The Nature of Foxes

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Wed Apr 23, 2025 1:58 pm

Bush, Obama, and Biden Gave Trump the Tools for Repression
Margaret Kimberley, BAR Executive Editor and Senior Columnist 23 Apr 2025

Image

Once again, Donald Trump is being held up as a terrible president who doesn’t care about humanity. That assertion is correct, but he had lots of help from his like-minded predecessors in developing plans for war and other criminality.

“All U.S. Presidents, Living and Dead, Are War Criminals” - Glen Ford

The U.S. has a long history of racist oppression, repression of revolutionary movements, violations of human rights, and the commission of war crimes. Presidents held in higher regard than Trump have gone largely unscathed from the criticisms that are once again being heaped upon him. It is important that their crimes not be forgotten. Trump must not be thought of as being exceptionally bad. The list of U.S. horrors can begin at the nation’s founding, but for brevity’s sake this essay will cover only some of the wrongdoing committed by the last four presidential administrations, those of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden.

In 2001 the terrorist attacks on September 11 ushered in wars of aggression, first against Afghanistan that year and two years later against Iraq. Just one week later on September 18 congress passed the Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) which gave Bush the power to make war against any nation accused of having “planned, authorised, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such organizations or persons.” As terrorism suspect Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan, that country became the target for a U.S. occupation that didn’t end until 2021.

The Bush administration used Guantanamo Bay to imprison 780 men and minor children since 2001. At its peak, 680 prisoners were held there in 2003. Most of them were captured not because they engaged in any attack on the United States, but because of a $5,000 bounty paid for their capture. The Bush administration created the designation of “enemy combatant” which held that those persons had no legal right to trial by jury but instead were to be tried by military tribunals. After being initially assured that only the “worst of the worst” were being held at Guantanamo now only 15 remain. The vast majority were allowed to leave over the last 20 years..

But before they were allowed to go free they were subjected to torture by water boarding and hunger strikers were force fed by methods that constitute torture . Nine of them died in captivity, four allegedly by suicide but under suspicious circumstances , including evidence that was missing or tampered with. Even an army chaplain, James Yee, was arrested and accused of espionage before ultimately being discharged and freed.

In 2008 Barack Obama campaigned for the presidency promising to close Guantanamo and to provide civilian trials for detainees. Not only did neither of those things happen, but Obama added his own crimes to the ledger of disgraceful actions taken by U.S. presidents. The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan continued and Obama had his own war of aggression and choice against Libya in 2011.

In a recent interview, former republican congressman Curt Weldon reminded anyone who had forgotten how and why this war came about. “Every meeting I had with Gaddafi he wanted two things. He wanted to unite the African continent into a group of nations economically like European economies. He wanted it based on the gold standard. The US and Europe didn’t want that. The other thing is that they wanted control of his oil and they wanted control of his sovereign wealth. So Gaddafi had to go.”

Not only was Libya’s president Muammar Gaddafi brutally murdered by U.S. backed jihadists, but the entire state was destroyed and now African migrants are routinely sold into slavery there as they attempt to flee the instability which the U.S. brought to their region. Libya was subjected to “humanitarian intervention” and a no-fly zone allegedly meant to help civilians which was instead used by Obama and NATO allies such as France and Britain, to conduct a war crime.

Obama was making his case for a 2012 re-election campaign by destroying the Libyan state and attempting the same thing against Syria. Known as Operation Timber Sycamore , Obama and his NATO partners in crime began using jihadists to bring down Syria. That plot didn’t succeed until 2024, after his predecessors Trump and Biden weakened Syria in a classic CIA regime change operation which put terrorists in charge of that country which is now divided by Israel and Turkey.

While cynical and criminal, Obama was not wrong about the impact that his war crimes would have on his 2012 campaign. His people also leaked a story about a “kill list” meeting which took place every week. Along with others on the Obama team, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta clearly had permission to reveal his boss’s actions. “[The] President of the United States obviously reviews these cases, reviews the legal justification, and in the end says, go or no go.”

Obama claimed the authority to kill U.S. citizens and he did just that to Anwar Al-Awlaki and his teenaged son, Abudurrahman Al-Awlaki. Both were killed by U.S. drone strikes in Yemen. The elder Awlaki’s father tried to save his family by going to court. But not only did a federal judge rule that the U.S. government had the right to kill Nasser Al-Awlaki’s son but another judge also dismissed a lawsuit after his son and grandson were killed on Barack Obama’s orders.

Donald Trump continued bombings and drone strikes in Syria and in Afghanistan and in Somalia, just like his predecessors had done. In 2020 he assassinated Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and afterward Joe Biden and all the other candidates for the Democratic Party nomination supported his act.

Joe Biden’s place on this list of infamy is most starkly revealed by his aiding and abetting of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. From October 8, 2023 until he left office in January 2025, he gave Israel everything it wanted. Every request for financial and military aid was approved. It should also be mentioned that this support was bipartisan as democrats and republicans alike voted to continue the war crime. At least 200,000 people were killed on Joe Biden’s watch.

It should not escape attention that foreign policy is not the only venue for criminality. Barack Obama deported more people than those who came after him, including Donald Trump, who makes immigration a core part of his policies. Migrants were being arrested and detained by border patrol in upstate New York and other locations when Obama was president.Joe Biden proposed sending Haitian migrants to Guantanamo before Trump entered office.

A 2020 report revealed that Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden had caused the displacement of some 37 million people in Somalia, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Those displacements continue with every administration, whether republican or democratic.

One can oppose and protest Trump sending Venezuelans to an El Salvador prison without making his crimes appear to be unique. Trump differs from others in being crude, heavy handed and incompetent. The Trump administration made a very big show of cancelling foreign students visas that allow them to attend U.S. colleges and universities. They cancelled approximately 1,000 visas for specious reasons without notifying students or their institutions. After being sued by four of these students, the Department of Homeland Security, which has jurisdiction over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) back tracked and said that DHS doesn’t have authority over these visas and that the students didn’t have to leave the country despite initially being told that they did.

All of these presidents have one thing in common, a population that has normalized criminality when it is committed by the state. There may be outrage expressed over the actions of one president but acquiescence over another’s human rights abuses. It seems that protests are often popularity contests, as well loved figures are given a pass while others are scorned.

