Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

December 14, 2015

Radical takes on World War Two

Filed under: Fascism,imperialism/globalization,Syria,war — louisproyect @ 9:12 pm

For baby boomers the decision to join a Trotskyist group in the 1960s entailed coming to terms with WWII especially if you were a Jew. Unlike the Maoists (the CP was generally not an option in those wild times), the Trotskyists viewed the war as a continuation of the inter-imperialist disaster of 1914. As someone who became persuaded by Trotsky’s ideas, putting the war into historical context was made easier by the analysis of Ernest Mandel, a Jew and a member of the Belgian resistance during WWII so committed to class politics that he distributed anti-fascist leaflets to German troops whom he regarded as “workers in uniform”.

His 1976 essay “Trotskyists and the Resistance in World War Two” drew distinctions between the allies versus axis conflict and those that involved struggles for self-determination or the right of the USSR to defend itself from counter-revolution by any means necessary.

Ernest Mandel and the authors represented in Donny Gluckstein’s collection Fighting on All Fronts: Popular Resistance in the Second World War are part of a broader current that rose to prominence during the 1960s out of their “revisionist” take on the supposedly Good War. This includes Howard Zinn, whose chapter on WWII in a People’s History of the United States is titled “A People’s War?” and a number of New Leftist historians like Gabriel Kolko and Gar Alperovitz. To a large extent, Lyndon Johnson’s simultaneous embrace of New Deal domestic policies and the genocidal war in Vietnam forced leftist historians to come to terms with FDR’s historical legacy. The war that many of our fathers fought in, including my own who received a Bronze Star in the Battle of the Bulge, had to evaluated in the light of Marx’s “ruthless criticism of the existing order_, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.”

Donny Gluckstein is the son of Yigael Gluckstein, better known as Tony Cliff—the founder of the British SWP. He is a lecturer at Edinbergh College and a member of the SWP. He is also the author of A People’s History of the Second World War, a book that comes highly recommended based on the evidence of the new collection. I learned about Fighting on All Fronts from Tom O’Lincoln who contributed the article “Australia: A war of racism, imperialism and resistance”. I have known O’Lincoln for nearly twenty years as a cyber-comrade and have deep respect for his scholarship. He is a member of Socialist Alternative in Australia, a group that shares the SWP’s general theoretical approach but that is not part of its worldwide tendency. With Tom’s recommendation, I looked forward to reading Fighting on All Fronts since WWII “revisionism” is very close to my heart. Suffice it to say that I was not disappointed.

The book is divided into two parts: War in the West and War in the East. While every article is praiseworthy both in terms of the scholarship and the commitment to a class analysis so sorely missing nowadays, I would like to focus on one article from each part to serve as an introduction to a volume that excels from beginning to end.

Janey Stone’s “Jewish Resistance in Eastern Europe” is a stunning treatment of a topic that is of special interest to me as a Jew and a radical. Stone is a Jew whose mother lost most of her family in the Holocaust and who describes herself as an anti-Zionist. It delves into questions that go to the very heart of Jewish identity and survival. As she unravels the conflicting strands of Zionism, collaboration and working-class resistance, Stone tells a story that is simultaneously inspiring and dispiriting.

The brunt of her article is to challenge the idea that Jews went passively to their death in concentration camps, a view reinforced by both mainstream scholarship and popular culture, with “Schindler’s List” depicting Jews as lambs going to the slaughter and needing a Christian savior.

While nobody would apply the term savior to Jan Karski, a Pole and a Christian, his efforts on behalf of Jews would have made an interesting screenplay but arguably one that Hollywood would have dropped like a hot potato given its take on Roosevelt. Stone explains that after Karski prepared a report on the death camps in Eastern Europe that he discovered after penetrating the Warsaw Ghetto disguised as a Ukrainian soldier, he went to FDR to alert him to the impending human disaster. Karski was disappointed to discover that the president was more interested in the status of Polish horses than that of the nation’s Jews.

Ultimately it would be up to the Jews themselves to organize their defense with the Jewish Labor Bund providing most of the leadership. Stone describes the confrontation between Polish fascists who had been terrorizing Jewish shopkeepers and Jewish activists in 1938 that resulted in ambulances being summoned to carry off the battered thugs who had been lured into an ambush.

Stone tackles the stereotypical view of Poles as anti-Semites with copious evidence to the contrary, especially among the working class that was by and large committed to socialist politics. Furthermore, even in the peasantry, which was by no means as progressive as the workers, there was much more anti-Semitism among the wealthy farmers than those toward the bottom. When peasants organized a ten-day general strike in 1937, the Jews offered support. A Bundist youth leader reported: “During the strike you could see bearded Chassidim [religious Jews] on the picket lines along with peasants.”

Given the widespread attention to Hannah Arendt’s contention in Eichmann in Jerusalem that the Judenrat (Jewish council) was complicit in the extermination of millions of Jews, Stone’s nuanced treatment of this question is essential reading. Citing Lenni Brenner, whose research into this period is essential, Stone points out that Zionists were selected by the Nazis to staff the Judenrat more than all other political groups combined. The remainder came from the traditional Jewish religious establishment.

Some Judenrat figures were barely distinguishable from the Nazis, including Mordechai Rumkowski from the Lodz Ghetto who ran it as a slave labor camp. However, in most cases the collaborationists simply failed to support the Bundist underground and opposed all forms of struggle.

Despite such treachery, struggles did break out. Bundists were on the front lines but so were Labor Zionists. The Zionist officialdom might have made common cause with the Nazis but the more radical youth groups such as Hashomer Hatzair were willing to fight. However, not every Jew was strong enough to engage in combat. For many, the determination to survive was paramount. Setting up soup kitchens or creating art to raise peoples’ spirits was their way of joining the resistance. Even humor was used as a weapon. A joke made the rounds in this bleak world: A Jewish teacher asks his pupil, “Tell me, Moshe, what would you like to be if you were Hitler’s son?” An orphan was the reply.

Although Jews were most often left to their own devices to fight against the Nazi genocide, there were allies. As stated above, the Poles often acted in solidarity despite the fact that they risked certain death if discovered. Stone singles out Zegota, the Council to Aid Jews that was founded in 1944.

Zegota’s headquarters was the home of a Polish Socialist (Eugenia Wasowska) who had worked closely with the Bund. The organisation held “office hours” twice each week at which time couriers went in and out. Despite the enormous number of people who knew its location, the headquarters were never raided by the Germans. One “branch office” was a fruit and vegetable kiosk operated by Ewa Brzuska, an old woman known to everybody as “Babcia” (Granny). Babcia hid papers and money under the sauerkraut and pickle barrels and always had sacks of potatoes ready to hide Jewish children.

The best known Zegota activist is Irene Sendler, head of the children’s division. A social worker and a socialist, she grew up with close links to the Jewish community and could speak Yiddish. Sendler had protested against anti-Semitism in the 1930s: she deliberately sat with Jews in segregated university lecture halls and nearly got expelled. Irene Sendler saved 2,500 Jewish children by smuggling them out of the Warsaw Ghetto, providing them with false documents and sheltering them in individual and group children’s homes outside the ghetto.

Turning to William Crane’s article “Burma: Through two imperialisms to independence”, we are reminded that for many people living in the British Empire, Japan could appear as the lesser evil especially in a place like Burma where George Orwell worked as a cop. In his essay “Shooting an Elephant”, he reflected on the surly natives.

In the end the sneering yellow faces of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me when I was at a safe distance, got badly on my nerves. The young Buddhist priests were the worst of all. There were several thousands of them in the town and none of them seemed to have anything to do except stand on street corners and jeer at Europeans.

As was the case with India’s Congress Party, resistance to colonialism in Burma was fairly tame with native elites seeking an end to the sort of discrimination that was revealed in Orwell’s complaints. Its vanguard was the Young Man’s Buddhist Association that was founded in 1906 by a British-educated Burmese lawyer.

Eventually the movement grew more militant even if its leadership remained in the hands of the elites who referred to themselves as Thakins, the word for masters. In a new movement that emerged in the 1930s called We Burmans Association, the Thakins drew upon working class support to extract concessions from the British. Like many colonial elites living under British rule, the Burmese nationalists were seduced to some extent by fascist ideology. If “democracy” meant living under the British boot, it was no surprise that rival imperialisms might have a certain appeal.

But another rival to British capitalist democracy had even greater appeal, namely the USSR. In 1939 the first Communist cell was created in Burma under the leadership of an Indian named Narendra Dutt. Despite being a member of this cell, a man named Aung San decided in mid-1940 that an alliance with Japanese imperialism would be more useful for the cause of Burmese independence. He worked closely with Keiji Suzuki, a colonel in the Imperial army who had come to Burma disguised as a businessman and charged with the responsibility of lining up support from nationalists like Aung San, who was the father of Burma’s new president—a reformer who has shown little interest in attacking the deep state that has been in existence for many decades.

Along with other Thakins, Aun San constituted themselves as the Thirty Comrades who became the core of Burma’s wartime armed forces. They received training by the Japanese military in occupied China and began recruiting the men who would join with the Japanese in 1942 in a general assault on British rule. If your yardstick for judging political movements is based on how they lined up in WWII, you will certainly have condemned Aung San on an a priori basis. But as Trotsky pointed out in a 1938 essay titled “Learn to Think”, there are times when workers will find it advantageous to make temporary deals with fascist imperialism rather than its democratic rivals. The only caveat, of course, is that such deals are strictly pragmatic and strictly temporary.

Unfortunately in the case of Burma, the deal was more like a double-deal when the Japanese began their occupation. Aung San and his comrades had exchanged one colonial oppressor for another.

One of the most glaring examples of Japanese disregard for Burmese rights was the construction of a “Death Railway” that became the subject of Pierre Boulle’s novel “The Bridge Over the River Kwai” and the 1957 film directed by David Lean based on Boulle’s novel. You are probably aware that Alec Guinness played the British prisoner of war who in supervising the work crew made up of POW’s lost sight of its use to the Japanese war effort. He saw the bridge much more in terms of Britain’s “civilizing” role in places like India where railways and telegraphs supposedly outweighed colonial exploitation, even in the eyes of Karl Marx early in his career.

What the film leaves out was the costs of its construction on native lives. For that you need to read William Crane’s article:

The conditions for the native labourers in Burma were equivalent if not worse as they were unprotected by even the semblance of concern for the welfare of POWs. The railway upon its completion had consumed as many as 100,000 lives. But we need to draw no special conclusions about the Japanese psyche from the “Death Railway” or any of their other horrific crimes. For the Japanese were trying to catch up with the “civilised” empires of Britain and France, and in the course of this ended up competing with the death tolls they had accumulated over a much longer period of time during the few years of the war. The railway, like the Shoah in Eastern Europe, was the outcome of this process, the realisation of a dream that “projected Japanese dreams of industrial fortitude, economic robustness, and Asian domination”.

Like Donny Gluckstein’s collection, James Heartfield’s Unpatriotic History of World War Two belongs on the same bookshelf along with Zinn, Kolko and Alperovitz. Written in 2012, it is a close to a 500 page debunking of the Good War mythology that is filled with deep insights into how really bad it was. If the Gluckstein collection focuses more on the progressive movements that coincided with a savage bloodletting, Heartfield’s book concentrates much more on the latter. It would be difficult for anybody to read his book and be taken in by the Greatest Generation balderdash that continues to dominate the mainstream narratives of an inter-imperialist rivalry whose damage to humanity and nature alike remains unparalleled.

As many of you realize, I have been sharply critical of Spiked Online, a website that is the latest permutation of a one-time current on the British left known as the Revolutionary Communist Party that emerged as a split from the group that would become Tony Cliff’s Socialist Workers Party. While I generally found the contrarianism of the RCP problematic, particularly around environmental issues, I must admit that any influence it had on James Heartfield’s willingness to spend years of research to write this book that sticks its finger in the eye of the Good War nonsense is to be commended. With so much of the left ready to see the Russian adventure in Syria as a repeat of the war of liberation led by the Red Army against Nazi barbarism, it is of considerable importance to have a book like the Unpatriotic History in our arsenal.

One of the prime dispensers of WWII patriotic gore is the website Socialist Unity that counts John Wight as one of its primary contributors. At one time I considered it a useful resource for regroupment efforts such as the one that took place when RESPECT was a major player on the British left. But when it became obvious that its more fundamental purpose was to breathe life into the Great War mythology and Labour Party reformism, I realized that one’s attitude toward Winston Churchill remained a litmus test for the left. When Socialist Unity began posting “greatest generation” type nonsense about Churchill, I tried to remind Wight et al that the famine in Bengal was really not that great. Suffice it to say that the take on the famine at Socialist Unity amounted to a kind of genocide denial.

The chief value of Heartfield’s book is its copious documentation on how people such as Roosevelt, Churchill, and even Stalin were no better than the Japanese and Germans around a number of questions, particularly their treatment of working people who were cannon fodder and virtual slaves in wartime production when the elementary right to strike was viewed as treasonous.

