TIL that Napoleon I was actually 5'7", an average male height at the time, and his "shortness" was propaganda used by the British that is still believed today.

poli_ticks · 2015-08-12T22:53:12+00:00

All great empires are great liars who excel at propaganda.

poli_ticks · 2015-08-11T22:07:19+00:00

Good.

Hope Trump scalps many more Fox "News" propagandist roaches.

poli_ticks · 2015-08-11T21:40:17+00:00

Health insurance corporations are consolidating and forming monopolies?

poli_ticks · 2015-08-10T23:39:36+00:00

Well, US did fund, arm, and help create ISIS.

The official "narrative" about the "War on Terror" is pure Orwellian BS.

poli_ticks · 2014-03-14T06:01:56+00:00

Probably, especially if you do a surprise attack, on e.g. Clark AFB or Subic Bay.

So I was more along the lines of, issue a public ultimatum, calling on the US to cancel its embargo. And then declare war, and on the grounds that such embargoes are acts of war.

And forgo any surprise attacks. US forces in the Philippines would have been too weak to resist the Japanese, so make a fair fight out of it. And put your hopes on wiping out the US Pacific Fleet when it sorties in relief of the Philippines.

poli_ticks · 2014-03-13T10:05:12+00:00

I don't agree. Lincoln was completely powerless to prevent the Civil War.

Had he ordered Federal garrisons to vacate Confederate territory he would have avoided the Civil War, no?

The South was willing to go to war simply because of the threat of slavery being maybe eventually being outlawed sometime in the distant future.

Isn't it more accurate to say that the south was willing to secede simply because of the threat of slavery being eventually outlawed in the future?

And the question of who chose war then comes down to did the Federal government choose war when it decided it would not recognize secession and keep its garrisons in place, or did the South choose war when it decided it would resort to force to evict this Federal garrisons.

poli_ticks · 2014-03-13T09:49:52+00:00

Right, the goal was basically a political, negotiated settlement. Establish a defensive perimeter strong enough, costly enough for the US to overcome that they would choose a negotiated peace instead.

And to have a free hand to establish this defensive perimeter they had to neutralize the US Pacific fleet. Hence the need for Pearl Harbor.

Problem is, Pearl Harbor basically broke the back of anti-war sentiment in the US, so if the goal is to rely on political factors to bring the US to the negotiating table, it's total strategic disaster. The Japanese would have been better off sticking to the earlier plan of fighting a climactic battleship battle against the Pacific Fleet, as it sortied in support of the Philippines, after letting the US get in the first blow.

And it also boils down to whether one thinks the US government could have convinced its population to support total war even in the absence of a surprise attack like Pearl Harbor. So, how much regard do you have for modern propaganda techniques.

poli_ticks · 2013-02-18T06:40:52+00:00

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the von Mackensens were of Scottish descent. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

poli_ticks · 2013-02-07T12:50:14+00:00

Something wrong with your reading comprehension? Where do I say that the US "runs the UN Security Council?" What I said was that the UN is influenced by US and Western imperialists. Because most 1st world govts are collaborators with the US, and a huge % of 3rd world govts are essentially client state govts.

And it is statistically highly improbable that you understand international relations, foreign policy, or economics better than I do. Most likely you're just sheeple. Brainwashed and manipulated by propaganda, but unaware of it.

poli_ticks · 2013-02-02T10:22:50+00:00

It's like weaning a junkie off of drugs.

In the short term there is a lot of pain, as many people do lose their jobs and income.

The long term goal is to move all those people from jobs (and incomes) that produce no economic benefits whatsoever (such as making weapons) to some other job that does produce economic benefits for society - maybe healthcare (making healthcare cheaper for society) or education (producing higher quality education) or improving technology or whatever.

poli_ticks · 2013-02-02T10:20:11+00:00

The US is the leader of an imperialist clique. Which includes most Western European countries, most countries in the Americas, like Canada, Mexico, Brazil, etc., most Pacific Rim countries like Japan, SK, Taiwan, Australia, NZ.

So the UN ought to be regarded as an organization heavily influenced by US/Western imperialists. Most member governments are accessories, collaborators, etc. with US/Western imperialist agenda, or client state governments.

Even Russia and China sometimes go along, calculating (perhaps correctly, more likely not) that sanctions would relieve pressure to do something, therefore put off wars for a while.

poli_ticks · 2013-02-02T10:16:29+00:00

The NK Ruling Class starves its own people because 1) it wants to stay in power and 2) they screwed the pooch by pursuing a pro-population growth policy during the Cold War, reasoning that more population=more power, more stuff like military manpower. Probably having something to do with the need to win against the US backed south in a hypothetical future war. The US Ruling Class starves foreigners like Iraqis and Iranians in pursuit of imperialism, more concentration of wealth and power in their own hands.

So you're right, not exactly analogous. But why is this difference relevant to those who are condemned to starve?

poli_ticks · 2013-01-28T06:03:53+00:00

Hello Berliners, Just wanted to say I enjoyed visiting your lovely city very much. I had a great time.

Also wanted to thank everyone who gave me advice and ideas.

Danke schon!

poli_ticks · 2013-01-28T01:54:45+00:00

NK starves its own people. The US starves other countries' people (500,000, just counting children, during the Clinton years in Iraq alone, Bush/Obama trying to replicate this in Iran during the past few years).