We don’t just need better presidents. We need a more mature and ethical population. It seems that the propaganda which every administration uses is effective in giving consent to death and destruction.

https://blackagendareport.com/index.php ... repression
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Thu Apr 24, 2025 2:07 pm

Tik-Tok Guy
Karl Sanchez
Apr 23, 2025

Image

A very short note informing the Gym of an outstanding lecture to Americans but also the rest of the world from whom Judge Napolitano dubbed “Tik-Tok Guy.” The one-minute forty second clip was aired today during his chat with Pepe Escobar. Eventually, I’ll figure out how to embed video into articles, but for now you’ll need to go to the link and certainly listen to it all since it’s important. The specific clip occurs from 15:15 to 17:05 and merits going viral. I tried to find a link to the original but couldn’t in the time I allotted myself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1EtbtbK-Sw

https://karlof1.substack.com/p/tik-tok-guy

Do check out that video, following Karl's directions. While I heartily despise 'Da Judge' he sometimes does provide a platform for some good stuff. The particular bit here is as succinct as it gets and should be viewed by the average Amerikan until it's tattooed on the brain.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Sun Apr 27, 2025 5:21 pm

(This apparently the transcript of the now famous Tik Tok video.)

“Revolution Doesn’t Begin with Guns. It Begins with Clarity.”
Posted by Internationalist 360° on April 26, 2025
Sony Thang

Image
Americans are told they’re “free.”

But what is freedom when your roads are crumbling,

Your water is poisoned,

Your hospitals are bankrupt casinos,

And your leaders are bought by defense contractors and Wall Street?

What is freedom when you’re too broke to leave your town,

Too sick to afford a doctor,

Too scared to speak your mind at work,

And too propagandized to even recognize who’s robbing you blind?

They trained you to hate the word “Communist”

So they could steal your future with the word “Capitalist.”

And they called it patriotism.

But here’s the truth:

Real patriots aren’t the ones waving flags.

They’re the ones tearing down illusions.

Because no—the problem isn’t that America is too “free.”

It’s that it’s too obedient.

Too loyal to the system that feeds it lies and calls it liberty.

Americans don’t need to fear China.

They need to study it.

To ask:

Why are their trains faster?

Why are their cities safer?

Why are their people healthier, more unified, more stable,

While you are drowning in debt, division, and despair?

The answer will burn through every lie you’ve ever been told.

And once you see it,

You don’t go back.

You realize:

It’s not China that stole your future.

It’s the people who told you to hate China.

It’s the system that told you war was peace,

Poverty was your fault,

And that the enemy was somewhere “over there.”

No.

The enemy built the prison you live in.

The enemy taught you to call it freedom.

And the enemy fears only one thing:

An American who finally knows who the enemy really is.

Revolution doesn’t begin with guns.

It begins with clarity.

Clarity becomes courage.

Now let it spread.

Americans are told they’re “free.”

But what is freedom when your roads are crumbling,

Your water is poisoned,

Your hospitals are bankrupt casinos,

And your leaders are bought by defense contractors and Wall Street?

What is freedom when you’re too broke to leave your town,…

— Sony Thang (@nxt888) April 22, 2025


Image
Empire doesn’t just lie to you.

It trains you to lie to yourself.

To hate the wrong people.

To fight the wrong wars.

To fear the wrong enemies.

It turns victims into suspects.

Oppressors into saviors.

War criminals into Nobel Peace Prize winners.

And it does it so seamlessly that by the time you wake up, you’ve already helped build the cage you’re trapped in.

This is the genius of imperial propaganda:

It doesn’t force obedience.

It manufactures belief.

Not belief in truth—but belief in the illusion of truth.

That’s why Americans can watch their government overthrow dozens of nations, bomb weddings, back apartheid, arm extremists, rig markets, assassinate leaders, and still ask:

“Why do they hate us?”

It’s not stupidity.

It’s design.

Because if they ever told you the truth—that the system isn’t broken. It’s built this way.

Then you wouldn’t vote for it.

You wouldn’t fight for it.

You wouldn’t die for it.

And that’s the nightmare of every empire:

An informed population.

One that no longer buys the script.

One that stops blaming Muslims, Jews, immigrants, or “commies.”

One that finally names the real source of global misery:

Washington.

Not America the land.

Not Americans the people.

But America—the machine.

The global ATM of oligarchy.

The war engine of capital.

The open wound dressed in stars and stripes.

And the reason more people don’t see it is because the empire doesn’t just own the media.

It owns the lens you see the world through.

And the first step to freedom isn’t revolution.

It’s clarity.

Because once enough people see—really see—what this system is…

They don’t just rise.

They refuse to kneel again.

Empire doesn’t just lie to you.

It trains you to lie to yourself.

To hate the wrong people.

To fight the wrong wars.

To fear the wrong enemies.

It turns victims into suspects.

Oppressors into saviors.

War criminals into Nobel Peace Prize winners.

And it does it so…

— Sony Thang (@nxt888) April 22, 2025


Image
The American worker doesn’t live in a capitalist society.

He lives in a feudal one.

But instead of kings and castles, you have CEOs and corporations.

And instead of chains, you have debt.

They take your taxes.

But give you no healthcare.

No education.

No safety.

No future.

They let your cities rot,

Your bridges collapse,

Your children go hungry.

So they can send another $100 billion to bomb a country you can’t find on a map.

Not by accident. By design.

And if you ask why?

They’ll say:

“Freedom isn’t free.”

But apparently, you are.

The American worker doesn’t live in a capitalist society.

He lives in a feudal one.

But instead of kings and castles, you have CEOs and corporations.

And instead of chains, you have debt.

They take your taxes.

But give you no healthcare.

No education.

No safety.

No…

— Sony Thang (@nxt888) April 24, 2025


Image
One day, the dollar won’t be enough.

One day, the flag won’t cover the lies.

One day, the empire won’t just prey on others.

It will turn inward and feed on its own.

And when that day comes—and it will come.

It won’t be presidents.

It won’t be billionaires.

It won’t be generals.

It will be the people.

Because only the masses can save the masses.

Not with votes.

Not with slogans.

But with memory.

With courage.

With the realization that they were never citizens of empire.

They were prisoners of it.

And once they know that.

Once they feel it in their bones.

The spell breaks.

Everything changes.

Because no empire,

No matter how armed,

How rich,

How ruthless,

Can survive the awakening of the very people it was built to deceive.

That is the prophecy.

That is the path.

And it has already begun.

One day, the dollar won’t be enough.

One day, the flag won’t cover the lies.

One day, the empire won’t just prey on others.

It will turn inward and feed on its own.

And when that day comes—and it will come.

It won’t be presidents.

It won’t be billionaires.

It won’t be…

— Sony Thang (@nxt888) April 23, 2025


https://libya360.wordpress.com/2025/04/ ... h-clarity/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Mon Apr 28, 2025 1:57 pm

Virginia Giuffre 'Quiteted'

Jeffrey Epstein was an Israeli agent tasked with blackmailing U.S. politicians and business people by providing them with under-age girls. Virginia Giuffre, then 17, was on of those victims.

Epstein was jailed and, on August 10 2019, found dead in his cell. I headlined:

Epstein Suicided

Unsurprisingly Jeffrey Epstein was found dead, presumably by suicide, as that is what 'officials' claim:

Jailed multimillionaire financier and accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein has died by suicide, according to two law enforcement sources. ...