Chapter Six of Unpatriotic History is titled “Imperialist War” and makes for essential reading. Like every other chapter, it is filled with revealing data and quotations from the warmakers that hoists them on their own petard. Heartfield cites Leo Amery, The Secretary of State for India:

After all, smashing Hitler is only a means to the essential end of preserving the British Empire and all it stands for in the world. It will be no consolation to suggest that Hitler should be replaced by Stalin, Chiang Kai-Shek or even an American President if we cease to exercise our power and influence in the world.

While promoted as a benign free trade policy, Roosevelt’s Open Door Policy was a bid to replace Britain as the world’s number one empire as Leo Amery clearly understood. After signing the Atlantic Charter, FDR articulated the kind of paternalism usually associated with his fifth cousin Theodore:

there seems no reason why the principle of trusteeship in private affairs should not be extended to the international field. Trusteeship is based on the principle of unselfish service. For a time at least there are many minor children among the peoples of the world who need trustees in their relations with other nations and peoples.

But the grand prize for overall depravity goes to Winston Churchill based on this account that clearly would have offended his fans at Socialist Unity:

At a Cabinet meeting on 10 November 1943, Prime Minister Churchill said Indians had brought famine on themselves because they were ‘breeding like rabbits’ and so would have to pay the price of their own improvidence. Churchill’s prejudices were backed up by his chief scientific advisor Frederick Lindemann, Lord Cherwell, in a letter the following day: ‘This shortage of food is likely to be endemic in a country where the population is always increased until only bare subsistence is possible.’ Cherwell carried on to turn the truth on its head, moaning as if it was Britain that was subsidising India, not the other way around:

After the war India can spend her huge hoards of sterling on buying food and thus increase the population still more, but so long as the war lasts her high birth rate may impose a heavy strain on this country [i.e. Britain] which does not view with Asiatic detachment the pressure of a growing population on limited supplies of food.

Let me conclude with some parting thoughts on the spate of World War Two nostalgia that has followed in the wake of Russian entry into the war on the Syrian people. On September 28th, Vladimir Putin made a speech at the UN proposing a coalition against ISIS similar to the one that united the USA, Britain and the USSR in World War Two.

What we actually propose is to be guided by common values and common interests rather than by ambitions. Relying on international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing, and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism. Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of parties willing to stand firm against those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind.

John Wight was obviously one person carried away by this rhetoric to the point of swooning. Showing that he would not be taken in by any weak-kneed aversion to the necessary tasks of a war on fascism, he informed his readers at Huffington Post and CounterPunch that firebombing Dresden and barrel-bombing open-air markets in Syria were not game-changers:

Barrel bombs are an atrociously indiscriminate weapon, for sure, and their use rightly comes under the category of war crime. However just as the war crime of the allied firebombing of Dresden in 1945 did not invalidate the war against European fascism then, neither does the atrocity of Syrian barrel bombs invalidate the war against its Middle East equivalent today. When the survival of a country and its culture and history is at stake, war can never be anything else but ugly, which is why the sooner it is brought to a conclusion in Syria the better.

This specious blast of hot air is so filled with bad faith and faulty logic that it would take a year to elaborate on all of its sinister implications. So let me take a minute to nail them down.

To begin with, the war between Germany and the USA was a war between empires. As Leo Amery stated above, “smashing Hitler is only a means to the essential end of preserving the British Empire and all it stands for in the world.” The democracy enjoyed by Britain was made possible only by its super-exploitation of India, Kenya, Burmese, Egypt, China, et al. This was obvious to anyone who has read Lenin even if it was lost on an aspiring Colonel Blimp like John Wight.

But the most important insight that can be gleaned by Wight’s invocation of the Good War is its affinity with a figure whose ghost walks across the parapet of the Assadist left, namely Christopher Hitchens. His footprints can be seen in all of the Islamophobic articles that appear on a daily basis from people like Wight, Mike Whitney and Pepe Escobar who recently referred to the anti-Assad fighters as “mongrels”, the kind of epithet that usually rolls off the tongues of Israeli politicians.

In 2008 Hitchens wrote an article titled “WW2, a War Worth Fighting” that essentially sums up the outlook of laptop bombardiers like John Wight and everybody else extolling the air war on Syrian rebels from the safety of their offices in the USA or Great Britain–especially the last sentence that jibes with Wight’s ghoulish musings on Dresden.

Is there any one shared principle or assumption on which our political consensus rests, any value judgment on which we are all essentially agreed? Apart from abstractions such as a general belief in democracy, one would probably get the widest measure of agreement for the proposition that the second world war was a “good war” and one well worth fighting. And if we possess one indelible image of political immorality and cowardice, it is surely the dismal tap-tap-tap of Neville Chamberlain’s umbrella as he turned from signing the Czechs away to Adolf Hitler at Munich. He hoped by this humiliation to avert war, but he was fated to bring his countrymen war on top of humiliation. To the conventional wisdom add the titanic figure of Winston Churchill as the emblem of oratorical defiance and the Horatius who, until American power could be mobilized and deployed, alone barred the bridge to the forces of unalloyed evil. When those forces lay finally defeated, their ghastly handiwork was uncovered to a world that mistakenly thought it had already “supped full of horrors.” The stark evidence of the Final Solution has ever since been enough to dispel most doubts about, say, the wisdom or morality of carpet-bombing German cities.

61 Comments »

  1. This article brought to my mind the book co-written by the Canadian academic Clement Leibowitz in the 90’s that showed pretty clearly that British and French elites were not trying to “appease” Hitler in the late 30’s but wanted to collaborate with him in containing Bolshevism or any other threat to the capitalist order. Looking back on the book since I last read it in 2002 I think it is still of high merit though possibly too uncritical about the Soviet Union’s motives. The book stopped short of analyzing what may have been the motives of the “anti-appeasement” faction of British ruling class that was behind Churchill. Hitchens (pre-neocon version) wrote the forward to the book.

    Comment by Chris Green — December 15, 2015 @ 2:26 am

  2. ‘This specious blast of hot air is so filled with bad faith and faulty logic that it would take a year to elaborate on all of its sinister implications. So let me take a minute to nail them down.’

    Thankfully the millions of workers who took up arms against fascism, whether Japanese or European, were not persuaded by people such as yourself whose relationship to reality grows more obscure by the week.

    As a materialist I focus on the world as it is, not as it was when I was three and used to play with imaginary friends in my bedroom. You are now officially a shill for al-Qaeda and are veering dangerously close to the point of suggesting that Churchill and Hitler belong on the same level. The inmates of Auschwitz – liberated finally by the Red Army in January 1945 – would have disagreed, I’m sure. Anyone who promoted Heartfield’s book, which is so shoddily written it’s an embarrassment. For example: “To make them follow orders without asking why, armies had training.” Really? What a penetrating insight.

    I happen to know Donny Gluckstein personally. We live in the same town. That is all.

    Comment by John Wight — December 17, 2015 @ 1:27 pm

  3. Wight, I would appreciate it if you stopped playing games on the Socialist Unity blog. I am not “Max” and have no intentions of wasting time there.

    In terms of Churchill and Hitler being on the same level, I can only say that your pal Andy Newman defended Churchill against charges that Britain was responsible for the Bengal famine of 1943 that cost the lives of up to 4 million Indians. I imagine that this would be okay with you as well since this was necessary to keep the British war machine going as some imperialist mouthpieces like Niall Ferguson would argue. Why you people would want to drape yourself in the Union Jack is quite a mystery. But then again Christopher Hitchens went through the same kind of mutation, after all.

    Comment by louisproyect — December 17, 2015 @ 2:26 pm

  4. No one should be fooled by the idea that there were any good sides in the second world war. There were some good people who fought on one bad side or the other. While the Nazis and the Japanese militarists were realatively worse than the Stalinists or the Capitalists at that time, one would have to have no sense of military strategy what so ever to think that the western allies were fighting the war in good faiith. What I mean by good faith fighting the war in manner that was for the best benifit of either the citizens of the UKA or the citizens of occupied territories.
    The combined militaries of the UKA could have ended the conflict in Euirope by the Labor Day of 1943 if they really wanted to.
    The stratagies chosen by Churchill and Roosevelt were driven much more by preventing a communtist takeover of Italy and France than in ending the war quickly ahd saving millions of lives. Maybe that assessment is wrong, perhaps it was to give German soldiers more time to kill more Russian soldiers. If that assessment is wrong maybe it was to give scientists time to build an Abomb.
    In the summer of 1942 it would have been a piece of cake for the UKA to have invaded Norway. The German supply lines to thier forces in Norway would have been cut on the first day of the invansion. The forces of the UKA would not have even needed to occupy the whole county.
    In a week the German forces would have been incapable of any further counterattacks due to lack of fuel and ammuntion. In three weeks they would have been out of food. Norway is large enough that the invansion of the contintent could have been prepared from there. By even placing a potential invansion force in Norway the UKA would have forced German commanders to stretch thier forces on the western front much thinner. With the forces of the UKA in Norway an invasion of the continent starting from Norhtern Germany would have been a very real possibility. A force that landed in the area of Cuxhaven could have used the Weser and Elb rivers to protect its flanks. The forces that landed there would have had so many juicy options to persue it would have been like a Christmas Feast. Even worse it would have been pretty damn stupid for the German Army to stay in Italy, France and the Low countries when Germany is being overrun by the oversexed soldjiers of the UKA.
    The western allies could have then occupied thiese countries without firing a shot. With out firing a shot against German forces. The local communists might have decided to contest the occupations of countries that they hade already liberated.
    So now we can see how Samsara led humanity from WW1 to WW2 to the conflicts today. It is okay if you do not know what Samsara is.
    It seems that know one else does either.
    A superficial understanding of the current conflict may make it seem like a three sided war betweeen the Capitalsit West, the formerly Stalinsit east, and Muslim fundementalists. But one only needs to consider one thing to undestand that it is just a two sided conflcit between the capitlaist west against humanity, especially the former Stalinist and Maoist part of humanity. The one fact that should make it clear that the entire Islamist movement is manipulated by the western Capitalist MIC is the fact that the Saudis pretend that the most important enemy for the Arab world is not Israel and the UKA but Iran.
    There is one difference between this war though and the second world war. This war does have one good side. It might be small but it is highly refined. That is my side. A person could fight for me. Why would someone want to fight for me? Because I am the world’s most twisted real estate agent. Now someone might notice that I said fight for me and not with me. That is correct. I am retired now. But if you can accept that and you want to know what my side is fighting for you can find it as a comment on a post of Peterattwood.blog.com or something like that. Or you can goofle Peter Attwood among the Christoids. My party platform was written al least a year ago.
    Over and out.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — December 17, 2015 @ 5:58 pm

  5. What I just wrote is not the whole story either. If the UKA would have invaded Norway in 1942 and invaded Northern Germany or Denmark in 1943 the German Generals would have killed Hitler and Himmler with in weeks after it became clear that Germany could not throw the Army of the UKA off the continent. Germany would have then either surrendered uncondintionally or a large part of its army would have surrendered in mass especially when they figured out that they would have to fight through their own west wall fortifications to be able to reenter Germany. What few forces that would have been avialable to anyone who wanted to continue the war would have also have had to fight a civil war against their own countrymen.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — December 17, 2015 @ 6:18 pm

  6. Does the fact that the UKA military high command was able to sell its strategy to a mass of field grade officers indicate that the history of this war is virtual and not real? If you missed the movie Blade Runner you might not know what I am talking about. There are millions of people who have birth certificates that show that they were born before 1963 but if all of their memories of the time before Nov 22nd 1963 were implanted by by the manufacturer of the computer that is running the simulation that we call the universe the people born prior to Nov. 22nd 1963 would not be able to tell the difference between what really happened, which was that softwear workers in another dimension were working feverishly to get all the bugs out of the system by their deadline, and what they think happened. Does that sound absurd. Well is that more ubsurd than the fact that there were hundreds of thousands of middle aged men with educations that were supposed to be worth a few dollars and no one protested the western allies detour through North Africa and Italy. And if one person did complain either one of two things happened. Either the questioner was given a cover story the convinced everyone of its sound logic. Or the person was threatened and intimidated to shut by being told that these decisions were above his pay grade and that those in charge should be trusted. Or the questioner and those present were told the truth about why this detour was being made and they should keep it a secret if they knew what is good for them. In the end millions of people marched lock step to carry out a plan that was to the benifit of a few rather than the many. Unless Unless that is only the way that the story was written from another dimension because when millions of people are involved there has to be a few that are not complete idiots and not complete cowards.
    I can not claim to be brave. Heck I did not even volunteer for airborne school. “Life can be short enough why take unneccessary risks” is one of my many nanny mottos.
    We say that in a war a free society can not debate is strategy in the newspapers. If the newspapers of the 1940s had questioned the grand detour and the extention of the war it might have caused the German MIC of the time to station more troops in Norway, Denmark and Northern Germany which would have reduced their capacity to massacre civilains in Mother Russia, That would have also lead to a shorter war as there would have been fewer men available on the eastern front or in France.
    I personally think that the bodies of Eisenhower, Patton, Montgomery, Churchill, and Roosevelt, MacArther too should be pulled from their graves and strung up from the Verrano Narrows Bridge and burned. Once you have understood how Eisenhower betrayed America and working Americans in WW 2 it becomes clear that when he issued his warning about the power of the MIC to the American people he was secretly mocking us. It would not disturb me to see current and recent figures of power in the UKA burning along side of them, before they have to be dug up from their graves.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — December 17, 2015 @ 8:12 pm

  7. Another thing the personal behavior of generals hides the fact that 99% of them are sociopaths which can be discerned not from what they say or how they say it but what they do. Maybe psycopath is the medically correct diagonises. Unless Unless they are really Robots controled by the computer running the universal simulation that we find ourselves trapped in.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — December 17, 2015 @ 8:17 pm

  8. What do you get when you put 150 miilion college educated Americans in one place? Bevis and Butthead.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — December 17, 2015 @ 10:23 pm

  9. http://newleftreview.org/II/96/john-newsinger-the-famished-raj

    Churchill was/is certainly on a par with hitler, if all humans are valued. the british world war II boosters can’t get past their mythologies

    Comment by jp — December 18, 2015 @ 4:31 pm

  10. What percent of the Ameriocan public knows that Norway was a key source for “heavy” water in WW2? What percent of the American public knows what heavy water is used for? What percent of the American publice knows about the history of the UKA to prevent Germany from obtaining the heavy water that was produced in Norway? What percent of the American public is aware of the ratio of naval forces that the UKA had availiable for use in the Atlantic region and German naval forces? What percent of the American people are capable of using the answers to these questions and applying it to criitique American military strategy in WW2.
    Who is capable of using the answer to the last question in applying a critique of democracy and by extension WELL DONE polling research?
    What percent of the American public is capable of determining whether or not polling research was done well?
    Would it do any good, from the point of view of getting people to understand the true nature of America’s leaders, for me to write these crititiques in magazines devoted to WW 2 history?

