Jump to content

For those interested in history/politics...


_raVen_
 Share

Recommended Posts

I guess this is the place to put it, since there is not a political forum here...

 

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7412

 

I found this really interesting. If Stalin really made such a joke, I guess it really isn't so funny

 

Today, I think many politicians use jokes as a means to diffuse situations for which they are being criticized -- W & Co. for example, loves to do this. If they laugh it off, it tends to make the already apathetic public forget about the issue fairly quickly, or not seem so bad.

Anyway, the historical context is quite interesting.

 

Any thoughts or comments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well..... for starters the whole thing is quite negative to me because I know that there have been tons of lies fabricated about the communist countries in order to make sure Americans, etc think communism is a failure. Things like jokes are more easy to fabricate as people hardly expect you to provide references for jokes.

 

Yet there is an obvious problem with the idea that communist jokes represented an act of revolt: it wasn't just opponents of the regime who told them. Stalin himself cracked them, including this one about a visit from a Georgian delegation: They come, they talk to Stalin, and then they go, heading off down the Kremlin's corridors. Stalin starts looking for his pipe. He can't find it. He calls in Beria, the dreaded head of his secret police. "Go after the delegation, and find out which one took my pipe," he says. Beria scuttles off down the corridor. Five minutes later Stalin finds his pipe under a pile of papers. He calls Beria—"Look, I've found my pipe." "It's too late," Beria says, "half the delegation admitted they took your pipe, and the other half died during questioning."

This would be in reference to the Great Terror of 1936-1938 during which many innocent people were "purged". Purged meaning they lost their party membership, lost their jobs as generals, etc, in some cases were sent to work camps and in some cases even executed. Famously some very high ranking politicians were executed during this time. It is claimed by some that the high ranking politicians were innocent and plead guilty as a result of torture. There is actually no good evidence that this is true. But the winners write history you know. Furthermore it is claimed that this was all the work of Stalin (The Great Terror) in order to spread terror just for the sake of spreading terror supposedly.. I guess this was supposed to cement his rule. There are a lot of things left out by pro-capitalist propaganda concerning this. One, the USSR had some extremely good reasons to be very very paranoid of traitors within their country. Let's see: 1. There were tons of people still pissed that they lost their wealth after the revolution (kulaks). 2. There were tons of anti-semites who sympathesized with the Nazis. The Soviets actually flew men into villages pretending to be Nazis and were greeted as liberators. Furthermore there really were generals who were traitors to the Nazis. The Soviets were scared to death what might happen when Germany attacked... that possibly all these generals would sabotage/switch over causing the Nazis to take over the USSR. 3. When the monarchy was originally overthrown, 10 or so capitalist nations attacked/put up an embargo/etc to try to stop the Bolsheviks from holding on to power. It was a miracle they did manage to hold on to power but ever since they've known the capitalist nations desperately wanted to see them fail. The US for example did not even recognize the USSR as being a legitimate government until 1933. Up till that point they supported numerous other exiled groups (pro-capitalist/pro-monarchy/pro-fascism, etc) who claimed to be the true government.

 

As such the Soviets responded a little too vigorously in trying to find any traitors. Innocent people were killed. There is contention by many that this was hardly controlled by Stalin and that in fact when he realized just how many innocent people were being wrongly convicted he had the people in charge of the purges... well purged.

 

Anyway, it's very unlikely that Stalin ever said any such thing. There's a lot of crap out there with regards to Stalin.

 

Also Beria tried to take power after Stalin died. (And according to some was trying to breakup the corruption of the bureacracy.) He was instead arrested and executed. With the exception of Stalin (and Lenin by some) Beria seems to get reviled the most. This is probably why.

 

Stalin's laughter underlines the cynicism of the Soviet enterprise. But after his death the joke trials petered out. One of Khrushchev's first acts was to release all those imprisoned for minor political crimes, which included telling jokes. In his famous secret speech to the 20th party congress, Khrushchev cracked one too. He said that Stalin would have liked to have deported all the Ukrainians, but didn't know where to put them. The stenographers recording the speech noted the reaction of the party—"laughter."

Along with Trotsky (who seems to primarily have been pissed that he got booted out of the country but usually went on about how the Soviets weren't doing enough to help third world countries (which I partially agree with)), Khrushchev is unfortunately the main man responsible for the anti-Stalin propaganda (even more than the capitalists). He smeared him to help himself gain power and have more leeway in introducing his own new policies. I've heard his secret speech is literally nothing but lies. I've seen some of the lies pointed out but not all. An obvious one is the cult of personality around Stalin. Krushchev went on about what a ing thing this was. But actually Stalin disliked it and said his enemies were building up this cult in order to later discredit him. And whaddya know? Krushchev was one of the biggest in building up the cult, having speeches filled with praise to "the great Stalin", etc. And indeed, he later used it to discredit him.

 

As a matter of fact in the mid 80's the central committee talked about "rehabilitating" Stalin. In that Krushechev had done horrible damage to the image of the USSR with respect to his smear campaign of Stalin. Most agreed that such rehabilitation should have been done, except Gorbachev.

 

Jokes did not bring down communism. That was achieved by the nonsense of its economic policies, and by the decisions of the leaders of the superpowers, east and west....

From 1928 to 1940 the USSR went from third world to industrialized in record time. They managed this thanks to their nonsensical economic policies. If they had instead gone capitalist they would have stayed third world and lost to the Nazis. The only capitalist nations on earth that have gone from third world to industrialized (in the last 90 years) are the ones the US has propped up for one reason or another. (Bulwarks or examples to close by communist nations, etc.)

 

When the USSR went to capitalism the life expectancy dropped from 64 to 57, which is a holocaust, a censored holocaust. If Cuba is invaded and it's nonsense economic politics are replaced by capitalism, the life expectancy which is currently 77 (despite being a small island that has had an embargo upon it for 45 years + terrorism/assasination attempts/etc by it's extremely powerful neighbor just 90 miles away) will drop by probably 25 years. This will also by a holocaust that will be censored by the MSM.

 

Anything else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gorbachev knew the jokes, and like his predecessors, he told them. You can't imagine Stalin or Khrushchev telling a joke about his own unpopularity, but Gorbachev did. In 1996 he appeared on the Clive Anderson show in Britain and told this one, whose lineage can be traced back through the 20th century: A man is queuing for food in Moscow. Finally he's had enough. He turns round to his friend and says "That's it. I'm going to kill that Gorbachev," and marches off. Two hours later he comes back. "Well," says the friend, "did you do it?" "No," replies the other, "there was an even longer queue over there."

 

Gorbachev and his aides talked openly about the jokes. In 1989 he told a crowd of workers, "political jokes were our salvation," a reference to the way the jokes let out frustrations and debunked propaganda. As the first reforms faltered, one of his ministers warned him that if the new laws didn't work "the people would return to the bottle and the political joke." One could even argue that Gorbachev's policies liberalising the economy, press and politics were addressing the implicit complaints of decades of jokes.

G told such jokes because he wanted to get rid of socialism. Duh! (Talking to the writer of the article, not you raVen of course.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They may even explain why the end of communism was so sudden and so bloodless. No point anyone getting hurt over a little joke, right?

Bastard!

 

Of course, many millions actually died and they are still dying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well..... for starters the whole thing is quite negative to me because I know that there have been tons of lies fabricated about the communist countries in order to make sure Americans, etc think communism is a failure. Things like jokes are more easy to fabricate as people hardly expect you to provide references for jokes.

 

Well, as it was, it was a failure, no?

 

I can't speak really, to all you write since I haven't researched any of this; so, I'm no expert on the Soviet Union to say the least!

 

 

...As such the Soviets responded a little too vigorously in trying to find any traitors. Innocent people were killed. There is contention by many that this was hardly controlled by Stalin and that in fact when he realized just how many innocent people were being wrongly convicted he had the people in charge of the purges... well purged.