Just yesterday a court released the first 2,000 pages of a civil case against Epstein's madame, Ghislaine Maxwell:

[Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre], who turned 36 on Friday, names a number of other men in politics, academia and business that she says she was directed to have sex with. In a 2017 interview with the Miami Herald, Giuffre said that Epstein wanted her to please various influential people then so that he could learn about their sexual peccadilloes and use them as leverage if he needed to.
While there’s no direct evidence contained in the court record substantiating her accounts with prominent men, Giuffre did provide testimony and evidence to corroborate her claims of exploitation at the hands of Epstein and Maxwell through photographs, plane logs and even a medical record from Presbyterian Hospital in New York where Giuffre was taken by Epstein after a particularly abusive sex episode.


I concluded the post with this:

Some of those influential people who Epstein, or the organization behind him, blackmailed, will be quite happy that he is gone. They will now try to bury the rest of the case. Giuffre and other witnesses better watch their backs.

Today we learn that Virginia Giuffre is dead (archived):

Ms. Giuffre (pronounced JIFF-ree) died by suicide, according to a statement by the family. She wrote in an Instagram post in March that she was days away from dying of renal failure after being injured in an automobile crash with a school bus that she said was traveling at nearly 70 miles per hour.

This is curious.

Potential renal failure in March is supposed to be the cause for a suicide in late April? Why is the NY Times insinuating this?

We have dialysis to counter renal failure and hundreds of thousands survive with it. Then there are kidney transplants. Giuffre was 40 years old. One does not die of kidney failure at that age. It is not a reason to suicide oneself.

Consider this:

Virginia Giuffre @VRSVirginia - 3:32 UTC · Dec 11, 2019

I am making it publicy known that in no way, shape or form am I sucidal. I have made this known to my therapist and GP- If something happens to me- in the sake of my family do not let this go away and help me to protect them. Too many evil people want to see me quiteted


Posted by b on April 26, 2025 at 15:42 UTC | Permalink

Comments
next page »

Laura from Normal Island News provides the appropriate sarcasm:
Virginia Giuffre, the woman who was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein when she was a child and raped by rich and powerful men who have never been brought to justice, has died.

Giuffre predicted her own death weeks ago when the intelligence agent running her Instagram announced she was in a car crash and had days to live, thanks to kidney failure. When the internet said they’d heard this story before, another cause of death was chosen: suicide.

Prince Andrew is delighted that a woman he has never met has generously left him £12 million in his will. In a bizarre coincidence, Giuffre was one of 250 victims of Andrew’s best friend, Jeffrey Epstein.

If you’ve forgotten, Epstein was the sex trafficker who switched off the cameras in his prison before taking his own life and getting his body whisked away by unknown individuals in a manner which defied protocol and was non-suspicious.

Epstein’s relationship to Mossad had nothing to do with his “suicide”. The people named in Epstein’s little black book definitely weren’t massively relieved. Just know that if you link Epstein and Giuffre with Prince Andrew, you will be sent to the Tower of London.

Predictably, the internet is already rife with conspiracy theories. One popular theory is that Giuffre did not commit suicide and was, in fact, whisked away to a tropical island to live out her days with Princess Diana.

The conspiracy theorists are pointing to a social media post where Giuffre insisted she was not suicidal, and that if she was ever found dead, it was not suicide. Honestly, these conspiracy theorists will put two and two together and make 12.

A spokesperson for the royal family said: "Prince Andrew is saddened by Giuffre’s death, but confident her suicide means no more witnesses will dare come forward". I trust you find this satisfactory and agree there is definitely nothing to see here. You can get on with your day now x

Posted by: Peter b | Apr 26 2025 15:55 utc | 1

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/04/v ... .html#more
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Wed Apr 30, 2025 2:27 pm

Image
jobsanger June 2014

New report shows working-class Americans live 7 years fewer than rich
Originally published: Defend Democracy Press on March 7, 2025 by Eloise Goldsmith (more by Defend Democracy Press) | (Posted Apr 30, 2025)

People living in the top 1% of U.S. counties ranked by median household income live on average seven years longer than their counterparts in the bottom 50% of counties, according to a Friday report from Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent representing Vermont and the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

“The massive income and wealth inequality that exists in America today is not just an economic issue, it is literally a matter of life and death,” said Sanders in a Friday statement announcing the report.

What’s more, the stress of living paycheck to paycheck “also leads to higher levels of anxiety, depression, cardiovascular disease and poor health,” Sanders argued, in a nod to some of the survey responses included in the analysis.

The analysis echoes findings by other researchers that higher income is associated with greater longevity. According to a Congressional Research Service report from 2021, life expectancy has generally increased over time in the United States—with the exception of during Covid-19 pandemic—but “researchers have long documented that it is lower for individuals with lower socioeconomic status compared with individuals with higher socioeconomic status. Recent studies provide evidence that this gap has widened in recent decades.”

The findings in Sanders’ report relied on county-level data in the United States between 2015 and 2019, the five years prior to the pandemic. For that time period, Sanders’ staff matched each U.S. county with both median household income data from the U.S. Census Bureau and average life expectancy data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, according to the report.

The life expectancy gap was greater when comparing higher-earning urban and suburban communities with lower-earning rural communities. “Urban and suburban counties with a median household income of $100,000 have an average life expectancy of 81.6 years, while small rural counties with a median household income of $30,000 have an average life expectancy of 71.7 years—a 10-year gap,” according to the report.

A boost in earnings also translated into a boost in life expectancy. For example, “among rural counties, a $10,000 increase in median annual household income is associated with an additional 2.6 years of life expectancy,” according to the report.

The analysis also includes qualitative data collected by Sanders, who asked working people via social media survey how stress impacts their lives. The outreach generated over 1,000 responses from people around the country.

According to the report, Caitlin from Colorado said:

Stress isn’t just an inconvenience for me—it’s a direct threat to my heart. Living with a congenital heart defect and multiple mechanical valves means that every surge of anxiety, every sleepless night worrying about bills, isn’t just mentally exhausting—it physically wears on my heart.

“Living paycheck to paycheck while supporting a family stresses me out. We are always just one financial emergency from being homeless,” said Patrick from Missouri.

One person also reported having to go without preventative healthcare because they are between jobs and can’t afford the care without insurance.

The report offers a number of policy solutions to address the key findings of the analysis, including raising the minimum wage to at least $17 an hour, guaranteeing paid family and medical leave, and passing Medicare for All, which would enact a single-payer health insurance program.

https://mronline.org/2025/04/30/new-rep ... than-rich/

Bernie Sanders, all talk, no action. The action he could have taken was walking away from the treacherous Democratic party. But no...
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Tue May 13, 2025 1:31 pm

The decline of the American empire
Leandro Morgenfeld

May 12, 2025 , 10:56 am .