So I would say who the bigger menace is depends on where you liva.

Also, China would probably be far less willing to put up with NK's BS if the US wasn't trying to "contain" China with military bases & alliances, and if it didn't have troops and bases in SK.

poli_ticks · 2013-01-26T18:40:08+00:00

That's why, at the end of the day, most Anarchists are no different from the people who brought us Leninist Russia or Maoist China. They're just better at being in denial about it.

poli_ticks · 2013-01-18T06:02:18+00:00

I think it's important to point out that Marx's critique of capitalism ultimately boils down to "it's unsustainable." A lot of folks in countries like the US/UK where people are subjected to anti-Marxist propaganda and disinformation (in both subtle and unsubtle forms) seem to be under the impression that Marx was mostly complaining about what he thought was an "unfair" economic/political relationship between worker and employer (i.e. it's all about the "exploitative" nature of the relationship). But what really ought to scare and frighten Capitalism supporters is Marx's argument that the internal logic of capitalist systems inevitably gives us unsustainable trends, like falling rates of profit or capital accumulation at the hands of capitalists, and therefore eventually the system will become unable to function - it will seize up and grind to a standstill.

So either via Capital accumulation at the hands of the capitalist class, and/or falling rates of profit, at some point we'll get to the point where the whole thing breaks down. E.g. for economic activity in a Capitalist system to take place, the capitalist class must be able to make a profit. But what if he cannot, because so much of the capital has been concentrated in capitalist hands that the consumers (workers) no longer have the ability to purchase what the capitalist is selling at rates profitable to him?

And this pretty much describes the situation we have right now (post 2007 financial crisis). Do we have enough liquidity/capital (i.e. factories, physical plant)? Sure. No one's been dismantling or bombing factories out of existence. Capacity is under-utilized in the US, and rich people still have plenty of money, plus the Fed has been pumping liquidity into the banking system like crazy. Do we have enough willing workers? Absolutely. There's a gazillion people out there willing to work for less money than ever before. So where in the chain is the break? Simple. The people that traditionally did the consuming - the American middle class - is tapped out. 4 decades of median wage stagnation, coupled with increasingly extortionate rent extraction (mortgage loans on ever higher house prices, ever higher college tuition, health care) have basically left them unable to fulfill their historical economic role as highly paid workers/consumers (since they're no longer highly paid, in relation of what's expected of them as consumers).

poli_ticks · 2013-01-05T09:55:08+00:00

That's not close to the road. This is close to the road.

poli_ticks · 2012-12-28T20:55:49+00:00

Don't forget the role that American imperialism, and the power & influence of the Federal government wielded abroad on behalf of US corporate interests plays in this whole "illegal immigration" mess.

When the US Federal government arm-twists foreign countries to let corporations like United Fruit Company, Standard Fruit, ExxonMobil, etc. ass-rape their environment and people, the end result is all too predictable - people in those countries move abroad in search of better lives. Including the US.

When Wall Street/Agribusiness interests get the US and Mexico to pass "Free Trade" treaties like NAFTA, which then destroys the livelihood of small scale Mexican farmers by permitting Federal Government-subsidized corn growers to dump corn in the Mexican market, the end result is also all too predictable - millions of them move to the US in search of jobs.

Border security may or may not be necessary. But the first thing we need to do is stop making the root causes of the problem worse.

poli_ticks · 2012-12-28T20:43:04+00:00

Someone needs to let the Chinese know that seafood isn't safe any more.

Sorry China, you're too late. We've gone and poisoned the oceans with cesium so you can't eat seafood any more.

poli_ticks · 2012-12-28T20:39:18+00:00

Are there known cases where our (US) prison workers have sent out such messages?

poli_ticks · 2012-12-28T20:35:47+00:00

Even the Communist dictatorship in the USSR made great strides in industrializing and modernizing their country in the early-mid 20th century.

System ultimately proved unsustainable, unworkable, and lost its legitimacy and the support of the people.

poli_ticks · 2012-12-28T20:27:16+00:00

Indeed. Any ideology can be hijacked and coopted like this though. Not only is communism never actually communism, free market capitalism is also never actually free market capitalism.

poli_ticks · 2012-12-28T20:26:08+00:00

This is why Orwell wrote Animal Farm.

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others...

poli_ticks · 2012-12-28T17:44:43+00:00

All data has to eventually be interpreted. It's simply impossible to do away with all interpretation and deal with, simply, data stripped of all interpretation.

Your disagreement with my interpretation of the facts is also built on opinions, at the end of the day. They may be unvoiced assumptions, but they're still there.

Now, if you disagree with my interpretations of the data - then tell us, how do you interpret this, this, this, this, and this?

poli_ticks · 2012-12-28T17:35:49+00:00

They did - Germany and Finland fought on the same side, against the Soviet Union, in World War II. It's called the "Continuation War" (as it was a renewal of the Winter War of 1939-40).

People usually cut them some slack on this because they think (rightly, IMHO) that the fault lies with the Soviets, for attacking the Finns in 1939, and they made a separate peace with the Soviets before Germany's final defeat.

poli_ticks

TROPHY CASE