    Comment by Curt Kastens — December 20, 2015 @ 10:18 am

  11. My tongue is not as sharp as it used to be. I forgot to write the punch line in the post above. What percent of ivy league graduates could have answered those questions in 1942, or in 2015? Hahahahaha that is really funny because that is not the real punch line. What is even funnier is that so many people can not figure out what the real punch line is without getting a hint!!
    Prove it.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — December 20, 2015 @ 10:49 am

  12. Another useful book would be about the 1956 invasion of Egypt. What was the real story?

    Comment by Curt Kastens — December 20, 2015 @ 9:32 pm

  13. What percent of the American public. in 1942, was aware of what the state of Sweden’s military was in 1942? What percent of the American public, in 2016, have any idea what the state of Sweden’s military was in 1942? I ask these questions because Sweden was officially a neutral country in 1942. Sadly they were a defacto German Ally selling important raw materials to the German war machine. Because Sweden was neutral I did not say anything about a UKS invasion of Sweden in 1942. But no I will say something about it. If the UKA wanted to really end the Second World War quickly, and save millions of lives by doing that, the Generals of the UKS should have invaded Sweden in 1942. That is what I would have done. I would have sent our invasion fleet right into the North Sea and 30 minutes before our troops went ashore I would have had our Ambassador call the leader of Sweden and say, you have 29 minutes to declare war on Germany and welcome our troops in to your country or you can resist our invansion and get electrocuted in prison after we occupy your tiny country. What so you think they would have done? I would have added that we will accept the premise that they had been supplying the Germans up to this point because if they did not they would have been invaded by the Germans. But now they have the chance to fight on our side with the support of our armies, and air forces in thier country. What would they have done?
    What could the Germans have done to stop us? Their pitifully obsolesent submarine fleet might have did some damage and their air force might have done some more for a short time. But the entire German submarine force would have been sunk in very short order. Then once the UKA had established air bases in Sweden Air supiriority would have been achieved over the entire continent by 1943 at the latest. The bombers of the UKA would have had fighter escorts during their entire bombing runs. Further more the air force generals of the UK new that Germany was on the verge of winning air supiriority over the UK when the Germans stopped focusing on UK airfields. That mistake allowed the UK to recover and therefore gradually gain the upper hand in the air war over the UK. Surely they learned from that how to decimate the German Air Force, if they had wanted to.
    What could the German army have done if we had invaded Sweden. Well they had forces in Norway but for these forces to get to Sweden they would have needed to drive hundreds of kilometers just to reach enemy lines. They would not have been able to receive any fuel resupply.
    They would have been attacked by carrier based aircraft the whole way. They would have been harrassed by partisans the whole way. There would have been no food or ammunintion resupply. By the time they reached the lines of the UKS probably along with Sweden too the most effective weapon that they would have had left to wage war with would have been the bayonets on the ends of their rifles.
    After Germany had been defeated Japan would have faced the combined strength of the USA, the Empire of the UK, and the USSR, and China. That fight would have been over in the first round.
    It is to bad that the soldiers who serve in armies choose to serve the rulers rather than the people that raised them.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — February 11, 2016 @ 11:50 pm

  14. Let us imagine for just a moment that there actually could have been an honest Colonel or LTC in the US military in 1942 and this honest officer correctly came to the conclusion that US miltary was conducting a criminally negligent or treasonous policy of defeating Nazi Germany. What could this lone officer have done about it? Well, would it depend on whether or not he was the father of young children? If he was not the father of young children should he have been expected to make a big stink about his perceptions and try to change the plans that had been agreed upon at levels far higher than his? If he had been the father of young children should he have been expected to just keep his mouth shut and try to obtain the safest assignments that he could get so that he could get out of the military at the first possible moment so as not to support any evil side in an all evil conflict?
    I have to admit it is hard to imagine an honest person in the US military because the situation that would have been faced by an honest soldier in the US military in 1942 has been repeated over and over again for more than 70 years and nothing ever changes. Well alm ost nothing. One honest officer did commit sucide in 2006 if I remember correctly and he even had young children.
    What Is really enlightening to me is that after so many decades not one historian in the USA, let alone one historian from an Ivy league school has dared to point out the neglegent treasonous behavior of our nations military leaders in the second world war, if any have actually figured it out in the first place. Which I highly doubt.
    It is claimed that universities in the USA, especially ivy league universities and some other schools like Stanford, MIT, Georgetown, and Catholic Univerity, and so on are the best universities in the world. Most of the leaders of the United States are graduates of these schools. But if we are to judge these schools based on the performance of their graduates I must ask. if these are the type of graduates that a good school produces then what would be the criteria for a bad school?
    I guess a graduate of a bad school would do something totally useless like ask these questions on an old post of louisproyect.org

    Comment by Curt Kastens — February 13, 2016 @ 1:56 pm

  15. Well I am now all done with house work for the day. I am done watching TV. Football season is over. So beating a dead horse is better than reading some crap about whether or not slavery was pre capitalist or an essential part of capitalism. What motivates me to beat the dead horse that I have been trying to rock on for the past several days? Surprisingly it is for posterity. No I do not expect any actual human beings to read these remarks. What I hope is that perhaps in a 1000 years an extra curricular rescue mission of simulated aliens will arrive on earth. They will find the submerged ruins of an industrialized civilization devoid of people. So as long as they are here they might decide to launch an investigation in to what happened. Then an Archeologist sifting through the data stored on hard drives will come across my comments and understand that they are significant.
    Today when I was walking back and forth between the kitchen and the living room so that could burn enough extra calories to put a few slices of cheese on the Herb Chocolate Bar that I wanted to eat I realized that my comments about making the western allies first counter attack of the second world war the reinforcement (or invasion and occupation) of Sweden was even more important than I initially understood. Yes there would have been some risks with carrying out this plan. My most optimistic estimate is that 25,000 allied personnel would have died in the Battle for Scandinavia. The overwhelming percent of those deaths would have been at sea. My worst case estimate is 50,000 deaths.
    But Scandinavia would have been consolidated in allied hands by the end of 1942.
    This battle would have pitted allied strengths against German weakness. Yes in 1942 Germany had a first rate army. But by then its air force was second rate and its Navy was fourth rate. Without a chance of contesting allied control of the North Sea the allied consolidation of Scandinavia was inevitable in a very short time. In 1942 it was not at all clear that the Soviets would be able to withstand the German attack. Therefore the battle for Scandinavia should have been planned for 1942. The fact that Roosevelt, Marshall, Eisenhower, Churchill, Montgomery and others involved in determining military policy were willing to risk the military defeat of Russia because their priorities were in making sure that communists did not gain power in western Europe shows that they were willing to get millions of their citizens killed in a one front war against the Germans if it came to that.
    Had Scandinavia been in allied hands in 1942 Germany could have been invaded from the north in 1943. According to German General Erwin Rommel hardly no defences had been built along Europe’s coastlines when we was put in charge of this project. Therefore it is quite reasonable to say that the war in Europe would have been over by May 8th 1943 not 1945. The allies could have invaded near Hamburg, or Settin, or Dansk, or even Kallingrad. From these beachheads it would have been just a short jog to the industrial heartlands or capital of Germany. The German soldiers would have to have fought back through their own defences that they had built in the 1930s, without resupply.
    It is when that first bite of cheese covered chocolate hit my stomach that I understood the most important benefit that this course of action would have produced. That is a huge well trained German army would have been captured before it had been destroyed.
    The soldiers of this army could have been enslaved and forced to fight the Japanese instead of risking Russian, American, and other allied lives. The way that the German Army behaved in the war gave the allies every moral right to enslave the entire German population. So what I would have done is first put every member of the German military on trial and sentence them to between 10 and 40 years imprisonment, if not the death penalty, depending on their age and rank. Then I would offer all of these prisoners a chance at freedom. They can gain their freedom if they fight with enthusiasm against the Japanese. I would tell them just to make sure they do not get a funny ideas we will hold their families as hostages until the war with Japan is over. Allied soldiers would be embedded with the German units down to the platoon level to ensure that they toe the line, or else. Of course pensions would be given to the families of German soldiers who died in the conflict. Pensions would also have been promised to those who lose arms, or legs, or eyes, or their jaw, and both testicles, or their bowel, or become paralyzed in the war. One time payments could have been promised for non permanent injuries.
    So after the defeat of Germany the allies could have spent a year creating even larger navies and then set sail for Japan. How long would it have taken before the Japanese would have surrendered once they realized that they would have to fight a two million man German Army backed up by allied naval and air power BEFORE they have to fight the first allied ground troops?
    If the simulated aliens ever read this they will know why we became extinct.
    Yes I do see a slim hope that humanity can avoid a terrible fate if it can harness nuclear fusion power, or something equivalent. Yet if there is not a revolution in how the world’s leadership rules even this technology will just be used for the benefit of a few to the detriment of the vast majority.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — February 14, 2016 @ 10:59 pm

  16. Skeptics or defenders of Generals Marshall and Eisenhower might say is response to my observations, when the ambassador of the UKA called the Swedish King or Prime Minister and told them that the allied forces would begin landing in 30 minutes the leader of Sweden might have said, your intrusion on our countries nuetrality is an outrageous crime against international law that makes you no better than the Nazis who invaded Belgium and the Netherlands. Well the ambassador would have been perpared with this answer. Look one or another Stockholm is going to get bombed. The only question facing you at this point is do you want to take your chances fighting allied forces with the help of Germany or do you want to fight German forces with the help of the allies? Countries like people do not always get to chose their path in to history. Sometimes their history choses their path for them.
    With that response I think that the chances that the leader of Sweden would have sided with the allies would have stood at 90%. Even if he had not, I thnk in a very short period of time the chances that large numbers of the Swedish population and the Swedish military would have starting siding with the allies would have stood at 90%.
    Furthermore invading a neutral country out of military neccessity was certainly in the allied play book. They did it to Iran. What the behavior of the allied leaders tells us is that in 1942 they had hoped for a German victory in the east. One that would have given the Germans time to exterminate the native populations. Then they would defeat the Germans at huge costs to the working classes of the UKA and recreate feudalism in Eastern Europe along the lines of Latin America. In 1942 it becamne appartent that their wishes were not going to materialize so in late 1942 they began toying with the Germans and stringing the Russians along and did just enought to make sure that the Russians did not get control of the much more highly industrialized western Europe.
    With such treacherous leadership in the 1940s is it any wonder we have such treacherous leadership today. After all who promoted the leaders of the 1950s who promoted the leaders of the 1960s and so on. A defender of those leaders might say. If Louis Proyect or Lew Rockwell was such a smart person why did they not play by the establshed rules and rise to the top where they could have had some positive influence on the course of events. I do not know for sure how Louis Proyect or Lew Rockwell would defend themselves. But if I were their lawyer I would say, look life is like a motocross race. There are millions of people entered in this race. It is a race without motor size distinction. Some people are riding on 175cc Kawasakis others on 125cc Yamahas and still others on 75 cc Suzukis. Some people start near the poll position and others start well back in the middle of the pack or even at the rear of the entire column. To make maters worse a storm came through before the start of the race and blew the signs showing the course to the finish line in wrong directions. Therefore most of those at the front went off in the wrong direction and most of those behind are following them. Only a few would were experts are reading the terrain in addition to being excellent cyclists are on the correct path. Those responsible for holding the race in the first place are going to face harsh criticism from everyone when the race is done because everyone will say that they were decieved about where the finsih line was.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — February 17, 2016 @ 1:16 pm