 

Well, I don't really buy it when leaders claim(ed) they didn't know mass killings were going on. Sounds rather ludicrous. And, sadly, sounds familiar too.

 

Anyway, it's very unlikely that Stalin ever said any such thing. There's a lot of crap out there with regards to Stalin.

 

Again, I wouldn't put this past *any* leader. As you say, it's rather easy to rewrite history; however, some evil stuff has been done by every country. What would make Stalin so special? Hell, W has said some truly horrific things -- the mimicking of the woman pleading mercy for her life as he signed her death warrant comes to mind. That was purely sociopathic.

All the leaders of Turkey deny the Armenian massacres -- that's pretty damn evil.

 

 

When the USSR went to capitalism the life expectancy dropped from 64 to 57, which is a holocaust, a censored holocaust. If Cuba is invaded and it's nonsense economic politics are replaced by capitalism, the life expectancy which is currently 77 (despite being a small island that has had an embargo upon it for 45 years + terrorism/assasination attempts/etc by it's extremely powerful neighbor just 90 miles away) will drop by probably 25 years. This will also by a holocaust that will be censored by the MSM.

 

This brings up an interesting question about just what constitutes a holocaust. How about an Arab holocaust via aiding and acquiescence? That would make the U.S. guilty, realtime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as it was, it was a failure, no?

 

I can't speak really, to all you write since I haven't researched any of this; so, I'm no expert on the Soviet Union to say the least!

Communism in general? Or the USSR?

 

I'd say soviet style communism was a failure in that their state controlled media was no match for the sophisticated US media. And so the US media said how horrible the USSR was and people believed it because we supposedly have a free press. (Which we don't really have.) But the USSR media said how horrible America was and plenty of people didn't believe it because their press was controlled in a very straightforward and obvious way. I think the biggest mistake they (the USSR) made was way back with Lenin they got rid of press freedom/free speech. Excepting foreign funded media and foreign funded "dissidents" who should always be at least kicked out of the country or thrown in jail, they should have kept freedom of speech. They didn't and so they eventually lost the backing of the people.

 

I don't think communism (socialism really) has been proven a failure in general and I can talk A LOT more about that if you want.

 

...As such the Soviets responded a little too vigorously in trying to find any traitors. Innocent people were killed. There is contention by many that this was hardly controlled by Stalin and that in fact when he realized just how many innocent people were being wrongly convicted he had the people in charge of the purges... well purged.

 

Well, I don't really buy it when leaders claim(ed) they didn't know mass killings were going on. Sounds rather ludicrous. And, sadly, sounds familiar too.

Perhaps. I have only begun to read about it. I haven't come to any final decision but what I've seen so far is that the main sources used to villify Stalin are mostly crap. Just flat out made up stuff. Despite that, he might still have been a horrible person i guess.

 

Anyway, it's very unlikely that Stalin ever said any such thing. There's a lot of crap out there with regards to Stalin.

 

Again, I wouldn't put this past *any* leader. As you say, it's rather easy to rewrite history; however, some evil stuff has been done by every country. What would make Stalin so special?

What's his motive? He wasn't fabulously wealthy. Unlike Yeltsin (who was the real power behind Gorbachev) who had millions hide away in (I think Swiss) bank accounts, Stalin had pretty much nothing. Just enough for personal security. No money hidden away. No palace. Just nothing. He didn't even bother to dress decently wearing the same clothes till they were falling apart and not even sleeping in a bed. When the Tsar was in power he spent a decade constantly on the run. If he was in it for himself he really went about it all wrong. I guess maybe he was just a sadist? I guess that's a possibility but he really had less obvious motives than that of the usual dictators with their palaces or capitalist presidents like Cheney with his millions. He wasn't religious either like Bush possibly actually really is.

 

Hell, W has said some truly horrific things -- the mimicking of the woman pleading mercy for her life as he signed her death warrant comes to mind. That was purely sociopathic.

All the leaders of Turkey deny the Armenian massacres -- that's pretty damn evil.

Yes that's evil. But there still are fabricated holocausts. In the case of the USSR, there is for example ths supposed Ukranian famine engineered holocaust in 1933 or so. It supposedly killed 7 million. There is a book online about it called Fraud, Fascism and Famine at rationalrevolution The fraud was started up by Ukranian nationalists (pissed primarily that they were part of the USSR). It was first carried in the nazis press, showing pictures that in the book are proven to be fake/ fake journalists, etc. Eventually it made it's way to America through William Randolph Hearst's papers. It's all been shown to be crap. Just the usual from Hearst who had no problem lying to try to influence politics. Still it is repeated to this day. Reagen tried to bring it back and Robert Conquest, who is the most popular anti-Stalin writer cited, happily repeats such stuff.

 

 

When the USSR went to capitalism the life expectancy dropped from 64 to 57, which is a holocaust, a censored holocaust. If Cuba is invaded and it's nonsense economic politics are replaced by capitalism, the life expectancy which is currently 77 (despite being a small island that has had an embargo upon it for 45 years + terrorism/assasination attempts/etc by it's extremely powerful neighbor just 90 miles away) will drop by probably 25 years. This will also by a holocaust that will be censored by the MSM.

 

This brings up an interesting question about just what constitutes a holocaust. How about an Arab holocaust via aiding and acquiescence? That would make the U.S. guilty, realtime.

I assume millions dying as a direct result of someone's actions means holocaust.

 

Worse than the Palestinians being killed by bombs and guns in are the people dying from lack of health care, malnutrition throughout the ME thanks to the type of dictatorships that were put into place by the US, Britain and France and have been supported ever since. Even the democracy of Egypt is a total farce and they receive the second most US aid only behind Israel.

 

Maybe I'm wrong to use the word holocaust but it seems to me the worst holocaust ever is the one being perpetrated by the IMF/WB.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20000412/ai_n14299769

Mr Livingstone said economists had estimated that in any year since 1981, up to 20 million people had died because governments cut back on health schemes to pay debts. "Every year the international financial system kills more people than World War Two. But at least Hitler was mad, you know?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'd say soviet style communism was a failure in that their state controlled media was no match for the sophisticated US media. And so the US media said how horrible the USSR was and people believed it because we supposedly have a free press. (Which we don't really have.)...

 

Yes, of course, the anti-Communist propoganda was in full swing here for decades. It has been replaced by (for the moment, anyway; I see it bubbling, though - *e.t.a.: meaning, anti-Russian sentiments, which will be referred to as a communistic state...or reverter, don't you think?*) anti-Arab propoganda, eagerly embraced by many, including the Religious Right, who, are feeling rather "rapturous" at the moment.

 

I don't think communism (socialism really) has been proven a failure in general and I can talk A LOT more about that if you want.

 

Well, I think it has been successful in smaller groups, such as tribes or native peoples -- is that to what you refer?

Talk away, Jay, you know I'd appreciate whatever you have to say on it.

I'm just not, myself, well versed on this subject; so my general skeptic nature combined with a healthy dose of ignorance, may not lend a fruitful (for you) back-and-forth, be forwarned I am however, always willing to learn.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps. I have only begun to read about it. I haven't come to any final decision but what I've seen so far is that the main sources used to villify Stalin are mostly crap. Just flat out made up stuff. Despite that, he might still have been a horrible person i guess.

 

Well, just be careful not to swing too far the other way . The same dilution of truth on one side, could just as easily be diluted on the other. And while I don't always believe "the truth is somewhere in the middle," I think it's best to take "history" and "facts" as something to be accepted after a great deal of real consideration as well as documentation, neither of which may render any truth, anyway, but....

 

~ hehe, this reminds me of my dad: this is the point at which he would ask me, "What is "truth"? ~

 

It's up for grabs as far as I'm concerned. I do accept some things as truth, but I also know as you wrote, "the winners write (and re-write) history" information is so corrupted, that it comes down many times to common sense and, well, personal belief, frankly. (And then innumerable factors contributing to personal view...) This is all done purposely -- suggestions of this or that theory, this or that accusation, no matter how outrageous -- just to confuse/distract and persuade. We end up coming to conclusions based on falsehoods or innuendos or just being so overwhelmed that we just give up and believe,"we'll never know the truth anyway." Pretty effective plan.