Image
The progressive collapse of the United States seems to find no brakes (Photo: Archive / Tektónikos)

An X-ray of the socioeconomic crisis in the United States that Trump could accelerate.

The United States, until now the leading economic and military power, although undergoing a process of accelerated geopolitical decline, has faced a series of interconnected crises in recent years that have weakened its economic and social structure. From rising poverty and homelessness to the opioid epidemic, the collapse of the public health system and massive student debt, the country is experiencing a period of growing inequality and social discontent, the underlying foundation for political and ideological-cultural polarization. Trump is an emerging force of this frustration and discontent and, paradoxically, could exacerbate all the problems affecting the American social fabric, which displays indicators more typical of a developing country than a power.

Poverty, indigence and inequality
Still the world's largest economy, at least in nominal terms, the United States has poverty levels more typical of a developing country. According to the US Census Bureau (2023), 38 million people, 11.5% of the country's total population, live below the poverty line. Child poverty reaches 12.5% ​​and affects 9 million children. Other studies raise the figure to 16%, or 1 in 6 minors (National Center for Children in Poverty, 2023).

Part of the problem worsened with the relocation of factories, following the advance of free trade beginning in the last decade of the last century. Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect in January 1994, more than 90,000 factories have disappeared in the United States, or about eight per day, causing significant social changes that had their electoral counterpart: in both the 2016 and 2024 presidential elections, Donald Trump snatched crucial, traditionally blue "Rust Belt" states from the Democrats, allowing him to win the Electoral College.

Income inequality continues to rise: the richest 1% own 32.3% of the nation's wealth, while the poorest 50% own only 2.6% (Federal Reserve, 2023). There are currently 870 billionaires in the United States, but 63% of the population does not have enough savings to cover an unexpected expense of just $500 (Benoit Breville, "Another Protectionism Is Possible," Le Monde Diplomatique , Southern Cone, May 2025, p. 31).

These data reflect structural challenges in the United States, with persistent inequality and vulnerability among marginalized groups. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these trends, with millions of people losing their jobs and relying on temporary state aid that was later eliminated.

Housing crisis
The 2008 subprime mortgage crisis brought the housing crisis to the forefront, affecting an increasing number of people. In 2023, 653,000 homeless people were registered , or people living on the streets, 12% more than in 2022 (HUD, Annual Homeless Assessment Report). Wealthy cities on both coasts, such as Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco, are experiencing record numbers, with homeless encampments expanding rapidly year after year. The high cost of housing, coupled with a stagnant minimum wage, are one of the main causes of this debacle. The median home price reached $420,800 in 2024, a 47% increase since 2019 (US Census Bureau, 2024). The average rent exceeds $2,000 per month, consuming more than 30% of income in most households. The housing shortage exceeds 7.3 million units, according to a study by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (2024).

Violence and crime
The United States remains the country with the most guns per capita and one of the highest homicide rates in the developed world. In 2023, more than 48,000 gun deaths were recorded (Gun Violence Archive). Mass shootings (more than 650 in 2023) are a constant. Cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and St. Louis have homicide rates higher than those of countries at war.

Gun deaths in the United States broke an all-time high in 2021. Since 2020, they have been the leading cause of death in children and adolescents between the ages of one and 19, surpassing deaths from traffic accidents, cancer, and drug overdoses or poisoning. For every million people between the ages of one and 19, there were 36.4 gun deaths in the United States, compared to 0.3 in Japan and 0.5 in the United Kingdom. “The firearm death rate is 11.4 times higher in the United States than in 28 other high-income countries, making this issue a particularly American problem” ( BBC Mundo , June 27, 2024).

The scourge denounced by Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine , his acclaimed film that won the Oscar for Best Documentary in 2003, in which he explored the causes of the Columbine High School massacre (1999) and the gun culture in the United States - and the powerful lobby of the National Rifle Association -, is still fully in force.

Public health crisis and the opioid and fentanyl epidemic
The US healthcare system, the most expensive in the world, remains inaccessible to large segments of the population: 30 million people (9.2% of the population) are uninsured. Those who do have coverage face high costs: 66.5% of personal bankruptcies are due to medical debt (American Journal of Public Health). Life expectancy has been declining over the past decade. By 2023, it was estimated at 77.5 years, still below the peak of 78.9 years in 2014 (CDC, 2024). Causes include the COVID-19 pandemic; the health crisis caused by drug overdoses, primarily due to synthetic opioids; chronic diseases (there were increases in deaths from heart disease, diabetes, and obesity) and suicides and violence: the suicide rate was 14.3 per 100,000 people, the highest since 1941 (CDC, 2023).

The problem drug use crisis is one of the worst public health catastrophes in U.S. history. More than 107,000 overdose deaths are expected in 2023 (up from 36,000 in 2008). Overdose deaths have tripled in just 15 years. Fentanyl, 50 times more potent than heroin, is now the leading cause of death in young adults (18-45 years old).

Student debt
Higher education in the United States is a financial trap for millions. Student debt exceeds $1.7 trillion (Federal Reserve, 2023). More than 45 million Americans owe student loans, with payments spread over decades. Graduates of 2022 owe an average of $37,650 (College Board, 2023). One in five adults between the ages of 25 and 34 has student debt (Pew Research Center, 2023). According to a 2024 report from the Department of Education, 10% of student loans are in default or in default. Black and Hispanic borrowers have a harder time paying, with higher default rates. These debts incurred to afford expensive college educations delay home purchases, retirement savings, and family formation. The government has forgiven $167 billion in debt since 2021, but the problem persists. Biden's debt relief plan has only partially benefited about 3.4 million people, less than 10% of those affected, leaving the problem unresolved.

Migration crisis and illegality

In recent decades, demographic changes in the United States have caused growing political, social, ideological, and cultural tensions, which Trump exploited electorally like no one else. Today, there are between 11 and 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, the majority from Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. They have become one of the central themes of Trump's campaign discourse. Of course, there is a huge amount of hypocrisy. Illegal immigration is encouraged to super-exploit those who work without registration, and who are fundamental to key sectors of the economy such as services, agriculture, and construction. But at the same time, a racist and xenophobic attitude is promoted, blaming Hispanics for promoting crime and violence, and for stealing American jobs. This rhetoric, so well embodied by Trump, but which has a long tradition, serves to break the unity and solidarity of workers in the United States.

The portrayal of immigration as a danger and a scourge threatening society is an emerging element of the American neoconservative ideological offensive. Capital benefits from a fragmented, segmented, and competitive labor market, which makes the unified organization of the workforce difficult. Through this discourse, competition between workers (legal or illegal, national or foreign) is encouraged to hinder solidarity and the consolidation of class consciousness. The goal is to displace vertical tensions and contradictions between social classes into horizontal conflicts, whether ethnic, racial, or national.

