In a recent interview with The Corbett Report, the Ron Paul Institute‘s Daniel McAdams spoke disdainfully of those ostensibly anti-interventionist libertarians who picked this moment of all times to loudly and aggressively condemn Venezuela’s president Maduro, just as the US power establishment is ramping up its campaign to topple the Venezuelan government.

“All of a sudden now there are millions of Venezuela experts in America, and many of them could not point Venezuela out on a map five days ago,” McAdams said. “And everyone has to have this disclaimer, ‘Well, I know it’s probably worse than North Korea, but the US government shouldn’t get involved.’ It’s cowardice, because once the war starts, they can say ‘Hey I never called for US intervention!’ No, but you’re a conveyor belt for propaganda. You’re a conveyor belt to get the machine ginned up for war. And so you’ve got to stand up and take responsibility.”

McAdams has for years consistently operated in the hub of one of America’s most forceful and effective branches of opposition to US interventionism, and he is absolutely correct here. On both sides of America’s political divide, the primary objections you will see to this administration’s campaign to delegitimize and topple the Venezuelan government are prefaced with a strong condemnation of Maduro followed by some feeble equivocations voicing vague objections to Trump’s actions, if that.

Even more often, what you will see is excuses made for the US government’s aggressive attempts to control who runs Venezuela, followed by some mumbling along the lines of “I don’t want us to go to war, though” dribbling out of the corner of their mouths. Some silly, arbitrary line in the sand saying that Trump’s current ongoing starvation sanctions, CIA covert ops and premeditated campaign to delegitimize and overthrow Venezuela’s government is fine, and hey, maybe arming some right-wing militias via Columbia would be fine too, but don’t send American troops to do the killing or we’ll be a tad upset.

All these wimpy, wishy washy “I oppose US interventionism sorta kinda but not really P.S. fuck Maduro” mouth noises are infuriatingly obnoxious, for a number of reasons. Firstly, someone who claims to be antiwar or anti-interventionist but reserves their objections solely for the most overt forms of warfare is not really antiwar or anti-interventionist, because warfare in modern times is designed to take many less overt forms in order to prevent the kind of attention-grabbing public objections seen over Vietnam and Iraq. A look at what the US empire did to Libya and Syria shows that hundreds of thousands can be killed, millions can be displaced, and humanitarian disasters beyond our ability to imagine can be unleashed without any overt conventional invasion.

Secondly, by wrapping your resistance to US warmongering in loud criticisms of the Venezuelan government and “Go people’s rebellion!” cheerleading, you are functioning as a pro bono propagandist for the CIA and the US State Department, and thereby helping to advance the warmongering agendas of those depraved agencies.

A common refrain is “It’s possible to be opposed to US interventionism while also opposing these tyrannical governments, you know.” But it isn’t. Not really. It’s impossible to oppose US interventionism while also helping to advance its propaganda narratives against targeted governments.

All US-led military agendas begin with propaganda. If the public were allowed to see the reality of war with fresh eyes, they would all instantly recoil in horror and adamantly demand its immediate end. The only reason the US-centralized empire is able to sow death and destruction around the world without this happening is because of propaganda, which is why Americans are the most aggressively propagandized people in the world: the violent agendas of the most powerful military force ever assembled are far too important to be left up to the will of the citizenry.

So before they can launch missiles, planes, and ships, they launch propaganda. They launch mass media psyops. They launch narrative control campaigns to make sure that Americans hate the leader of Targeted Nation X and want the people of Targeted Nation X to have Freedom and Democracy™. Day after day after day, they seed the idea that Targeted Leader X “must go”, until the story has become so thoroughly indoctrinated that it almost looks like the US and its allies have no choice but to intervene with increasingly violent measures.

When you help advance those propaganda narratives, you are actively facilitating the first steps of war in a very real way. It’s the same as if you personally picked up a rifle and began picking people off; the only difference is that you’re participating in an earlier stage of the bloodshed rather than a later one. The people are just as dead in the end as if you personally had killed them with your own hands, you just helped with an earlier part of the mechanizations of war rather than a later one. Hell, the one firing the bullets is arguably in a more moral position, because at least they’re putting something on the line and reckoning sincerely with the reality of what they’re doing. The one hiding behind a keyboard and acting as a pro bono war propagandist while inserting “…but I oppose direct interventionism” at the end is vastly more cowardly and dishonest. In the end, the one with the gun is just delivering the bullet that was put in the mail by the propagandist.

Over and over and over I run into this stupid herd mentality while arguing about this stuff online where people (seemingly deliberately) conflate the notion of Venezuelans sorting out Venezuelan affairs with US interventionism. I’ll be clearly and explicitly condemning US interventionism, and some foam-brained Trump supporter will come up to me saying “I don’t understand, Caitlin! Why don’t you support the Venezuelan people??”

That phrase, “the Venezuelan people,” incidentally, is exclusively used in propaganda articles to refer to those who support regime change in Venezuela, as documented here by’s Alan MacLeod. Like the people who support their government aren’t Venezuelan people.

And I don’t mean to just single out Trump supporters here; they’re just the ones who are more vocally gung-ho for this particular intervention. For the last two years I’ve had Democrats up in my face all the time calling me a “genocide denier” and an “Assad apologist” for opposing the Syrian war propaganda and demanding to know why I hate the Syrian people. The rest of the time I’m being asked why I don’t support the Iranian people by Republicans and why I love Putin by Democrats. This mind virus is totally bipartisan.

It is unlikely that the US war machine is gearing up for an all-out invasion of Venezuela as its Plan A. That’s not its MO. First we’re likely to see continually tightening starvation sanctions, more narrative control, more CIA covert operations, and the arming of oppositional militias within Venezuela. If that doesn’t work we can perhaps expect to see some drone warfare and a coalition being formed, with ground troops sent in only if these other measures fail to rip the country apart by themselves, and only if our rulers can manufacture consent for it. The time to begin disrupting that consent-manufacturing apparatus is now, not later.

The only thing keeping the public from using its numbers to force an end to imperialist warmongering is that most people lack a deep understanding of how horrific and widespread it is, and the only thing preventing them from developing that understanding is propaganda. By regurgitating the propaganda narratives being spouted by neoconservative death cultists like Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams, you are helping them pave the road to acts of mass slaughter as sure as if you were perpetrating it yourself.

If you wouldn’t go to a country and start killing everyone between you and its leader personally, stop helping to construct the narrative framework that is being set up to accomplish exactly that. The most powerful thing in our society is narrative. Please treat it with an appropriate level of respect.


Thanks for reading! 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 merchandisebuying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. 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.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

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

88 responses to ““I Oppose Interventionism, But-” But Nothing. Stop Being A Pro Bono CIA Propagandist.”

