HomeArticleIf America Stopped Destroying The World, The Bad Guys Might Win

If America Stopped Destroying The World, The Bad Guys Might Win

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters on Saturday that the government under Venezuela’s recently re-inaugurated president Nicolas Maduro is “illegitimate”, and that “the United States will work diligently to restore a real democracy to that country.”

Pompeo’s remarks, which were echoed by Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton, are interesting for a couple of reasons. The first is because Venezuela’s presidential election in May of last year (which incidentally was found to have been perfectly legitimate by the international Council of Electoral Experts of Latin America) was actively and aggressively meddled in by the US and its allies. The second is that while the US government is openly broadcasting its intention to keep interfering in Venezuela’s political system, it continues to scream bloody murder about alleged Russian interference in its own democratic process two years ago.

What is the difference between the behavior of the United States, which remains far and away the single worst offender in foreign election meddling on the planet, and what Russia is accused of having done in 2016? According to a comment made by former CIA Director James Woolsey last year, it’s that the US interferes in foreign democracies “for a very good cause.”

And that’s really the only argument that empire loyalists have going for them on this subject. The US is different because the US has moral authority. It’s okay for the US to continue to interfere in the political affairs of foreign nations while it would be an unforgivable and outrageous “act of war” for a nation like Russia to do the exact same thing, because the US is countering the interests of the Bad Guys while Russia is countering the interests of the Good Guys. Who decided who the Good Guys and Bad Guys are in this argument? The US.

This “What we do is good because we’re the Good Guys” faith-based doctrine was regurgitated with full-throated zealotry in a recent speech given by Pompeo in Cairo, in which he cited “America’s innate goodness” in making the absolutely ridiculous claim that “America is a force for good in the Middle East” which has been “absent too much” from the region previously. America’s nonstop deadly interventionism in the Middle East is “good”, because America is “innately good”.

America’s constant military interventionism, election interference and other nastiness are painted as Good Things done by Good Guys to fight the Bad Guys. The argument, when you boil it right down, is that if America wasn’t constantly starting wars, invading sovereign nations, staging coups, sponsoring proxy conflicts, arming terrorists, bombing civilians, torturing people, implementing starvation sanctions on impoverished populations, pointing nuclear weapons everywhere, spying on us all with a globe-spanning Orwellian surveillance network, interfering in foreign elections, and patrolling the skies with flying death robots, the Bad Guys might win.

Sort of makes you wonder who the Bad Guys really are, huh?

The theme of Good Guys fighting Bad Guys resonates with a population that has been raised for generations on Hollywood films featuring a handsome action hero emerging victorious after a ninety-minute struggle and karate kicking an ugly villain off a cliff before kissing the pretty girl, but it doesn’t accurately reflect the reality we actually live in. Our world is dominated by extremely powerful people who are motivated not out of interest in good or evil but a drive toward power and profit which is completely disinterested in morality of any kind, and the empires they build for themselves have their foundations on the backs of ordinary people who are just trying to get by. The majority of those extremely powerful people either live in the United States or have formed alliances with US power structures, and all their agendas in Asia, South America, the Middle East and elsewhere have nothing to do with “protecting democracy” or being a “force of good”, and everything to do with amassing more power.

Even among those who recognize that the US-centralized empire isn’t a shining beacon of virtue in our world, the notion remains prevalent that if American power ceases to be a unipolar dominator then someone worse will take over the world. This fear-based mindset ultimately underlies all establishment manipulation and all educated support for it: the idea that someone needs to rule and dominate the world to prevent someone else from doing the same. But what are the fruits of this mindset? A corporatist Orwellian dystopia hurtling toward climate collapse if nuclear war doesn’t kill us all first.

We can’t keep doing this. We literally can’t; we’ll evolve beyond this fear-based dominator paradigm or we’ll all perish beneath its feet very soon. We are now in a position where our irrational fear of being invaded by China has pushed us to the brink of extinction, so it isn’t even a gamble to step off that train and try something else instead.

It is entirely possible that the US is capable of functioning like a normal nation and simply defending its own shores and sustaining itself without interfering in world affairs. It is entirely possible that the threat everyone imagines of some foreign power stepping in as the unipolar dominator should America vacate that role is the product of fearful imaginings with no bearing on reality and a fundamental misunderstanding of humanity. It is entirely possible that we are capable of creating a world where nobody dominates anybody, and no iron-fisted world leader of any kind is needed. Either way, the train we’re on is headed for a brick wall, so we’ve now got nothing to lose by stepping off.


The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitterthrowing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet new merchandisebuying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Liked it? Take a second to support Caitlin Johnstone on Patreon!

Latest comments

  • https://medium.com/@lburns432/found-to-have-been-perfectly-legitimate-4153728dd8e2

    “[…] found to have been perfectly legitimate […]”

    Yes I see…
    Your sources are Venezuelan, state funded, Socialist bent television and media websites and NGO’s: Telesur is funded and owned by Venezuela; is backed financially by Communist Cuba and discreetly by the Kremlin. Launched under the regime of Hugo Chavez. It echos Chavez’s Socialist vision. It is neither independent, nor truthful; it is anti-American; anti-west and primarily fake news, that supports the Socialist globalist view of the world and people.

    “Why Venezuela’s Election Matters – It Was Under Siege by US, Canadian and EU Influence” -Venezualanalysis.com

    Well to answer that question. It was not under “Seige”, not only the US, Canada and the EU protested. Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, and Peru, Saint Lucia. In fact Maduro would not be welcomed at the Summit of the Americas.

    The UN high commissioner on human Rights stated that “[the election] does not in anyway fulfill minimal conditions for a free and credible elections […]”. The UN asked for new elections to be scheduled and 19 countries supported that resolution.
    The EU with a vote of 480 for/51 against/ 70 abstentions, adopted a resolution to impose sanctions against Nicolas’ Maduro and his officials personally. Not the people of Venezuela, they suffer enough under Nicolas’ Maduro

    Great numbers of votes were bought, lives threatened, beatings, fraudulent vote count…recounts and revoting

    Maduro a student of Hugo Chavez an ardent Socialist-Marxist, was a consummate hater of the west and democracy and freedom, and especially the United States of America.

    Maduro who achieved a 67% vote in his last election — but that was 67% of 32% voter turn-out, the lowest voter turnout in the history of the whole country. People simply refused to show up.

    Henri’ falcon clearly was the favorite. Maduro just can’t seem to understand the voters has no faith in him. Time to step down before the country collapses. saving many lives and untold amounts of money in rebuilding collapsing infrastructures and government services — people are not being paid and are simply walking away to money and food in other sources.

    Nicolas’ Maduro,  a large man, whose overindulgence in food and the many good things in life, is only superceded by his oppression of his own people — as can be seen from his visit, and stay at one the many expensive and opulent Dachas of Vladimir Putin during his recent visit to his Socialist taskmaster — in spite the of rampant hunger, poverty, lack of medicine, escalating inflation and skyrocketing crime and murder rate. Which rose to a new high in 2018, doubling previous years — and, that lack that is driving some two million people out of Venezuela. And poring his people into the streets, in great numbers — the country has been rocked with anti-government protests.

    Latin nations, and sympathetic leaders have asked Maduro to cede power, and stand down. His inexperience and willingness to be ruled by communist thoughts and the Kremlin marching orders have lost the confidence of his people.

    Maduro is very much a dictator styled in the ways of the Cuban revolutionary and the Communist Pedro Miret. His mentor and teacher, along with Chavez. Maduro is educated in the Castro way; which is very much the last Soviet satellite nation. Stuck in dogma of old ways of the Soviet Union.