Social frustration, Trump's victory, and current discontent

Trump was skillful in channeling political discontent, linked to the social fractures outlined above, to his advantage. In last November's elections, the current president significantly improved his approval ratings among Hispanics, despite his xenophobic and anti-immigrant rhetoric, which stigmatized Puerto Ricans and Haitians on several occasions. The more than 60 million people of Hispanic origin are not a homogeneous group, and many are already third- or fourth-generation residents of the United States. They vote for economic, gender, or ideological reasons, and not necessarily for their ethnic or racial identity, although this is a significant issue in American society. Something similar can be said of African Americans. Democrats won among both minorities, but by much lower rates than four years ago. Among the population of Arab origin and among young progressives, the issue of the White House's support for the Israeli government amid the genocide in Gaza may have affected the inclination to vote for the ruling party, beyond their rejection of Trump. The Biden-Harris administration had extremely low support ratings (polls showed discontent with the government's direction), despite the economic recovery, low unemployment, and the current decline in inflation, which was below 3% annually. The rise in gasoline prices and the cost of living in recent years, growing economic inequality, and the stagnation of the minimum wage weighed more heavily than other issues.

In short, Trump's narrative was once again effective. Despite having already been in office and being supported by Elon Musk, the richest and most powerful man in the United States, he managed to recast himself as an outsider under attack from the enlightened elites. His anti-state and anti-progressive rhetoric served to convince millions to vote for him again. The choice of JD Vance as his running mate, who espouses a much more hardline anti-elitist stance, seems to have paid off, given his sustained support in rural areas.

The United States faces a multidimensional crisis: economic, social, and political. The combination of poverty, violence, addiction, debt, and a collapsed healthcare system reflects a model that benefits a minority while leaving millions behind. Without profound structural reforms, these tensions could lead to a further deterioration of social cohesion and even more serious conflicts in the near future. While facing the trade war initiated by Trump, China is seeing how internal fractures in the North American country are undermining its capacity for global leadership: "The United States is affected by a silent civil war," analyzed a document published by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2023. "Republicans and Democrats lead two diametrically opposed communities that, in reality, function as confederations under the same government" (quoted in Le Monde Diplomatique, Southern Cone, May 2025, p. 23).

However, Trump's austerity policies will only exacerbate the current social crisis, increase inequality, and make access to housing, healthcare, and education even more difficult for millions of Americans. In just 100 days in office, his approval ratings have fallen to historic lows, and resistance has been growing in many states for weeks, including with mass rallies led by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It is likely that, in the coming months, given the lack of results, the electoral support Trump once garnered will erode. With the structural possibility of rebuilding the American dream ruled out , social tensions are here to stay.

https://misionverdad.com/opinion/la-dec ... -americano

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Wed May 28, 2025 2:28 pm

Obscene Wealth

Gabriel Zucman is a French-born economist who teaches at California, Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics. Zucman’s academic specialization is in wealth inequality, using tax data to track the stratification in wealth in the US and the rest of the world. A student of famed inequality expert, Thomas Piketty, he is an important figure in the World Inequality Database.

His most recent findings expose a gross obscenity, a level of wealth inequality in the US that should shame every politician, every mainstream-media commentator, and every cultural influencer who fails to make recognition of this travesty central to his or her message.

Discussed in some detail in an article by Juliet Chung, appearing in the Thursday, April 24 Wall Street Journal, Zucman’s most recent findings draw little attention from the other corporate media.

Zucman claims that the wealth of 19 households in the US grew by one trillion dollars in 2024, more than the GDP of Switzerland. That top 0.00001% of households accounted in 2024 for 1.81% of all the wealth accumulated in the US-- nearly 2% of all US wealth is held by those 19 households.

Other conclusions drawn from the WSJ article:

● Total US wealth in 2024 was $148 trillion.

● The share of total US wealth held by the 0.00001% of households was, by far, the greatest since 1913, when the US income tax system originated.

● JP Morgan Chase estimates that there were 2,000 billionaires in the US in 2024; 975 in 2021.

● The top 0.1% of households constitute approximately 133,000 households and each holds an average of $46.3 million in wealth, accumulating $3.4 million a year since 1990 (Steven Frazzari, Washington University, St. Louis).

● The next 0.9% of households-- approximately 1.2 million households-- were each worth $11.2 million and grew by $450,000 per year in the same period (Frazzari).

● The cumulative 1% of households account for 34.8% of total US wealth in 2023.

● In capitalist counterpart countries, the 1% account for 21.3% of the total wealth in the British Isles, 27.2% in France, and 27.6% in Germany (2023).

● The top 10% of US households hold 67% of all the wealth in the US.

● The top half of US households have secured 97% of all US wealth.

● CONSEQUENTLY, THE OTHER HALF OF US HOUSEHOLDS (~ 66 MILLION HOUSEHOLDS, ~166 MILLION CITIZENS) SHARED ONLY 3% OF ALL THE WEALTH ACCUMULATED IN THE US.

These data underscore the fact that the US is a radically unequal society, with wealth concentration increasing dramatically as one ascends the class ladder.

What conclusions can we draw from the Zucman/Wall Street Journal report?

First, it is important to distinguish wealth inequality from income inequality.

Income inequality is a snapshot of the remuneration that an individual or household might receive in a given period. For example, a sports figure or a celebrity might receive a huge compensation package for two or three years of success, but otherwise fall dramatically in income and end with modest wealth.

Wealth on the other hand, is inheritable and cumulative. In a capitalist society, it is possible to have income without accumulating wealth, but it is almost impossible to have wealth without effortlessly gaining income.

Among the employed, income is always contingent. Wealth, to the contrary, is owned and can only be alienated by legal action.

While income is empowering, accumulated wealth imbues its owner with both security and degrees of power and influence proportionate to its quantity.

Thus, wealth is a better measure of personal or household economic status than income.

For those academics and media pundits who prattle on about “our democracy,” it must be pointed out that over half of the US population is effectively economically disenfranchised from the political system. With so little accumulated wealth (3% of the total wealth), they cannot participate meaningfully in an electoral system driven by money. They lack the means to contend for office, as well as to affect the choice of candidates or the outcomes.

Even if the bottom half of households were to pool their resources, they could not match the financial assets readily available to the top 1% in order to dominate political power.

Cold War intellectuals constantly heralded the formal democracy-- the rights to participate in electoral politics-- enjoyed by citizens in the advanced capitalist countries. They assiduously avoided mentioning citizens’ actual means to participate in any meaningful way, influenced by the vast and telling inequalities in those means. Clearly, the bottom half of all US households have little means of engagement with politics, apart from casting an occasional vote for limited options, for which they have little say in determining.