  1. “To err is to be human” is probably the most accurate assessment of us as a species. And the proof if anyone would need it, would be how we have fouled our nest to the point of possible extinction and we have allowed ourselves to be corralled and controlled by the most insane, heinous, and least humane entities of all, the psychopaths who kill without remorse millions, destroy whole societies, create millions of refugees, bombing defenseless countries to steal their resources simply to make a buck for their corporatocrazies who so easily corrupt our governments with bribes and threats. It is like a huge damn (intentional spelling), blocking the evolution of humans to creating in harmony with all of nature, a paradise for all.

    And now with the world-wide protests, it is clear that humanity needs to break through that damn and to put humanity on the right course, to a regenerative world, with abundance for all, justice, peace, and harmony, to save us from the possibility of catastrophic, irreversible, systemic collapses. The power elites have shown throughout history and up to this moment their total lack of empathy by their unhesitancy to kill anyone who would wish to remove them from power.

    I suggest that to leverage the power of the world-wide protests, the protesters reach an accord to make one single demand: to hold a closely monitored referendum to restructure government from vertical to horizontal which is virtually incorruptible. It has 3 pillars: grass roots or radical democracy, ecology, and womens’ liberation. We are working on a video to explain it thoroughly and clearly, how it functions, how it is feasible, how to install it, how it is flexible, and undogmatic, how it is more efficient, and less costly, and how it is open for each autonomous group, whether neighborhood council, or a confederacy of communities and cities to collaborate and make decisions that benefit both the workers and the whole.

    This would be a non-violent way to confront corrupt governments that have everyone in their death-like stranglehold. The United Nations and NATO would need to be dismantled as well as they seem to be controlled by the controllers.

    These are radical times and we need radical changes. The controlling elites may not wish to give up their power so easily, since they are still under the illusion that having power over others is more fun than living in a happy world with a surfeit of incredible, wonderful, loving people working together to make the best possible life for the whole human family. I have been non-violent my entire adult life, but I am ready to fight to make these changes if it is necessary with sticks, stones, and hackers, rather than submit to tyrannical fascist totalitarianism, and I believe that I would not be alone, as the solidarity that has manifested in countries where the repression against their protests have been harsh, has been witnessed.

  2. I get it now. Caitlin is a Libertarian SJW. Its so clear to me now. She has taken the situation in Venezuela, applied a template, and measured it against the Libertarian Holy Trinity: the NAP, Austrian economics and Non Interventionism. And now she is going to fire verbal barbs at anyone who didn’t arrive at the same academically derived conclusion as her. It doesn’t matter if this is Vietnam, Iraq, Syria or Venezuela. She sees a template situation and offers a template response. “Non Interventionism”. What else do Libertarians do? ACT on their ideas? HA! No they sit back far from the action and tell everyone what ‘should’ be happening. What the proper course of action, that they will refrain completely from engaging in, should be. Aren’t you amazed they haven’t invited her to lead a global peace summit? If Caitlin is so outraged why not take her complaints to her local Libertarian Congressmen? Oh yeah, THERE ARE NONE. Why not take it to the Libertarian Party HQ then? Oh yeah, the LP is a JOKE! This entire article is a semantical argument against other semantical arguments. It provides no facts or honestly earned perspective on what is really happening to the people of Venezuela. It barely distinguishes their unique personhood, circumstances, and options from those of Syrians or Iraqis. This more than anything typifies the entire media sphere on this topic. I know many Venezuelans citizens. They are currently wearing out their US visas for all they’re worth, going back and forth from US to Venezuela to afford themselves as much time as possible on US soil to escape the situation at home. And a 5 minute conversation with any of them, from their first person perspective, will pretty much destroy the entirety of everything you’ve heard proclaimed as gospel from ANY news outlet, MSM or Alt. Maduro has spies. All dictators do. You don’t know them, and you don’t want to risk a slip of the tongue with one. So the litmus test in Venezuela is that anyone that speaks the words “Spanish Elite” is a communist. Period. EVERYBODY IN VENEZUELA KNOWS THIS. Yet just this week, Paul Craig Roberts and Eric Margolis both wrote articles parroting Caitlin’s position, lamenting the evils of who? the ‘Spanish Elite’. So if the former editor of the Wall Street Journal is getting and repeating Communist disinformation, WTF DO YOU THINK CAITLIN JOHNSTONE KNOWS?

    Let me put this in terms you may understand. The REAL thing that is happening here is basically the plot of Star Wars Episode II. Two distinct poles (‘Trade Federations’) are forming in the world. One features the US and most of the Americas, and OPEC. The other features Russia, China and all the former Latin American Communist holdovers. The competition is for control of the ‘Leverage Quantity’ of resource (oil) wealth. With that comes the power to demand payment in your currency, which by default will make that currency the dominant currency in the world. So this is about nothing less than the balance of power in the world, including YOUR enviable position on the side that’s winning, and all the comforts that affords you in your life. It is not about virtue signaling with all the right terms like ‘non interventionism’. That’s idiotic. This game is happening. Nobody is going home. And you personally are all in whether you accept that or not. Maduro’s communism, like all communism is a failed joke. They were so inept at curating their oil fields, the very goose that lays them golden eggs, that they had to bring in the Chinese to operate them for them. For their troubles the Chinese wants influence over Venezuela’s oil policy. To benefit China at our expense. To sell that oil in Yuan or Rubles. To the end of vaporizing your life savings by crushing the dollar. Venezuela has the ‘tipping point quantity’ of oil under their soil. It is the most sought after prize in the world. It is TOTAL VICTORY for whoever controls it. Nobody is forgetting about it or going home. Sorry. Ask yourself 2 questions: How long has it been since you cursed the name George Soros? A week, a day, an hour? Now ask yourself what is the thing George Soros does? Tires to make people vote Democrat? HAHAHAHA, some of you definitely believe this. The Real George Soros is a currency trader. Who doubles as a currency manipulator. All of his schemes in the world are TOWARDS THIS END. Bringing a showdown between the dominant currencies in the world. Then placing a bet on the winner. He doesn’t care who it is, because he has already gone to great lengths to predetermine the winner. And its NOT the US, BTW. Isn’t this the thing you all hate about him so much? Can you not see that this is all the same game? To be sure Caitlin cannot. She sees a template, and applies a color to it. Like a child painting by numbers. Clueless to what the final picture will be until she applies the last brush of paint.