 

 

 

What's his motive?

 

What it always has been? Power.

 

... He wasn't fabulously wealthy. Unlike Yeltsin (who was the real power behind Gorbachev) who had millions hide away in (I think Swiss) bank accounts, Stalin had pretty much nothing. Just enough for personal security. No money hidden away. No palace. Just nothing. He didn't even bother to dress decently wearing the same clothes till they were falling apart and not even sleeping in a bed. When the Tsar was in power he spent a decade constantly on the run. If he was in it for himself he really went about it all wrong. I guess maybe he was just a sadist? I guess that's a possibility but he really had less obvious motives than that of the usual dictators with their palaces or capitalist presidents like Cheney with his millions. He wasn't religious either like Bush possibly actually really is.

 

 

I have never considered the accumulation of personal wealth the primary reason for domination.

 

 

Yes that's evil. But there still are fabricated holocausts. In the case of the USSR, there is for example ths supposed Ukranian famine engineered holocaust in 1933 or so. It supposedly killed 7 million. There is a book online about it called Fraud, Fascism and Famine at rationalrevolution The fraud was started up by Ukranian nationalists (pissed primarily that they were part of the USSR). It was first carried in the nazis press, showing pictures that in the book are proven to be fake/ fake journalists, etc. Eventually it made it's way to America through William Randolph Hearst's papers. It's all been shown to be crap. Just the usual from Hearst who had no problem lying to try to influence politics. Still it is repeated to this day. Reagen tried to bring it back and Robert Conquest, who is the most popular anti-Stalin writer cited, happily repeats such stuff.

 

Interesting. Is there a book written about this?

Yea, Hearst -- talk about power hungry.

 

I assume millions dying as a direct result of someone's actions means holocaust.

 

It would seem logical that that might suffice as a definition; but it doesn't. I personally believe there is more to it than mere numbers.

In my view, any concerted, systematic killing of a certain group -- whether based on race, religion, condition; whether it's a tribe of 5 or 5 million -- constitutes a holocaust. The powers that be, however, feel it is diluting to theHolocaust (with a capital "h") or other historical holocaust -- as they interpret its worthiness to be labeled, of course -- to label such murders as "holocaust."

 

 

Worse than the Palestinians being killed by bombs and guns in are the people dying from lack of health care, malnutrition throughout the ME thanks to the type of dictatorships that were put into place by the US, Britain and France and have been supported ever since. Even the democracy of Egypt is a total farce and they receive the second most US aid only behind Israel.

 

Excellent point about the lack of healthcare, malnutrition, etc., etc., etc.! -- heck, drinking unclean water, if there is any -- determining holocausts. I agree.

 

The aid and acquiescence (and slow-moving Rice -- how much more can this woman d.isgust me?), in my opinion, is a "green light" to continue the Arab holocaust; thereby constituting at least equal responsibility, if not more. (the Lebanese People)

And, yes, of course, who is even thinking of Palestinians right now?

Syria and Iran are next?

 

Maybe I'm wrong to use the word holocaust...

I don't believe you are.

 

...but it seems to me the worst holocaust ever is the one being perpetrated by the IMF/WB.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20000412/ai_n14299769

Mr Livingstone said economists had estimated that in any year since 1981, up to 20 million people had died because governments cut back on health schemes to pay debts. "Every year the international financial system kills more people than World War Two. But at least Hitler was mad, you know?"

 

Yes.

 

* What about China's Communism? I mean "successful" by whose definition, I guess...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think communism (socialism really) has been proven a failure in general and I can talk A LOT more about that if you want.

 

Well, I think it has been successful in smaller groups, such as tribes or native peoples -- is that to what you refer?

Talk away, Jay, you know I'd appreciate whatever you have to say on it.

I'm just not, myself, well versed on this subject; so my general skeptic nature combined with a healthy dose of ignorance, may not lend a fruitful (for you) back-and-forth, be forwarned I am however, always willing to learn.

I think it hasn't been successful nationwide(except in that mixed economies with socialized health care, etc are obviously more successful) because of imperialism. The US (primarily) has resorted to force to stop it from being successful in many, many instances. Now, I could go on and on about this and I think I probably should write up a short summary and post it on a webpage because the material is not summarized anywhere well enough.

 

This guy has the best summary that I've seen:

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/William_Blum.html

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/KillingHope_page.html

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

 

But he still leaves out all kinds of stuff. No mention of Columbia which gets the third most US aid (weapons/counterinsurgency training) and uses it to kill people who try to start unions, etc. Every year Colombia kills more union organizers than the rest of the world combined. He also leaves out the assasinations of Ecuadoran and Panamian presidents in 1981 who dared to go against US corporate interests. (Something I just finally heard about while reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Really good book.)

 

Basically the US first tries to trick/bribe the leaders of third world countries to take their loans in exchange for right wing economic stipulations. This puts the country in extreme debt although it's understood the leader is free to get rich. But if the leader doesn't agree and instead tries to help his people by doing anything from outright socialism to anything that remotely looks like socialism, they bring in the "jackals", in the words of John Perkins (Confessions of an Economic Hitman). The jackals (the CIA or private companies tied into the CIA) will either identify rightwing oppositions elements and give them millions to try to win future elections and/or use terrorism/terror to win by a military coup. Or simply assasinate the offending democratically elected leader such as with Salvador Allende (Chile 1973), Jaime Roldós (Ecuador 1981), Omar Torrijos (Panama 1981), at least 20 attemtps on Castro, and a few others. Etc, etc, etc.

 

If that doesn't work then step three is to bring in the military and/or economic embargos.

 

This sort of activity has made it extremely difficult for any countries to be very successful with socialism. Of course, no third world country has been successful with capitalism either excepting a few nations the US has chosen to prop up.

 

Perhaps. I have only begun to read about it. I haven't come to any final decision but what I've seen so far is that the main sources used to villify Stalin are mostly crap. Just flat out made up stuff. Despite that, he might still have been a horrible person i guess.

 

Well, just be careful not to swing too far the other way . The same dilution of truth on one side, could just as easily be diluted on the other. And while I don't always believe "the truth is somewhere in the middle," I think it's best to take "history" and "facts" as something to be accepted after a great deal of real consideration as well as documentation, neither of which may render any truth, anyway, but....

Yes, I know.

 

~ hehe, this reminds me of my dad: this is the point at which he would ask me, "What is "truth"? ~

 

It's up for grabs as far as I'm concerned. I do accept some things as truth, but I also know as you wrote, "the winners write (and re-write) history" information is so corrupted, that it comes down many times to common sense and, well, personal belief, frankly. (And then innumerable factors contributing to personal view...) This is all done purposely -- suggestions of this or that theory, this or that accusation, no matter how outrageous -- just to confuse/distract and persuade. We end up coming to conclusions based on falsehoods or innuendos or just being so overwhelmed that we just give up and believe,"we'll never know the truth anyway." Pretty effective plan.

This is actually part of standard politics. You don't need to win every argument. Just do enough to confuse people/put some doubt in people's head. Global warming for one example of many.

 

 

What's his motive?

 

What it always has been? Power.

 

... He wasn't fabulously wealthy. Unlike Yeltsin (who was the real power behind Gorbachev) who had millions hide away in (I think Swiss) bank accounts, Stalin had pretty much nothing. Just enough for personal security. No money hidden away. No palace. Just nothing. He didn't even bother to dress decently wearing the same clothes till they were falling apart and not even sleeping in a bed. When the Tsar was in power he spent a decade constantly on the run. If he was in it for himself he really went about it all wrong. I guess maybe he was just a sadist? I guess that's a possibility but he really had less obvious motives than that of the usual dictators with their palaces or capitalist presidents like Cheney with his millions. He wasn't religious either like Bush possibly actually really is.