Further, the next 40% of households have between them, in diminishing amounts as they approach the bottom half, just 30% of US wealth to express their political prerogatives. No doubt that provides the false sense of political empowerment that the two bourgeois parties prey upon.

The victory of form-over-substance in the legitimation of US social and political institutions is surely threatened by the reality of wealth inequality-- a reality that empowers the wealthy over the rest.

The fact that the top 10% of US households have a grip on 67% of the wealth makes a mockery of “our democracy.”

Talk of “oligarchs” or “the 1%” -- so popular with slippery politicians or internet naïfs -- actually masks the rot behind our grossly unequal society. Neither “evil” nor “greedy” people can explain the travesty recorded by the Zucman data.

Instead, it is a system that produces and reproduces wealth inequality. While wars, economic crises, or the militant action of workers and their allies may temporarily slow or set back the march of wealth inequality under capitalism, the system continues to regenerate wealth inequality. That system is called “capitalism.”

As Paul Sweezy explained most clearly:

The essence of capitalism is the self-expansion of capital, which takes place through the production and capitalization of surplus value. Production of surplus value in turn is the function of the proletariat, i.e., the class of wage earners who own no means of production and can live only by the sale of their labor power. Since the proletariat produces for capital and not for the satisfaction of its own needs, it follows that capitalism, in Marx’s words, “establishes an accumulation of misery corresponding with accumulation of capital.” The Transition to Socialism, lecture, 1971

Economic historians like Piketty and Zucman who carefully track the trajectory of capitalism demonstrate empirically, again and again, that capitalist socio-economic relations give rise to economic inequality.

While the distribution of wealth in advanced capitalist countries is not captured perfectly by the Marxist class distinctions, class-as-ownership-of-capital goes far to explain how wealth is distributed.

With two-thirds of all wealth concentrated in the top 10% of households and an estimated 89% of all capital-as-stocks held by that same 10%, it seems reasonable to conclude that the capitalist class resides within the top 10% of wealthy households.

It should be just as clear that the bottom 50%-- with 3% of the wealth, and nearly all of that in personal real estate and other personal property-- survives on income from some form of compensation; its members work for a living.

Thus, as one might anticipate from reading the 1848 Communist Manifesto, capitalist society today-- 177 years later-- remains substantially divided between those who create the wealth by working for a living and those who own the means of wealth creation and, therefore, gain most of their wealth from that ownership. Capital-- whether it coalesces as factories, banks, or other enterprises-- concentrates wealth at the top.

Between the bottom 50% and the top 10% of households is a contested field of largely income earners-- workers-- as well as professional, self-employed, and small business owners. While most are, strictly speaking, working class, many have illusions about their class status (“middle class”) or harbor the illusion that their class status will improve.

Some have been characterized as “aristocrats of labor” because of their relatively elevated possession of income or wealth among workers. Others are even better characterized-- to follow Marx-- as “petty-bourgeois”: small, insignificant capitalists.

From the classical texts through Louis Althusser and Nicos Poulantzas to Soviet analyst S. N. Nadel, Marxism has yet to produce a robust and rigorous theory of the upper-middle strata, though their members often prove to be the pivotal factor in denying social change. Accordingly, it is the segment most intensely courted by the centrist political parties.

If we are to remove the stain of wealth inequality, it must be its sufferers-- the working class-- who assume that task. And that task will only be decisively accomplished with the replacement of capitalism with socialism.

Greg Godels

zzsblogml@gmail.com

http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/2025/05/obscene-wealth.html
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Sat May 31, 2025 1:38 pm

"Peace through Strength" - The War for American Hegemony
May 30, 21:01

Image

"Peace through Strength" - The War for American Hegemony

Ensuring US hegemony is a constant in political strategy and practice. It is invariant in relation to White House administrations. Trump's Manifest destiny is a reconstruction of American greatness on new principles - no longer globalism, but exceptionalism.

Among the key donors of Trump's 2023/2024 election campaign are the largest manufacturers of the military-industrial complex, such as Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon General Dynamics, Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers, transport and oil and gas corporations. The 47th US President is supported by the military-industrial, as well as the IT-venture-technological lobby. Among them are those who are interested in maintaining the US dominance in the world by force, technology and economy, those for whom war is a business, an opportunity for development and a guarantee of enrichment.
The reboot of the real sector of the economy planned by the Trumpists, the rearmament and re-equipment of the Pentagon and intelligence services based on the latest technologies, total control of the information field and the humanitarian sphere to ensure info-cognitive and mental dominance based on AI, strengthening the resource potential of the United States through the accumulation of economic and military-economic power and technological superiority over 3-5 years, which surpasses all and everything, cemented by a right-wing conservative ideology - this is the technological and semantic platform of global leadership and the New World Order (NWO) from Trump-Vance - "Peace through strength".

Image

Trumpists propose to return America's leadership and competitive military advantage through start-ups for the development and production of weapons, financed primarily through venture schemes.

The manifesto article “Arsenal Reset,” posted back in June 2022 on the resources of one of the most influential Trumpists, Vice President J.D. Vance’s political curator Peter Thiel, says: “Modernizing our military will require not just a handful, but dozens of new innovative companies. Tens of thousands of engineers will have to ask themselves if there is more to their careers than just money. And our government officials, without whom these efforts will be in vain, will have to listen and lead…” The ambitions and

MAGA strategy are in the Americans taking over global technological leadership. To do this, the United States will need additional energy capacity and natural resources, which Canada and Greenland should provide. Then the US will be able, according to Trumpists, to become global leaders not only in weapons and the cryptocurrency mining race, but also, what is strategically more important, in the total power of the computer industry, ensuring primacy in the development of AI as a critical factor in the modern economy, military-industrial complex, intelligence and defense.
The entire team that came with Trump is highly ideologically charged. Trumpists have written and promoted strategic concepts for a financial-technological and managerial revolution in the White House and the Pentagon.

The concept of a new American dynamism has been developed, launched, and is being introduced into the consciousness of the elites and society. American dynamism in the field of defense technologies implies the foresight and active application of technological innovations. This approach emphasizes that the pursuit of technological dynamism is the pursuit of a strong, secure, and innovative America.
At the Shift's Defense Ventures Summit in Washington in November 2023, Catherine Boyle, General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz, a venture capital fund associated with Peter Thiel, expressed the opinion: "We are convinced that a strong America leads to a strong and secure world, a more civilized world (we should use this word more often). Technology plays a key role in maintaining this order and civilization, and this will continue. We call this direction American dynamism.