  17. So here I am again writing some graffiti deep inside of a rainwater drainage system. No one will ever know that this comment is written here besides me. The more time that passes the less likely that it will be that anyone will read this.
    Why do I bother I ask myself. The only answer that I can come up with is that I do not have free will. What the heck is it that I want to point out anyways.
    What I want to point back at is a continued radical understanding of the Second World War. Specifically iron as a raw material for making steel.
    Some days ago I asked myself, how much steel did Nazi Germany actually get from Sweden. I looked it up and discovered that it was 38 million tons of iron ore over 5 years from 1940 to 1944. By my estimate that would have accounted for about one third of German steel production during that period. More importantly I decided to find out where the rest came from. What I learned is that about a third of the rest came from Spain. That fact spured a question that was obvious to me. I wonder if it is obvious to anyone else. As far as I know no one else has ever publicly asked the question before. The question is, would it have been difficult for the UKA to have stopped the sale of iron ore by Spain to Germany if the UKA had wanted to?
    What would have Franco have told the ambassadors of the UKA if they had gone to him and said, we want you to stop selling iron ore to Germany. Germany is going to lose this war and when it does we are not going to forget to help that you gave them and did not give us if you continue to export iron ore to the Nazi. Do not expect us to believe that you fear a Nazi invasion if you stop selling it to them. They have their hands full and then some with the Russians.
    Oh, and by the way we will pay twice whatever it is that they are paying. Just to make sure that Spain is complying you have to allow us to place unarmed inspectors along rail and road crossings in to France Come on now tell me what Franco would have done? Can there be any reasonable doubt?
    If at this point you have any reasonable doubt, let me add this. Hitler had sent his Abwehr (like the US OSS) Chief Admiral Canaris to Spain to talk Franco into entering the war on the side of Germany. Admiral Canaris had a good personal relationship with Generalissimo Franco, both were conservative Catholics. Yet Admiral Canaris decided to betray Hitler. He told Franco that Germany would certainly lose the war so Spain should stay out of it. Therefore Franco would have had no reason to doubt that in the near future the leaders of the UKA would be able to carry out their threats.
    If you think about about it I have demonstrated the UKA could have cut off a large chunk of German iron ore supplies without risking a single military asset. When you combine that with the occupation of southern Sweden a person can see how a competent uncorrupted General would have defeated Germany much faster and at much lower costs than the s—heads that were allowed to run the allied war effort. After the defeat of Germany we would have had so much spare time we could have liberated Spain from Franco just for the hell of it. Spain did after all provide a division for the war on the Soviet Union.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 7, 2016 @ 11:18 pm

  18. A critic of mine might say, look those leaders that you are condemning were more far sighted than you are. They prevented a Stalinist take over of France and Italy and therefore most likely all of western Europe. My response to that is, nuts. Even if Stalinists had managed to take over western Europe that would have in no way what so ever negatively impacted the masses in the UKA. If leaders who have an entire continent to work with can not build a just and sustainalbe society, they would not be able to do it if they had the whole planet to work with either. End of Story.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 18, 2016 @ 3:57 pm

  19. I have been watching the tv mini series Deutschland 83 the past few days, I have now seen six of the eight episodes. It is a very entertaining look backwards. The series has kept me at the end of my seat. It is a psycho thriller not an action film.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 18, 2016 @ 4:01 pm

  20. Drip Drip Drip Drip. That is the sound of melting ice landing in water. It is a very boring look forwards.
    I have finished watching the German Series Deutschland 83. I feel compeled to point something out about the program. There is a scene in the fijlm where Lt. Stamm and General Adel have stopped to fill the car up with gas while driving to Brussels. When they pull away from the pumps the camera shows that the hose has not been removed from the car. Yet nothing is made of that. It seems to be a glitch in the editing. I maintain that this glitch would have been so easy to take care of that it was done diliberately. It was done to make sure that the audiance knows that they are watching a work of fiction and not an actual reenactment of the events as they actually occured.
    The World probably does not know yet so I will have to tell it now though it will not change anything.. The prequel to Deutschland 83 is The Assault written by Harry Mulisch in 1982 and made in to a film in 1985 which won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Picture in 1986. I said that only for entertainment purposes. My entertainment.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 23, 2016 @ 12:24 pm

  21. Dot Dot Dash. What is safe, rare, and legal?

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 24, 2016 @ 3:17 pm

  22. I would like to expand the thread to include not just comments on the books presented here or even on other radical takes on the second world war. No I would like to expand it to radical takes on any military subject. Subject as in theme not subject as in a undlerling of a Monarch. Louis has not sent me an email to me yet objecting to me highjacking this thread. So I will assume it is OK with him and if he does not know it will not hurt him.
    The subject of this radical take is on the policy of the US military concerning the duties of its soldiers should they become POWs. The policy of the US military is flat out criminal. The policy of the US military is that if its soldiers are captured the soldiers has a duty to use every opportunity to escape and return to the US military to again take up arms against the enemy. With such a two faced official policy US soldiers are lucky if they are just not executed on the spot once they surrender. I myself can not see how pretending to surrender so that you might use a future opportunity to escape is any different than using a white flag in a fire fight to gain a tactical advantage. This policy is not a ruse it is outright trechory.
    If I see it that way why should any American not expect that anyone living in a territory targeted by UKA aggression would not see the same way I do. What is inacurate about my percieption?
    There is a reasonable alternative to this trechory. That is that once captured US soldiers must use every opportunity to subvert the will and morale of those holding them prisoner with the eventual goal of getting them to defect to the cause that Thomas Paine, John Brown and Fred Hampton would support, which might not be any of the sides fighting in the conflict.
    Now those professional UKA mercinaries that currently occupy the positions of authority in the chain of command of the military of the UKA might scoff and say, your policy would make it far to tempting for our underlings to surrender and say that they did thier job, It is policy of support for cowards. My response to that is, it is far better to die 10,,000 times as a percieved coward in the eyes of your country’s inhabitants than to die one time as a percieved loyal nazi in the eyes of Thomas Paine, John Brown and Fred Hamptom

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 24, 2016 @ 5:36 pm

  23. Oh, and speaking of cowards, the courage of those in the US miltary is highly over rated. In every war that the US has ever fought its military has had the advantage of either numerical supiriority or technelogical supirority, usually both. Yet for decades in third world countries there have been girls as young as 14 who have gone to war with nothing more than a can of spray paint to scrawl anti government slogans on the walls of slums and they knew good and well that if they were spotted by the security forces that they would be chased and shot at with live ammuntion and if they were captured they would be raped and tortured and murdered and thrown in to a river or in to a ditch. So to admire the members of the US military for their aledged bravery is completely stupid.
    Furthermore people all across this planet, not just in the UKA, have been charging machine gun nests, and throwing themselves on gernades to save their comrades, and similar things in the pre gunpowder era since the dawn of history. In addition for every person who has won the Medal of Honor or the Victoria Cross or the Iron Cross with Oak Leaf Cluster, there have been many that would have done the same thing except they were killed before they got the chance, others did similar things but all those that could have reported it died with them. So why should an honest person draw any other conclusion than physical courage is as cheap as the dust that it comes from?

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 24, 2016 @ 5:55 pm

  24. A two point conversition or a safety?

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 24, 2016 @ 5:57 pm

  25. Here is another radical take on a military subject if you care to read it. The US miliary maintains a large miliary presence in the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf to maintain the free flow of oil, particularily through the Straits of Hormuz. Yet it would not be neccessary for any oil to pass through the Straits of Hormuz if an oil pipeline were built to by pass it. Any idiot could have figured that out and it would have saved large amounts of money and lives over the decades. It is not as if the US military commanders are not aware of this potential course of action. I told them years ago. Yet they still have not even taken the first step in implimenting constuction of such a pipeline. I wonder if that would make any readers of these comments wonder about why no action ever was or ever will be taken.
    There is no hope for anyone who can not understand that to have built such a pipeline at anytime after 1980 would have been a very sensible thing to do.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — April 7, 2016 @ 3:56 pm

  26. Since 1980 a new policy in US domestic policies has weakened the potential military power of the US. Normally such a development would be a good thing. This policy is an exception though. The policy that I am referring to is the use of private prisons to house prisoners. If a person can not understand that this policy causes a blatant conflict of interest there is no hope for them. What I find most disturbing about the development of the private prison industry is that its growth is an indication that there is no hope for the police forces that claim to be protecting America from crime. If the people involved with police institutions in the US had a lick of sense they would have died fighting trying to prevent private prisons from being established in the US. Where were their voices? Where are their minds? Are their minds locked up in a vault?

    Comment by Curt Kastens — April 8, 2016 @ 9:53 am

  27. Every thing that I have written up until now on this page is pretty uncontriversial. Oh, yes someone could argue with the things that I have written above and try to make them contraversial but such people would only be making themselves look like Gerry Spence. Therefore I thnk it is appropriate for me to review some of my previos slayings of sacred cows.
    The first cow is the idea that democracy is a good foundation for a just society. Thomas Paine himself expressed doubts before his death as to whether or not the masses, in America, were capable of maintaining a republic with democratic institutions. I would normally provide a reference to prove this point but that means that i would have to get up from my chair and go downstairs to the basement and look through my books by Thomas Paine, or biographies about him. The history of the world for the past 200 years as clearly settled that question.
    Democracy does not work. Democracy does not work for understandable reasons. All interpretations that democracies are better than dictatorships are unscientific smoke and mirrors. As societies increase in complexity in combination with ever greater specalization of labor democracy becomes ever less and less able to deliver positive outcomes.
    Point by point: The world is a very complex place. Relationships between man and nature have not been well understood. Relationships between societies and between people with in societies have been even worse understood. The consequences of our decisions are not really understood even by experts very well. Last but not least people do not even understand themselves very well. They want to have more things done for them yet they want to pay less for more. Even worse they are terrible at risk assessement. Even worse than that once they have believed something for a long time they develope an emotional attachment to it. Today I heard a man say, “Our ethics come from God”. Can any statement be more emotional than that? Add to that that many people have no interest in understanding the relationships between man and nature or between people. Even if someone has an interest in these relationships the demands of life and specialization of labor make it difficult for most people to achieve competence outside of their specialization. For all of these reasons direct democracy, even at the factory level is a bad idea.
    Representive democracy is an even worse idea. We can not even verify that it represents anything at all. People have all kinds of crazy ways of deciding why to vote for one representive rather than another. The entire process of elections is just one set of manipulaters trying to out manipulate another set of manipulaters. The masses are almost defenceless. Game theory studies show that the costs of mounting a defence against special interests are always higher than doing nozhing at all. Either form of democracy has to answer a question for which there is no sensible answer. Where should borders be drawn. The idea that borders should be drawn at all is arbitrary and absurd. The idea that no borders should be drawn is also arbitrary and absurd. WTF? We are forced to accept an absurdity.
    Now it is time for compairisons betweeen democracies and dictatorships. Which country has launched more wars of aggression, the USA or North Korea? In which country does the press present a more accurate picture of reality inside the country from which it operates, the USA or North Korea? In which country will a greater percent of the population answer that question correctly? Which country holds the highest percent of its population in prison? To what extent is a coutry’s economic perfermance determined by voting versus to what extent it is determined by the access to and consumption of natural resources? Does voting give us greater access to natural resources?
    Is the cow dead or do I need to kick it some more?
    The next sacred cow is privacy. That people should have it is a bad idea. Privacy is rarely ever used for a public benifit. It is almost always used to victimize people. The difficult problem is that some people due to their wealth or position can achieve it while everyone else has gret difficulty to maintain it. This imbalance is also dangerous and no one has ever told me how to address this imbalance nor have I been able to figure out a way to do it. That only leaves making sure that those who have the balance of power on their side are worthy of the position. Rather than bitching about the government spying on the activists of your favorite cause the activists should relish the opportunity of turning government agents in to double agents.
    A disarmed population is a bad idea. There is certainly no need for people to have assault rifles. People who insist on them are acting selfishly and immaturely. None the less the number of people killed each year by assult rifles is trivial compared to those killed by handguns. That means that we can cut conservatives some slack on this issue. But we can still mock them and point out at every opportunity that they are chicken shits and horse shit marksmen if they need 15 shots to bring down their targets and can not do it with two. Shit, I bet four bucks that I can bring down three conservatives with every shot as they have such a strong tendency to line up one behind the other.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — April 9, 2016 @ 7:41 pm

  28. One US politician says, Together we can make America great again. Another US politician comes up with the zinger, No need to do that America is great and it always has been. What a bunch of crock pot from both houses. When was America ever great. we it had the highest percent of people in prison on the planet, or when it had the highest level CO2 emissions per capita on the planet. A conservative said we have the most people in prison because in the USA we like to put our criminals behind bars. I doubt he really understands what he said. America likes to put its poor criminals in prison. America likes to line up it wealthy criminals behind the stars and bars of the confederacy.
    Thomas Paine told us when we could be proud of our country many years ago. It was not a suicidal task. Yet we never have met his standards. Instead we are a nation proud to have succumb to the standards of Admiral Farraguat.
    How can a human being have any respect for the people of a nation that still have not figured out that they were royally screwed by Generals Marshall, Eisenhower, and Montgomery.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — April 10, 2016 @ 6:13 pm

  29. I am pissed. But I bet I am not as pissed as the US Generals were when semi communists officers in Portugal over threw the right wing government there in 1974. What day was that on? The US Generals, and German Generals too, like General Tanz, must have been shitting in their pants at least for a few weeks, until they managed to misdirect the course of the revolution, to keep it on the reservation of western capitalsit possibilities.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — April 13, 2016 @ 6:56 pm

  30. The following statement is from a draft of a lecture which was to be given at a conference in Berlin in 1956. Unfortunately for America and humanity its words were never heard. If the words had been heard they would have almost certainly been ignored anyways. Parts of the draft are available in a book printed in Germany in 1962. I doubt if this book has ever been available in the West Point library. If it has I would bet 10 dollars that it has never been checked out.
    I hope that you did not expect me to give you the name of the book.

