Sunday, March 9, 2025

I don't know what to say

 I don't know what to say when people, quoting "respectable" sources such as The Atlantic magazine and the BBC, claim that Russia is losing the war in Ukraine badly.

I suppose I could point them to articles such as this one where my favored journalist debunks the claims in The Atlantic.

Not that it would do any good, because they would surely say that MoA is Russian Disinformation.

Tim Cook, writing at Antiwar.com, has similar feelings except he DOES know what to say and says it.

I happened to notice that Antiwar.com is an operation of the Bourne Institute, and I looked up Bourne.  He was a lefty writer who opposed WW1 and argued against another self-described liberal, Dewey, who endorsed it.  Bourne also argued against the idea of a 'Melting Pot' in favor of multiculturalism.  Sadly Bourne died of "Spanish Flu" (which actually started in Kansas) in 1918.

Here's the 10 minute Aron Mate description of the origins of the war in Ukraine.

Though this is often called Russian Disinformation, US officials repeatedly promised that NATO would not extend eastward.

Monday, March 3, 2025

A Great Moment

Aaron Mate gives a pretty good primer.


Simplicius has a particularly good 10 minute section of the 50 minute encounter, which gives a somewhat different view from US centrist MSM which of course castigates Trump.  Simplicius and many other recommend viewing the entire 50 minutes (I have not yet done that).

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/bloodbath-in-the-oval-office

Historian Doctorow calls this "historic"





Duran (on youtube link below) emphasizes that the Minerals Deal was originally Zelensky's idea, and all sides seemed set to accept a no-explicit-security-guarantees version Trump had offered him until Zelensky started trying to renegotiate that with Trump on camera...making this NOT a set-up but a real live dramatic and pivotal (though probably predictable by all involved) "negotiation" that ended in failure for Zelensky because he was demanding too much...something Trump had already ruled out...and what Zelensky was (and has been) demanding is basically a nuclear WW3 NATO response to defend Ukraine, because otherwise NATO is running out of conventional stuff and Ukraine is running out of conscriptables to keep this war going.




I have never voted for Trump, I have never donated to Trump, I have always supported leading Trump opposition candidates, and I haven't supported anything else President Trump has done.  In fact
for those other things he has been and might do I have great anger and fear for our constitutional republic, let alone our economy and the health and safety of our citizens.

But on these two things--restoring relations with Russia and ending support for the War in Ukraine--he has exceeded my most rosy expectations so far.  (If in fact the world is saved from nuclear annihilation by his avoiding WW3, they may be the two most important things.)

I've learned from long concert attendance, that it's best to give the
standing ovation to the work that truly inspires you, rather than wait
until the end by which time your enthusiasm may have dimmed or even been canceled.  So I immediately wrote a letter to Trump, thanking him. 

Other than reinforcing an already existing precedent that Presidents can even withdraw from treaties when those treaties themselves forbid that option, I'd even be fine with Trump pulling out of NATO. NATO has long proven to be imperial overreach in many places, most obviously Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Serbia, where it has indeed operated as an offensive alliance.  (My own interpretation of the war in Ukraine is that too: It's NATO's offensive war on Russia by proxy.)

It would be better if NATO were officially discarded by the treaty-required Senate vote.  But NATO is really just a cover for US imperialism anyway.  It's driven by the US geopolitical agenda, and powered by the military prowess and economic power of the US.  It actually doesn't commit anyone to anything.  If the US simply ignores NATO, nothing is likely to happen.  Britain's 60 operational tanks aren't going to make much difference, nor the 12,000 or so "peacekeeping" troops it might scare up

Despite much ranting and raving in NATO-owned European governments and "centrist" Atlantacist media and parties throughout the West, they are not going to do anything except said ranting and raving.

The entire "need" for NATO from the beginning was (#1) US Imperial ambition, #2 Russia/Commie phobia, and (#3) Western misrepresentations of events surrounding the end of WW2.

When the Soviet Union fell, even many former anti-Soviet hardliners were calling for bringing NATO to an end.  (Instead, that's when NATO's most aggressive and least "defensive" phase began.)

But amidst all the anti-Russian hysteria what is never noticed is how most of the aggressive wars of the last 80 years, and in particular the last 25, have been driven by US and not Russian imperialism.

Russia has played a more conservative role surrounding it's old but still ethnic Russian populated border areas, and the US has tried to push them into war by inflaming eliminationist movement like the re-emergent and neo- Nazis in Ukraine whose fervor is based on pushing Russians out.  Meanwhile, I see few if any Russian errors here, deviations only follow US precedents except with better justifications, whereas the US errors are immense.

If only Johnson had treated Diem like this, the Vietnam war could have been avoided.

Now if only the Zelensky treatment could be dished out to Netanyahu, rather than his usual being waited on hand and foot.  Then we could really and earnestly think about the end of US Imperialism.  It must end soon, if the world is to survive.

And if only Trump could drop the rest of the US Imperialist agena upon the Global South, in particular Venezuela and Cuba, Trump could capitalize on his success in dumping Zelensky by winning back the hearts and minds of the Global South which Biden and his predecessors trashed.