 

 

I have never considered the accumulation of personal wealth the primary reason for domination.

Ultimately I don't really understand politicians. I don't understand the point in getting power just for the sake of having power. But when it comes to the corporations who to a large extent control the world today I definitely think it's solely about making money. It is much harder to understand the politicians who represent them.

 

Yes that's evil. But there still are fabricated holocausts. In the case of the USSR, there is for example ths supposed Ukranian famine engineered holocaust in 1933 or so. It supposedly killed 7 million. There is a book online about it called Fraud, Fascism and Famine at rationalrevolution The fraud was started up by Ukranian nationalists (pissed primarily that they were part of the USSR). It was first carried in the nazis press, showing pictures that in the book are proven to be fake/ fake journalists, etc. Eventually it made it's way to America through William Randolph Hearst's papers. It's all been shown to be crap. Just the usual from Hearst who had no problem lying to try to influence politics. Still it is repeated to this day. Reagen tried to bring it back and Robert Conquest, who is the most popular anti-Stalin writer cited, happily repeats such stuff.

 

Interesting. Is there a book written about this?

Yea, Hearst -- talk about power hungry.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm

 

* What about China's Communism? I mean "successful" by whose definition, I guess...?

I haven't researched them. But if i can't find any good books about North Korea or Vietnam today, then I'll pick one up on China.

Edited by Jay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it hasn't been successful nationwide(except in that mixed economies with socialized health care, etc are obviously more successful) because of imperialism. The US (primarily) has resorted to force to stop it from being successful in many, many instances. Now, I could go on and on about this and I think I probably should write up a short summary and post it on a webpage because the material is not summarized anywhere well enough.

 

Wasn't it I, who *told* you to make a page a while back?

You need to listen to me, Jay

 

This guy has the best summary that I've seen:

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/William_Blum.html

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/KillingHope_page.html

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

 

But he still leaves out all kinds of stuff. No mention of Columbia which gets the third most US aid (weapons/counterinsurgency training) and uses it to kill people who try to start unions, etc. Every year Colombia kills more union organizers than the rest of the world combined. He also leaves out the assasinations of Ecuadoran and Panamian presidents in 1981 who dared to go against US corporate interests. (Something I just finally heard about while reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Really good book.)

 

 

Thanks, I haven't had time to read through the links, but I will.

 

 

 

Basically the US first tries to trick/bribe the leaders of third world countries to take their loans in exchange for right wing economic stipulations. This puts the country in extreme debt although it's understood the leader is free to get rich. But if the leader doesn't agree and instead tries to help his people by doing anything from outright socialism to anything that remotely looks like socialism, they bring in the "jackals", in the words of John Perkins (Confessions of an Economic Hitman). The jackals (the CIA or private companies tied into the CIA) will either identify rightwing oppositions elements and give them millions to try to win future elections and/or use terrorism/terror to win by a military coup. Or simply assasinate the offending democratically elected leader such as with Salvador Allende (Chile 1973), Jaime Roldós (Ecuador 1981), Omar Torrijos (Panama 1981), at least 20 attemtps on Castro, and a few others. Etc, etc, etc.

 

If that doesn't work then step three is to bring in the military and/or economic embargos.

 

Yea, I think this type of activity is one of the big stains on Carter's admin, no? The guy's a saint, now, though, so it just don't matter

 

 

 

Ultimately I don't really understand politicians. I don't understand the point in getting power just for the sake of having power. But when it comes to the corporations who to a large extent control the world today I definitely think it's solely about making money. It is much harder to understand the politicians who represent them.

 

Isn't it more that you cannot relate, rather than not understand? It's difficult because politicians are a special type of person; not just anyone can be.

We can understand the concepts of Machiavellianism, even though we could not employ them ourselves ( to the extent necessary to be a politician). You're just not the type

 

 

 

In my opinion, they aren't much different; in fact, corporations may even be worse.

All corporations follow Machiavellianism; they have to. It's illustrated quite well when there is a takeover and the new bosses clean house.

Wealth is part of the whole, which is power.

 

So to me, Cheney's greed is prompted by the desire for power: One way to have power, is to have money -- the means to the end, which is what Machaivelli discusses. He's not flashy... Cheney portrays that he doesn't like the limelight; yet is he not the most powerful vp ever? He *loves* power. If he loved money most, he'd be more Trump-like.

 

But, actually, Trump -- same thing. Who needs all those millions? It's really power and influence. He is never satisfied. It's the manipulation, control and the "win."

 

Or the lobbies? Heck, now we're talkin' power: Agan, they use the money for the power.

 

Ultimately, some form of power is desirable of all of us, to one extent or another in all aspects of life, whether personal, emotional, mental, or in relationships. It is only a matter of degree.

 

"The politician must do good as long as possible, but must be ready to do evil when necessary."*

 

* What about China's Communism? I mean "successful" by whose definition, I guess...?

I haven't researched them. But if i can't find any good books about North Korea or Vietnam today, then I'll pick one up on China.

 

Not knowing much about China, myself, my general impression is that they are providing the semblance of advancing in democratic ideals/ openness, but it's not tangible for the People. There is still no real organizing or dissent allowed.

 

 

*Not verbatim..it goes something like that - from "The Prince"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, I think this type of activity is one of the big stains on Carter's admin, no? The guy's a saint, now, though, so it just don't matter

Carter was a saint compared to Reagan. Carter only conducted economic warfare against the Sandinistas (Nicaragua). Reagan did his Iran Contra thing. Made sure they had plenty of weapons to conduct terrorism against the democratic process and stop those commies. Right after Reagan came into office Ecuador and Panama's democratically elected leaders suddenly died in plane crashes (were assasinated IOW rather blatantly really) but with enough plausible denial that it was practically not mentioned at all in the US MSM. Reagan invaded Grenada even. Carter mostly tried to avoid using force but still did economic violence which really is pretty bad still. Same idea with Clinton really. He still had the IMF/WB which kills far more than the Iraqi war is killing and sanctions against Iraq which only killed at a slightly lower rate. The person who did the one peer-reviewed scientific study on the Iraqi war deaths says that about 300,000 have been killed so far. During Clinton's sanctions if I remember it is estimated conservatively that 500,000 were killed.

 

It seems the main difference between democrats and republicans is their PR campaigns. Democrats pretend to be about peace so they use economic violence while Republicans seem to approve of military force so they don't bother with any pretenses. This is somewhat like the difference between the WB and IMF at least until Wolfowitz became head of the WB.

 

Isn't it more that you cannot relate, rather than not understand? It's difficult because politicians are a special type of person; not just anyone can be.

We can understand the concepts of Machiavellianism, even though we could not employ them ourselves ( to the extent necessary to be a politician). You're just not the type

 

In my opinion, they aren't much different; in fact, corporations may even be worse.

All corporations follow Machiavellianism; they have to. It's illustrated quite well when there is a takeover and the new bosses clean house.

Wealth is part of the whole, which is power.

 

So to me, Cheney's greed is prompted by the desire for power: One way to have power, is to have money -- the means to the end, which is what Machaivelli discusses. He's not flashy... Cheney portrays that he doesn't like the limelight; yet is he not the most powerful vp ever? He *loves* power. If he loved money most, he'd be more Trump-like.

 

But, actually, Trump -- same thing. Who needs all those millions? It's really power and influence. He is never satisfied. It's the manipulation, control and the "win."

 

Or the lobbies? Heck, now we're talkin' power: Agan, they use the money for the power.

 

Ultimately, some form of power is desirable of all of us, to one extent or another in all aspects of life, whether personal, emotional, mental, or in relationships. It is only a matter of degree.