    If you train a man for war you are automatically training him for murder. If you claim, in all sincerity that you are training him to maintain peace you must train him to be a human being. You have no other choice.
    To train a man in blind obedience is to train a man in stupidity. That may be the most convenient form of human management. It has nothing what so ever to do with leadership. An attempt to teach or train knowledge and culture, on the other hand presupposes knowledge and culture and integrity on the part of the teacher.
    The building of a revolutionary army must be a mental process not an act of routine planning. An army should not be in the hands of power politicians but in the hands of equally shrewd but responsible people.

    In the winter of 1985 a NATO military training exercise was held in northern Germany and the Netherlands. At the completion of this exercise there was a conflict between the Dutch authorities and the US military about the movement of US equipment over Dutch roads. A US military officer was given the task of getting permission for the US military to use the Dutch roads. Instead this officer defended Dutch sovereignty and insisted that all Dutch authorities be obeyed. (hmmm, that means that he has served the militaries of four countries. I never thought of that before) The officer was not punished, just studied like a lab rat.
    A few months later the commander of his unit LTC English had a cook out for all the officers and maybe a few NCOs as well. After a fine meal LTC gave a speech. It was a speech that would have made Abraham Lincoln proud. The point of the speech was that the US in US Army stands for us. The officer who had defended Dutch sovereignty did not at that time make a connection between his actions and the point of this party because he was still a turnip. None the less he was concerned by the over all implication of this speech. The over all implication of the speech was a rephrasing of the Wehrmacht officer line, I was only following the legal order of a legal authority. So this young officer gave a counter speech that if I dare say was the greatest English language speech given in American history. I know because I was there. Unless this speech was secretly recorded it has been lost to history. I will always remember these lines however. Any Nazi officer can support his country when his country is wrong. America has been wrong many times in the past. It will be wrong again in the future. American officers must be psychologically prepared not to support their country when it is wrong because such a day will surely come again. Any confederate officer can fail to understand when the nation is waging an unjust war. Not only was this officer not heeded I heard it from a reliable source that he received the lowest officer efficiency reports in the history of the US military. He managed to get out with an honorable discharge which was quite incredible considering his total disdain for the institution that started just a few months in to active duty when he took a trip to Baumholder and learned what the corp values of the military really were from college friends serving in the infantry. It funny how inhuman behavior is accompanied by rationalizations.
    I always had my suspicions that Captain Duncan was a secret communist. He was enlisted before entering OCS.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — April 14, 2016 @ 12:32 am

  31. A key conclusion that I have drawn from listening to men like Captain Duncan and and an Egyptian Mohammad G. that I worked closely with almost 30 years ago is that evil men create a much stronger hold on power when they rule through deception rather than fear of those holding the reins of power.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — April 14, 2016 @ 8:47 am

  32. Ok I am going to come clean and admit what I have been doing here for the past few weeks. I can admit it since I am almost positive that my intentions have been discovered anyways and counter measures have been taken. I have been trying to manipulate the google search engine.
    In the end my efforts have been unsuccessful. So Since I am done posting comments here now I would like to leave one final warning. It is not exactly a radical take on anything. It is more an observation that I think gets forgotten by those who should know better. I will not be the first to say that 90% of what any intellegence agency needs to know is available for open sources. Now that other 10% can of course make a crucial difference. But if the 90% available from open sources is not be properly interpreted by an intellegence agency the additional 10% that is collected from clandestine sources is just going to do more damage than good. I do not know maybe no one has actually said that last sentence before because everyone miight have thought it goes with out saying. Did what I just say sound like, we should all just be reasonable?

    Comment by Curt Kastens — April 15, 2016 @ 5:37 pm

  33. Ok ths story is over. But, when a book goes through its second printing authors often add a post script. This is my post script.
    I personally think that my criticisms of Allied War strategy in WW2 really make those in charge of developing that strategy look either as stupid as hell or as evil as hell. I also think that it makes the field grade officers of the US military look as worthless as hell. If these officers had a shred of integrity between them then Marshall, and Eisenhower, and their English counterparts would have never even dared to develope a plan of attacking the Germans in North Africa or Italy because if the field grade officers would have had the slightest clue as to what mission first people always means then the General officers would have feared being tarred and feathered and then being hung from meat hooks for trying to get thier subordinates to follow such a strategy.
    Earlier I made some comments about what A (ONE) field grade officer could have done when faced with such stupidity, or treachory, from his supiriors. Yet it should have never been the case that only 0ne officer recognized what was being done and why and disagreed with it. It should have been 110% of the field grade officers. As soon as they heard about these stupid plans to send the army to North Africa instead of Sweden every officer in attendance should have immediately expressed thier outrage that they were being taken for fools and they should have been supported by every other officer in attendance.
    Yet it is very possible that not one officer on duty (active or reserve)in the US military today would agree with my observations, even if every single one of them saw it. After all the officers of 1942 trained the officers of of the next generation who trained the officers of the next generation in a chain that goes down to the officers of this day. If they did not get it then there is good reasons to believe that they do not get it now.
    The officers and NCOs of the US military think that they belong to an exceptional team because in the end they defeated the Germans and Japanese, and then the Soviets. I can not argue against those two facts. I guess that is why they rule and I only mop floors and do laundry.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — May 5, 2016 @ 3:05 pm

  34. So, I wonder if anyone one will noticed that I have returned to the scene of the crime. Last night I realized that when I wrote about the treachery involved with WW2 military strategy I forgot to consider a very important factor that makes my case even twice as strong. Norway, which would have been cut off from the continent if my strategy would have been followed, was the primary supplier of HEAVY WATER, which is or at least was then a vital ingredient for the production of an atomic bomb. In fact the allies launched bombing raids to destroy the dam where heavy water was produced and attempted to sabotage the shipment of heavy water back to Germany. Without heavy water Germany’s atomic weapons research would have been crippled. Naturally if Sweden would have been occupied, and that would have been much simpler than the fighting in north Africa and Italy, not a drop of heavy water would have made it back to Germany.
    It is not my assertion that those in charge of formulating US/UK strategy wanted Germany to be able to produce a nuclear weapon. It IS my assertion that those in charge wanted the threat of a German atomic bomb to JUSTIFY their own atomic weapons program, and the massive amounts of resources that went into it. Such a justification would not have been needed at the time. There was clearly no resistance from anyone in the UK or US to anything that the rulers wanted to do. This justification was needed to hide the imperialistic motivations for this program from future generations.
    The rulers of the US and the UK sacrificed hundreds of thousands of their own citizens, and millions of OTHER PEOPLE, to be in a position to continue to pursue world domination and unjust policies after the defeat of Nazi Germany.
    The failure of the direct subordinates of these rulers to subject the rulers to a Grimm fate has resulted in a death penalty for planet earth.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — October 21, 2016 @ 10:03 am

  35. A person could total up the innocent victims of Stalin’s policies and conclude that Stalin was an even bigger asshole than the leaders of the US and the UK during his time. I think that to just compare the number of victims misses an important point though. That is what the potential options were that were available to the different leaders.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — October 22, 2016 @ 11:09 pm

  36. Radical Takes on World War Three
    In the year of 2001 AD while working in Landstuhl Germany I was told by co-workers that a lab top computer with classified information was missing from Panzer Kaserne in Kaiserslautern. I have been wondering about this story for the past 15 years. If the story was untrue, what was the purpose for spreading such a story? Who would benefit from spreading this untrue story? If the story was true, who could have taken this computer? Did they ever get caught? What kind of information was on the computer? Was anyone ever able to take advantage of the information on the computer, assuming of course that the story was true, AND that the information on the computer was true, not part of a clever hoax. Even the best intelligence is worthless if the ones receiving it are not in a position to take advantage of it.
    A continuation of my Radical Takes on World War Three can be found on my comments at the website BlackFive which I think that I made in the year 2OO9 in the month of November.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — December 8, 2016 @ 4:25 pm

  37. Stan Goff wrote this,
    Polemical disgust is what demagogues use to convert people into monstrosities, then scapegoats. Nazis relentlessly portrayed Jews as rats and roaches. Women are routinely portrayed by misogynistic men as disgusting, especially as it relates to ‘animal-reminder’ disgust, which is also ‘mortality-reminder’ disgust, that is, because women’s bodies are supposedly not as firmly bounded as men’s: women menstruate, lactate, make babies (by taking something ‘foreign’ [semen] into their bodies). The white person who has sex with the black one (especially a [receptive] white woman with a black man) is symbolically contaminated. There were instances during segregation after an African American swam in a public pool that whites demanded the entire pool be drained and scrubbed, then refilled, before they would allow their children to return.

    This is why polemical disgust should be recognized, named, and condemned regardless of who aims it at whom. It is not okay to employ it against Donald Trump, because as long as it is effective against Donald Trump or cow’s milk or yuppie hipsters or evangelicals or rednecks (I am kind of a redneck), it is also effective at immigrants, women, people of color, LGBT folk, Muslims, Jews, fat folks, and ‘that family’ that has been ostracized in your town.

    You can read his whole(some?) post here,
    http://chasinjesus.blogspot.de/2016/12/polemical-disgust.html#more

    f find this a very interesting and persuasive argument. I had never given this much thought before. My have always tried to govern my own behavior by a few simple rules. One rule being the Golden rule of treating others the way that you would want to be treated. the second rule, the Platinum rule, treat others the way that you see them treating others. Put another way it means give people a taste of their own medicine.
    Well if I follow Stan’s advice i would have to stop calling the field grade officers in the US military worthless pieces of shit.
    I will take Stan’s advice under consideration.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — December 11, 2016 @ 12:13 am

  38. So if I understand Stan Goff and Jonn Lilyea and Peter Attwood correctly, what they are trying to tell me, just not out loud, is that if there ever were attempt by people in the military to take over the USA and have it run for the benefit of the 99%, so to speak, that might actually be successful, a nuclear attack on Germany would automatically be triggered. This attack on Germany would be blamed on the Russians and a large nuclear attack on Russia would follow. This attack would not be designed to cripple the Russian capability to respond however. The whole point of setting this chain of events in motion would be to get the USSR, oops I mean Russia, to destroy the US, while giving the 1/10 of 1% time to get out of the way and flee to the southern hemisphere. That it pretty diabolical. But, I am not surprised that they came up with this plan. It explains a lot of past events.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — December 11, 2016 @ 12:26 pm