    There will be no shooting war in Venezuela. But everything that’s gonna happen is gonna happen. Cry about it all you want but this is real life and you reap the benefits of it every day, like it or not. The whole charade of Libertarian-ly distancing yourself from anything unsavory just makes you look like a child who can’t deal. This situation will be more ‘Iran Contra’ than Iraq. Psyops and disinfo on the ground. Covert ops. Secret money inflows and outflows. And in the end Maduro will be ousted. It won’t even be our best work by any stretch. He’s completely inept, completely corrupt, and despite what you hear, no Venezuelan who is not on his payroll wants him in power for another second. It will be impossibly easy. Little blood will be shed. It will bring the Latin American pole into balance. Most of SA and all of NA is already behind his ouster. We simply cannot have a wealthy and unstable Chinese mole in our hemisphere. Look how much trouble tiny Cuba gave us. Do you all lionize Castro too? At least Castro was brilliant, Maduro is a thug. He’s worn out his welcome, he will be gone and the world will be better off for it. If you libertarians don’t like it, why don’t you go out and find a new leader? Elect someone president who has never been a politician. Watch how they vindicate you by staying out of this game, because you gave them all those great academic reasons. Well it seems you did half of that. But there is no avoiding the game without willingly getting ground into dust. Trump HAS to play it. You’d think you’d learn this by observing ALL OF REALITY, but no. It turns out that’s really hard to do with Caitlin yelling so loudly.

    1. Dutch, “What the proper course of action, that they will refrain completely from engaging in, should be.”

      Please show exactly where in the US constitution the US government has the authority to decide who runs another country the US is not at war with?

  3. It always troubles me when even those who are opposed to the United States’ endless wars against non-compliant nations use the word “intervention” to describe the crimes of the US. That is the term the warmongers want us to use. The US wants us to believe that these are “interventions”. They are not interventions. They are staged coups. They are illegal invasions. They are illegal occupations. They are war crimes. They are mass murder.

    1. Joe, good take.

  4. “Over and over and over I run into this stupid herd mentality while arguing about this stuff online where people (seemingly deliberately) conflate the notion of Venezuelans sorting out Venezuelan affairs with US interventionism.” Yes, the question of ‘who’ do we mean by the people is important in Venezuela and in the United States. If the people in the US knew the facts about Venezuela and not just the propaganda, then they’d rise up and demand an end to the aggression. Except that caring is knowing. If they don’t know, the you have to ask why. Yes, censorship is rampant now and getting worse. (The hits on my blog yesterday: zero. Today: zero, so far.) Even so, People don’t know about alt/progressive media because they didn’t care when it would have been easier for them to know. It’s getting even harder to reach info now that the State and it’s gatekeepers are literally killing communication, but for people who have been caring all along, they can still get info and even if they couldn’t, they’d be immune to propaganda. On the other hand, If few people care – my proposition – then they don’t even care if it’s propaganda. As gatekeepers (“amateur” government agents, to use Randolph Bourne’s term for self-appointed, unpaid gatekeepers who auto-activate; regular people who aling with power for selfish reasons), expect the majority to support the war-making State.

    “The most powerful thing in our society is narrative. Please treat it with an appropriate level of respect.” Of course. And we can disagree, but not when it comes to something like war (and terrorism and suffering and destruction) against an innocent country.

  5. “A common refrain is “It’s possible to be opposed to US interventionism while also opposing these tyrannical governments, you know.”” I would say yes, as long as “the tyrannical governments” part of that sentence is true. And if we want to oppose tyrannical governments, then absolutely number ONE on that list would be the United States of America.

  6. This seems to be, ultimately, part of the old debate whether the end justifies the means. The fact is that the imperial propagandists often (ab)use some claims and attitudes that are, in themselves, factually and morally justified. No propaganda can be effective if it doesn’t incorporate *some* truths (which is why, as I pointed out recently, a claim used in the state propaganda of geostrategic adversaries of the US such as Russia cannot automatically be considered false either). We should dispute the factually and morally wrong conclusions that the imperial propagandists draw from the truths (by pointing out the faults in their reasoning, pointing out other relevant truths and sifting out the falsehoods). However, if we don’t just dispute the conclusions, but also deny the truths themselves, we will lose the right to people’s trust and will be considered as deceptive as the imperial propagandists are. If we counter their false extreme narrative that, say, Maduro is a demon with another false extreme narrative that Maduro is an angel, we will be manipulators – and we will be caught and condemned for it more easily than than the imperialists will, because the strength in numbers and institutional power is on their side. Telling ourselves and others that we are lying for a good cause won’t help – everybody always uses that justification that in such cases, and it is generally not appreciated.
    Yes, when one side uses extreme lies ‘with passionate intensity’ and the other one sticks to the truth without distorting it in its favour, there is a danger that people will assume that the truth is right in the middle. In general, when one side uses all means and the other one uses only conscionable ones, this may provide the unscrupulous side with an advantage. However, in the long run, if we’re in the business of freeing and not enslaving, of empowering and not manipulating, we have to be consistent in that; we have to appeal to the best in humans, not to the worst in them, and to earn their trust.
    That does *not*, however, mean that we should automatically admit that certain claims are true just because they are widespread, regardless of the fact that they actually lack justification or that we do not *know* them to be correct – as is done all too often by those seeking to appear balanced. In the present case, for example, one should *not* concede that Venezuela is comparable to North Korea, that Maduro is a dictator, that the Venezuelan opposition is a peaceful, law-abiding and selfless popular movement for freedom and democracy, that the actions of the US and much of the Venezuelan opposition are motivated by concern for the best interests of the Venezuelan people, that the legal basis for Guaido’s actions is indisputable and obvious, etc., etc. To be able to proceed in this way, one needs to take the pains to research the specific facts in some depth, but, well, one can’t expect this sort of activity to be easy.

  7. Caitlin, I’m sure you have(maybe I missed an article), but HAVE you noticed the exact same Modus Operandi going on right here in the US of A? Have we?  Have we all?  Anti-war or no, what are you going to do about it. Which political entities DO need to be twitched? Does one intervene at any point in ones own country, or do we wait till they come to our personal door to exercise the NAP? That is the crux of the issue, isn’t it?

    And yes, I am pro moral home-grown war (the kind you don’t need a draft for) and I am absolutely ANTI-interventionist.

  8. Caitlin, I leave my comments because I believe you’re worthy of the effort and encouragement. I don’t subscribe to all of the utopian commentary, not because I find it objectionable, but because the philosophical semantics don’t strike me as actionable. I’ve walked through the valley of death and seen the beast up close. It has no fear of the people. We can’t kill it, but we can help it self-destruct. We cannot live free of the beast except at human scale, and only with our eyes wide open. Cora Brigg seems to get it in her post. I have never known a politician who was worth a spit–except one. I tried to support Ron Paul in his 2008 campaign for president. He was attacked by the entire brain-dead American population across the political spectrum. Ron’s message of peace and freedom was roundly rejected. I believe it is only a matter of time before America reaps what it has sown. There is no exit ramp from the path it has taken. One of my ads for Ron is at the link. I meant every word. Good luck, and give ’em hell.