Saturday, March 1, 2025

Letter to Trump

I think it is very good that you are re-establishing diplomatic relations with Russia.  This is the path leading us away from global annihilation in nuclear war.  Russia is an important country, and Putin is a great leader.

I was pleased to see you and VP Vance stand up to Ukrainian dictator Zelensky in public.

I will be happy to see all US military aid to Ukraine ended.  You are correct that we should never have backed war in Ukraine in the first place, and the war would not have happened otherwise.

Tuesday, February 25, 2025

AI is an enormously expensive bubble

This article may be a bit one sided and shrill.  And its very long and sometimes seems repetitious.

But I think it's also an excellent introduction to who is behind what is available in AI, and a look behind multiple curtains.  As I've always thought, it doesn't look good.  A good nutshell of the article is as follows:

These are also — and I do not believe there are any use cases that justify this — not a counterbalance for the ruinous financial and environmental costs of generative AI. It is the leaded gasoline of tech, where the boost to engine performance didn’t outweigh the horrific health impacts it inflicted.

 The spending on AI datacenters has been gargantuan, it will surpass $500 billion before long, boosted by venture capital and the decenter businesses themselves (including Google and Amazon).

Lack of profitability means we end up all paying the bill.

Here's Ziltron diving deeper into AI promises and nonsense.

Here's Ziltron describing the Digital Rot Economy we live in because of Venture Capital.

Free Speech except for Thee

Another "free speech" warrior who won't let me even like their posts.

*****

A post from Matt Stoller disappeared on X less than 9 minutes after it was posted.  He said, "The media has had an anti-Federal government spending bias since the 1970's.  There's nothing new with DOGE, it's just rehashed Heritage Foundation nonsense.  (This post appeared in my timeline and but I couldn't like it because it had already been deleted.)

Much as I try to migrate from X to Bluesky, Bluesky still feels like a luncheon with Maga Blue democrats.  There's no critique of longstanding US foreign policy (which tries to dominate the world), and one of the baddest things about Trump according to nearly all I follow on Bluesky is that he appears to be making peace with Russia and ending US support for the War in Ukraine (which is only possible because of US support).  Hardly any of the Antiwar and Anti-Imperialist voices I follow on X are on Bluesky.  It doesn't seem this is because of Bluesky banning people, but because of the power (or lack of power) of people gathered there.  So I'm sticking with my plan of reading X on odd days.  I occasionally try to cast some light (with as little heat as I can manage) on Bluesky...this may get me banned or at least blocked by some I'm currently following (which wouldn't make me too sad).



Tuesday, February 18, 2025

Even Twitter Off Days

Using algorithms instead of human censors, and (mostly) shadowbanning--nothing new--but to a more pervasive level than ever before, the social media formerly known as Twitter has become an alt-right brainwashing system.

Despite that, due to it's long history as the first truly argumentative Social Media, that service continues to host a number of anti-establishment voices of some merit which are not available elsewhere.

(However, many are moving to the competitive service Bluesky, which is getting better and better as a result.)

So while Maga Blue immediately left Twitter the moment the new owner began reversing some of the earlier bans (the wrong reason but perhaps the right move), the service formerly known as Twitter still has some unique value.

THUS I propose a partial boycott.  I propose making the Even days of the month (2,4,6,8, ...) into Twitter Off Days.

On those even days, I will use email (still my biggest thing), Bluesky, favorite blogs and Substacks, Patreon, Youtube, etc.  Everything except the service that used to be known as Twitter.

I suggest people apply the same principle to all of the services operated by the nazi oligarch, or others.

Monday, February 10, 2025

USAID

 I am utterly opposed to DOGE hacking government institutions, and shutting down US agencies created by Congress.  Not only is this Unconstitutional, it doesn't deal with the lives of the current employees and other people affected for no good reason.

USAID was created by an act of Congress in 1961, and that act specifically says there should be an agency to perform this work (not a few handpicked friends of the Secretary of State).

If President Trump is allowed to get away with this, where it will all end?  We know one thing for sure, from the moment he does get away with it, we no longer have a Republic, we have a naked Dictatorship.

If one wants to change the direction of the US government, and I concede I do, one must change the mission first, in Congress, then everything else follows.  If we don't change the mission, the work will go on somewhere else and with even less transparency.  It should well be noted that the kinds of work USAID (and it's sister public NGO, the NED) does was previously done by CIA on the black budget, and it could resume being done by CIA on the black budget.

So if the goal is to make the US stop trying to control the world, which mine is, that has to be taken head on, and not skirted around the edges by even "abolishing" individual agencies like USAID.  Such actions are reckless, unfair, and ultimately pointless.

Even if your goal were just saving money, this would not be the way to do it.

And, it's laughable that Elon Musk and his friend Mike Benz have described USAID as a "Marxist" operation.  If only it were, I'd be deeply supportive of it.  Such incredible spin and dishonesty mainly reveals these people cannot be trusted at all.  They're kooks as well as crooks, just like their boss President Trump.  Boy do we have a wild ride ahead.