  39. So now we are at a point that 4,000 US brigands have been sent to Poland. The stories told to justify such a ridiculas undertaking are less realistic then the stories that my mind makes up when I am sound asleep. No I do not expect that such stupidity is an imminent cause for war. 4000 US soldiers could not capture and hold even one Russian county in a conventional war. Obviously the Russians would know that too.
    I think that Louis Proyect would describe this as a case of one bully calling another bully a dike pussy. But I see it as one bully calling a former bully a dike pussy. (Hey just to make this clear I myself would never call anyone a dike pussy. That is what I imagine that a bully who wants to start trouble would say.)
    I see Russia as a former bully that is trying to reform itself. But it attempts are complicated by another bully that sees weakness in a new potential victim. A victim that is always forced to retreat or to strike back in a way that would bring on mutal assured distruction.
    Even if Putin is a corrupt capitalist oligarch Russian foreign policy has not been beligerent in Syria, or the Ukraine. In both cases the actions of Soviet Russian can legitimately be seen, from the perspective of Soviet Russian leadership, based on decades of US hostility, as reactions against US intrusions against friendly Russian allies.
    Now the people of these countries might not share the same visions that their leaders did. But for me that is of no consequence what so ever. The people do not have access to accurate information. With out that how can they make a legitimate decision? They will say to me, FUCK YOU!! We live here in the Ukraine and in Syria we saw what was going on every day for decades. My response is that you only saw part of what was going on. Let me give you an example of unreliable the testimony is of people who were at the scene of the crime so to speak.
    In December of 1944 a large group of American prisoners was being held by the Germans near the Belgium town of Malmedy. These unarmed prisoners of war were massacred by a soldiers of a German SS unit. Yet there were quite a number of survivors of this massacre. All these survivors tell the same story. That of a deliberately planned premeditated massacre. Yet if that was actually the case why were there survivors at all? It not as if the SS units were inexpereinced in carrying out a premeditated massacre of unarmed prisoners. It was certainly not common for allied prisoners of war to be massacred on the western front. Do I need to document that claim?
    What seems much more plausible is that the greatly outnumbered, though armed soldiers, who were assigned to guard the prisoners thought that the prisoners were about to try to overpower them. No historians do not make such a claim. Big fragging deal. Which historians point out that allied leaders failed to end the war in Europe by the end of May in 1943 by failing to occupy (or invade or reinforce) Sweden? Tell me if any of the German guards were there would it be sensible for him to come forward and admit it? The German side of the story could only be given by someone who would foolishly think that he could get an impartial jury hearing.
    To make the claim that this massacre was an accident in no way dimishes the bravery of US soldiers who fought in WW2. What the claim does do is to call in to question the ability of the vast majority of human beings to make cause and effect connections when witnessing what they see happening in front of them.
    For an army that trains obedience and for those that promote rule “by the people” that is a dangerous thing to call in to question. (More on this in the next post)
    Just to make sure that you are clear. I am not saying that the use of armed force to overthrow Assad was not justified. What I am saying is that I am willing to give everyone in Syria the benifit of the doubt and to think that everyone is making the best decisions that they can with the information that they have avialable to them at the time.
    The Ukraine is similar to Syria. But not exactly the same. In the Ukraine the underhanded dealing of the US, EU and NATO is much more obvious. By offering a bribe to the Ukraine, yes the EU would call it aid they would not call it a bribe, they set the whole series of predictable events in motion.
    Of course most of the people of the Ukraine would want to accept a bribe. The only problem is from the standpoint of of the citizens of the EU, who the leaders of the capitalist west do not care about, that money was taken from their pockets for a the purpose of further weaking Russia which the citizens of the EU have no legitimate interest in doing.
    So even though Putin might be a journalist killer, even though Assad might be a city killer, even though the former leader of the Ukraine might have been corrupt, the USA and its allies are a planet killer. The USA and its allies are kicking ass all over the planet. They might suffer a small set back every now and then, like in Turkey or the Phillipines but these are only temporary bumps in the road for this megapower. They will not be defeated because they are worthless pieces of shit. Hey you might thing that is a senseless contridiction. When you understand why that is true you will be one stop closer to enlightenment.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — January 14, 2017 @ 6:40 pm

  40. Well considering that projected audiance for what I am writing is alien historians who will read this in the far distant future I decided that would be unneccessary to write about the consequences and implications of the fact that the vast majority of the people have great difficulty in making cause and effect connections. I am not very good at it myself. But, I think that I am slowly getting better.
    So since I am not going to write about that I decided to write about something more practical for the future alien historian. I will be short and to the point.
    Invest in horses. Keep the breeds of horses that provide speed and the breeds that provide strength. But also breed horses that provide lots of milk, and horses that provide lots of tasty meat at low cost.
    PS is the technology of the future.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — January 14, 2017 @ 7:19 pm

  41. I was just watching a Deutsche Welle program about the Role of the Swiss National Bank in playing a crucial role for allowing Germany to import crucial raw materials for its war machijne in the second world war. One crucial thing that I learned from this program which was broadcast in english was that Germany was dependent not only on imported steel but also imported Chromium and Tungsten. The Chromian came from Turkey and the Tungsten came from Spain and Portugal. Again if the allied High Command was really serious about defeating the Nazis they could have stopped the Tungsten imports to Germany as easily as they could have stopped the iron ore shipments. The Chromium could have been a bit more tricky but I doubt that it would have been hard. After all Germany was never able to threaten Cyprus so the allies were actually in quite a good position to put a lot of pressure on Turkey to sell their Chromium to the allies.
    Another issue raise by this program but one that I can not answer is couid the allies have done more, not only more but something decisive to convince the Swiss not to launder money for the Germans?

    Comment by Curt Kastens — January 17, 2017 @ 8:20 pm

  42. I was able to find this DW program on the internet. So here is a link to it and some links about key people mentioned in the program.
    http://www.dw.com/en/switzerland-hitlers-bankers/av-37155799
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_Funk
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Puhl#Nach_Kriegsende

    Comment by Curt Kastens — January 18, 2017 @ 2:14 pm

  43. That DW link on WW2 banking led me to another report on the Red Army Faction. This report was a complete piece of propoganda bullshit. It called the members of the RAF terrorists and complained that their victims have been forgotten and most RAF members have been silent about their crimes even though they no longer have to fear prosecution. What a crock of shit. There is no reason that the members of the RAF should have to repent for their actions as their actions were perfectly justified. Their cause was just the cause of their victims was unjust. That includes those police officers that attempted to arrest them. The members of the RAF did not target little people. Yes some little people may have been collateral damage. Big Fucking deal. The collatoral damage of those they opposed in easily one million times larger. Where are the DW reports on those victims?!

    Comment by Curt Kastens — January 18, 2017 @ 2:38 pm

  44. Some readers of the distant future may know that the NSA was listening in on at least some of the phone calls of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. In the past I have interpreted this spying as evidence that the USA did not trust Angela Merkel. But as things are often not as they seem I now wonder if this “scandal” was created to give the impression that the leaders of the USA did not trust Merkel. But of course the question then would be, what could be gained from creating this impression?
    One possible answer is to give the impression that the German government is actually an independent organization that allies itself with the USA as being in the best intrests of the German people. Creating this impression would be designed to hide the “fact” that the German government of 2017 is no more independent of the USA than the GDR was independent of the USSR. But the next question would then be, look the world accepts Germany as being independent, it does not make any sense that an impression of German independence would need to be created when such an impression is already firmly established in the minds of the masses.
    Well would it be possible that it was neccessary to shore up this impression in the minds of some particular group of people? Trumps comments putting Merkel and Putin on the same level is what made me think of this. I suspose that Trumps comments could have been just the loose talk of someone who character is one who shoots from the hip. For those who do not believe in the deep state that would be the clear explination of Trumps remarks.
    Then there was the whole hullabalu about the Russkies manipulating the recent US election. Such charges remind me of the Falcon and the Snowman.
    That makes me wonder if Russky Hullabalu was about more than just manipulating the perceptions of the American people about the US elections. One possiblity is that there is a desire to create the impression that Trump is independent of leadership of the MIC. That in turn makes me wonder about a lot of things. If Trump had not made the statement about Merkel and Putin I might have begun to think that he is just a pupet of the deep state rather than a coconspirator.
    None of ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Comment by Curt Kastens — January 24, 2017 @ 1:03 am

  45. I have just started re-reading The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. One of the first good points that I read was why Christianity spread with much more ease among non Jews of the Roman empire than Jews. Because the stories and customs of Christianity were essentially repackeged Roman Mythology. He makes that point very early in the book, like page 9. (Does that count as a footnote)
    Well somehow or another I got to thinking about why secularism and therefore Reason took deeper root in Europe than it did it the USA. I assume that the people that I am talking to will agree that secularism took deeper root in Europe that the USA and that I will not have to prove that assertion. This is the answer that I came up with. First using the Bible to defend the institution of slavery became part of the foundation of slavery. Therefore the ideas fo Thomas Paine had to be crushed in the opinion of powerful people in large parts of the country. Second of all although the writings of Thomas Paine are Diest and not athiest I suspect that many people feared an implication of such a philosophy would be as follows. If there is no hell there is no accountability for how we live our lives after our lives end. Therefore it is not neccessary to consider anyone but myself when making cost risk benifit analysis caulculations. Therefore if something benifits me, and harms others, I should do it, if I can probably get away with it, or if the likely punishment will be small should I be caught. If caught I could even fake remorse and recieve an even lighter punishment.
    Then along comes Darwinism and the idea that we are even being watched by a clockmaker God goes out the window. Then along comes Nitische who makes explicit people’s worst fears. In America for well intentioned reasons and for bad reasons the thoughts of Thomas Paine fell on less furtile ground than in Europe. A result of this failure of secularism and reason ( reason as opposed to mythology) to take deep root in US society is that the USA has essentially a stone age population that has its hands on 21st century weapons technology.
    Under such conditions it does not matter what tactics or strategies one takes to try to change the situation in the USA for the better. A huge number of people are seriously flawed. What is even worse is that the more power that a person in this society has the more likely that they are to be seriously flawed. You can try to take over the Democratic Party or you can try to create a new political party, or you can try to create a new non party political movement that does or does not disavow violence as a tactic but you will always be swimming against the current.
    The roots of the failure of the left in the USA do not go back to 1970, to 1939, nor to 1877. The roots of the failure of the left in the USA go all the way back to around 1800. This history has put people alive today in the USA in a very difficult situation. If you do nothing things will be even worse than if you do anything. If you leave the USA the balance of power in the USA wil be tilted even futher to the side of insanity. If you do something you will win a partial piecemeal victory about as often as the Cleveland Browns win a football game. The costs will be high and the returns will be small.
    I have written in the past that it is time for the rest of the world to recognize what power they have and unite and build a wall around the USA and make the USA pay for it. Sadly the rest of the world has its own problems and the leaders of the rest of the world have never risen to the task. Maybe there are good reasons that it has not been possible for them to do so. But, until then the USA will continue to win the war of terror that it wages against the world.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — January 31, 2017 @ 1:29 pm

  46. Just heard that Busch fired his acting attorney General for not enforcing his immigration ban, which I also just read is sujpported by a majority of Americans.
    Americans will follow the rules right over a cliff.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — January 31, 2017 @ 4:39 pm

  47. If Americans think that they need this Shia visa bann to protect themselves it shows that first Americans can not see when the government has totally different motives than what they claim and second that America is not a chrisstian nation that so many Americans want it to be because a large percent of its population is not willing to accept an even minimal risk for themselves yet the are willing to impose huge risks on others so that Americans have none.
    That is the same kind of Christianity that supported slavery.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — February 1, 2017 @ 12:24 am

  48. A very sicgnificant event in the struggle for world damnation has recently occured. Wikileaks has released 8.000 pages of CIA files to show how the CIA hacks in to smart TVs, smart phones, cell phones, computers, and even cars and not only recovers the information stored on them but turns them in to listening devices even when they are turned off. Well of course if you are an alien that has arrived here after our civilzation has become extinct and you found this I guess you would already be aware of what I am talking about.
    Well now you can read my take on this event which you can perhaps guess ahead of time since aftet all you were smarter than we were, your civilization is still around. Well I suppose that I should state my take on it anyways to make it official. At first I was pleased. As pleased as I was when I heard that there was a coup taking place against Erdogan. But then I changed my mind. First I thought how much better it would have been if this info had been released to advisaries of the military of the USA and the military of the USA was unaware that there tactics had been exposed. Then they would not have even of known that they had a problem. Then if they were trying ot start a war their planes would get screwed up because everyone would know what they were up to but they would not know that. Then if a war broke out anyways many of their tactics would have been useless as their advisaries would have already figured out how to neutralize potential syber attacks.
    Now that the CIA (NSA) knows that it has a problem it can set about restoring their previous dominace in the field. Furthermore if only the Chinese and or Russians and or Iranians had had this information it would have still been in comparatively speaking responsible hands. Now there some risk that people who are really irresponsible wait wait just a second a third thought is comming over me. Is there really anyone more irresposible than the leaders of the US military? Even Al Quiada did not counter-attack the USA until the USA had been attacking the Muslim world for a generation. OH and do not give me that bullshit about them attacking civilians as if the hands of the US miliatary are not just as stained with civilan blood.
    But none the less the fact that this information has been made public is a catasrophe for those countries that the US seeks to undermine. Now what ever steps they had undertaken to protect themselves from electronic attacks by the USA will have been undermined as the USA will develope new techniques over time to replace the old techniques. The only consolation that I can imagine is that perhaps the Russians and Iranians had aquired this info a long tmie ago and had made good use of it. If this were so this truth could not have remained unnoticed for ever. Perhaps this info was made public now to embarrass the CIA and by extension the NSA because it was no longer useful to the unauthorized people who have had it up until now. That means that the NSA will be busy trying to undo the damage to their future endevors and the CIA is going to have to go back and reexamine everything it has ever recorded over the past how many years. Can it ever be sure when the problem started? Hhahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahh

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 9, 2017 @ 5:15 pm

  49. So last night as I was flossing and brushing my teeth getting ready for bed shortly after midnight I heard the noise of propeller aircraft of a kind that I have heard before taking off or landing at the nearby Wiesbaden US Army Airfield. But one thing was different this the noise lasted so long that I thougth to myself hmmmm it must be two or three aircraft landing at the base. Now I was not really paying all that close of attention so the aircraft could have been taking off but at the time I thought that they were landing.
    Well I drank a lot of tea last night so I got up in the middle of the night to go pee. I heard the noise of an aircraft again but I noticed that I heard the noise for a much longer time that what I normally do. This time I was sure that the plane was flying SW to NE which meant that it was taking off. When I got back to the bedroom I checked the alarm clock and I saw that it was 3:30 in the morning. As I laid there I thought hmmm the reason that sounded different that usual was that the aircraft was flying low and slow so I could hear it as it slowly gained altitude to be able to just barely fly over the Tanaus Hills where we live. It seemed that the aircraft was trying to fly below any radar coverage. Maybe I am wrong about that. That is actually not so important in the grand scheme of things.
    Then I heard these sounds repeat themselves at 3:55, and again at 4:26. Then I heard the sounds again at 4:38 but in this case the plane seemed to be flying in a more northerly direction because the sound was not as loud as the other occasions. Then I heard the sound repeated again at a few minutes to five.
    Now if I am right about the planes flying below radar that would indicate to me that the Americans did not want the ANYONE to know that these flights were taking place, including the German military. Now of course it is possible that there are other Germans who were living along the flight path who might have also been awake at those early hours who might have also heard the noise. But I would say that the US military was counting on them not really having a clue as to the significance was to what they were hearing.
    What the sound evidence indicates is that an important meeting took place Sunday night at at this American base. Now off course the US military will say that these were just routine training flights and there were not even any passangers on board the flights, or if there were passangers they were just space available passangers. They will say it is the job of miliatary aircraft to be able to fly at any time during the day or night and military aircraft do fly at all hours of the day and night. OK that is a plausible explination. That is the job of the military to think of plausible explinations to hide criminal activity.
    What I deem a far more likely explination is that it was neccissary to conduct a briefing of extreme sensitivity. Not only could the German military NOT even know when and where the briefing had taken place or who was there let alone know the subject and details of the meeting. It is even worse than that. The people who were present at this meeting had to keep in secret even from THEIR OWN SUBORDINATES. The MAIN point of flying the participants in late at night and then flying them out again very early in the morning was so when it was assumed that they were at home having sex with their wives where they should be they were actually conspiring to committ a great crime. Then they would fly back and be at work the next morning as though nothing at all important had happened over the week end.
    Now even though the Generals are probably pretty pissed that I exposed a meeting that they wanted to keep secret that knowledge is not really all that valuable unless it can be learned what actually happened at the meeting. Now a non military person might say, hey wait a second the military has secure communications it is not neccessary for people to gather all in one place to conspire together. But what if the people who called the meeting did not want to take any risk that their supposedly secure communications system does not suffer from a Wehrmacht defect. If that were the case then they would all want ot meet at one place at one time.
    So something really really terrible and new is being hidden. Will its exposure delay or perhaps even cancell its implementation. Since there is no one that humanity can trust to get that job done does it even make sense for me to ask that question? The German military seems to have lost all its fighting spirit.
    They seemed to be possed by the spirit of General Keitel rather than the spirit of Colonel Stauffenberg. What the world needs now is a German interregator like that one that the Wehrmacht had in WW2 who was from South Africa and who could with out using torture get all of the Americans who he came in contact with to spill their guts fíguratively speaking of course.
    I had a lot of fear about revealing this information. I thought that this could actually be a trap set up for me. I thought that as a costs risks reward equation this one was not a good one for me as did not know the content of the meeting and with out that the information while not worthless is not as good as knowing for example that the US Secret Service has a seret location on Birnbaumstrasse in Wiesbaden. So why should I take the risks of retaliation for so little gain. But then I came to the conclusion that even though it is little to go on I have to expose it to those most likely to listen. It is my job in this war to tell the truth as I see it even if I have to advance towards danger, figuratively speaking. Of course some might say that I am working with others and that I was tipped off in advance about these flights and therefore I am just a sock puppet of some one else who is far more important in this story than I am. Say that could be the truth. There is tons and tons of evidence to support that contention isn´t there?

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 13, 2017 @ 11:35 pm

  50. I think that the above comment needs a bit of clarification. When I say that I revealed this information I was refering to someone where else not here. I think that I should point out that there was an important reason for doing so that I forgot to mention, that is that if I make something public that should not be public, then if there was anyone else who was betraying the operation, then by my actions I helped cover the tracks of other people. It will now be more difficult to pinpoint another person who is acting with integrity in side of an institution that is run by individuals with a lack on integrety so vast that if it were to have a number put on it the number would be bigger than all the possible combinations of all the atoms in all of the universes.
    Another thing is that up until now I have not been severly retaliated against. My explination for that is that it would be more embarrassing for those ebola infected bubonic plague bacteria who run the military to retaliate against me than any embarrasment that I have caused the US military. But the only thing is this could have been the case that broke the cammels back. Retaliation could come at any time. I do not expect it. But it certianly is possible.
    We have a military than has been on a murder spree for almost 2 decades now. There is absolutely now evidence that either the field grade officers or the senior NCOs have ever mustered the capabilty to oppose the General officers. 2 decades and still no one has been held accountable for this murder spree. Up until now the field grade officers and the senior NCOs have shown nothing but a capacity to collaborate with murderers..

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 14, 2017 @ 5:38 pm

  51. Just a few more miscellaneous thoughts on burning the midnight oil. I suspect that a meeting like that which took place at Clay Kaserne between midnight and 3 in the morning on Monday the 13th of March would have been preceeded by many meetings at the Pentagon on the same subject. It seems possible to me that the purpose of this meeting could have been to provide answers to questions that had come up in the Pentagon meetings. It seems more likely though that this meeting was to diseminate orders that had already been decided. That means that we could be or could have been closer to some major violence and mayhem than anyone except for a few people realized.
    That east coast blizzard arrived just in time. i bet no one in the media would have dreamed that the US would be doing anything unexpected anytime soon.
    They are all under the immpression that Donald Trump controls the military and that he is still getting his government together. On the other hand if one accepts the idea that the military leaders of the US have a will of their own a lot of possibllities open up.
    What ever is (was) being hid I bet that it is a lot more embarrassing than an anal intercourse orgy.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 14, 2017 @ 10:25 pm

  52. OK the Generals might be annoyed that I revealed the time and place of a meeting that they did not want anyone to know about. But unfortunately I will never get to know what the subject of the meeting was which leaves me much more annoyed than the Generals are. I realize now that it will never become public knowledge because no one has jurisdiction to look in to the matter.
    The leadership of the German government, if they even care, can ask the Americans why at least five aircraft flew out of Wiesbaden Army Airfield below radar altitude in the early morning hours of March 13. But after they ask they have to accept what ever BS the Americans tell them. Knowing the when and the where could lead to some well educated guesses about the who but since no one has legal authority to put the screws to those potential whoes they have no reason to tell anyone the truth about the matter. No one with out legal authority would dare to ask because that would be a clear sign of disloyalty.
    The fact that the Generals are still seeking to wage war indicates that they still feel very secure in their positions. When I was in the Army many years ago I asked why our secret documents said American Eyes Only. I said why should we be keeping secrets from our allies. I was told that because the other NATO countries had far more commy spies in their ranks. It was mentioned that the Dutch were the worst with 1% being commy spies. Since you didn’t know who was in that 1% you had to be polite to all of them but not to trust any of them. Well my guess is that is the way that US generals might now view their own military now. They still feel very secure in their positions and I certianly would not be able to provide any evidence that would contradict their smug view.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 15, 2017 @ 10:49 pm

  53. I think that the above comment needs again a bit of clarification. The very last part may seem contridictory. Even though the Generals have reached a point that they are more concerned about people like Edward Snowden or Bradley Manning in their midst especially considering that the person who dumped the last CIA wikilieaks files is still at large, such people in no way shape or form can hold them responsible for the crimes that they are responsible for. Even worse is that the only people who could ever hold the Generals responsible are those who are co conspirators in the crimes of the Generals. So that is what I mean when I say that is how the US Generals might view their military now.
    Now for some more background. I have really no idea whether or not that my message about these flights that I passed on to Greenpeace in Germany was even taken seriously. I determined that I needed to send a message to an organization that was not very fond of Americans and also that I could not say spelll out in black and white exactly what I was troubled by one for legal reasons but even more so because I figured if I spelled things out to clearly they someone would decide that I was making a mountain out of a mole hill and not pass it on to the German military. What I did was even less than make a mountain of a mole hill. It was more like taking a piece of lint that is connect to a piece of thread that is connected to a torn piece of fabric that is connected to a shirt that is connected to a dead body and screaming that someone was murdered last night and that they are buried in a basement that I have never seen 10 miles away. I screamed bloody murder not knowing that a murder had been committed but with the understanding that there was a small chance that a murder had been committed. I was really annoyed about being placed in that postion. If a murder had been committed maybe someone else will report it.
    But what if there is no one else except the perpitraitors of the crime? I now know what the Generals who led their armies in to Gettysburg thought. Both reported after the war that this was not a battle that they wanted to fight but both felf that it was unavoidable.
    Now although I calculated that I think I will probably get away with this probably is far from certianity. There was a time in the past that I think that I revealed much more damaging information but when I did that I knew that I had come across an extremely important piece of information. When that I happened I knew that I possessed the who, the where, the when, the what and the why. I also new that this information was so crucial that revealing it could prevent a war between the US and Iran. Well in that first case I was terrified of what would happen to me and my family if I passed on the info but I was really really pissed. I learned later that the info that I had found out and my reaction to it was almost identical to the case of the Falcon and the Snowman. only with Germany taking the place of Australia. So there was really not much doubt in that case that would tell the BKA what was going on. How things went down did not go as I expected. I made a mistake. But then about 20 minutes after making that mistake I had an ephany. It was not a mistake but a stroke of brilliance, which was to sound an alarm and then say absolutely nothing and make the Germans figure out from the timing of my alarm what was going on. Furthermore that strategy fit perfectly in to a scenario that I had been working on for a very long time.
    But this situation of a few aircraft flights in the middle of the night was an all together different fish. I knew almost nothing. My insticts gave my a multiple choice question to answer so to speak; (figuratively speakinig) A. It is an Alien. B.) It is a Monster. C.) It is an Angel. D.) It is a Demon E. It is dressed as one of these but is actually one of the other. F.) It is none of the above. G) It is all of the above. Well I chose A and B and C and D. I had gotten away with something similar before, perhaps I have a benifactor in either this world or the next. Therefore for the reasons that I explained I tried to start a shit storm.
    One of the things that I realized yesterday is that if all of the flights on that early morning were above board the Russians should be able to check their intellegence to see if there were radio calls between the planes and the radio tower for take off shortly before the times that I have given. The Germans might be able to check that as well. If I am lucky and an effort was being made to hide even one of these flights because it flew under complete radio silence that would be some pretty solid evidence that there was an effort being made to hide something important from someone. I have often heard one or two planes a night taking off. I always just figured that some agent is being flown somewhere under cover of darkness. That I figure is routine. Monday moring could have been routine as well. It really could have I repeat could have been a training exersice. But if there was an attempt being made to hide something that would be very important discovery. Pisses me off that we have such an unreliable military that I can not count on any of them to do the right thing except for the one who released the CIA wikileaks dump. In fact 98% or more of the jack asses would think of me as a criminal.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 17, 2017 @ 7:57 pm

  54. Ok I decided to write something now that I had decided to save until later tommorrow. I will start with a little more background. The background is about the type of planes whose engine noise I had heard early Mohday morning. If it was the type of plane that I think it was; I never actually saw them, They would have been similar to a two engine Cessna. Without even doing a google search I wouild guess that the have a crew of two and carry eight to ten passangers.
    My guess is that they have a top speed of 350 miles per hour with a one way range of 800 to 1200 miles. In military terms they are puddle jumpers. I imagine that the primary purpose of such an aircraft would be to quickly transport VIPs from a base like Ramstein to somewhere like Hohenfels. Of course thety could be used for other things. Yet they certianly would not be useful for carry militarily significant quanties of cargo. They could no doubt be used to carry inportant information. That would of course be much slower than the speed of light though.
    So if the commanders of the military knew or even suspected that they did not have a secure means of radio or telephone communcations they would have to communicate by courier. For a nation that is not involved in a major war such a method would actually be adequate. Under such conditions there is no need to make any important decisions fast a to communicate those decisions instantly. Once it is known that a communcations system has been comprimised I would think that you would use couriers until you can build a new system. But there is no point in doing that if the person(s) who comprimised the old system has not been identified. I probably learned from reading a spy novel that when military knows that a communications system has been comprimised the only things that get sent over that system is routine information, fake information, and once and a while some real classified info that the military intellegence people think is not very damaging to hide from adversaries the fact that they know that the system has been comprimised. Now that adversary would find it extremely valuable to know WHEN the people that they were listening to figured out that they had either broken a code or had tapped in to the system.
    So I guess things get kind of funny when one side knows that its system is comprimised and they know that an adversary also knows that the country oh wow this gets kind of hard to even discribe let alone imagine. Country A breakes country B’s code. And enjoys an intellegence windfall for years. Finally country B indetifies the problem and starts feeding country A plausible BS for a while then Country B realizes that country A knows that that source no longer has any useful info anymore and country B knows that they know and country A knows that country B knows that A is no longer buying the BS over that system. But if there was only one system or if all systems were suspect all important info would have to go by courier.
    Should this ever happen to a military that has never had this problem before I would like to give it some advice. If there is a sudden drop in the amount of work for the communications personal over an extended period these people are eventually going to start to wonder if the system that they work with is realiable. Furthermore if they have more time on their hands during the work day they might start to ask themselves quesions that they should not be asking themselvs. So you need to give them a new mission. That mission would be to send seditious messages over their communications systems for the adversary to read to encourage them to defect. Of course the adversary government will just forbid the reading of those messages from being read. Unless they are forced to allow it because some real messages get sent scattered in and among the message of sedition. There could be a problem with advice though if the country in question has the reputation of Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy. I do not think that such a country would find many people who would ti could seduce well enough to agree to a date in a resturant. Unless Stan Goff was the chaperon for such a date.
    Well there might be an unorthodox way that the problem of a broken communication system could be at least temporarily fixed. It would be embarrasing as hell for some people but I see no technicnal reason that would prevent it. A country could ask an allied country to send its messages for it. It would have to be a big enough country to have enough extra personnel and equipment in storage perhaps to be able to cover for most of the old network.
    So this brings us back to the 13th of March. The probable increased use of those puddle jumpers in the middle of the night at least where I am would seem to indicate a training exersice, or an important secret meeting, or the placing of at least 5 agents at distant locations, or the start of a courier messge system, or the unauthorized use of military aircraft for personal use, or something that I can not think of because I am missing a piece of the puzzle. If the courier system were in use my guess is that really fast military aircraft, like the SR71, would be flying back and forth across the Atlantic and Pacific and landing at places like Ramstein or that big airbase in England with all of the messages stored on some thumb drives. There the messages would be divided up and sent by these puddle jumpers or helicopter to the units that they need to go to. Then the messages would go in reverse. Now if a HQ collection point would want to disquise what it was doing I would think that they would simply have a high ranking officer with an armed escort drive in a civilian vehicles to other locations that a helicopter or puddle jumper could land and fly them to places like Ramstein or the airbase in England. There have to be a lot of old unused airstrips in Germany and Japan that could fill this role. In the Middle East hmmm well I seem to be stumped. In such open terrain I do not see how the US military could hide the fact that it is sending messages by courier in that region if it were doing so.
    There is one consolation for the USA though. If the nations codes have been broken we were not attacked during the time that they have been broken. Maybe if Americans had any sense what so ever that might cause them to ask themselves if maybe the peace time use of codes does more harm than good.
    I must admit though that to ask oneself that question would require thinking pretty far out of the box.
    Tommorrow perhaps some more thinking out of the box, perhaps not.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 18, 2017 @ 4:00 am