    Visiting Moscow again Maduro begs for more money but must tow the Putin line of no new oil. Which would put his country back to work and pay the bills to say the least. It is the solution to his problems. But he listens to Putin, who whispers the devil’s lessons, and will cause his defeat and the collapse of his country.

    A restructuring of a $3 Billion debt, forced by the hand that gives to buy Russian arms, Venezuela can ill afford — as the country is in a free fall and bound for collapse. Of course arms will be needed if he is to oppress a rising population, that is becoming very difficult and violent…

    Again, Argentina, Canada, Brazil, United States, the European Union, Mexico, Chile all denounced the election as a fraud, other countries and UN member countries have voiced concern and look for investigation. It seems Putin is teaching Maduro other ways…

    But then this what Putin wishes, his experience gained in a collapsing Soviet Union taught him ways to strip the wealth quickly from a dying Nation, and the rich under his thumb.

    Maduro has been schooled by Putin about lessening oil production to drive world prices up — Putin needs money and the sanctions on his oligarchs is stretching him, and them to their limits. Russian coffers are emptying, as he finances war, an arms race and world Socialism — and he is in trouble in his own country. Maduro turning off the oil flow will only benefit Russian oil companies like Rosneft and Vladimir Putin’s zero-sum game.

    Maduro has been trying to gain a ‘united front’ in OPEC to suppress world production and export. A $17 Billion dollar Rosneft loan, by Russia’s state-owned oil corporation, is making it difficult for the big man, as he is having trouble paying his debts, and is defaulting — but murmurs of off shore accounts and Putin’s constant meddling is lessening his public image even further. How long will Putin finance, this loser. Putin might have bitten off more than he can chew with Maduro.

    Russia is not a OPEC nation but it’s meddling in smaller OPEC members affairs is intriguing, as Venezuela and the deaths in Africa of journalists investigating corruption and russian meddling, are showing where Putin’s interests lie.

    Putin has sent 250,000 tons of wheat to Maduro, but yet the Kremlin will not give a single seed to the famine in Yemen, were the Kremlin supports Islamic Socialism, a strange mixture of the ‘philosophy of misery’ and terrorism.  And Yemen will concede another new another Russian military base. The starving children of Yemen, in a famine that might succeed anything every seen.

    Off course Putin is hardened to the plight of children, his refusal to allow 33,000 adoptions of crippled and poor and destitute and in some cases birth defected Russian children into the United States, in his retaliation and opposition to the Magnitsky Act sanctions against him and his cronies, and their off-shore accounts in the Cayman’s and other exotic places. All laid out in the Panama papers. Lessening his vast personal wealth of some $200 Billion.

    And the Russian people suffer, censorship and oppression in the old style Soviet way which is drifting back into view. While this man Putin spends his people’s wealth, his ill-gotten gains on military and political adventurism and expansion.

    Maduro takes his lead from the New Czar of Russia, Vladimir Putin. Eager to allow Russia to build a military base right there in Venezuela (I guess Putin’s method of vicious and cruel suppression of populations, would an asset to Nicolas’ Maduro), to aid in Maduro’s suppression of his own people. Socialism is very much a disease of soul of people, the violent and control freaks of the world, use it as blunt instrument to take all uniqueness and talent and skill; personal property, and desires and dreams away from a people.

    Putin a zero-sum game master is like those pretend friends that talk to our other closer friends and gaslight crazy as a means to their division. Putin, a paranoid megalomania, is a scary individual, when those that take his hand in friendship realize how utterly insane he really is…Maudro wants to be in the Putin club. Maduro wants to be connected.

    America and the west stands for freedom and democracy. Yes it has problems, yes it has corruption — all large countries do! It a matter of finding better ways and growing a population that learns and stands up and stops being lazy, and asking the government to supply every need. the victims need to stop complaining and stand up and do something that helps a society…  

    But, that is no reason to give away or collapse the greatest nations that have ever existed. That is no reason to collapse the nation that created and invented so much the world now enjoys.

    • Wow. Delusional does not even begin to describe your insane ramblings here.

      Hint. You cannot have a socialist oligarch. It simply cannot exist, by definition.

      If America stood for freedom, we would not have a prison population greater both in raw numbers and per capita than the Soviet gulag system.

      If America stood for democracy, we would not have the electoral college, nor a two party system. (Nor would names like Mossadegh, Allende, Aristide, Hamas, Hezbollah, Lumumba, and others who won democratic election only to have the US try to forcibly remove them, be so easy to rattle off)

      Perhaps you should see a doctor about that cranial-rectal impaction you are so obviously encumbered by.

      • John, “You cannot have a socialist oligarch. It simply cannot exist, by definition.”

        Can you name one such socialist country?

        “If America stood for democracy, we would not have the electoral college, nor a two party system.”

        Wow. Do you not see the wisdom of the electoral college? Do you support mob rule then? Because that is exactly what democracy is. Not thanks – with after burners!

        Agree about the uniparty system though. But what do you propose be done about it?

      • Soviet Union does not exist anymore…
        Socialist oligarchs, is there any other kind?

        What do you know about Mossadegh or Hamas…you know nothing.

        Mossadegh was a greedy pedophile pig. He was a socialist in league with the Soviets and tried to steal private property, after we built the oil infrastructure of the country up from a shit hole and brought civilization to the place. The country prospered. But he got greedy.

        Hamas has been on the kremlin’s pay list for decades.

        How about I come over to your house and we talk about. And you tell how insane I am John…
        I got your address, just tell me a time, puto?

  • I know people who live in Venezuela. Catlin’s article does not reflect what they have said or what the Council of Electoral Experts of Latin America has stated.

    UN Ambassadors have been told to leave the country as things get worse.

    I wonder which side has the propaganda?

  • “Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters on Saturday that the government under Venezuela’s recently re-inaugurated president Nicolas Maduro is “illegitimate”, and that “the United States will work diligently to restore a real democracy to that country.”

    Perhaps he should word diligently to establish something the United states has never had – an actual democracy- and to slow the slide to totalitarianism.
    The first step in that would be to stop trying to force other countries into a box of our liking, even though we do not, ourselves, practice it here. I have my own ideas of what makes up both ‘bad’ and ‘evil.’ ‘Right’ and ‘wrong.’
    However, I cannot justify using my ideas to insist that other cultures give up their ways of life in favor of our, U.S. failed system. In the end, if we cannot practice what we preach, what right do we have to insist that others do as we say, nor as we do.

  • “It is entirely possible that we are capable of creating a world where nobody dominates anybody, and no iron-fisted world leader of any kind is needed.”
    How I wish you were right, but people aren’t built that way. Few of us are Renaissance people; we *might* be able to handle each aspect of existence with aplomb, but that doesn’t mean we’re any good at it. We seem to have a sense of this, and most of us want leadership to handle big-picture issues. Thing is, that’s only inherently good people, who just want a chance to thrive without messing with others.
    There will always be people who seek to tear down well-run organizations. Whether it’s due to having been abused, or been given religion (or other unalterable ideology), or being high-functioning but mentally ill, or just being frustrated because they think everything’s crap and there’s a Better Way that they’re willing to light bombs to achieve, there will always be an “other” to be held at bay.
    That’s all of human history; trade always breaks down because, eventually, someone either wants more (for greater comfort), or needs more (desperate to survive when their natural resources run low).

    • hi moon raccoon! 🙂 how can you be such a pessimist? and believe so firmly that violent domination will ultimately triumph over mutually beneficial cooperation? you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.

      • I think you might succumb to black/white, either/or thinking. I said nothing about triumphant domination.
        In our history, humanity has enjoyed great times. Great times always devolve into terrible times. Terrible times always evolve into great times. And on and on. The transitions between each high and low have their triumphs and setbacks.
        If you re-read my earlier comment, you’ll see that I say there are good people who want good things, and crap people who want to ruin good things. Because that’s how people are: We vary. That means we cannot rest on our laurels when good people are our leaders (and, as Caitlin says, we should resist our bad leaders).
        Remember, Nazis used to be universally bad. Now, in the opinions of too many people, this is no longer the case.

        • I think the answer is a redesign.

          We need a society that rewards good behaviour, and punishes the bad.

          As is, we reward people for racing us toward extinction with bonuses and dividends, and pepper spray those trying to save us from extinction.

          When the incentives are changed, behaviour will follow.

          • John, “We need a society that rewards good behaviour, and punishes the bad.”

            Yes, absolutely. But who gets to decide what is good behavior and what is bad behavior? What exactly will these rewards and punishments consist of?

            • Those are big questions that would need to be discussed. I’m not a dictator nor would I want to be.

              ParEcon is based on a series of such discussions, and seems to me to be a good framework to build on.

              • John, “Those are big questions that would need to be discussed.”

                When then should these vital questions be asked and answered?! If one wants to argue for replacing something with something else one should be able to specify what exactly that something else is.

                “I’m not a dictator nor would I want to be.”

                Well then good news for you. You wont be a dictator under socialism. But you most certainly will be dictated to.

          • That sounds ideal, but I can think of no human-made system that other humans cannot game to their unfair advantage.

          • “We need a society that rewards good behaviour, and punishes the bad.”

            Like me slappin the bitch out of you for an insult you bets fuck.

            • Moron

  • “If America stopped destroying the world, the bad guys might destroy it instead! We can’t let them be the first to do it, can we?” 🙂

  • Nobody, neither an individual nor a state, can be trusted to wield power that isn’t bound by rules and isn’t accountable. You can’t base any kind of order, domestic or international, simply on somebody’s being ‘a Good Guy’ (it sounds childish and stupid because it is). If power is accountable and bound by rules, the ‘Guy’ will be forced to act well. If power is not accountable and is not bound by rules, the ‘Guy’ will abuse it. This is a core insight of democratic constitutionalism, which moves us beyond the pre-modern situation where people had to place all their hopes in the possibility that the all-powerful monarch who had control over the fates of all of his/her subjects would, by God’s grace, happen to be a ‘Good Guy’. For some reason, both when it comes to US domination abroad and when it comes to ‘technocratic’ elite domination at home, even the most intelligent and well-read people somehow keep forgetting this very simple and commonsense princple, which the most valuable and beneficial features of their domestic political systems, however imperfect, are based on.
    There most certainly doesn’t have to be a ‘unipolar dominator’ in the sense of somebody who is above international law and arbitrarily violates the sovereignty of other countries. If the US wanted, it could easily refrain from breaking international law, while still counteracting, together with other nations, any wannabe ‘unipolar dominator’ that does break international law. It’s just that this has never been what the US is interested in doing. In addition, the prospect of any one country soon attaining the same degree of military and political global dominance that the US currently has is extremely remote. There is an enormous distance from Russia and China not yielding to the US near their own borders, as currently observed, to China becoming the global hegemon and dominating the US. Supporting every iniquity that is being perpetrated by the US *now* in order to maintain or increase its power is neither a rational nor a morally justifiable way of minimising that remote possibility in the future. The positive aspects of the current world order are due to the broad (if not universal) global consensus about popular sovereignty and human rights, not to the gangster-style domination of the US that regularly abuses these principles as a pretext for its lawless behaviour, thereby making a mockery of them and weakening their actual influence.
    Somebody in the comments under a recent post defended patriarchal family organisation as a form of efficient division of labour. The entirety of human history shows that division of labour, incredibly efficient as it is, also easily gives rise to enormous power disparities, iniquities and misery, and it always needs to be carefully regulated and limited with that in mind. Somebody ‘specialising’ as a decision-maker, a ‘thought leader’, a ‘breadwinner’, or a physical ‘protector’ and ‘rule enforcer’ is very prone to abuse this speciality in his/her own favour and, eventually, turn the other ‘specialists’ into his serfs or slaves. For this reason, the US as a ‘global police’ would always be problematic; but the US could have invested, together with other UN members, into a truly international, accountable UN force to prevent tyranny and injustice. This hasn’t happened, of course, because the US would rather be the one practicing that very tyranny and injustice instead.
    In general, having a single unaccountable dictator/tyrant is the simplest and easiest, but also the most barbaric, incomplete, and, as history shows, unstable way of achieving some degree of peace, stability and security. Any arbitrary global tyranny would always be bloody and relatively chaotic. Humanity has been, to some extent, transcending this pattern. Going back to it, whoever the tyrant is, would be the real catastrophe. It’s not about choosing a global tyrant, it’s about refusing to have one.

    • You forget that the US is arguably the most capitalistic of all countries. Capitalism by its very nature rewards those without a functioning conscience monetarily and by conferring power on them. Guess what those people do to stay in power and accumulate more and more wealth ?

      • Random, Collectivism by its very nature rewards those without a functioning conscience monetarily and by conferring power on them.

        • Describe how.

          • RC, because all governments are based on power and power naturally attracts psychopaths. The horror of collectivism is that it gives even more power to fewer people. Always a bad thing.

      • We’re all tempted at times use words to describe emotions and perceptions that have not been thoroughly examined. This is not a criticism of your thought process, just an observation confirmed by personal experience. We also use words at times to define things that we do not completely understand, so the solutions we seek to achieve reflect an incomplete or incorrect definition of the problem. Your casual reference to ‘capitalism’ in a pejorative context is an example. By common definition, capitalism is an economic system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners rather than by the state. As an economic system capitalism is no more or less vulnerable to abuse than any other form of human organization. It’s function, not form, that ultimately defines the effect. Socialism, by definition, is a political or economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. By this definition, do you really believe that socialism, in practice, is less vulnerable to abuse than capitalism? If so, how? Every social organization that has ever existed at scale came into being through conquest, expropriation and oppression. The strong and ruthless have always dominated the weak. It’s not an encouraging picture of human nature, but it’s what we have. Do know of an exception? Dominant social structures have always consolidated their power through brute force and control of the medium of exchange (i.e., the money system). Let’s briefly examine which form of social organization offers the best opportunity for individual freedom and self-determination, absent the associated abuse factors. Capitalism, or free enterprise if you prefer, has always encouraged and rewarded individual initiative, creativity and production. Absent the abuse factor, it essentially functions to level the playing field for all. Is capitalism highly discriminating and ruthless in how it rewards market-based value creation, such as growing a crop or weaving a garment for sale in a voluntary exchange? Yes. Does free enterprise tend to marginalize those who choose to sit on the front porch all day and smoke dope? Yes (note: there is nothing implicit in my comment here about smoking dope–only that you should buy your own dope and not steal it from others). Socialism does not differentiate the value of individual contributions to the collective (although the most faithful, obedient and ruthless somehow always ascend to ‘leadership positions’ of exceptional privilege and affluence). In the socialist power structure everything is equally ‘owned’ by the collective while certain disproportionately productive members of the collective must produce the means to support those members who cannot, or will not, make a fair contribution based on his/her ability. Per force, those who believe in capitalism (absent the abuse) as a preferred social organization know there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. ‘Someone’ always has to chop the cotton. Socialism inevitably punishes the individual who values his/her independence and prefers the inevitable risks of personal freedom. So, how important is independent action and personal freedom to you? Who owns your body, your labor, and your life–you or society? Answer those questions and you have the social organization that is right for you. For those who believe in the power of the individual human spirit to resist and overcome the controlling narratives of corrupt social organizations, it’s important to remember that true compassion and charity flow from the hearts of the free, not the sword of the collective. Remember, you can kill the beast with the same knife you use to cut the steak.