    1. Superb testimonial Charlie. It is most unfortunate that relatively few voters saw it. It seems to me that Ron Paul’s message was one that would have been embraced by many of those who subsequently voted for Obama and then even for Trump, in the hope that America would turn from ‘business as usual’ as represented by J. McCain, M. Romney and H.R. Clinton. It seems reasonable to conclude that the mainstream media and the Republican Party worked to common purpose in keeping the Ron Paul name and platform off the radar.
      Sadly, I have to concur with your conclusion about the ‘brain-dead population’, at least to the extent that those diverted by ‘bread and circuses’ clearly did not show any initiative in investigating the options to the status quo, since despite the MSM, much information about Congressman Paul was readily available. I also fear you are correct in concluding that the current path has no exit ramp.
      Warm regards to you.

      1. Ron Paul offered America the opportunity to rise above what it sadly has become. His message was a humble appeal to reason, more than political. Ron’s sincere and self-less concern for the fate of all mankind rang hollow among his own people. As Gandi said: “be truthful, gentle and fearless”. Those words
        perfectly describe the essence of Ron Paul. Thanks for the kind words, and best to you, Greg.

      2. Great posts CB and Greg. Fully agree. Dr Ron Paul has been a prophet and like all prophets he is despised in his time.
        I shall never forget nor forgive the GOP base when they booed the good doctor for invoking the Golden Rule in foreign policy.

        1. As an OBGYN in a working class South Texas community, Dr. Paul delivered over 4,000 babies–hundreds of them to parents who didn’t have insurance and couldn’t afford his services. So, he provided the care for free. That’s who he is. He was widely ridiculed in the press for his anti-war and moderate pro-life beliefs, even though he is not an intolerant, mean-spirited ideologue on the issues like most of his opponents, Left and Right. Ron’s contention was that it’s fundamentally dishonest to be both unconditionally pro-life and pro-foreign intervention/war. The same applies to being both unconditionally pro-choice and anti-war. You can’t have it both ways. As the children’s song goes: “Red and yellow, black and white…..”. My eyes were completely opened for the first time on the issues by Ron Paul. Is there really a difference between the unnecessary killing of a third trimester, viable human being in the womb, and dropping 500 lbs bombs on innocent children in Iraq? Seems to me that all life is precious, or it isn’t. But, that’s just me. The way Ron was treated by the U.S. political establishment and controlled media during the 2008 election was more than sad–it was infuriating. I can only hope that justice will be served in the end–if not on this side of eternity, then beyond.

          1. Conflating the right to abortion with killing a third trimester baby is exactly why this stupid debate still has life.
            I personally would not have an abortion but i respect any woman’s right to do it if she has to take that difficult decision. Third term babies can be protected by law but don’t make that an excuse to take away a woman’s right over her own body. There is nothing remotely the same about bombing innocent civilians en masse and a late term abortion which would only be necessary for extreme medical reasons to save the mother’s life.
            Wars are definitely our collective business to stop, a woman’s health is her own business not yours.

            1. Kerry, for many years my views about abortion, which I thought were well settled in my mind and heart, were consistent with yours. As mentioned in my post, it was only after getting to know Dr. Ron Paul that my thinking began to change. We will not resolve the highly contentious issue in a forum such as this, and most likely, never. But Caitlin’s site does serve as a platform where people of good will, who want to believe in truth, personal freedom and equal justice, can respectfully express our views–and per force, disagree if that is where the conversations ultimately lead. I’ll start by responding your disclaimer “I would not have an abortion”. ‘Precisely’ why is that? Is there something about the procedure that you find morally objectionable? My position is very simple and straightforward, and easy to articulate. I believe that all human life is precious, and that no individual human being should be deprived of life for the ‘convenience or benefit’ of someone else. Let me give you an illustration: Let’s say that a small village in the jungles of Sierra Leone is invaded by a marauding nearby tribe. During the invasion, many of the women are brutally raped. One of the raped women becomes pregnant. Her tribal husband is furious, but since there is no Planned Parenthood Clinic nearby, he must allow his wife to have the baby. After the child is born, the infuriated husband demands that women refuse the child her milk and starve it to death. The woman’s body and her milk are essential for the child’s survival. Is the mother morally justified in denying the child its life?” The illustration is offered only as food for thought. Madeleine Albright, aka Marie Jana Korbelova, served as U.S. Secretary of State under Bill Clinton. She was the first woman to hold that office. Following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Albright was confronted with the fact that an estimated 500,000 Iraqis, mostly women, children and elderly were killed as a direct result of the U.S. invasion. She was asked if she thought that removing Saddam Hussein from power was worth all the innocent lives that were destroyed. Her answer? “Yes, I believe it was worth the price”. So, according to your brief comment, I have a morally justified voice in the defense of hundreds of thousands of murdered Iraqi children, but no voice in defense of a single unborn child. My purpose here is not to engage in polemics with you on an issue that neither of us is likely to move. Simply stated, I believe that every woman owns her life and her body. That natural right should be unassailable. But, the issue at hand is not quite so simple. I also believe that the natural rights of a viable child in the womb should be recognized. You make the assumption that “third term babies can be protected by law”. Why would that be required if a woman has the exclusive right to decide the fate of her child, as you suggest? Who writes the law? How is the law enforced? Who is granted the “power” to decide? You can begin to see how deep this is going. I’ll leave you with a rhetorical question to ponder: “Do you believe that you personally own your life and your body? If so, do you also believe that the “collective” (state) has a priority claim to your labor? Does the state’s ownership of your labor make you a slave? All food for thought. Charlie

              1. Please be explicit on the bounds of your position. Are you saying that no abortion is ever justifiable under any circumstances whatsoever or do you concede that grounds in some situations may allow for the procedure?

                1. Greg, yes I believe there are specific circumstances when the procedure is morally justified. I concur strongly with the broadly held belief that a woman owns her body, and that her natural right is inviolable. In the most simple terms I can express, my position is that the meaning and value of a single human life should not be reduced to a question of “convenience”. From a personal standpoint, if I go down that road I am also conceding that those who profit from endless wars are somehow justified and should be pardoned for the slaughter of millions of innocents abroad. I just can’t go there.

  9. And BTW, your national sovereignty “explanation” was truly ridiculous. Maybe you should stick to fiction, eh?

    1. Hmmm. Intended as a reply to Mr Scum.
      I think this site is kinda not so user friendly.

    2. Rod, how exactly is it ridicules? If you are truly versed in logic as you claim then you should know that you have not offered up a rational argument.

  10. A lot of good points in this essay. A few quick thoughts:

    1/ If the US Government likes it, you should hate it.

    2/ If you are not against stopping all war at all time, you are not anti-war. And I’ve never seen a politician in my lifetime who was really, truly, anti-war, because he/she knows who really runs the place, and they ain’t getting or staying elected with that hearts-n-flowers hippie s**t.

    3/ So many campaigns against “others” nowadays are so-called “silent wars,” “covert wars,” “ quiet wars,” in which stealthy stuff like sanctions, regime change, assassinations and of course the all-popular hate propaganda, preclude or precede the nasty bloody shootemups of yore. And it’s all good for the evil Military Industrial Intelligence Complex, because it’s all billable hours, resources expended, money well spent.

    4/ As a philosopher once said (or should have said) regarding the potential for the perfectibility of the human species, ”If you haven’t solved the problem of war, you have solved nothing.” As Man has never figured out how to stop killing everything he set eyes on, maybe he’s inherently defective? That’s my own personal theory anyways.

    5/ Unfortunately, I do not believe that the American people can or will rise up to overthrow their corrupt rulers. I don’t believe any amount of education or threat will create a critical mass fierce enough to foment any sort of sustained or effective rebellion, at any level. If education of world affairs worked, it woulda worked by now. I think we’re screwed, and the evil psychos at the top will carry out their agenda unfettered until they implode or self-destruct.

    Good job again – carry on!

    1. In paragraph five I think you are correct. The American people are lost in a maze of propaganda narratives. That is why I have concluded that all we can hope for is that Russia, China, Iran, and others will stand up to the US war machine. The Russia/China alliance has already checkmated the US. Our lives depend on the cautious and careful diplomacy and geopolitical strategy of Russia and China.

      The US Empire will end. As to how it ends and how much destruction it entails only time will tell.

  11. The “miracle molecule” is still a primary motivating factor in the west. Making life better for poorer indigenous people is not in our best interest. If we did treat these people Democratically and actually shared Their wealth fairly, our profit margins would be affected and a miniscule effect on our quality of life would occur.

  12. Kathleen Lowrey Avatar
    Kathleen Lowrey

    Thanks for this terrific piece. What bothers me the most about the current Anglophone “left” is that it can gin up endless energy for denouncing trivial in-group effrontery but when prompted to briefly consider death machine imperialism outside its immediate borders:

    Almost total disinterest and at most exactly what you describe here: “poor (and often brown) people being killed is bad of course. But I hear this guy is a bad guy so that’s also bad and so, being against bad things I am against him too”

    This vague waffling from people who are perfectly capable of FIERY DENUNCIATIONS and casting into outer darkness of anyone who seems not to be up to date on the finer details of up to the minute pronoun orthodoxy.

  13. Caitlin, thank you for another great article. While reading it, I thought of a hypothetical scenario:

    There’s a woman at the office that most people just don’t seem to like. She’s often referred to as “the bitch” and many conversations among her co-workers have ended with “someone needs to put her in her place.”

    One evening after work, she’s raped.

    The woman’s co-workers are just uplike the people who say they don’t like Maduro but… If people are helping to create a culture of hate, they have to own up to its inevitable results.

    I truly believe that political transformation can only be achieved by personal spiritual transformation. Thanks for being a light in the darkness!

  14. A fundamental thesis of advanced metaphysics is that human beings exist on different planes of consciousness, and demonstrate highly differentiated cognitive comprehension. The diverse genetic, environmental and experiential framework of the collective human conscience makes it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to achieve uniform standards of reasoning and correct action across highly diverse, multi-cultural populations–i.e., individuals and groups not tightly bound by common historical identity and core moral values. To take the concept one step higher, consider the virtual impossibility of reconciling antagonistic interpretations of social, economic and political truth in large, diverse human populations. The multi-cultural nation-states of the West are examples. There are essentially two philosophies of large scale human organization, from which all other iterations derive. One concept is centered on superiority, exceptionalism and manifest destiny, and the other is based on egalitarian principles of common ownership and collective management of natural and physical resources. And, therein lies the conundrum. Neither of the aforementioned concepts of human organization, nor any of their known iterations, has ever produced a prosperous, healthy, continuously peaceful, highly diverse human society at large scale centered on personal freedom and self-determination–never. However, there are numerous examples of ethnocentric human scale societies that have prospered in peace and prosperity for relatively long periods, only to be destroyed by marauding psychopaths and their armies. The only thing that has really changed through the ages is the sophistication of the tools of conquest.

    1. ” The only thing that has really changed through the ages is the sophistication of the tools of conquest”…………………AND their USE, Charlie, their USE! The proof is Japan, AFTER the US knew Japan was about to surrender. Ever since that event humanity has known with absolute certainty that there is at least one nuclear-armed nation on the planet that WILL use nuclear weapons under certain circumstances, INCLUDING even when it knows that it is about to be victorious over an enemy.

      1. Ish, I do not see any moral difference between the unnecessary dropping of nukes on Japan and past armies from around the world doing full scale slaughtering of conquered peoples. Salting the earth is not new to warfare.

      2. Every strategic weapon of war that exist has been operationally tested and ‘used’, to one extent or another. Unlike tactical weapons (i.e. the hand gun or rifle) all strategic weapons are created for offensive use and conquest, not national defense. The same applies to standing armies and the risk they pose to our freedom.

  15. EoP MILED Clerk aka Andrea Muhrrteyn Avatar
    EoP MILED Clerk aka Andrea Muhrrteyn

    Steel City Scribblers: Philip Rodis & Caitlin Johnstone

    Re: Steel City Scribblings: Venezuela:no fence to sit on: Comment; Caitlin Johnstone: “I Oppose Interventionism, But-” But Nothing. Stop Being A Pro Bono CIA Propagandist.

    If you sincerely oppose all interventionism: kindly sign your Ecology of Peace Policy Statement [], to help to provide a mandate to implement EoP SciCult law [] international law.

    If your ism endorses WiP law []; it’s an imperialist aka interventionism WiP ism [] cultural ideology. .. The excesses of Capitalism, communism and libertarianism are a symptom of Masonic War is Peace clauses of international law; that allow procreation and consumption to exceed ecological carrying capacity limits []. EoP Scientific and Cultural law [] could be described as the place where capitalism, socialism, libertarianism meet deep green ecology root cause problem solving.

    A copy of this correspondence is documented at EoP Legal Submissions [].

    1. Have you people thought this through? You propose to execute people in the present for having more than one child, or consuming more than their proportion of a ‘sustainable consumption footprint’ until the global population decreases to “300 million or some other lower number agreed upon by humanity’ because you fear that the current trajectory is unsustainable. That is, you recommend killing people now to counter the mere speculation of future privation and death.
      Can’t you see the fuzziness of the criterion “agreed upon by humanity” and are you unaware that demographic projections already show global population peaking and subsiding after about 2050, and that is in the absence of global war? And how do you define sustainable, which is historically a moving target, a quality which has trended upwards for centuries?
      Why don’t you focus on the real trouble in the world, as exemplified in Caitlin’s article? The perpetrators of conflict steal the resources of the world from beneficial purposes to wreak havoc as a means to enrich themselves and enhance their power. These misappropriated and wasted resources would otherwise contribute to the raising of living standards and economic security globally, the foundation for modest family size on average and the observed phenomenon reduced population growth in advanced economies.