 

"The politician must do good as long as possible, but must be ready to do evil when necessary."*

 

I understand Machiavellianism just not the underlying reason for bothering. Beyond a certain point money/power just doesn't do anything for happiness. One possibility is that ALL these people in some way believe they really are helping people..??? I'm sure some fascists/monarchists/etc do believe their system is the best... for whatever reason. Bush, for example, may just be a raving christian who believes Revelations and that the end is near and by god he is called on to do what he does. Perhaps he's so clueless he believes all the free market crap through brainwashing...? Perhaps they all do and it's just a rudderless ship out of control.

 

Not knowing much about China, myself, my general impression is that they are providing the semblance of advancing in democratic ideals/ openness, but it's not tangible for the People. There is still no real organizing or dissent allowed.

 

*Not verbatim..it goes something like that - from "The Prince"

What I know about China is that they've had absolutely nothing to do with the free market zealotry of the IMF and WB and as a result they have sightly reduced poverty during the last 25 years and along with India having little to nothing to do with these evil organizations the resulting slight reduction in poverty their two billion peoples have experienced has just barely offset the huge increase in poverty experienced by all the other third nations who almost without exception have taken IMF/WB loans. As a result the IMF/WB like to claim the slight overall reduction in poverty can somehow be attributed to their work when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Don't know about dissent/democracy stuff.

 

The thing about that, (that goes against the obvious pro-freedom of speech usual sentiments) is that foreign capitalist nations will try to secretly funnel money to "dissidents" within the country. And in that way overthrow whatever government they don't like. In Iran 1953 that is largely what they did. They paid people to become full time protestors thus creating the impression that Mossedegh(sp) was very unpopular in large part leading to his overthrow. In Cuba they would happily do the same but to the extent they've tried Castro has very clearly stopped it from happening and how can he stop it? By throwing such people in jail. Of course for doing that he is called a totalitarian dictator but what is the alternative? If he does nothing, the US will endlessly pump millions into the country for which non-political people will decide to be political for awhile. Fulltime protestors will come out of nowhere, etc as has been done in so many other nations until the government is overthrown. (Which reminds me of James Baker and all the "protestors" in Florida 2000. Have you heard about that? Baker paid to have them flown in from around the country.)

 

Perhaps China is worried about this sort of thing happening? I don't know.

 

It's a problem. It seems that this lack of democracy has to go along with socialism. The alternative is the nation being overthrown back to capitalism. If a benevolent socialist dictator is in charge it is understandable they wouldn't want to take the chance. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela seems to be the closest anyone has come to overcoming this seeming paradox. (It's a seeming paradox in that freedom of speech in capitalist nations is only free to the extent that you aren't heard by hardly anyone.) Chavez is democratic. And he just may be as socialist as Castro. But Chavez has done things very slowly, with the strong support of the military and as such he has been able to be very democratic.

 

In Cuba they have control of things well enough that they do have some real bonafide dissidents-people they know are not receiving US money- and they leave them alone. But in many situations, how would you know who is "bonafide". In China with a billion people it could be very difficult. I don't know. In 1918 Russia the nation was in chaos and it would have been impossible although I'd like to think at some point they certainly should have allowed nonforeign funded dissent.

 

I'm just thinking outloud. Don't mind me. What this is I think it can be described as, is Marxist-Leninism. Where the Marxism is basically economic (idealistic) socialism and the Leninism is the understanding of the reality of Imperialism and that as a result things have to deform to survive. The question to me, is, is it just better to say to heck with it and have a capitalist democracy instead?

 

I don't think so. Curtailing freedom of speech is horrible. But virtual slavery and a 20 years lower life expectancy seems worse. And that is the choice in most countries. (Not the US or West Europe of course. For now there are plenty of resources to steal elsewhere to keep these people living pretty good.)

Edited by Jay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure it was Saint Carter who set this up, though. He was the one who ordered the CIA in to train those who became the Contras...

Eh, probably. Then some would say the CIA is out of control/not always controlled by the president. Some say the CIA had JFK killed because he was trying to bring them under control. But I really doubt all that. Probably Carter was very mucy a part of it as Kennedy was probably very much a part of what the CIA was doing in Cuba, etc despite what some claim.

 

... Carter mostly tried to avoid using force but still did economic violence which really is pretty bad still...

 

Sounds quite Machiavellian to me as defined in the Prince quote above

So when his "good-guy/mediator/negotiator/take-the-high-road-let's-be-diplomatic approaches didn't work, then...

 

Okay, so he gets a few brownie points for trying, I guess...I guess (but not really). His various back-door dealings in supplanting U.S. puppet regimes doesn't endear him to me...it leads/led to bloodshed eventually.

 

I personally have to be careful when it comes to Carter because I could definitely see him in god-like status from all the propoganda; I just have to hold it up to the same type of w's-a-"good-Christian"-"regular, nice guy"- worship and Reagan-as-so "likable" revisionism, to slap me back to cold hard reality.

Considering that he did get a pretty raw deal with the gas shortage and the hostage situation I at one time did kind of prop him up as some kind of martyr/hero. But then along with such stuff as you've mentioned, Cyrus Vance quit because of the way Carter was willing to risk lives to improve his poll rating over the hostage situation, etc. He was a part of the system. Although the far left of it. I've heard (I think Chomsky? talking about the Trilateral Commision?) that they decided to "let" him become president to try to defuse all the leftwing radical political organization which had come about as a backlash primarily to Vietnam.

 

Off topic, but, funny (sort of) I just read today a piece on Edgar Allan Poe's controversial death and how the day he died, he, apparently, had been hired as a repeater -- to vote over and over -- during elections...

I thought he was on his way to visit some love from long ago.... although I guess that would make a better story. Perhaps it was made up.

 

Yes, I've heard a lot of voter fraud stories, but not that Baker had personally paid people...wow -- or was it with taxpayer money?

Can't find the old account I read. He had republican campaign workers from all across the country flown in. (He paid for the flight.) If you remember all the people pretty violently protesting down there. These were the people he had flown in. I'm pretty sure it was campaign money and not taxpayer money.But one would think it was just Floridians protesting as opposed to what it actually was.

 

I agree he appears to be the closest thing to democratic, but "...with strong support of the military" and

 

Unfortunately you better have really strong support from the military if you want to bring in leftist economic policies in a thirdworld country. Otherwise the CIA will help the military do a coup. Chavez survived the 2002 coup (which appears to have had heavy Us involvement) because enough of the military was on his side. The attempted coup of course could not have happened at all unless some of the military was against Chavez. Luckily enough for him. There were many people sympathetic to him in the military who informed him of what was about to happen and he managed to take action to survive and then generals who were against him were removed from power.

 

"...has been able to be very democratic" doesn't ring well in my ears

I know.

 

Supposedly he's talked a lot with Castro. According to Chavez they are very close... But then Chavez seems to give a lot of flowery talk to anyone that is also the victim of US imperialism. He was doing the same with Iran which I'm not so sure I approve of at all. Anyway Castro supposedly told him to take things very very slow. Don't just immediately say, 'Hey I'm a marxist! Let's nationalize all the foreign owned industry!' Because if he did, he would be taken out one way or the other. Chavez has bent over backwards being democratic and for his troubles he still has the US media calling him "the strongman of the venezuela regime". (That's how I heard him referred to on CNN the other day.)

 

*I've been meaning to tell/ask you if you know of the Bill Moyers series, "Faith & Reason," which is on right now. It's excellent; you should be watching it. It's on PBS. It will be played over and over like most PBS shows,

I'll look for it.

 

and Moyers's especially (did you ever happen to catch the Campbell series ("Power of Myth") I was going on about a couple years ago?

Ordered it from netflix. I've heard some about it.

 

Anyway, Amis was on last night, so that is why he is fresh in my memory. I used the term, "Islamism," which I hadn't heard before, though we all know the concept by now -- radical Islamic fundamentalism; which is NOT anything like true Islam -- until he used it.

 

Anyway, watch it if you can. All the interviews and the interviewees are excellent.