        • CB, great take!

        • Your deceptive apologetics for a brutal and unsustainable system indicate either a grave degree of self deception, or an insidious intent to decieve.

          Perhaps you are just a dupe unable to see the basic flaws in your argument, which starts with your basic definitions.

          First, Capitalism should only ever be used in a pejorative manner by anyone capable of critical thought. As it is a system requiring infinite growth on a finite planet, Capitalism is inherently ecocidal.

          Capitalism is the process of turning living communities into dead commodities for the short term gain of a few.. An old growth forest is only valued, under capitalism, for the lumber it could produce if destroyed.

          Capitalism is the system in which those with great wealth (which, without exception, can be traced to theft, fraud, and often genocide) control the society by their ill-gained wealth.

          There never has been a “free market”. It’s no more real than Santa Claus.

          Capitalism, in order to maintain the egregious wealth disparities which it makes Inevitable, requires a State to protect those who have amassed ill gotten wealth from those from whom they have stolen from.

          Capitalists justify their ecocidal delusions by making unsubstantiated claims about Socialism, which only show their ignorance of socislism.

          For instance, although every indigenous people on the planet practiced socialism for thousands of years before Capitalism was forced on them with guns, Capitalism’s sycophants make the absurd claim that socialism never worked and requires a State. (Incidentally, it was an ethnography of a Native American tribe that inspired much of Marx’s ideology).

          Capitalists also make delusional statements pretending that the incentives of Capitalism are needed to get people to work. First, this pretends that Capitalism incentivizes work, when the real money in Caputalism is made by owning, not by working (workers rarely even get half the value of their labor, the owners take the greater share). The tax structures set in place by the politicians the Capitalists have purchased (as even politicians are commodities under Capitalism) that tax labor at twice the rate of Capital Gains, make the lie that Capitalism encourages work all the more obvious to all but the most indoctrinated.

          There is also this delusion amongst the true believers in the cult of Capitalism that a person given a choice between starvation and selling themselves into wage slavery is somehow a “freedom”. They proclaim that this freedumb is the main virtue of their system, worth making the planet uninhabitable in order to pursue.

          I challenge you, Charles, to read the book ParEcon: Life After Capitalism, and cure the delusional ignorance that permeates every word of your comment here.

          Or you can choose to remain an ignorant ecocidal parrot of long discredited nonsense.

          The choice is yours.

          • John, it’s a waste of time to climb down the philosophical rabbit hole with you. I’ll keep my response close to surface so the facts are self-evident. The definitions of capitalism and socialism used in my previous posts are consistent with the common understanding of most informed minds on the subject, regardless of ideology. That includes the implications of each socio-economic construct in practice. The related facts are exhaustively documented (I’d be happy to provide a reading list that could shine some light into your burrow, if you’d like). Notwithstanding your argument to the contrary (and apparently your deeply held beliefs), an objective study and honest interpretation of mankind’s progress through the ages reveals not a single example to support your flawed thesis about “collective” control and ownership of property, regardless of the label used to describe the social organization. Same applies to your misinformed notions about capitalism and wealth creation, (what I refer to here as free-market-based-value creation and the corresponding reward system). Your comments demonstrate complete ignorance of the concepts and facts set forth in the previous post regarding the abuse of power, oppression and exploitation inherent in all social organizations at scale–regardless of the label. As Caitlin says, we are a product of many narratives that define our individual identity and perceived realities. But we don’t have to accept the narratives written for us by others. You clearly do not comprehend the essence of what personal freedom and self-determination imply for all human beings. Your abstract belief in the essential goodness of the state and collective ownership of property, is unsupported by the evidence. When that narrative is imposed by a dominant, corrupt and ruthless control structure, it represents a grave danger to those who believe that our lives, our bodies, our labor, and our freedom, belong to us as individuals, and not to your utopian collective. The philosophical tripe upon which your narrative about the transcendental goodness of the state and its power-centric/ wealth-centric social order describes the debilitated condition of the proletariat mind, not the how free men and women think. No socio-economic system (forget the label) has every existed as scale that did not inflict horrible human suffering and ultimately result in consolidated wealth and power. Fact check the comment. Every social organization at scale requires the active or passive support of the ‘collective’ including the predatory operatives and parasitic enforcers who brutally impose the arbitrary will of the state. How can you reasonably conclude that the concentrated power structure at the center of every Marxist social system is anything other than destructive of human health, welfare and prosperity? Capitalism, by definition, does not automatically produce the suffering and human deprivation invariably caused by every collectivist system. It is the “human nature” inherent in the actual function of capitalism that produces those results, not the form. Your alternative is highly centralize power and collective ownership of property which retards human development through the absence of incentives to learn, to improve, and to grow. Do you actually believe that soldiers carrying the flag of socialism are any less destructive to the human condition than those marching under the flag of capitalism or democracy? If so, this will be my last exchange with you. The point here is that all war is evil and destructive, just as all forms of social organization at scale produce inequality, exploitation and abuse. As an exercise, try to wrap your sharp mind around the theory and practice of central banking, and its global effect on the human condition. Learn how money creation and the operation of every economic system based on a medium of exchange has been abused by corrupt and concentrated power. If you think that some form of utopian collective social order is possible at scale absent a physical medium of exchange, then please don’t waste your time responding. The door is closed. Every socio-economic system that has ever existed at scale has relied on a physical medium of exchange. If we want to achieve a social order based on voluntary cooperation, equal justice, and personal freedom, we must reject your proposed utopian social construct and any narrative that requires our submission to it. There is nothing abstract about personal ownership and self-determination. The abuse of power that flows from concentrated wealth, the coercive and corrupt control that flows from collective social order are not symptoms of human suffering, but the root cause. It’s important for us to recognize that those who have first access to primary resources in every socio-economic system “always” exploit that access to their advantage. What you clearly fail to grasp is that human nature is not benevolent, it is selfish. For humans to exist at a higher plane of consciousness and harness our inherent moral weakness necessitates the conscious understanding that social organization can only be a force for good if it operates freely without domination and control. Self-determination is the lifeblood of human progress. Absent a common respect for personal freedom to learn, to grow, to achieve, to fail, to share, no socio-economic structure can long survive. Peaceful, voluntary production and exchange of life’s necessities, i.e., food, shelter, clean water, and nurturing companionship, require personal responsibility. Collectivism represents the antithesis of personal responsibility and self-determination. As stated previously, true empathy, compassion and charity flow from the heart and hands of the individual, not the disinterested sword of the collective.

          • John, “…the absurd claim that socialism never worked and requires a State.”

            Where is there socialism without a state?

        • Capitalism rewards psychopathy

          • Precisely How? Read my response to John. You should read, think, and live more. CB

          • RC, all power structures reward psychopathy.

    • How about a dictatorship of the proletariat?

      • Depends what you mean. I can imagine a “dictatorship of the proletariat” as indistinguishable from theocracy. Dictatorship of each over each. Each is a spy on every other, and punishments are brutal.
        Would “dictatorship of the proletariat” include voting? How else to know what the proles wished? Dictatorships are without consideration for human rights. Structured mob rule. If enough people don’t like a certain demographic, that demo could be done away with.
        Doesn’t sound appealing to me.

      • How can millions of individual people each be a dictator?

  • US and Allies are criminal murderous scum! Australia included!
    “Smithsonian Magazine: U.S. at War, Now Operating in 40 Percent of the World’s Nations”

    • The LEADERS of the US and Allies. Not the people.