  16. Good piece as ever. Thanks Caitlin. Have linked to it from my own blogsite.

  17. Good article, Caitlin and Tim.
    During the era of the US’s invasion of Vietnam, there were literally millions of Americans, especially young Americans, who were poltically awake, in the streets and dead set against that war of aggression. But the war continued for a number of years anyway.
    It is a fact that are only two ways for US imperialism to stop — some outside force stops it, or enough antiwar candidates are elected the congress and possibly as POTUS to stop it.
    How many anti-war presidential and congressional candidates are running in the 2020 election and how likely are even those few to be elected in a war-addicted economy? How many Americans do you see marching in the streets against US aggression all around the world?
    IMO, just as in WWII with Germany as the aggressor/hegemon, an outside force, either military or economic/financial, will be necessary to stop non-stop US aggression on the world. Too bad that the US is politically incapable of stopping itself. There’s just too much profit in war, even though that coproate profit is generated by the US govenment going deeper and deeper and faster and faster into debt.
    Speaking of debt, it seems that most of the US “treasury” bonds are being bought by domestic buyers. Not many are being sold to foreigners any more, and foreigners are actually selling US bonds. Just exactly HOW is the US government spending the “money” it is borrowing from US bond buyers? Weapon systems, year after year after year and perpetual war. That’s the US’s big “investment” — weapons and war — when that investment could instead be in renewable power systems, infrastructure, etc. that could be owned by all Americans (as they own weapon systems that end up obsolute and rusting in a boneyard in a few short years) that generate electricity, etc. for many decades. It’s absolute insanity, but perfectly understandable insanity.

  18. Great video showing the levels of hypocrisy and mendacity of the Anglo-Zionist empire.
    “The responses from members of Congress painted a shocking picture of ignorance, hypocrisy, and bipartisan consent for the Trump administration’s assault on Venezuela.”

    [American] ‘democracy is hypocrisy’- Malcolm X

    1. Grayzone has some decent content, but I am very suspicious of Max Blumenthal whose father, Sydney Blumenthal is a total Chicago scumbag, skivvy, greasy, low life POS tied at the hip to Skankles Clinton, the capo di tutti capi of the Clinton Crime Family. I can’t imagine that the apple fell too far from that poisoned tree, but I hope I am wrong. Skankles makes Bill look like a nice guy. For some reason Chicago breeds real low life douche bags like Bath House Barry Obama, a closet case like his buddy Rahm Emanuel, and others like the creepy David Axelrod, A.N. Pritzker, a Jewish mobster whose grandchildren, along with Axelrod, a master propagandist of whom Goebbels would be proud, helped finance, and run Bath House Barry’s psyop to fool much of the electorate into believing Bath House was a “progressive”, when, in fact, he was a totally controlled neoconartist POS. Rahm Emanuel, who has an adopted sister named Shoshana about whom her rarely speaks, is a very bitter little man because he was never allowed to jump out of the closet because his father is a very tough, brutal member of the Irgun, a Zionist terrorist organization, who also allegedly ran a rather strange “adoption” agency on the side of his allergy practice on the North Shore of Chicago from whence many creeps hail who dabble in politics in one way or another.

      1. “I can’t imagine that the apple fell too far from that poisoned tree, but I hope I am wrong.”

        So far I haven’t seen any Zionist bias from grayzone and in fact they promoted the Al Jazeera doc exposing the Zionist lobby in the U.S.

        1. I saw the Al Jazeera documentary expose about the terrorist Zionist lobby which is a majority owner of the con artists in our Congress. It can be unfair to tag a son with the sins of his father, but Max Blumenthal is a such a creepy, money grubbing thug that it’s difficult not to attribute some of his deviancy to his son, but perhaps the son understood early on that his ahole father would sell him on a black market if he thought the kid would bring enough money, and so went his own way. I was glad to see the Al Jazeera piece on the deviant Israeli lobby. The father of Zionism was a deeply psychologically disturbed, very insecure sociopath who leveraged the made up religion of Judaism, whereby a tribe used older religious beliefs to create their own god, and then make that god proclaim them his chosen people. Herzl took that barbaric racial superiority one step further with Zionism, and then the UK, and U.S. used it to establish their beachhead in the Middle East to divide, carve up, and conquer the people there to exploit the energy resources. It’s lost on many that Herzl, and his sociopathic followers were all about making sure that Jews were sacrificed, and did so all to the cause of stealing a bunch of homes, and land through vicious ethnic cleansing using their terrorism which continues to this day in the illegally militarily occupied territories, and in much of the rest of the Middle East, the U.S., and western Europe where Zionist terrorists commit acts of terrorism to blame on Muslims. Israel, and the U.S. are the two largest state sponsors of Islamic terrorism.

  19. The Racist, Imperialist War on Venezuela

    “History will mark the year 2011 as the point at which U.S. imperialism effectively declared war against civilization and the very concept of a lawful global order. THAT is Obama’s awesome and awful legacy. Donald Trump is simply exercising an imperial mandate handed down to him by the First Black President, who put “humanitarian” lipstick on the white supremacist pig of Manifest Destiny and American exceptionalism. Which is why most of the Democratic Party’s congressional piglets are oinking in favor of some form of aggression against Venezuela — with the exception of Hawaii’s Tulsi Gabbard , the only anti-war presidential candidate. “The United States needs to stay out of Venezuela,” Gabbard tweeted. “Let the Venezuelan people determine their future. We don’t want other countries to choose our leaders—so we have to stop trying to choose theirs.”

    As Ajamu Baraka, of the Black Alliance for Peace, points out, it is no coincidence that all the nations siding with the U.S. at the UN Security Council and the Organization of American States are white former colonial European countries or white-led Latin American regimes in the so-called Lima Group. The darker peoples of the world understand clearly that what is at stake is the sovereignty of nations and people’s right to self-determination – principles that are anathema to U.S. imperialism.”