In the fall of 2024, a programmatic military-economic text was published - "Reforming the US military-industrial complex" (The Defense Reformatiom). Its author is the executive director of Palantir, Shyam Sankar.
Let us present the theses of Sankar's "manifesto" in detail, because they are important not only for understanding the enemy's strategy, but in part they are a "mirror" of our problems.
At the very beginning of the article, the author categorically and scathingly states: "The Western strategy of containment no longer works... As a nation, we are already in a state of undeclared war... In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea... China stuffed the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea with weapons, and Iran continued to develop an atomic bomb... This is a new Cold War in its hot stage...".

Image

Let us immediately note a truth that is not at all cinematic: "in America, everything is simple, except for money" (a quote from the cult film "Brother 2"). The logic of Sankara's "escalation of the situation" is clear and, despite the obvious emotional charge, quite pragmatic. The formation of an information-political "war space" is an information-cognitive technology for ensuring the "interception of budgets" and levers of development of the military-industrial complex and the Pentagon, it is an effective mechanism for managing society through fear, it is a political "catch 22" that allows lobbyists and involved elite groups to avoid possible claims from competitors in the long term: they say, "war will write off everything."

Having outlined the "reality of war," Shyama Sankara then directly states that the United States is not ready for a serious war, stating that the country's economy, its real sector and its "core," the military-industrial complex, are in a systemic crisis: "US national security requires a powerful industrial base, otherwise it will lose the next war, and the world will plunge into the darkness of "authoritarian regimes ...".
In a carefully measured and well-placed way, “adding salt to the wounds,” the CEO of Palantir argues that the inertia of the American military-industrial complex that has developed over decades is high, while its mobilization potential is low.

Raising the tension, Shyama Sankara emphasizes that in the event of a hot phase of a possible war between the United States and rival powers — China or Russia — ammunition and weapons will last only a few days. Even more alarming, in his opinion, is the lack of capacity and capabilities for the rapid repair and restoration of our weapons systems, not to mention the production of weapons on new principles. Sankar believes that this ideological and managerial approach, deeply rooted in the American military-industrial complex, is based on the concepts of scientific management, which were once fashionable in the Soviet Union and in the vanguard of the US automobile industry in the 1950s.

Image

Centralized, predictable, programmatic budgeting, management and control were then considered superior to the trial-and-error market system, as well as the "mess and waste" of the decentralized trial-and-error experimentation system, which did not imply 100% "sprouting of startups" in the search for new solutions and technologies. The time for such approaches and solutions, according to Sankara, has passed. Noting the crisis, Shyama Sankara then not only analyzes its causes, but also identifies ways for the US military-industrial complex to emerge from the crisis, based on, along with a technological reboot, the interception of budget flows and levers of control over the military-industrial complex and the Pentagon from the arms "traditionalists".

Let us cite Sankara's main statements, arguments and proposals, not verbatim, but in essence.

Monopoly is our main problem. In 1993, after the end of the Cold War, the Pentagon worked with more than 50 companies. Today there are five (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and Boeing)! The most important consequence was not the reduction of competition in the defense industry, but the separation of commercial innovation from the military-industrial complex and the growth of a state monopoly on procurement.

It is necessary to avoid a monopoly buyer at all costs, using market mechanisms and dynamics as the key operating principle of the Ministry of Defense. What sometimes looks like duplication is an insurance against complacency and unpredictability.
If the monopoly remains, production will not work as it should. The final product will remain expensive, and this will make us weaker.
The root of our pathology is the lack of competition within the Ministry of Defense.

It will take a decade or two to begin delivering new major weapons systems in sufficient quantities.
In the hot phase of war, we have only a few days' worth of ammunition and weapons. Even more alarming is the lack of capacity and capability to quickly repair and refurbish our equipment and weapons systems.

Under current conditions, American industry can no longer be content to produce a minimum range of ships, submarines, ammunition, aircraft, etc.
Cost-plus contracts make us slower and poorer. This may be the right way to buy an aircraft carrier, but it is wrong for 95% of other things.
Innovation will always be painful, unclear, and subject to "pejorative and retrograde" bureaucratic criticism from those outside the process: they value costs and effort, not value and results.

There is also no reward for speeding up the process and developing innovative approaches, and there is no incentive to compete on price, since it is time and money spent that count, not saved.

We must understand: productivity is more valuable than weapons stockpiles. We obsess over stockpiles, but stockpiles don’t matter. Our ammunition shipments to Ukraine consisted of Cold War-era kits that sat on shelves collecting dust while decades of innovation took place. The depletion of 10 years’ worth of production in 10 weeks of fighting in Ukraine has shown that the real weapon is the speed of retooling and intensification of production.

We must produce what is needed quickly and in sufficient quantities. We must develop requirements and incentives for production and never stop producing.
There will be no more prizes for participation (guns sitting on shelves). Participation only counts if you can consistently produce them.
The ability to modernize production is critical.

Government attempts to avoid problems in advance by locking in to a single supplier will fail. For any non-trivial innovation, it is impossible to “deductively” design a master architecture of a winning structure in advance. Instead, we must slog along and let that architecture emerge. You maximize your chances if you break away from the “precedent principle” of established practices early on.

The most important projects are not created by accepting terms and conditions. In a fight, no one cares about the official paper. The only requirement is to win.
And winning involves engaging in a messy, duplicative, seemingly wasteful but actually effective process of improvement.
No monopoly. Creative, faster, and ultimately cheaper results.

We must rely on talent, on people who propose bold solutions and ensure their implementation, in which knowledge and know-how are combined.
The talent to solve a problem quickly is rare. It is very difficult, but such talent is decisive.

The Pentagon Personnel Management Act (the rules for the career and promotion of officers and civilian specialists) must be reformed. We need to care more about achieving victory, and not about how to fill the staffing table and correctly draw up service documentation.

We need more competition between the services. No joint program directorates. No monopoly. Creative, fast and ultimately cheaper results.
The main idea is how the members of the company communicate, collaborate and compete.

Synergy of dual-use technologies is the key to victory. RAND thought that Lockheed would dominate the field of integrated circuits, because it had fifty Ph.D.s, and Intel only two. But Intel executives knew that military and intelligence clients were just a stopover to business success. And they succeeded.

Audit paralysis is a paralysis of growth. Money must work and be mobile. The fiscal OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) cycle for moving money is unsustainable. Money must be able to be reprogrammed and redirected in two months, not two years.

Simple contractual mechanisms exist to guarantee the government continuity of operations and the desired flexibility, debureaucratization, objectivity, and complete freedom of action through the introduction of automated security checks for budgeting. We are not even close to that now.

Venture capital is the future—the United States needs risk capital, not taxpayer capital, to achieve technological breakthroughs. Independent research and development (IRAD) with reimbursement for costs is a kind of indulgence. It is not real R&D. Cost Plus contracts allow contractors to manipulate house money (reimbursed by taxpayers). Private R&D in the commercial market is vastly superior to public R&D.