  • “Neocons Unleash New Weapon to Crush Independent Media”

  • “Neocons Unleash New Weapon to Crush Independent Media”
    These whoring Yankee scum never stop trying to deceive the world, Australia MUST give the US a big middle finger, and BREAK our ANZAC agreement with these disgusting deceitful thugs!

  • Caitlin, you continue to operate at the usual elevated plane of consciousness and insight with this post. Regrettably, our species has failed to demonstrate a sustainable model for social organization with the collective moral capacity to rise above our destructive nature. We’re highly developed creatures with self-awareness. We have the capacity to reason, so why the incessant failure? We have the inherent ability to differentiate our instinctive preferences from the essential requirements of comfort and survival, so why do so many of us consistently take more than we need, while so few of us give more than we take? The most ruthless, power-hungry psychopaths know that human emotions are more vulnerable than our minds. They know that the herd can be harnessed and exploited more efficiently by manufacturing artificial personal identity constructs, narratives if you prefer, that appeal to our natural emotional proclivities, viz. greed, envy, fear, insecurity and carnal satisfaction. It’s difficult for humans to think clearly when our emotional and carnal sensory mechanisms are overwhelmed by false narratives and lies. One of your readers left a recent comment that there is no such thing as government, only central banks and corporations. That person is close to grasping our predicament. From the beginning, ruthless, predatory psychopaths have climbed above and consolidated their power over the herd by violent force. Try to name a single nation-state in history that came into being by any means other than violent conquest, expropriation and oppression. The final stage of financial consolidation and control of all market-value-based assets is near complete. Contained foreign wars with predictable outcomes are highly profitable, but limited at a certain scale. The physical destruction of humanity through conventional warfare has almost reached critical mass. War profits have been optimized to the point of diminishing returns due to the attendant debilitating debt. The ruling psychopaths will not crap their own nests. In their perverted, self-indulgent concepts of reality the global animal farm is large and productive enough to support the entire matrix of financial predators and their parasitic government enforcers, if managed effectively at scale. They are now attempting to complete the consolidation and manage the farm. Our only weapon of self-defense is a shared narrative, a common commitment to individual freedom and self-determination. For those who can find the courage to remove the chains, there is a different path forward. It’s the narrow and treacherous path that leads to truth, and freedom. The journey begins with a new life story that each of us must write for ourselves. One that defines who we want to be, and where we ultimately belong. We must reject the intimidating threats of the psychopaths and their farm managers, and the pleading calls for our return from previous alliances for whom we have nothing left in common. We were not created to be identity-slaves and wage-slaves of others. Freedom is our birthright, and the true meaning and purpose of our existence. We belong to no one else, but ourselves. We owe nothing to anyone else, except what we expect in return. Those who share that understanding of our existence and purpose must travel the narrow path and reside together. From all others, we must depart. As Amanda Marshall said in her song, we have reached the “Last Exit To Eden”. Do we continue on the road to our collective destruction, or do we exit? Each of us must make that choice.

    • A bit of your narrative that needs tweaking.

      You claim that ” Regrettably, our species has failed to demonstrate a sustainable model for social organization with the collective moral capacity to rise above our destructive nature.”

      Any anthropologist can tell you that is a wholly false statement.

      We have numerous sustainable social models that meet this criteria. Humans have been around a million years, and the vast majority of that was spent in social structures that met that criteria. Only 500 years ago, most of the world lived in such social structures.

      To claim otherwise is essentially white supremacist nonsense.

      • Define “sustainable social model” and provide one example that conforms to the ‘criteria”. None has ever existed, nor ever will. FYI, anthropologists don’t create or build anything, John. They are academics. They study the creations of others and write narratives paid for by the systems that control their work, like mainstream journalist and historians. You reveal who you really are with the white supremacist tripe. Take a couple of days and read the content of unz.org–and open your mind. Only when ‘you’ own your life, do you appreciate its true value.

  • Excellent article, Caitlin and Tim!
    I would add the fact that absolutely ANYTHING Bolton or Pompeo say IN PUBLIC, absolutely anwhere in the world, is intended for US DOMESTIC political consumption. The US transnational Elite learned long ago that in order to continue to remain the Elite, the US voters had/have to vote for the correct candidates who sold their souls to the devil early their youth. The correct candidates will continue forever whatever you want to call the present system in the US.
    I agree with you that it is theoretically possible for the government of the US to NOT try to dominate the world using its military and financial forces to support “national (ie corporate) interests abroad”, but doing that will first require an exercise in human imagination.
    Imagine first that every human being outside of US borders suddenly ceases to exist.
    Imagine that the present system in the US in which the vast majority of wealth and large-scale capital equipment is owned by a microscopic percentage of human beings REMAINS THE SAME.
    Imagine that both “labor” and “management” can organize, as they supposedly can in our present “democracy”, but now, because nobody is alive outside of US borders, the owners of large-scale capital equipment no longer have the option to move their capital equipment to other places on the planet where there are desperately poor people who are “willing” to work for food, water and a place to sleep on the factory floor.
    Imagine that US evironmental, labor, etc. regulations apply everywhere.
    Just exactly HOW are “Americans” going to “go it alone” when America’s presently-designed economy needs immigrants (of a certain “economic type”) each and every year from now to eternity?
    WHO is going to buy all of the “excess” natural resources, oil, farm products, manufactured goods, etc. that a small percentage of working Americans can very efficiently produce, but can no longer “export”? NOBODY.
    To have available the relatively small amount of warm-weather items that America now imports, Americans will venture forth to those places, AS AMERICANS, and produce and send those products “back home”. Naturally, those American workers working on other parts of the globe will be paid a wage that also applies to the rest of the American “labor market” and, again, the American regulatory framework will also apply to those workers and facilities and places of production, as well as America’s social benefits.
    ALL of the work that is now done in America by “temporary foreign workers” and other temporary workers who harvest crops, put roofs on houses, cook food in restaurants, take care of the elderly in nursing homes, etc. will have to be done by Americans who will be paid by other Americans.
    Automobiles, trucks, TVs, toilet tissue, etc. will now have to be produced by Americans, for Americans. Absolutely any thing and any service that Americans need/desire will have to be produced by Americans and, yet again, Americans will have to pay these other Americans to do that — enough payment so that these hard-working Americans will make enough “profit” to “save” enough money to be able to “retire” when they inevitably become physically decrepit.
    HOW is going to play the role of “enemy” that is necessary to maintain the need for the present military industrial complex? NOBODY. How are all the people employed in that MIC going to be employed after the disappearance of those “threats to national security”?
    How much is the above arrangement — again, an arrangement in which only Americans inhabit the planet, and in which the vast majority of wealth and large-scale capital equipment is owned by a truly microscopic percentage of the population of American for their own astronomical profit — going to “cost” Americans? Will Americans be able to “afford” that system, that arrangement? NO, they won’t!
    When I recently asked my brother in law why the American government finds it necessary to import vehicles, TVs, etc. from other countries, his reply was that “if they were produced by Americans in America, they would be too expensive”. (This coming from a man who hired a temporary foreign worker to give additional care to his elderly mother who was ALREADY living in a nursing home).
    So now to my point. Just as it is for the vast majority Americans now in our multi-national globalized world, Americans living in a America-only world could NOT “afford” what they need and want under the present economic arrangement in which the vast majority of wealth and large-scale capital equipment is owned/controlled by a microscopic percentage of population for their own astronomical profit.
    THIS is why under the present economic system desperate slave labor is needed to provide what Americans need.
    THIS is why Americans can not afford to have enough children to maintain the present population and immigrants of a certain economic status have to be imported into America each and every year from now to eternity.
    THIS is why “trade agreements” such as NAFTA between international corporations are needed to exploit the most desperate people on the planet for the greater benefit of a much smaller percentage of the population.
    Again, what Americans desperately need is an economic system in which ALL AMERICANS, not just a microscopic percentage, own/control large capital equipment COLLECTIVELY, and collectively provide the LABOR (by “divvying up” the necessary labor among ALL citizens) to operate that large-scale capital equipment.
    By providing their labor to run THEIR capital equipment, farm THEIR land, take care of THEIR sick and elderly, etc., ALL Americans will have EARNED the right to comsume all of the goods and services produced by THIER large-scale captial equipment. In other words, ALL Americans get to “profit” from the large-scale capital equipment, not just a tiny percentage of Americans.

  • “Our world is dominated by extremely powerful people.”. There is a serious disconnect here. Individually we can step off the train but that will not change the unelected power structure. Will public shaming of their immoral behavior be effective? The old English form of shaming is to put someone in Coventry. Will that be possible to do by people who are frightened and financially insecure? What sorts of group support can we fashion that will mock ” elites “?

    • Maybe there’s not much that can be done anymore to correct the ways of the elites, and stepping off the train is just about saving one’s own butt, not about any attempts at correcting anything.

  • “Our world is dominated by extremely powerful people who are motivated not out of interest in good or evil but a drive toward power and profit which is completely disinterested in morality of any kind…”

    Thus is the history of humanity. So such actions are clearly not limited to the purposefully mislabeled “capitalism”. Power is, was, and always will be the only enemy no matter which economic system it operates under.

    “It is entirely possible that we are capable of creating a world where nobody dominates anybody, and no iron-fisted world leader of any kind is needed.”

    I will ask again, how exactly do we get there and what exactly does this “there” look like? If one calls for a different direction (and we most certainly do need to change direction) one should specify which new direction should be taken and where exactly it leads to.

    • You seem to not have studied much history.

      Under Feudalism, with all of its problems, many in the Aristocracy (especially outside Europe) saw it as their moral obligation to take care of and defend the peasantry. This is why, for instance, prior to the British forcing Capitalism on India, there was essentially no starvation in India, but after the forced imposition of Capitalism, Indian workers were dying of starvation on the docks while loading rice onto boats for export.

      In most indigenous cultures on Turtle Island, having too much stuff was seen as a mental illness, and social worth was based on how much you gave away, not how much you accumulated.

      If you looked outside of the eurosupremacist world view there are literally thousands of examples of other ways to live that discourage, rather than encourage, the drive to seek power over others.

      • I’m sorry, but that’s a postmodern revisionist idealisation. Everywhere, also in Europe, the bosses have always claimed that they take care of and defend the proles. And yet everywhere, not just in Europe, they have exploited them and caused misery in practice. Famines have occurred regularly both in India and in China, and enormous inequality, poverty and tyranny has been found in both. The various indigenous peoples have often practiced all sorts of atrocities and competed for power in every way available; it’s just that the ones with smaller resource surpluses could maintain less division of labour and hence less hierarchy and less inequality. Speaking of which, the claims that they were environmentally conscious are also postmodern nonsense. Since time immemorial, wherever Homo Sapiens has moved in, it has exterminated whatever can’t run away fast enough and consumed whatever it knows how to consume as a matter of course, just like animals do – except that we are, unfortunately, too good at it compared to other animals. Only recently have we, to a limited extent, become conscious of the negative aspects of this and started trying to modify our approach. Reason and accountability are the way out of this mess; nature personification, Good-Guy feudalism and identitarian chauvinist myths are dead-ends.

        • @Foundling:

          You appear not to have studied much history either. At least as far as China is concerned, scholars like Kent Deng, Eric L Jones and R Bin Wong have shown that her economy did pretty well for centuries. Under the Song Period of the 10th to 13th centuries there was better technology and high per capita income, while Qing China (1644 -1911) perfected all the key sectors in the economy, including flexible and efficient administration, effective proto-social welfare, high-yield agriculture, visible market freedom and so forth. Indeed the Qing system could have continued if not for the &^%%@# intrusion of the West.

          As for indigenous peoples, early white settlers in North America were actually often so impressed with the ways of life of the natives that many of the settlers chose to join them.


          Please get your facts straight. Thank you.

      • John, you seem to have studied history while wearing glasses with anti-White bias lenses.

        “…Aristocracy (especially outside Europe) saw it as their moral obligation to take care of and defend the peasantry.”

        Are you arguing that we should return to a rule by Aristocracy where the rich honor themselves for their gracious Noblesse Oblige* for deciding among themselves what crumbs they will give to the peasants? But according to the lefties this is the current situation.

        And for the billionth time Capitalism is simply the free exchange of goods and services. Free exchange cannot exist if violence is used. What the Brits did to the world was awful as hell but it was not Capitalism because it was not a free exchange of goods. What they did was Crony Capitalism also known as Corporatism. As in most things, use of aggressive violence is the variable that decides the moral from the immoral, the just from the unjust.

        “In most indigenous cultures on Turtle Island(**), having too much stuff was seen as a mental illness, and social worth was based on how much you gave away, not how much you accumulated.”

        And you are free to live your life that way if you so choose so long as you are not harming others. Do you agree that others have the same right to live their lives as they see fit too so long as they are also not harming anyone else?

        “If you looked outside of the eurosupremacist world view there are literally thousands of examples of other ways to live that discourage, rather than encourage, the drive to seek power over others.”

        I think it is a “eurosupremacist world view” for you to suggest that since only White people have sought power over others most of history was made by White people (bad history only tho, of course). I had no idea that Gengis Khan and his peeps were Crackers! And that Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans used to be blue eyed devils fighting each other throughout the centuries! Or that the Mayans, because they were brown people and not wicked Honkies, only took volunteers from their neighbors to sacrifice to their god of power. Sorta like how black African tribes would also only take volunteers from other black tribes to be sold into slavery.

        And can you name me one government that rules without power over others through violence?

        *Noblesse Oblige is a French word. French is spoken in France, a nation in Europe. It was a common practice throughout much of Europe as any student of history can attest.

        **Which Turtle Island do you refer to – North America as a whole or some other specific Turtle Island? If the latter do you know or not if it has internet service yet?

        • Ah yes, so the Russian Empire, being Slavic in nature, was not Aryan enough to be “white” in your estimation, which is why my “anti-white glasses” allowed me to recognize it as different in character than European monarchies.

          See, that is the problem with Fascists- you always expose yourself.

          When claims are made about something being universal, and non-european examples abound to disprove the universality of the claim, the. The claim is obviously rooted in a eurocentric understand of reality.

          When you get triggered and butthurt by having it pointed out that there is history outside of Europe, then perhaps you should stick to your safe spaces where such delusional thinking will remain unchallenged.

          Pointing out that yes, there are bad people outside of Europe(wow) in no way changes the simple fact that positive examples can also be found.

          Do you have a degree in rhetorical fallacies? You seem quite adept at using them in lieu of making rational points.

          Turtle Island is the landmass that was invaded about 500 years ago by genocidal rapists, and which has been suffering continual degradation since.

          • John, “…so the Russian Empire, being Slavic in nature, was not Aryan enough to be ‘white’ in your estimation.”

            Another silly straw man fallacy. When did I ever say such a thing?

            In your last post to me you accused me of being a Libertarian yet now you accuse me of being the exact opposite – a fascist. I think I see the problem here. You appear not to have any understanding that words mean things and different words mean different things.

            So what if someone from Western Civ looks at things through a eurocentric lens? Should they look at things from a Japanese point of view?! And just because one argues the eurocentric view that does not mean they do not understand other “centric” views.