    1. Your knowledge of history is a bit lacking. The imperial mandate of the U.S. has been in existence since the English landed on the shores of what is now America, and began their “experiment” in democracy, that included genocide of the indigenous people who lived here at that time; and genocide in furtherance of imperialist conquest, and exploitation of natural resources is a particular specialty of the classist, racist English. When the racist, classist English Empire began its decline as the indigenous peoples the world over who they had brutally slaughtered in large numbers in furtherance of subjugation, and colonization began to successfully oppose it, the rule of that Empire was handed over primarily to the U.S.; and now the U.S. Empire is in steep decline as the phony, funny money petro dollar accounts for an increasingly smaller percentage of world trade. The height of the U.S. Empire was after WWII until about the mid-1970’s after large numbers of Nazis were “imported” into the U.S. armed services, and “intelligence” services as fascism was adopted by the U.S. Empire, from which many prominent businessmen like Prescott Bush, Henry Ford, and many others supported, and financed Hitler’s rise to power, while other scum bags, like the patriarch of the Koch sucker brothers business empire, made their fortunes in Stalinist Russia. Empires always play both sides of the wars they foment, and orchestrate for their economic, and political profit. It took until the mid-1970’s and beyond for a bi-partisan effort of decimation of the U.S. Labor Movement’s successes to bear fruit, and for the psyop of identity politics to take hold to successfully divide, and conquer the women’s movement, the Civil Rights Movement, and the anti-War movement that ended the Viet Nam War. The U.S. has been at war for 92% of its existence, and has never, ever spread democracy to one country anywhere in the world. It has only overthrown democratically elected representatives the world over to install brutal dictators so that it could exploit the natural resources of those countries. And now, the U.S. populace is reaping what it has sown. We now live in a fascist security surveillance state brought about by false flags, like 9/11 run by Zionist terrorists, Saudi terrorists, Dick wad Cheney, and a host of complicit scumbags like Don Dumsfeld, the idiot former coke head, alcoholic son of pedophile GHW Bush, who according to Paul Bonacci, a victim of the Franklin pedo Scandal, liked young black boys, and many others. Werner Von Braun, one of the Nazis brought to America after WWII, laid out the wiring diagram of false flags, and the wars that would ensue all the way back in the early 1970’s, at the end of his life, to Carol Rosin.

      1. I don’t disagree with your general assessment of the formation of the Anglo-Zionist empire.I would say around WW1 you see this actual birth through the roundtable groups started by Cecil Rhodes and others and the the Balfour Declaration.

        Churchill was an ultra anglo-zionist and by the end of WW2 the country of Israel is created. Operation paperclip was a milestone event that literally put former Nazis in key areas of the US government in particular the intelligence agencies. From that you get programs like MK Ultra,Operation Mockingbird..etc and world wide programs of blackmail using the pedophilic tendencies of so many politicians(Franklin coverup, Dutroux affair Presidio scandal…etc).

        The point of the passage by Glen Ford is the “humanitarian” lipstick and the use of fake identity politics to further the aims of the empire. I would argue that the concept of “humanitarian warmongering” was officially solidified in 2005 with R2P(Responsibility to protect) and in conjunction with the vague ‘War on Terrorism’, Obama was just the frontman for it.

        1. Cecil Rhodes was a total creep, as were his compatriots. One must also not forget the role in all this played by the pedophile, child-trafficking, narco-money laundering cult of the Catholic Church when it created its bank toward the end of WWII so it could centralize control of all the money its cult members were suckered out of on Sundays when the pedophiles wearing collars, probably studded ones, preached salvation to them. Identity politics culminated in the election of Bath House Barry Obama which was a brilliant psyop backed early on by big money from Penny Pritzker, a billionaire beneficiary of the Jewish mobster A.N. Pritzker, and a host of other wealthy Chicago area Jewish people. Penny’s a total money grubber, because insecure people can never have too many billions of dollars. She tried to chisel a guy I know who owns the only remaining house on an entire block that Penny otherwise owns in Chicago, but he wouldn’t sell it to her. He can’t stand her. She looks like a deformed pit bull, although pit bulls are much prettier, and nicer than she.

  20. Johnstone are you familiar with Qanon? Many Trumpanzees believe in this nonsense. If you understand Qanon then you understand why they are so gungho for this intervention and others.

  21. What’s the old saying …. nothing before the ‘but’ matters. Examples, “Sally is such a sweet girl, but ….” Or, in this case, “I oppose intervention and imperialism, but….”

  22. In Orwell, these would be the people who listen with rapt attention to the Two Minute Hate, then go around telling everybody all about it. They are also the people who accept that we are now at war with Eurasia or East Asia or whomever is the Enemy of the Day, and never question that weren’t we told that they were allies yesterday?

  23. A good read and very true. Cocktail party apologists for Nato who do not want to say anything out loud that might jeopardize the advantages they have gained serving the neoliberal order. Living in a US colony like Canada many Canadians like to head down to Florida for the sunshine or to Las Vegas for a weekend invoking their class privilege to freely cross the US border (they don’t get hassled) to spend their vacations and money in the US. If citizens of these five eyes US colonies boycotted US tourism it would send a powerful message to the American people that there is a price to pay for their government’s war-mongering.

  24. “The most powerful thing in our society is narrative.”
    Disagree. Narrative is nothing. Narrative has no power. You’re very articulate, but you use it a lot. There is no substance to the word. Sorry, but I oppose the very word itself. It’s pure propaganda. That’s why it’s become so popular. We are drowning in a sea of propaganda.
    I can pretty much with everything else you wrote, except the part about US troops going there. The US uses surrogates for that. Colombia has plenty.

    1. I meant I can pretty much AGREE with everything else, except, etc.

    2. The stories we tell ourselves frame our understanding of things, providing structure and priority for our beliefs and thence motivating and prioritising our actions (and inactions). These stories are narrative. What these narratives are constructed from and who by determines their worth and benevolence to our individual and collective well-being.

      What do you think determines our beliefs and actions? Instinct? God? Mathematical equations? Maybe you’ve never really thought about it. If not you should. .

      1. Most importantly, the narratives give us a “reason” to do nothing when we encounter a situation which otherwise would require us to take action.

        1. Which why ‘we’, however we might each personally relate to such a collective, need to discern our own narratives, for our own collective purposes, and not just adopt and consummate the ones that are fabricated for us.

        2. Actually, I think narrative does suggest doing nothing. It sure doesn’t offer a solution.

      2. Narration is educational. Narration typically involves accurately describing factual information. Our most common experience with narration today is when a TV program or movie has a narrator. Some of these narrators make big bucks. Because of the soothing resonance of their voice, they are in high demand. Mike Ross and Peter Coyote come to mind as examples. There are many more. Narration is not threatening. It is informative.

        When you read a book written in narrative style, is the author’s intent to mislead you through the narration? It is not. To narrate is help the reader understand. But, narrative is currently under meaning alteration. It is being used to suggest misleading information. And, no less, to suggest it’s of paramount importance! Ha! It isn’t anything of the kind. The important thing is that to which the narrative refers.

        So, this is not the root meaning and the connotation that is intended by its use, or misuse, in this way is being intentionally confused. It’s mush. There is always a better word for whatever is intended by this misuse of the word narrative. You just need to think about it. Meanwhile, it is not even as sharp as a dull knife. It’s a spoon at best. She will never be a Crocodile Dundee with that!

        1. Argh! I meant Mike Rowe as one example. He’s my favorite. Brain fart.

        2. Rod, the Oxford Dictionary defines ‘narrative’ as:
          – a story or a description of a series of events
          – a particular way of explaining or understanding events.