I know you consider yourself an atheist, so I thought of you particularly with the conversation Moyers had with scientist, Sir John Houghton -- excellent, and my favorite so far; but also the interview with Amis, where he proclaims he's changed from calling himself an atheist, and now considers himself agnostic. I love it!

Lemme know what you think, if you get a chance to see them.

 

**not verbatim

OK..... really I'm a deist. I've thought about it and i don't live like an atheist. How I live matters more than what I say I believe. To the average christian though it's easier just to say I'm an atheist.

 

As far as "Matewan" -- I'm not so shallow as to use enertainment value as a barometer to determine the worthiness of a film ; but I can't help it if I was bored

Honestly, like I told you, it was good. I appreciated how it delved into all the contributing issues like religion, racism, etc. It, for some reason, did not hold my attention well...perhaps it was the directing, the pace of the film, or maybe just me . I did think the "bad guys" were over-played a bit -- almost comical, with the laughing and mocking in the church.

Maybe because the subject wasn't unknown to me ?

I think Sayles doesn't use music well enough in his films. For starters at least.

 

I've watched a bunch of his movies and I'm not impressed really. I'm just somewhat starved for political movies I think. I still like Matewan a lot though.

 

I found "Silkwood," "Norma Rae," and "On the Waterfront," compelling as well as entertaining; so it can be done. "Matewan" was just not engrossing; and I feel a subject matter so important should be, no?

Still a thumbs-up, though

I haven't seen any of those. Just added them to my netflix queue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AP aritcle today:

 

HAVANA - Little was known of Fidel Castro's condition Tuesday after he underwent an operation and temporarily turned over the Cuban presidency to his brother Raul, ushering in a period of uncertainty at home and celebrations by his enemies abroad. The surprise announcement that Castro had been operated on to repair a "sharp intestinal crisis with sustained bleeding" stunned Cubans on the island and in exile, and marked the first time that Castro, two weeks away from 80th birthday, had relinquished power in 47 years of absolute rule.

 

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration, which has made no secret of its desire to see the end of Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba, said it has a plan in place to help transition the island nation to democracy after Castro.

Or a military dictatorship if necessary. As long as there's capitalism they couldn't care less.

 

"We can't speculate on Castro's health, but we continue to work for the day of Cuba's freedom," said White House spokesman Peter Watkins. He also said the U.S. is closely monitoring the situation.

 

On Monday, before Castro's illness was announced, President Bush was in Miami and spoke of the island's future.

 

"If Fidel Castro were to move on because of natural causes, we've got a plan in place to help the people of Cuba understand there's a better way than the system in which they've been living under," he told WAQI-AM Radio Mambi, a Spanish-language radio station. "No one knows when Fidel Castro will move on. In my judgment, that's the work of the Almighty."

Heh. Listen to him trying to make it sound like they don't want to kill him. Not to even mention exploding cigars and past invasion attempts, even right now the US continues to support anti-Castro organizations that are tied to people who have done all kinds of terrorism including assasination attempts.

 

The president apparently was referring to a recently updated plan that calls for diplomacy enlisting Cuban citizens and other nations to demand a new government after Castro dies. The plan, released last month by the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, recommends that the United States spend $80 million over two years for food and other aid to Cuba to encourage multiparty elections, free markets and democratic institutions.

First off Cuba was offering aid to the US after Hurricane katrina. The US should have accepted it but was too busy trying to win a propaganda war. Here they continue that war by planning to offer food to Cuba as if the Cubans were starving when actually they are doing as well foodwise as Americans. The actual "aid" money would go to finding Cubans who'd do as in Iran and so many other nations. And I'm sure they can find some Cubans who'd be happy to do anything if enough money is waved in their faces. Let's hope none of that money gets into Cuba.

 

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., a member of the House International Relations Committee who has long opposed Castro, said even a temporary relinquishment of power by the dictator is "a great day for the Cuban people and for their brothers and sisters in exile."

 

"Fidel Castro has only brought ruin and misery to Cuba so if he is incapacitated, even for a short period of time, it is a marvelous moment for the millions of Cubans who live under his iron fisted rule and oppressive state machinery," she said. "I hope this is the beginning of the end for his despised regime."

This lady got elected because she represents the rich Cubans who lost their property in Cuba and now live in Florida.

 

If one read this article and knew nothing else about the situation they'd think Cuba was a miserable place and the US was going to bring democracy and better living conditions, etc to it. The reality is that the US government is busy doing things like kidnapping the elected president of Haiti and controlling their economy resulting in a life expectancy of 50 years while Cuba has a life expectancy of 77. The US government hopes to bring misery to Cuba the same as done in the former USSR.

 

The State Department declined comment, but the United States has been open about the fact it is prepared to go to some lengths to ensure that the communist system Castro created goes out with him.

 

It is official U.S. policy to "undermine" Cuba's planned succession from Castro to his brother Raul, to whom Fidel Castro temporarily transferred power Monday, citing an operation over an intestinal problem and internal bleeding.

They've been living under the threat of an invasion (and preparing for an invasion) for 45 years. The US probably wouldn't be dumb enough to invade as the results would be worse than in Iraq. Probably just they will attempt to pump money into the country and continue the embargo. But then... it's hard to say. They might do some bombing.

 

The transfer marked the first time that Castro, two weeks away from 80th birthday, had relinquished power in 47 years of absolute rule.

 

Watkins, the White House spokesman, said the administration was "monitoring the situation," though he did not provide details. Cuba itself has disclosed little about the dictator's circumstances beyond Monday's statement about Castro's operation.

 

Castro, who took control of Cuba in 1959, resisted repeated U.S. attempts to oust him and survived communism's demise elsewhere.

 

Cuba has been under a U.S. financial embargo since 1961, two years after the Castro came to power with the ousting of then-President Fulgencio Batista.

He wasn't the president. He was a military dictator.

 

Furthermore the idea here is that Castro rules with an iron grip sort of like Stalin supposedly ruled with an iron grip and that as soon as Castro dies the whole system will collapse. From what I've read outside the US MSM this isn't actually the case. It isn't a true democracy but Castro works with plenty of other people and (thanks in part to the way the US has acted) Fidel, Raul and plenty of others within the government have tons of support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure it was Saint Carter who set this up, though. He was the one who ordered the CIA in to train those who became the Contras...

Eh, probably. Then some would say the CIA is out of control/not always controlled by the president. Some say the CIA had JFK killed because he was trying to bring them under control. But I really doubt all that. Probably Carter was very mucy a part of it as Kennedy was probably very much a part of what the CIA was doing in Cuba, etc despite what some claim.

 

Well, no matter what happens there's always a contradicting account It was under Carter in which the CIA started the covert operations in Afghanistan which eventually led to the emergence Bin Laden.

 

 

 

Considering that he did get a pretty raw deal with the gas shortage and the hostage situation I at one time did kind of prop him up as some kind of martyr/hero. But then along with such stuff as you've mentioned, Cyrus Vance quit because of the way Carter was willing to risk lives to improve his poll rating over the hostage situation, etc. He was a part of the system. Although the far left of it. I've heard (I think Chomsky? talking about the Trilateral Commision?) that they decided to "let" him become president to try to defuse all the leftwing radical political organization which had come about as a backlash primarily to Vietnam.

 

I haven't read that (about letting him); but I did read Carter has become somewhat of "traitor" since some stuff has come out about his compromising with the Soviet Union to help get elected.

 

Carter also backed the Korean military in the massacre of demonstrating workers and students. In 1979? he backed the Salvadoran military in the conflict against the overthrow of that country's dictator (can't recall his name...) He's no saint.