  55. OK enough on military aviation. Although I am writing to to future alien archeologists and historians who arrive to find nothing but industrial ruins buried under at least 6 feet of earth or water. There are things that I can not write at this time because it might not be appropriate to write it at this time. When it is time then I will have forgotten about it.
    OK how do I expect these future scientists to find this pot of information on Louis Proyect the unrepentant Marxist among the mountain of BS that will be stored on computers buried in the pompeii like conditions that will prevail at the time. Well first with ground penatrating radar to find the ruins of our civilazation. How they will then find this I do not know but if they get here that means that they are really really smart. If they are really really smart that means they will find the best quality information that is available from the period. That means the first thing that they will find will be Juan Cole. Eventually that will lead them to Louis Proyect and that will eventually lead them here.
    Now speaking of Bullshit. I read today that the US is going to send an Army Battalion to Poland at the beginning of April. What was not made clear was whether this 1,000 soldiers would replace the 4,000 US soldiers already in Poland or would be an addition to those soldiers. The 4,000 soldiers were sent quite a while ago. I do not really pay any attention to world affairs anymore as the level of BS reported is so deep it is worthless to pay attention. I did not even know that Merkel was going to Washington to meet with Trump. I just happened to see this report about the US soldiers going to Poland by accident.
    Perhaps those 4,000 that were already sent have been pulled out already. I never saw an annoucement about that but I was not looking.
    So why bring up this 1,000 soldiers. Because of the way that it was annouced. 1,000 soldiers is really a pitifuly small number. It terms of warfare it is a complete joke unless you are a rag tag bunch of hillbillys who number around or 30 or 40. So the way that the deployment of this unit is announced is that it quotes the commander as saying, we are prepared to be lethal. Wow I am sure that scares the Russians woooo ahhhh the commander of 1.000 men is threatening us. Of course theoretically these 1,000 men are just to serve as a trip wire. But the thing is the chances that this trip wire would actually be tripped by the Russians are smaller than the chances that the moon will leave earths orbit tommorrow. This type of fake news serves no purpose other than to villify the Russians. I do have to wonder if the US and NATO are going to give the Ukraine enough weaponry to try to take back those territories along Russias border that Russia justifiably seized several years ago. After all NATO did not allow Serbs to keep thier lands in Croatia. That is a different story though. Which side had the more just cause then I can not say because I am to unfamiliar with the history of the conflct.
    The policy of sending US soldiers to Poland has something in common with Donald Trump. The tone of both of them is even worse than the policy(s).
    If someone really wanted to build trust and security in Europe in would be as easy as hell to do if one had even the slightest inclination to do so.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 20, 2017 @ 8:30 pm

  56. I just had this crazy thought. I have not even really given any thought yet to why it is a foolish idea. It might be stupid. But I thought that I would throw this idea out anyways for Louis and anyone else that he wants to share it with . I just saw this on a tv that was on but that I was not watching. I heard it mentoned that the FBI is conducting an investigation in to connections between the Trump campaign and the Russians. But it seems to me that could just be a cover story to hide the real purpose of the investigation. A very clever interrogation must hide the real purpose of the interrogation. If it does not it gives away as much information as collects, if the person being interrogated has any training in interrogation techniques, which I imagine lawyers do. Now if the person being interrogated is a prisoner it does not really matter much because what ever they learn through the process of being interrogated they can not share with anyone anyways. But if the person is going to remain free the interrogators have to be asked questions that could shed light on what the interrogators really want to know with out tipping off the person being asked the questions what it is that the interrogators really want to know.
    So my guess is that they are looking for someone who could be a mole in the Trump’s inner circle. More importantly they would want to connect that mole, if they find it, to someone else. That connection would certianly not be to anyone in the democratic party as that would be of no concern what so ever. If they find what they are looking for I doubt that it would ever make it public.
    OK I just heard this as the TV is still on. Trump is tweetin that all the energy should be towards finding the leaker. I guess he means the person who gave Wikileaks so much info recently. That is obviously so true from a normal view point. So off hand I can not see how the people that the FBI would question about the Trump Campaign- Russian connection could be used to find the wikileaks leaker. But I have to wonder if somehow the FBI will try to make that leap. It could be that if this investigation is a cover story neither the campaign or the weakileaks leaker is the real target of the investigation.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 20, 2017 @ 9:49 pm

  57. I saw this morning that the US Secretary of State is going to skip a NATO summit. It was announced that he will go to Moscow. Sounds like the Americans are saying to their allies, you ungrateful bastards. with friends like you who needs enemies. As someone on Juan Cole wrote today could it be that those in charge in Washington want to create a detour in the axis of evil. Where as it has been running from Washington to London to Tel Aviv to Ryhad then back up to Berlin and Paris perhaps the engineers of these sorts of building projects now forsee it going nothward to Moscow.
    That would mean that to some people the Ukraine would be sacrificed. Ja sacrificed it the same way that Süd Tirol was sacrificed to Italy to create an axis from Berlin to Rome at one time. Yet although it appeared to the Tirolians at that time that they were being sacrificed when you look at there situation today they have gotten along just as good as everyone else in Europe, maybe even better. The could be true of the Ukrianians. If they accept their position and build an axis of Vernunft (Prichina) from Kiew to Moscow to Astana to Seoul to Tokoyo they will prosper just fine.

    You know what I really like the sound of the word Prichina. That sounds like a really good name for a girl. Prichina Proyect that is something that I think that you should think seriously about.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 22, 2017 @ 2:18 pm

  58. I thought that I had written a post here about a short conversation that Ihad i line while waiting to get a Döner Kebob with an American man who I assume,due to his short haircut, was either in the military or was in the military but now working as a civilian, perhaps in Frankfurt, But upon rereading this thread I did not see it. Perhaps I wrote it else where. Well he said to me,something along the lines of, your problem is that you expect Americans to behave better than the rest of the world. The idea that if we are not exploiting someone they will not be exploited by someone else is romantically foolish. Then he said something about it being better to be an exploiter instead of being exploited and that being neither was not really possible either.
    It funny how when you are actually in a situation you are unsure what to do but 15 minutes later you wish you could do it all over again because you can think of so many things you could have done better or things you could have said better.
    I wish that I had told him, Yes I do expect the US to behave better than the rest of the world because we take the least risk in doing so due to our geographical position. If we do not set the best example how can we expect others to. The United States has not killed as many people in its pursuit of an empire as Germany did. But the Germans waged war out of fear and intellectual laziness. On the otherhand the Americans have waged war due to greed and intellectual laziness. So who should the world really forgive first? Prichina

    Comment by Curt Kastens — March 22, 2017 @ 4:20 pm

  59. If you are an alien I imagine that you are asking yourself some questions about the Sarin Gas attack in Syria that were probably not addressed on Louis Proyect posts on that subject. At least they have not been addressed yet and I doubt that they will be. The main question that I have in mind is why did the Syrian government launch a Sarin Gas attack? As I recall, several years ago the US government was preparing to even more deeply involved in the Syrian conflict because the Syrian government had used chemical weapons. At least that was alledged. Then the Russian government said wait. We will make Assad destroy all of his forces chemical weapons. That move cancelled the US decision to get even more involved.
    But now the Syrian regime has reneged on that agreement. Why? This is a direct challenge(embarrasment) to President Trump. With the campaign in the press that Trump is a pawn of Russia it seems that if he does not take military action against Syria he will be confirming that he is a pawn of the Russians. Yet the Russians and Syrians would have been obviously aware of this before the Sarin Gas attacks.
    Reza wrote that the attacks were designed to terrorize the population. Yet how much more terrorized can they get than they already are? Is convential bombing not terrorizing? It is as if the Syrians and therefore the Russians are taunting Trump. What could they hope to gain by doing that? Such an action would seem to indicate that Trump is not a pawn of the Russians, but that the Russians are pawns of Trump. It would seem to indicate that the Russians have handed Trump a ready made excuse to launch direct attacks on Syrian Government forces.
    If Trump does not do so it will only reinforce the view that he is a pawn of the Russians and that they are either black mailing or bribing him. How will this get played out?
    One thing that we must not forget, if we are inside of a computer simulation, and the double slit experiment and the entaglement experiments are seen as evidence by some scientists that we are in a computer simulation, then the computer might need to force the simulation to remain with in certian perameters when it starts to go outside of those parameters. At such times that computer, or those controlling the computer, will go to great lengths to maintain a realistic chain of events. Yet would it not be possible that to some astute observers that this chain of events might be less than fully convincing? I guess that it would be human nature for those looking back on events to say that it was at that point that an important actor in the story made an obvious mistake. Yet I think that the computer would reply, no those looking back just did not know the whole story. To which I would reply, Riiight!!! like how about the possibility that millions if not billions of people in this story are not sentient or fully sentient humans but are only unconsious pawns of the simulation who are neccessary to keep the simulation with in the parameters needed to find out what ever the hell it is those responsible for the simulation want to know. On one hand I am glad to know that the bullshit that I have to put up with in this simulation could be used to make life better for Beings that could make use of the results. Yet I am at the same time disturbed that the needs of the setient beings in this “reality”, how ever many there are, could be getting sabotaged to obtain those results.
    I know how this situation in Syria would get played out if I were in charge. There is no need to simulate that. I would resolutely do absolutely nothing. I do not give a rats ass if Assad used chemical weapons. The amount of damage this attack has done to the Syrian people is miniscule compared to the amount of damage that the US has done to innocent people with the use of depleted uranium. (Agent orange is an orange not an apple) Now a common theme of Louis Proyect and many more people is that one must condemn all acts of evil. I say that is bull shit. I say one must consider the position that a person or country is in when carrying out an act of evil. When one takes that in to consideration there is only bully that needs to be and deserves to be singled out for criticism, that is the USA. Of course along with its appendiges of England, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and most probably all of the NATO countries. I only make the disction between the first three appendiges and the NATO countries because it seems to me that the first three are very willing partners while it seems that there is a small chance that at least some of the NATO countries are unwilling partners.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — April 7, 2017 @ 8:35 am

  60. Ok Trump had given the order to bomb a Syrian Airbase even before I wrote those comments above. At least that is how the public history gets recorded. Will any more attacks follow?
    Is this suppossed to be a demonstration of resolve? Would Obama had done it any differently? Is it important to try to get people to think that Assad, the monster, has taken his barbarism to a new (old) level with his most recent Sarin gas attacks? If a person does not support US attacks on the Syrian government military forces as a response to these attacks does it make any sense to get worked up about it? Yet all the important western institutions did support the attacks, NATO, the EU, all of the major european countries, the IMF and World Bank. All of the leaders of these institutions acted as if killing 50 or 100 innocent people in a war was something that does not happen every hour in a war. The entire institutional leadership of the planet does nothing other than discredit itself to discerning witnesses with such babble. Yet discerning witnesses are probably few and far between. The rest of the witnesses might not even have self awareness. That the babble of these institutional leaders get so much coverage makes me wonder not only what is real but WHO is real and WHO is just an imaginary hologram.

    Comment by Curt Kastens — April 7, 2017 @ 3:38 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: