their plans after their main rivals were defeated.
Was Armand Hammer “capitalist” or “communist?” How about Jacob Schiff?
It should be noted that the BRICS nations, though socialist to some degree or other, are still traditional, patriarchal and non-Cultural Marxist (at least for the time being).
Stop comparing socialism to communism, they are not the same thing. With out the social programs socialism provides, the west would be just as horrible to live in as the middle east and Asia. Blended economies are the only sustainable and logical form of governance. Why would you pay taxes to a government at all if they provide NOTHING? which is essentially what pure capitalist anti communist fuckheads, like the author of many articles here, seem to want.
its absurd.
Life existed before socialism which is nothing more than a lie foisted on people.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – WC
Oh give it a rest. America was a fantastic place before socialist programs.
Second, communism uses the socialist economic model, and combines it with a weird mind fuck psychological and philosophical component. Try your spiel on a site where people are not actually educated.
You wouldn’t have been alive to know that first of all and secondly, good luck feeding your family if you have a low paying job and no savings, when your job gets shipped to another country…oh hang on that already happened to thousands of americans. Not to mention the inability for 80% of the population to afford further education, to enhance their earning capacity under a pure capitalist system.
Communism doesn’t allow a free market, everthing is owned by the state and rationed out to the citizens. it removes all incentive.
Socialism doesn’t do this, it allows a free market, but the government actually has a purpose, the government, unlike communism, rations out ESSENTIAL SERVICES, that are not profitable (or at least should not be) unlike in a pure capitalist model, which only favors those with capital.
You’re brainwashed man. its about balance.
And those countries that have adopted socialism are broke, barren and over run with unassimlated foreigners. When Rome is sacked, yet again, I am sure you will be still peddling that dead ideology. Your lot never learns.
My lot? what lot is this? and what should we learn from?
Where is this great land of promise (delusion) that you live.
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
Mate, you have no point except showing me what a dickhead you are.
Thanks.
You haven’t made a case that socialism provides those “essential services” (whatever that means) to the public without destroying the nation in the process.
Yeah, but capitalism isn’t doing all that well these days either.
If I were sick, or in need of education, I’d rather be in a socialist country.
Pray you are never in need of either in a socialist country. You will be waiting a long time.
When Bernie Sanders needs something from a store, does he just pay for it like everyone else? Or does he confiscate it without compensation in the name of social justice?
Chile, due to its mostly white population, was one of the few Latin American countries that wasn’t a complete basket case. Nixon’s ensuring that it did not fall into communist hands was one of the few intelligent foreign policy decisions he made.
The Monroe Doctrine, such that the United States keeps Latin America in the hands of whites, and helps put down uprisings by the likes of Hugo Chavez, a low-IQ savage barely removed from the Amazon jungle, is merely part and parcel of the United States defending its genuine economic and security interests.
The Middle East, by contrast, has nothing the US needs or wants. Keeping the Arabs well-behaved is the responsibility of Russia and Israel. All the US needs to do is leave them to it and not interfere.
Maybe one day the United States will have a government with the spine to put down like the criminal lunatics they are, and give their children to good, traditional families where women are raised to be wives and mothers, not parasites and murderers. I pray I live to see America get a Pinochet.
What a disgraceful LIAR ! LIAR !
People in Brazil HATE the Workers Party and the president. They have destroyed the country, which is in its worst recession in history! Industry just fell 11% over last year.
4,5 million people in the streets last month demanding the impeachment for multiple charges of corruption in the amount of BILLIONS of dollars.
The US has always supported Dilma and the Marxist Party here. They have turned a blind eye for 20 years while Latin America fell for Marxism.
This guy is a paid agent from the government and a traitor of the Brazilian people.
Thanks for your post. Yeah. Relampago poo-pooing about “poor old Allende” was a dead give away.
This is the reality. The author of the article is probably a paid militant from the marxist government here. It is a shame that ROK is publishing this crap.
Obama celebrating Raul Castro, who brought the whole of Latin America to Marxism, and this idiot saying that the US paid 4,5 million Brazilians to go to the streets to fight the corrupt government.
http://henrymakow.com/2016/03/preident-dilma-declares-war-ag.html
How idiotic can a person be? The Marxists in Latin America have pushed all kinds of Cultural Marxism laws for 20 years and the author says the Brazilian government is against Cultural Marxism?
He is LYING to his teeth, because he knows you guys abroad don’t know about the situation in Brazil, and he wants to get your support. He wants you to sympathize with the corrupt marxist government which pays him money, to think it is an alternative to US cultural marxism. Don’t fall for his lies!
The author is a LIAR, must be paid militant from the government or maybe simply an ignorant fool.
The US forgot about Latin America for 20 years, while Cuba and the Forum of Sao Paulo dominated the region. Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Uruguay, they all fell for marxism ! What kind of lousy job the American imperialists did, in order to lose a whole continent to corrupt demagogues.
Obama is a Marxist and a friend of Cuba. The whole article is CRAP. This guy knows nothing about Latin America.
This author doesn’t know, or pretends he doesn’t, the difference between Bolivarian marxism, Cuba and Venezuela style, and the new world order style government system.
Bolivarian Marxism has never been an opponent of the new world order, it is only a tool used to destroy traditional values and individual freedoms. The corrupt marxist regime in Brazil has implemented several cultural marxism laws and has implemented UN’s Agenda 21 officially. The US has never lifted a finger against it. On the contrary, it has celebrated and supported it, especially with Obama.
Bolivarian Marxism is also extremely corrupt and destroys the economies and lives of people. That’s why Brazilians and Venezuelans HATE their governments. The US has nothing to do with the opposition from millions of people against their corrupt leaders.
Believe me, living in a Bolivarian marxist hellhole is one hundred times worse than in new world order Canada with his soft socialism, for example.
What the author does is to falsify and FIX reality in order to accommodate it to his simplistic, idiotic theories. The problem is that by doing this, he is helping to keep the suffering people of Latin America in chains. While millions in Brazil are mobilizing to fight this rotten system, here comes a stinky liar to say we have been bought by the US. Go to hell.
Libya is definitely relevant here too. Gaddafi’s rule was about as close as you could get to National Socialism (i.e. non-Marxist socialism) in the modern world, and he legitimately did a lot of good for the country’s citizens and infrastructure. Obviously, in regions as unstable (read: Muslim) as North Africa and the Middle East, some authoritarianism was basically a necessity to maintain order. (Not to mention that socialism of any kind requires authoritarianism to maintain itself, including in the US.)
So much for a stable Libya
Juan Maria Bordaberry,President of Uruguay(March 1 1972-June 12 1976) was a Dictator under a Civilian-Military Council. He dissolved Congress after defeating Urban Anarcho-Marxist Guerrillas. He was a Landowning Rancher who happened to be a Devout Catholic and a Closet Pro-Franco Monarchist. He was ousted by High-ranking Officers(read:Freemasons)for being insufficiently Pro-America.
Quantitative easing escalated this with companies and wall street looking for good investments all well destroying this country with wanting cheap labor in BRIC and
emerging markets.
They are also bringing our downfall within with H1B workers.
http://profit.ndtv.com/news/economy/article-us-immigration-bill-can-lead-to-30-billion-year-loss-to-india-642446
“For US Parliamentarians, India related issues are small. There are about 2 million eligible Indian origin people that can vote but we have hardly seen more than 30
per cent of them voting. India has no time now. It has to make its voice heard,” Mr Kumar said.
There was this senator can’t think of her name but she was a foreign national who put
her countries people first with immigration and got arrested.
Latin America and the us involvement was my focal point in college. It’s been going on since 1898. Latin America just wanted a big brother but what they got was a tyrannical borther.
Empires do not by themselves generate power. They gain it from keeping others down, thus a power differential is created where one will come out at the top. All empires work the same way and ideology is not part of this equation, its just a layer for the benefit of the masses but in reality ideology doesn’t matter. It’s no conspiracy against Latin America, it’s pure and simple domination tactics.
“They gain it from keeping others down, thus a power differential is created where one will come out at the top.”
False. Zero sum game is not an answer. Power exists in a People’s ability to create wealth (via capitalism) that provides surplus. That gives you economic power which will give you the means to expand militarily to protect your interests (revenue streams). Everyone benefits as the wealth will cascade down thru expansion, employment, increase tax revenues, etc.. In order to complete against other nations/ markets, you have to be creative or undercut the competition. Unfortunately those who are at the top use government power to protect thier personal interests, not the peoples, and leads to monopoly of those few people concolidating their power not just agasint foregin competitors, but internal as well.
I would recommed a book that touches on this, “The Five Thousand Year Leap” by Skousen.
It’s not a zero sum game. Power is a transient mesure of strength. It can represent any number of things as you said. But it is always mesured in comparison to others. For example: If you reduce your opponents strength without reducing your own you increase your power in relation to your opponent.
Think about it. Why did the U.S care if a little backwards country like Vietnam without any recources became communist? They were no threat as a singular entity. But they were a threat if they became a satellite of the Soviet Union and augmented their power, thus in turn reduced the power the U.S had at that time. If the Soviet Union had not existed at that time the U.S would not have given a rats ass about it because the war would have cost more than it was worth.
Correct. If the North Koreans, and later Chinese, didn’t invade South Korea in 1950, the US wouldn’t have bothered.
Existential threats being engaged/counterd through proxy wars.
Soviet Russia didn’t create wealth, but they sure had power.
They spent 95% of their GDP to keep the military complex going and propping other failed socialists states. They projected power, but they paid a huge price for it which consumed them in the end.
“my room mate Is getting paid HOURLY. ninety-eight$ on the internet.”….two days ago new McLaren P2 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here!oi2141➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsDesign/GetPaidHourly98$…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::!oi2141…..
The USA didn’t have anything to do with Pinochet. The CIA operation basically went nowhere and they retrieved the weapons they had provided to their assets.
Pinochet was ordered by the legislature to remove the president from power, that is entirely different from a CIA backed coup. After that, he had to deal with people that were understandably upset at what happened and his government did a decent job of actually keeping the total number of casualties during the insurrection down while doing things to actually improve the economy and benefit the people of Chile.
Chile is actively seeking people to come there and live and work, a good deal of that is due to things that Pinochet did that later administrations, granted more democratic, decided to continue.
Socialist countries have to be totalitarian in order to function in their half-assed way and leaders relish having that much power but they want small capitalist economies elsewhere where they can get adequate medical care, hide the money they steal, and flee to if they’re alive when the revolution comes.