 

I recall reading that he is held responsible for the rise of the Christian Right into politics, and I have to agree. I remember very clearly how he used God and religion at that time. People were so hungry for a "righteous" man post Nixon, and he peppered (or salted) his speak with pledges of "I will never lie to you" -- all goodness and light. He may have been more sincere in that respect (the NeoCons of today are pure hypocrites), and his belief system much more true; but he still cleared the way, and it was wrong. The old, "He invented it, but the Christian Right 'perfected' it" thing. ~shivers~

 

Still, I agree, he's no Reagan. I remember I was very, very young when I used to listen to my dad talk politics (you know how children are sponges!) but he would also talk to me about a lot of stuff; one thing I remember clearly was when...he said something like "no one can be President and not sell their soul" or something like that. That there is "no President who does not have blood on his hands." So I became a disillusioned suspicious little soul very early I recall my mom loving him because he was a Christian. So I heard how saintly he was while what a devil he was all at the same time . Explains a lot about me

 

 

 

 

 

I thought he was on his way to visit some love from long ago.... although I guess that would make a better story. Perhaps it was made up.

 

Poe was on his way to meet some woman, yes. He was supposedly drunk and/or drugged too; but the day he was found, was the day he had been voting. It's all quite clouded as far as to the circumstances surrounding his death.

 

Unfortunately you better have really strong support from the military if you want to bring in leftist economic policies in a thirdworld country. Otherwise the CIA will help the military do a coup. Chavez survived the 2002 coup (which appears to have had heavy Us involvement) because enough of the military was on his side. The attempted coup of course could not have happened at all unless some of the military was against Chavez. Luckily enough for him. There were many people sympathetic to him in the military who informed him of what was about to happen and he managed to take action to survive and then generals who were against him were removed from power.

 

I think this will have to be looked back on in the years to come to determine all that went on...and who knows how much of it will be true anyway. Carter was all over this too. He 'legitimated' the opposition, no? While acting as a neutral diplomat, calling for "fairness"? His m.o., it seems. Speaking of voter fraud!

 

 

Supposedly he's talked a lot with Castro. According to Chavez they are very close... But then Chavez seems to give a lot of flowery talk to anyone that is also the victim of US imperialism. He was doing the same with Iran which I'm not so sure I approve of at all. Anyway Castro supposedly told him to take things very very slow. Don't just immediately say, 'Hey I'm a marxist! Let's nationalize all the foreign owned industry!' Because if he did, he would be taken out one way or the other. Chavez has bent over backwards being democratic and for his troubles he still has the US media calling him "the strongman of the venezuela regime". (That's how I heard him referred to on CNN the other day.)

 

Yes, I think so (Castro); just another reason to demonize him. I don't know about dealings with Ahmadinejad. He may just be feeling out who he may need in the near future: Our quest for control of Venezuelan oil aint over.

 

OK..... really I'm a deist. I've thought about it and i don't live like an atheist. How I live matters more than what I say I believe....

 

I get the gist of "deism," but I'm not real clear on the specifics.

 

...To the average christian though it's easier just to say I'm an atheist.

 

That, I understand There is Christianity and then there is now, 'Christianism.'

 

... I'm just somewhat starved for political movies I think. I still like Matewan a lot though

 

How about documentaries? There seem to be a lot now. .

 

I found "Silkwood," "Norma Rae," and "On the Waterfront," compelling as well as entertaining; so it can be done. "Matewan" was just not engrossing; and I feel a subject matter so important should be, no?

Still a thumbs-up, though

 

I haven't seen any of those. Just added them to my netflix queue.

 

They don't deal with mines, but are workers vs. bosses/corporations-type movies. Never heard of "Waterfront"? It's classic Brando. My favorite line, "You was my brother, Chah-lie, you shoulda looked out for me..."

... "You don't understand, I coulda had class... I coulda been a contend-uh." Probably his best performance. Now I gotta rent it, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AP aritcle today:

 

HAVANA - Little was known of Fidel Castro's condition Tuesday after he underwent an operation and temporarily turned over the Cuban presidency to his brother Raul, ushering in a period of uncertainty at home and celebrations by his enemies abroad. The surprise announcement that Castro had been operated on to repair a "sharp intestinal crisis with sustained bleeding" stunned Cubans on the island and in exile, and marked the first time that Castro, two weeks away from 80th birthday, had relinquished power in 47 years of absolute rule.

 

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration, which has made no secret of its desire to see the end of Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba, said it has a plan in place to help transition the island nation to democracy after Castro.

Or a military dictatorship if necessary. As long as there's capitalism they couldn't care less.

 

"We can't speculate on Castro's health, but we continue to work for the day of Cuba's freedom," said White House spokesman Peter Watkins. He also said the U.S. is closely monitoring the situation.

 

On Monday, before Castro's illness was announced, President Bush was in Miami and spoke of the island's future.

 

"If Fidel Castro were to move on because of natural causes, we've got a plan in place to help the people of Cuba understand there's a better way than the system in which they've been living under," he told WAQI-AM Radio Mambi, a Spanish-language radio station. "No one knows when Fidel Castro will move on. In my judgment, that's the work of the Almighty."

Heh. Listen to him trying to make it sound like they don't want to kill him. Not to even mention exploding cigars and past invasion attempts, even right now the US continues to support anti-Castro organizations that are tied to people who have done all kinds of terrorism including assasination attempts.

 

The president apparently was referring to a recently updated plan that calls for diplomacy enlisting Cuban citizens and other nations to demand a new government after Castro dies. The plan, released last month by the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, recommends that the United States spend $80 million over two years for food and other aid to Cuba to encourage multiparty elections, free markets and democratic institutions.

First off Cuba was offering aid to the US after Hurricane katrina. The US should have accepted it but was too busy trying to win a propaganda war. Here they continue that war by planning to offer food to Cuba as if the Cubans were starving when actually they are doing as well foodwise as Americans. The actual "aid" money would go to finding Cubans who'd do as in Iran and so many other nations. And I'm sure they can find some Cubans who'd be happy to do anything if enough money is waved in their faces. Let's hope none of that money gets into Cuba.

 

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., a member of the House International Relations Committee who has long opposed Castro, said even a temporary relinquishment of power by the dictator is "a great day for the Cuban people and for their brothers and sisters in exile."

 

"Fidel Castro has only brought ruin and misery to Cuba so if he is incapacitated, even for a short period of time, it is a marvelous moment for the millions of Cubans who live under his iron fisted rule and oppressive state machinery," she said. "I hope this is the beginning of the end for his despised regime."

This lady got elected because she represents the rich Cubans who lost their property in Cuba and now live in Florida.

 

If one read this article and knew nothing else about the situation they'd think Cuba was a miserable place and the US was going to bring democracy and better living conditions, etc to it. The reality is that the US government is busy doing things like kidnapping the elected president of Haiti and controlling their economy resulting in a life expectancy of 50 years while Cuba has a life expectancy of 77. The US government hopes to bring misery to Cuba the same as done in the former USSR.

 

The State Department declined comment, but the United States has been open about the fact it is prepared to go to some lengths to ensure that the communist system Castro created goes out with him.

 

It is official U.S. policy to "undermine" Cuba's planned succession from Castro to his brother Raul, to whom Fidel Castro temporarily transferred power Monday, citing an operation over an intestinal problem and internal bleeding.

They've been living under the threat of an invasion (and preparing for an invasion) for 45 years. The US probably wouldn't be dumb enough to invade as the results would be worse than in Iraq. Probably just they will attempt to pump money into the country and continue the embargo. But then... it's hard to say. They might do some bombing.

 

The transfer marked the first time that Castro, two weeks away from 80th birthday, had relinquished power in 47 years of absolute rule.

 

Watkins, the White House spokesman, said the administration was "monitoring the situation," though he did not provide details. Cuba itself has disclosed little about the dictator's circumstances beyond Monday's statement about Castro's operation.

 

Castro, who took control of Cuba in 1959, resisted repeated U.S. attempts to oust him and survived communism's demise elsewhere.

 

Cuba has been under a U.S. financial embargo since 1961, two years after the Castro came to power with the ousting of then-President Fulgencio Batista.

He wasn't the president. He was a military dictator.