          Facts, logic and reasoning are not fundamental requirements. They need only be present to the degree needed to satisfy the person(s) who embrace the story. Propaganda is a particular systemic function within which narrative(s) can be crafted and employed.

          Your aspiration to logical function is dependent upon the premises that underpin your logical process. These premises are coloured by your internalised narratives about how the word is. Humans are essentially emotional beings, not logical ones, which is why they respond more fully to hot stories rather than cold facts. Logic and rationality is a mechanism humans have developed to facilitate their pursuit of physical and emotional desires. Some implement it with more competency than others.

          1. Greg, the question is how effective is the word. How well does it communicate the author’s intended meaning? I submit that the word “narrative” is not effective. I further submit that the word’s connotations do not convey the author’s intended meaning. In fact, they undermine her thesis. Narrative conveys legitimacy on whatever it represents. Effective communication is the goal. My intent is to assist. I like her spunk. I don’t know how she chose this term but I strongly suspect that its use in this context is no accident.
            There are forces at work on our language that people have no idea of. Do you think the IC spends all its time gathering info? Do you have any concept of the sheer number of people in the IC today? It is staggering to even think about. What do you think they’re doing? Read between the lines. I have been a student of propaganda for many years. There is little doubt in my mind that this word has been planted.
            You are correct to consider the emotional aspect of word choice. It’s not about logic. It’s about warfare. Language is the battlefield. She said “narrative is the most powerful thing in our society.” That’s a bold statement, IMO. Is it correct? Narrative? Powerful? It’s like a War on Terror. How do you defeat such an enemy? “Narrative” is a spoon!
            This is not the only word I suspect being planted. There are many others. With social media and stupid media pundits, they spread like wildfire when unleashed. They are so insidious, I suspect she will use another one soon. I will show it when I see it. I will take you to the water. Drink or don’t. The choice is yours. I really don’t need the arguments. If readers here are really dissenters, I think it will help all to craft their messages more effectively if they learn how propaganda works. Goebbels would be dazzled!

            1. The word suits perfectly for the critical concept being conveyed. It seems to me you are needless splitting hairs over it with the consequence of creating a fuzz of obscure thinking.

              1. Maybe. I know what I know and you have an Oxford dictionary.

    3. Rod, if “narrative” does not work for you what do think should replace it, what is more accurate in your opinion?

      1. It depends on the context and the author’s intent. Narrative is ethereal. It’s not a word for solid reasoning.

        1. Rod, then which word do you think should be used as “solid reasoning” in Caitlin’s context other than “narrative”?

          1. I don’t know. It’s her word. Maybe beliefs? What do you think it means?

            1. Rod, if you claim “narrative” is the wrong word then you should have an idea as to which is the correct word. I will ask again, Which word should Caitlin be using?

              1. Do you think the rain will hurt the rhubarb? Where’s that damn ignore button?

      2. I think Caitlyn usually means propaganda. Why she doesn’t want to use the more accurate term, I’m not even going to ask.
        I’m still waiting to find out what the difference is between “personal sovereignty” (another term I find confusing) and “individual freedom.”

        1. Rod, do you know what national sovereignty means? If so, then you should be able to figure out what personal sovereignty means.

          Individual freedom simply means the individual is free to live his/her life as he/she sees fit so long as they are not harming the rights of others.

          1. Since when did she designate you as her official interpreter?
            Here’s the deal – I can lead you to water. You don’t want to drink? Fine. Then STFU.
            IOW, I didn’t ask you, Mr Scum.

            1. Rod, apparently you do not understand how a comment section works. When one posts a comment on a discussion board that post is subject to well, discussion, from other readers/commenters. Your posts are no exception.

              1. Mr Scum,
                Since you’re area of expertise appears to be how these fora work, is there an ignore function? If so, please instruct. I have an immediate need. TIA

                1. Rod, there is no “ignore” function at the adult table. That is why it is the adult table.

                  1. In that case, Mr Scum, grow up.

          2. And BTW, your national sovereignty BS was truly ridiculous. Maybe you should stick to fiction, eh?

            1. Rod, how so? Can you be specific? I do not understand your confusion over such a common sense idea.

              1. What is it you don’t understand about I didn’t ask you. At this point, I’m not interested in your views on ANYTHING.

    4. Your narrative is self-contradictory. You might take a course in logic. Symbolic logic is a good place to start, and you could work your way up from there.

      1. You’re a funny guy, Dennis. Logic is one of my favorite subjects. I agree with your suggested starting point. Please do get started.

  25. the beginning of Bernie Sanders statement on Venezuela

    “The Maduro government in Venezuela has been waging a violent crackdown on Venezuelan civil society, violated the constitution by dissolving the National Assembly and was re-elected last year in an election that many observers said was fraudulent. Further, the economy is a disaster and millions are migrating.”

    Just as you were saying.

  26. Australia and it’s Allies are the biggest gutter rats and scum upon the earth! ASSHOLES, CRIMINALS & WHORES, ALL OF THEM! I would support the hanging of the fucking lot tomorrow! As for MSM, bomb and burn them to the fucking grounds, where they belong to be!

    1. Well said, Stephen. I am so angry/ashamed to be Australian.

  27. Caitlin, Surely this is a typo that should be changed?

    ‘On both sides of America’s political divide, the primary objections you will see to this administration’s campaign to delegitimize and topple the US GOVERNMENT [SIC.] are prefaced with a strong condemnation of Maduro followed by some feeble equivocations voicing vague objections to Trump’s actions, if that.’

    Venezuela, eh?

      1. I’m not sure what your answer means but that sentence is confusing. What campaign to topple US government? This is not clear. Do you mean Democrats trying to topple Trump? What am I missing? I thought the topic was the US propaganda to delegitimize and topple Maduro’s government?

  28. Fundementally, this stuff is racist.

    During my travels in Cuba I came to the realization that the major beneficiaries of the Revolution were descendants of slaves and, to a somewhat lesser degree, the compasinos – many of whom have indigenous ancestry, The self-defined “raza pura” (“White” from Spain) essentially buggered off to Miami.

    I’m guessing the same holds in Venezuela, except that the “raza pura” are still there . . . .

    1. Yeah. Chavez should have gotten rid of them all like Castro did.

    2. Yep, through my travels in Venezuela I saw this in person.
      “Venezuela is a predominantly indigenous, Black and mixed race country, while the core opposition to the socialist government of Nicolas Maduro is white and upper class. Most of the nation’s media is owned by the white oligarchic opposition. Having never experienced a civil rights movement such as that in the United States, Venezuela’s white elite is unabashedly racist, and often displayed cartoons depicting Hugo Chavez, the wildly popular president of indigenous and African extraction, as a monkey. (See cover photo.) As Arlene Eisen wrote in , five years ago”

Leave a Reply