            “When you get triggered and butthurt by having it pointed out that there is history outside of Europe…”

            Right back atcha.

            “Do you have a degree in rhetorical fallacies? ”

            Another silly straw man fallacy. Please provide an example to support your accusation.

            “Pointing out that yes, there are bad people outside of Europe(wow) in no way changes the simple fact that positive examples can also be found.”

            Who said otherwise?! But do you think the opposite is also equally true? That there are also bad people inside of Europe (equally wow) and that that in no way changes the simple fact that positive examples can also be found.

            “Turtle Island is the landmass that was invaded about 500 years ago by genocidal rapists…”

            You mean like the Mayans did a few hundred years before that?

    • I see no mislabeling. Except for a few national attempts at shared wealth that were promptly destroyed by a joint venture between capitalist nations, the world has been “capitalist”: largely unconstrained private wealth and private trading, with claims on property (property “rights”) enforced at gunpoint by private contractors and ultimately by the state.

      Capitalist historians have told you otherwise. “Oh, that was ‘feudalism”. *This* was something else. *That* was something else.” Etc. But, they’re quibbling over a rounding error. If you look at the fundamentals, the world has been “capitalist” since antiquity.

      And capitalism itself is just another word for “oligarchy “.

      • Blah, Capitalism is simply the free exchange of goods and services. As such the world has rarely experienced it and is not experiencing it now either. How can something that does not exist be the cause of problems?!

        Do you own property? If i come to take it will that be ok with you or will you resist me from taking it and if so based on what argument?

        Actually Mercantilism has been the more dominate system throughout the centuries.

        Oligarchy has been the power of all major players throughout history no matter which economic system being operated. But which system created a middle class?

        • Except that Capitalism is when the means of production are owned and controlled by wealth. All concentrated wealth is the product of theft or fraud.

          Unless one is delusional e ough to think that the choice between starvation or slavery is “freedom” (as this is the choice offered to the working class under Capitalism), there can be no free exchange of goods and services under Capitalism.

          The Defenders of the insane ecocidal cult of Capitalism cannot promote their ideas without lying, as exemplified by their constant parroting of their bullshit definition.

          • John, “Except that Capitalism is when the means of production are owned and controlled by wealth.”

            One, define wealth please. Two, who is this Mr/Mrs Wealth you speak of? Where does she/he live?

            Being factual and correctly pointing out the lies about capitalism is not defending it. I do not support capitalism, properly understood.

            “…the choice between starvation or slavery is ‘freedom’…”

            False premise i.e. freedom equates to starvation. IOW freedom is slavery. By the way how many people have been starved to death under the slavery of collectivism?

    • I don’t have the answers, but the problem is clear. “Abuse” of power is the greatest threat to human liberty and potential. Once set, how do we break the chains? I don’t know. I do know that we can kill the beast before it reaches maturity. I also believe that peaceful collaboration, voluntary exchange, and enforcement of individual property rights can be achieved, but not at scale. History and human nature teach us that the unrestrained power of the state will never tolerate a peaceful and just social order at scale. But, with courage, knowledge and wisdom, freedom can exist in plain sight.

      • CB, you are on to it! Power is the enemy always no matter which system it operates from. And you are spot on about scale. This is vital. The US is way beyond human scale. It is absurd to think that 545 grifters can and should have the power to run the lives of 330 millions of diverse people spread out over hundreds of thousands of square miles. This is ridicules. The answer is to remove the power and the best way to do that is to diffuse the power into small human scale nations. There is absolutely no reason for this failed experiment that is the US to continue on anymore. Disband the US for the sake of Liberty and Justice.

        • Not to sing to the choir, we both know that every power structure at scale relies on violent enforcement and monopoly control of production. Any attempt to exercise even the most limited free-will outside the control of the power-hungry psychopaths will not be tolerated. Enforcement of state control operates with virtual impunity and devoid of moral conscience. In the larger state power structures there are only two conditions of human existence–net producers and net consumers. In America, the population of net producers dwindles by the day. The consumer herd shuffles down the long road to the slaughterhouse, dreaming of a non-existent utopian social order at scale, and oblivious to the reality ahead. As you so clearly observe, the ONLY solution is the voluntary social organization construct based on shared values and devotion to personal liberty. It is impossible to achieve this type of model at maximum scale. Only the socio-economic organization structure designed to optimize individual liberty and self-determination and governed by common moral principles, is worthy of our devotion. The rest of them belong in the fire. Early in life I was a true believer in the narratives prescribed by the psychopaths that control the American power structure. I paid a heavy price for that blind allegiance. But, as the saying goes..the truth will set you free. CB

          • CB, ” Only the socio-economic organization structure designed to optimize individual liberty and self-determination and governed by common moral principles, is worthy of our devotion.”

            Damn! Nailed it! You said my own thoughts perfectly. Hope you do not mind if I borrow it. I will give you all of the credit for it. Outstanding job.

            “Early in life I was a true believer in the narratives prescribed by the psychopaths that control the American power structure. I paid a heavy price for that blind allegiance.”

            Ditto for me as well.

            • No one has a corner on the truth, it belongs to each of us. You’re always welcome to use my comments. Thanks, CB.

              • Wow, the two delusional backers if Capitalism seem to now be agreeing that Capitalism needs to be destroyed.

                The question is, will they wake up to the fact that their cumstained Ayn Rand novels are no more than bad pulp fiction written for delusional sexually frustrated teenagers?

                Will they look into what Libertarian meant before it was hijacked by the cryptofascists like Rothbard and the Kochs? (Hint: actual Libertarianism is a subset of socialism).

                Or will their cognitive dissonance keep them promoting that which they seem to be realizing needs to be destroyed?

                (Capitalism is based on and inevitably leads to wealth inequity.)

                To head off the strawmen of the ecocidal sychopants, I point to ParEcon as a good framework. If you want to argue against what I am saying, at least argue against what I am saying.

                • John, way too many conjectures and silly straw man fallacies to get your argument.

                  When did I ever say capitalism needs to be destroyed?! How do you destroy that which does not exist?!

                  “Capitalism is based on and inevitably leads to wealth inequity.”

                  So does every other system. There is nothing wrong with being wealthy (however that is defined and by whom) so long as the wealth is earned honestly and justly. I will absolutely agree that this current system is not honest or just. I merely argue that it is not capitalism. It is crony capitalism/corporatism. There is a huge difference. And that difference is power. Wealth inequity is not the problem. Power inequity is the problem. Power, not wealth, leads to injustice.

                  And FTR I am not a fan of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and especially her writing – eeeecchh!!!

                  And I do not know where you got the idea that I am a Libertarian since I never claimed to be. I am not.

                  What about parecon? It is just another euphemism for socialism/collectivism. Do not allow yourself to get fooled into dumping this current system for an even worse system.

                  “If you want to argue against what I am saying, at least argue against what I am saying.”

                  Right back atcha.

                  • Capitalism Inevitably devolves into corporatism.

                    To claim that somehow an imaginary pure capitalism is the answer to the problems caused by really existing Capitalst “democracy” (RECD, pronounced wrecked, like its effect on the environment and the human psyche), is to expose ones self as an idiot follower of the liar Rothbard or one of his lying stooges (i.e. the moron Molyneaux)

                    I did my homework and am familiar with both capitalism in reality and the fantasy capitalism of the cryptofascist Rotherbardians (who deceitfully call themselves Libertarian or AnCap when even Rothbard admitted his goal was for the wealthy to each have their private kingdoms)

                    Does your basic cluelessness about economic theory also extend to a similar lack of competence in using a search engine?

                    If you are competent to use a search engine, what, other than intellectual laziness, would cause you to ask rather than look it up like any intelligent and curious (twin characteristics) person would?

                    • John, “Capitalism Inevitably devolves into corporatism.”

                      And how is that made possible? What makes it “inevitable”?

                      “To claim that somehow an imaginary pure capitalism is the answer…”

                      Except that I never said that. I will say it again, I do not support capitalism. What I am arguing for is truth. Truth means understanding that the alleged culprit is not the guilty party. Truth means understanding that all freedoms including economic freedom cannot exist in a collectivist society. I support individual rights because I believe in the power of the individual over the power of the mob. And make no mistake about it democracy is simply mob rule.

                      “Does your basic cluelessness about economic theory also extend to a similar lack of competence in using a search engine?”

                      What exactly is it that you think I am supposed to look up?!?! Just more straw man silliness.

                      And there is a difference between reading about something and understanding that something. Case in point: since you seem to not have good reading comprehension I will say it again for you in plain language, I do not support capitalism. I am sorry but I cannot dumb it down any lower than that for you.

                    • “John, “Capitalism Inevitably devolves into corporatism.”
                      And how is that made possible? What makes it “inevitable”?”
                      Have you not met people? We are flawed. A little wealth is never enough. A little power corrupts a little, then it grows.
                      Every. Single. Time.

                    • Moon, “Have you not met people? We are flawed.”

                      That is precisely my point. That is why I argue that the enemy is, was, and always will be Power in the hands of men/women. Power is what causes corruption. Power is the answer to my questions to John. Power is the enemy and Liberty is the only defense against it.

  • Fantastic post!!

  • They must be on drugs. I’m not a doctor but there are worrying signs.

    The likes of empire loyalist such as Haley, Bolton, Pompeo, et. al., are losing their drug of dependence: the freedom to globally murder, rape, pillage and plunder. They are very sick.
    They possibly have delirium tremens, more commonly known as ‘the DTs’ (associated with alcohol withdrawal, but not solely).
    Just recently, Donald Trump (DT), brought on a DT withdrawal episode, when in his Donald Tweet, – he suggested a (possible) withdrawal from Syria.

    Check any medical journal on the symptoms and causes of DTs, you will find Washington has a pandemic of DT behavior in its individuals:
    withdrawal shakes;
    ‘global confusion’;
    ‘auditory hallucinations’,
    ‘seeing or hearing things others do not’;
    signs of ‘autonomic hyperactivity’;

    Plus much more: nightmares; agitation; disorientation; visual and auditory hallucinations; tactile hallucinations; fever; high blood pressure; heavy sweating; intense perceptual disturbance; anxiety;
    formication (my favorite -its when you see people and think they are insects),
    panic attacks; extreme autonomic hyperactivity, a rapid onset of confusion.

    This is the empire unhinged!

    People with DTs have what medical experts term ‘altered sensorium’; that is, ‘a complete hallucination without any recognition of the real world’. That surely is an apt description of the Washington consensus?
    These globalist sociopaths (Bolton, Haley, Pompous et al), once unchallenged in their unipolar Empire, joyously drunk on murder, rape, pillage, plunder may lose their drug of dependence leading to a ‘ biochemical regulation cascade’, and an adverse manipulation of their GABA chemical and transmitter somatic system, inhibition of their NMDA receptors, leading hyper excitability of neurons and to delirium tremens (DTs).
    Once we recognize how sick Washington is, how their brains are chemically challenged, then we have a chance to avoid the consequences of their madness?

  • The American imperial mentality is just a continuation of the colonial mentality of past empires. Rudyard Kipling waxed poetically about this mentality in “White Man’s Burden”. Within the U.S. it is taught as “Manifest Destiny”. It just boils down to a mentality of genocide and enslavement of others deemed lesser than yourself especially those who phenotypically are different from yourself. The folks who have this mentality live in fear of others because they believe everyone thinks like them thus the need to ‘get them before they get us’ nonsense. Therefore negotiating with these people is a lost cause(see all the broken treaties the Anglo-Zionist empire has committed with the native populations of the world).

    The scary part is that these people would rather die( go to war) than ever allow any system to evolve where actual democracy was the driving basis of society.

  • I believe what you perhaps meant, and it was just a typo error. You write the Good Guys. I think that you meant the God Guys. I enjoy every notion, even when the heat sears my eyes. tom golden

  • “Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters on Saturday that the government under Venezuela’s recently re-inaugurated president Nicolas Maduro is ‘illegitimate’, and that “the United States will work diligently to restore a real democracy to that country.”

    It’s just the old Neocon regime change policy. The reason countries like North Korea feel the need to become nuclear powers is to defend themselves against this policy of worldwide aggression by the US. Actually, I think Truman was the first Neocon. Another fundamental principle of Neocon policy is nation building. That’s the excuse to keep a presence in countries where the leader has been deposed. It’s working perfectly in Afghanistan. How can you argue against perfection?

  • Pretty much my sentiments exactly. Save the climate change hysteria misnomer. Nice job Caitlin!
    PS: What is the greatest greenhouse gas? Water Vapor. So…….

    • And your sentiments are precisely my own, complete with annoyance with the fraud of CAGW.

    • Water vapour? That just comes back down as rain. Are you mad?

    • Are you a flat earther too?

      Your grasp of basic scientific principles leads me to think it likely.

  • This train of thought needs to be discussed in schools from the first grade.

    • Robert, “This train of thought needs to be discussed in schools from the first grade.”

      Yes the US’s hypocrisy needs to be discussed and pointed out but not in schools. It is up to Individual parents to instill values into their children, not the collective’s. Not to be combative here but your train of thought also needs to be addressed. This notion that “I think this therefore it should be collectively forced onto everyone else” is equally destructive. Besides, the purpose of government schools is not to educate but rather to indoctrinate their captive audience on the “greatness” of The State.

  • Caity, your work is stellar and this is one of the best. All the pieces fit, all the dots are connected up. Five huge gold stars. Thank you for being and for writing. <3

    I have one question: "…which is completely disinterested in morality of any kind,"

    Do you mean disinterested (neutral, fair-minded, having no skin in the game) or uninterested (not interested)? It doesn't make sense to me with the former meaning, but then again, I am not omniscient. Help?

  • Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters on Saturday that “the United States will work diligently to restore a real democracy in that country.”
    Note that not a single reporter had the sack to ask Pompeo: “You mean like the one the US established in Guatemala after the CIA deposed the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz in 1954? Or our successful effort to depose Brazil’s President Joao Goulart in 1964? Or the Kissinger directed mission to murder democratically elected Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973? Or the overthrow of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya in 2009?”
    And that’s just a short list of Central and South American countries where the US has assisted in restoring real democracies.
    Our new national mantra is: “We came, we saw, he died… HA HA HA HA!”
    What’s unfortunate is that America’s supine press pool lacks the cojones of Iraq’s Muntadhar Al Zaidi, who threw both of his shoes at bush the lesser during dubya’s farewell speech in Iraq. Even more unfortunate is that Al Zaidi didn’t have a pair of Wingtips to hurl at the new sheriff in town. A heavier shoe wouldn’t have flown so high and might have struck it’s intended mark!
    “Either way, the train we’re on is headed for a brick wall, so we’ve now got nothing to lose by stepping off.”
    It’s actually sadder than that, Caitlin. The accelerator pedal is stuck on our broke down Edsel (that cost us over 75k due to “cost overruns”), we’ve crashed through the guardrail and as we’re sailing down a precipitous cliff the passengers are arguing over whether trump is a Russian agent… or not.

    • Excellent addition to Caitlin’s post!

  • Excellent essay. I wish you would write on this topic again, and include the role of capitalism in the behavior of the US> It has a lot to do with it.

leave a comment