 

Furthermore the idea here is that Castro rules with an iron grip sort of like Stalin supposedly ruled with an iron grip and that as soon as Castro dies the whole system will collapse. From what I've read outside the US MSM this isn't actually the case. It isn't a true democracy but Castro works with plenty of other people and (thanks in part to the way the US has acted) Fidel, Raul and plenty of others within the government have tons of support.

 

Oh, geez, that's all we need. Aren't we spread thin enough?

I love how w throws in "the Almighty" every chance he gets.

Wow, I have no idea what would come of this.

The vultures are circling, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, no matter what happens there's always a contradicting account It was under Carter in which the CIA started the covert operations in Afghanistan which eventually led to the emergence Bin Laden. I haven't read that (about letting him); but I did read Carter has become somewhat of "traitor" since some stuff has come out about his compromising with the Soviet Union to help get elected.

 

Carter also backed the Korean military in the massacre of demonstrating workers and students. In 1979? he backed the Salvadoran military in the conflict against the overthrow of that country's dictator (can't recall his name...) He's no saint.

 

I recall reading that he is held responsible for the rise of the Christian Right into politics, and I have to agree. I remember very clearly how he used God and religion at that time. People were so hungry for a "righteous" man post Nixon, and he peppered (or salted) his speak with pledges of "I will never lie to you" -- all goodness and light. He may have been more sincere in that respect (the NeoCons of today are pure hypocrites), and his belief system much more true; but he still cleared the way, and it was wrong. The old, "He invented it, but the Christian Right 'perfected' it" thing. ~shivers~

 

Still, I agree, he's no Reagan. I remember I was very, very young when I used to listen to my dad talk politics (you know how children are sponges!) but he would also talk to me about a lot of stuff; one thing I remember clearly was when...he said something like "no one can be President and not sell their soul" or something like that. That there is "no President who does not have blood on his hands." So I became a disillusioned suspicious little soul very early I recall my mom loving him because he was a Christian. So I heard how saintly he was while what a devil he was all at the same time . Explains a lot about me

Yeah, I don't think Carter is some good guy. Just not quite as egregarious as others. I think you know more about him than me. I really didn't become interested in politics until I was like 28 or so and I'm 33 now. I only became interested because thanks to the internet I found out that the MSM is a pack of lies and once i know someone is taking such pains to conceal the truth from me, I suddenly become really interested to know whatt the truth is, I guess.

 

I don't have any relatives who know much about politics. My mom has no business voting as she really doesn't have any basis for deciding beyond looks and two second sound bites. My dad seems to vote based on what will get him the most money. He voted Bush in 2000 although he has since realized that Bush is nuts. He's nepalese and it seems the coverage of Nepal here recently has finally opened his eyes a bit to how the MSM and US government operate.

 

I think this will have to be looked back on in the years to come to determine all that went on...and who knows how much of it will be true anyway. Carter was all over this too. He 'legitimated' the opposition, no? While acting as a neutral diplomat, calling for "fairness"? His m.o., it seems. Speaking of voter fraud!

I only vaguely remember his role there now.

 

I get the gist of "deism," but I'm not real clear on the specifics.

I don't think there are any specifics. Just belief in a god or gods. I think at least 5 of the early presidents admited to being deists as opposed to christians.

 

My thing is that although I can logically say that when we die, that's probably just The End, I don't think I really live as if I believe that. I think I live as if in some sense i will always exist and for that to be true there most be some thing that does some thing with our "souls" or whatever. And whatever that thing might be, I'll call it god I guess.

 

How about documentaries? There seem to be a lot now. .

I've started getting a bunch of things from netflix. In the past ten years I've either lived in WV or isolated, small (and conservative) Los Alamos, NM. Neither is very good for renting lower budget type quality stuff.

 

They don't deal with mines, but are workers vs. bosses/corporations-type movies. Never heard of "Waterfront"? It's classic Brando. My favorite line, "You was my brother, Chah-lie, you shoulda looked out for me..."

... "You don't understand, I coulda had class... I coulda been a contend-uh." Probably his best performance. Now I gotta rent it, lol.

Yeah I've heard people talk about that a lot but I've never found it to rent in any movie store.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Check this out, Jay. I saw this a week or so ago, and, unfortunately, in its entirety is now in the archives; but, you get the gist of it. Rather ghoulish, I believe.

 

A quote from the above: ""...The Mayor's idea is part of a growing trend in Russia for extreme tourism.

...In that same spirit the governor of Vladimir Lenin's native region recently floated plans to open a Leninland theme park that would also allow visitors to experience elements of the Gulag. Mr Shpektor contends that his "Club Gulag" holiday camp would remind people of the horrors of Stalin's repression in a way that dry history books cannot."

 

Saw this on LewRockwell the other day.

 

Are you working daytime hours now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm proud and ed that my family is very close to the wonderfully terrible(yet disceased) President Marcos. I've been to his home many times in the Philippines, and Hawaii...I also went to his funeral and my family was near the front of the motorcade...surely he's not as bad of a dictator as most of the others but he was still terrible...the last president that got the boot(Estrada) was the best man at my aunts wedding, and the sitting president is my aunts brother in-law's cousin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm proud and ed that my family is very close to the wonderfully terrible(yet disceased) President Marcos. I've been to his home many times in the Philippines, and Hawaii...I also went to his funeral and my family was near the front of the motorcade...surely he's not as bad of a dictator as most of the others but he was still terrible...the last president that got the boot(Estrada) was the best man at my aunts wedding, and the sitting president is my aunts brother in-law's cousin.

 

So this means... you are admitting to being a ghoul?

 

You sound conflicted, actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am conflicted and I shouldn't be since I know how terrible of a person Marcos was...he was very nice to us but of course every dictator has his favorites. I just wish my parents told me about him. I didn't know he was a dictator until history class when I was 13(he was already passed). It was really weird and I didn't wanna believe what my teacher was saying about him because he was very generous to my family...its quite an odd situation...I guess its similar to Sunnis loving Saddam Hussein

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html

FERDINAND MARCOS

President of the Philippines

Ferdinand Marcos began his career with a bang. At age 21, convicted of gunning down Julio Nalundasan, his father's victorious opponent in the Philippines first national elections, he went to prison. He was later release by a Supreme Court Justice who, like Marcos and his father, was a Nazi collaborator. Despite Marcos's record as murderer, fake WWll hero and Nazi agent, he was elected Philippine President in 1965. Under Marcos, the Philippine national debt grew from $2 billion to $30 billion, but US corporations in the Philippines prospered, perhaps explaining why the US didn't protest Marcos's imposition of martial law in 1972. The Marcoses enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle, and they salted away billions of dollars in the course of their US-backed rule between 1965 and 1986.

The Carter Administration engineered an $88 million World Bank loan to Marcos, increased military aid to him by 300%, and called him a "soft dictator". But a 1976 Amnesty International report identified 88 government torturers, and stated that alleged subversives had their heads slammed into walls, their genitals and pubic hair torched, and were beaten with clubs, fists, bottles, and rifle butts. By 1977, the armed forces had quadrupled and over 60,000 Filipinos had been arrested for political reasons. Yet, in 1981, Vice President George Bush praised Marcos for his "adherence to democratic principals and to the democratic processes". Marcos was overthrown in 1986 by followers of Corazon Aquino, widow of an assassinated opposition leader.

Ferdinand and Imelda fled to Hawaii, only to be indicted in 1988 for fraud and tax evasion. Marcos died in 1989. Imelda returned to the Philippines in 1991 and stood unsuccessfully in the Presidential elections of 1992. In 1993 she was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment for criminal graft and to other long sentences for corruption. She is still free while she appeals. She was elected to Congress in May 1995. Meanwhile, in it attempts to recover the lost Marcos billions from Swiss bank accounts and other shadier locations the Philippines Government has, after paying its US lawyers, recovered the princely sum of $2,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...