*****

But all the same it irks me when USAID is described as a Humanitarian Agency, as if the US had a charity because of its bleeding heart.  Nearly the entire US media (including online) has gone to bat almost immediately to defend USAID in those sorts of terms, about how much "aid" it delivers (while not mentioning anything else).  Once again this makes the "conspiracy theory" of CIA controlling US media look all too real.

Let's get something straight here.

USAID is US SOFT POWER.

Wikipedia says:

 The goal of this agency was to counter Soviet Union influence during the Cold War and to advance US soft power through socioeconomic development.[13][14]

[14]  

Matanock, Aila M. (July 25, 2017). Electing Peace: From Civil Conflict to Political Participation. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-10140-0. The mission of USAID had initially been to counter communism through development.

Soft power is generally a more cost effective means of opening up new regions to US financial exploitation (called Freedom and Democracy, of course) than hard power.  If you want to win hearts and minds, nothing works as well as food and medical assistance.

Cuba does it probably far more relative to the size of its economy as the US (and generally where the US doesn't do it at all).


US SOFT POWER pales in comparison to US HARD POWER

US waves a lot more Hot Power in the world than soft power.  Merely look at the military weapons sent to Ukraine since President Trump first authorized it.  I'm seeing a number of $65 Billion but that does not sound complete to me (I think it's about double that).

And Israel, which had generally been the Camp David Accords authorized $3.5B per year, but more recently it's been $21 Billion.

And even that probably pales in comparison with what the US spends on military operations.  The US has spent Trillions of Dollars on foreign military operations since 9/11/2001.  And it's continuing.

IS USAID GOOD OR BAD ?

I think it's fine a good that the US government spends money providing food and medicine to people in other countries, regardless of the political motivations of the US in doing so.  Whatever it spends in these ways pales in comparison to Hot Power, when it should probably be the other way around.  So I look at is as a drop in the bucket given back to the world, at least the food and medicine part.  I'm sure it primarily goes to people we want to curry favor with, for geopolitical power reasons, and others we less want to curry favor are damned, but at least we're doing something positive somewhere, and that's better than nothing.

(Um, but is is "medicine" or "research" the US is conduction.  Research may be fine, certain kinds perhaps not, but let's not consider it aid at all.)

I don't feel so sanguine about the media and other influence USAID provides.  It's clear that USAID has run many influence operations, funded media organizations around the world and especially in US conflict zones.  But I have yet to see the total numbers, no searches I've done have located the total numbers, and most often just debunking Musk on particular points.

The individual numbers can be pretty impressive though.  According to the Council on Foreign Relations, who would in no way enlarge the numbers (more likely find any way to minimize it--which is what they are doing here I believe, claiming these to be exceptional cases when in fact they are typical examples if not on the smaller side):

https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/03/cuban-twitter-and-other-times-usaid-pretended-to-be-an-intelligence-agency/


According to a US government website, USAID has given $3 Billion to Ukraine since 1992 to "support efforts to strengthen democracy and good governance, improve health care systems, and mitigate the effects of the conflict in the east.

When I read a line like "strengthen democracy and good government" I know what that means.

It's the same old Freedom and Democracy propaganda that enables US investors to buy up the world, which is called Neo-colonialism.

$3B to Ukraine of influence ops is still a drop in the bucket of USAID over that period.  (Victoria Nuland is shown on a video from a conference from around 2014 saying the US had given more than $5 Billion to Ukraine.)

It turned out, that was only a tiny down payment.

But let us remember that USAID isn't the only US soft power organization.  There is also NED, the National Endowment for Democracy, whose entire mission is the promotion of US style bankster imperialist "Freedom and Democracy."

Here's a relevant QUORA discussion on USAID and NED.  The original post (from someone who does a lot of work for USAID) gives a link (broken) to the "Foreign Aid Explorer" which would tell us where the USAID money goes.  Then. it has a link which supposedly tells us were NED funding goes, but it's just a FAQ for applying to NED which gives no such information.  This discussion appears to be from five years to a few months ago, and I wonder if defenders of Freedom and Democracy are following the standard disinfo playbook of providing links (or references etc) which they don't expect anyone to check out, or have things just changed (and when and why?)

Poster Lance Chambers (an elder with PhD, MA, 6500 Quora followers) thinks like me when he writes:

I remember when I lived in Tanzania that a host of US NGO’s would set up charities and schools to educate the young children. One of the big things they did in the schools was to teach English - understandable as it would help them to read which is an important attribute but why English - it was because they also offered a host of books written in English.

The problem wasn’t that they were helping them read but that the books in English were all in English. No books in Swahili so they could write in their native language which would have been very useful but also that many of the books were about how wonderful the US was, how rich they were, how much they should be honoured and respected for all the largess they were offering, how America was so wonderful, so supportive, so kind, so generous - I’m sure you have an idea of what these bodies were doing?

To me they were humiliating the Tanzanians so as to convince them that America would be their saviours and to convince them that America could do no wrong and that the people and government of Tanzania should follow the US in all things.

I admit that this was close to 60 years ago but I still see the US acting in the same way far too often to make me feel comfortable of Americas suggestions of proffered largess when it all ends up being little that is of use if anything at all.

As if to respond to my questions, a video from Grayzone appeared about 8 hours after I first posted it.