Companies must invest their own capital in developments and solutions. They must be ready for any challenges if we want innovation. Contractors should not take money from the taxpayer if their lab experiments fail. There must be effective feedback between consumers, customers and developers-manufacturers.

Secrecy should not be a “monopolist’s defense.” Today, defense companies cannot understand the fighter, and the fighter often cannot understand what he himself needs. His needs, it is said, must be transmitted through a “priestly class” of contractors, middlemen, buyers, customers. The result is countless Kafkaesque dilemmas of cause and effect. You cannot get a security clearance unless you have a secret contract, and you cannot get a security clearance unless you belong to a special class of people who have security clearance. The same goes for SCIF (Secret Shared Information Facility) sponsorship and access to classified networks. Only the “priestly” middlemen determine the timing and schedule of a company’s access to a top-secret network from its offices.

Monopolies and secrecy are too much, but we are long past the point where they worked in the interests of security.
The main conclusion of Sankar’s “manifesto” is this: “The United States is in a state of undeclared war. For more than three decades, we have put up with stagnation in the military-industrial complex, born of a complacent monopoly without competition from the great powers. We have prayed to the “old altar” for too long. Now change is possible, because we all understand that there is something worse than change: lagging and obsolescence. We cannot waste time resurrecting the American industrial base on which we relied during the height of the Cold War…”.

Image

Let us note not only the systematic nature of Shyam Sankar’s proposals, but also the fact that many of his conclusions should not only be taken into account, but it is advisable to apply them here in Russia, primarily in the military-industrial complex and defense, due to their relevance not only for the United States.
The “Peace through Strength” concept implies a focus on preparing for war, forming an information-cognitive agenda for war. This does not mean that the Americans themselves will fight - this is unlikely, but preparing the world for war - that is for sure. For a war for hegemony through reorganizing the world in the American way.
This way will be played according to the notes written by artificial intelligence. To prepare for war, the corresponding financial and scientific-technological reserve has been created. The military-industrial complex, primarily of the USA and partly of NATO countries, will be rebooted, re-equipped and restarted based on the latest modern technologies - and above all, robotics and AI. The potential for the massive use of autonomous weapons systems is especially dangerous. Tens of thousands of drones, invulnerable to modern electronic warfare and air defense systems, combined with hypersonic missiles create an unprecedented threat to the strategic facilities of any enemy.

Image

The battlefield of the coming war, as seen by the MAGA-imperialists of Trump-Vance, will be filled with mental confrontation, artificial intelligence, unmanned systems and cyber warriors who will fight with all available and most modern hybrid methods, collecting and exchanging intelligence, making decisions with breathtaking speed and efficiency, totally covering the entire world with their control, like a battlefield.
It must be understood that Trump's "Peace through Strength" is, in fact, a forceful reorganization of the world, it is a form of violence against the world "packed" in a political strategy, it is a hybrid war for US hegemony declared for a decade.
In this, and not in the "peacekeeping chatter" is the real American policy. The confrontation with China and Russia was, is and will be the focus of US military policy. To win in an existential clash with the West, Russia needs to concentrate and mobilize all resources - military, economic, spiritual. It is important to realize and take action on the fact that the victorious solution for Russia will come from within, not from without.
Let's become sovereign and strong! 

(c) A. Ilnitsky

https://arsenal-otechestva.ru/article/1 ... gegemoniyu - zinc

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9870182.html

Google Translator

This is well and good but I really doubt that Trump can comprehend all this, except perhaps in comic book fashion. And as we are seeing with Musk these Tech Lords have attention spans short as my dick, an endemic condition in the tech society they make but cannot escape themselves. This Sankar person needs to get away from the game console. A worse case situation, too little too late in any case, which ignores the condition of the US economy.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Sun Jun 01, 2025 5:09 pm

Three Directions of the International Policy of American Imperialism

After the collapse of the USSR, there was only one superpower left in the world. The dictatorship of American financial capital won on a global scale.

Relationships developed between the capitalists of the West, primarily the USA, England, France, and Germany, based on a complete economic division of the world , which looked like the hegemony of transnational corporations. In these relations, American financial capital played the leading role as the largest, most concentrated, aggressive, and militarized.

In connection with this, a union of states was formed, including in the form of the NATO alliance, which suppressed the sovereignty of unwanted governments, resorted to military aggression and provoked wars with the hands of yet another group of paid nationalists.

The US government, controlling enormous military power in the form of a network of military bases and naval forces, provided the most favoured nation regime around the world, first and foremost, for American capital. All international institutions, from the UN to the IMF and the WTO, worked for American capital, whose bigwigs achieved in the 1990s and 2000s what the Krupps and other German oligarchs dreamed of in the late 1930s.

Globalization was a new kind of fascism, and liberal democracy was a new kind of Nazism.

American oligarchs disguised their corporations as “transnational” and their property rights as shareholdings of “institutional investors.” The American state pretended that it was not pursuing imperialist policies, hiding behind the demagogy of promoting democracy and fighting terrorism. Thousands of NGOs, pro-Western media, scientists, bloggers and other grant-eaters, USAID employees worked to propagate this demagogy.

However, the undivided omnipotence of American financial capital (fascism) could not continue for long.

Firstly , within the camp of imperialism there is competition between various corporations, groups of corporations and states under their control. For example, in 1999, European oligarchs struck a blow at America – they introduced the euro into circulation. The struggle for dictatorship over the world of finance began.

In mid-2002 (23 years ago!) Valery Alekseevich wrote:

"Trends in the euro and dollar exchange rates indicate the uncompromising determination of European oligarchs to dislodge US oligarchs from the struggle for dictatorship over the world of finance. The current, already quite long-term, approximate equality of the dollar and euro exchange rates indicates the approximate equality of the economic potentials of the US and the US. There are no objective signs that the success of the European currency is short-term and will not have consequences on other fronts of the economic war between the US and the US.

A serious difference between the USA and the US is observed today only in the ratio of their military-technical potentials, especially in the ratio of their nuclear-space potentials and groups. It is absurd to assume that the American oligarchs are not preparing to use this only noticeable historical advantage in the near future. There is no other way to explain the increased activity of the US oligarchs in the area of ​​creating an anti-missile "umbrella" than by the beginning of substantive preparations for decisive forceful pressure by the US oligarchs on the US oligarchs, since the current economic and nuclear missile potential of India, Iraq, Iran, China, the DPRK, Pakistan, and Russia does not yet pose a serious threat to the USA.

After the collapse of communism in the USSR, the main political and economic opponent of imperialism, Europe, united by a single currency, became the main competitor of the USA, and thus the main... target of the Pentagon. The invitation made to the US by the US to work together on the creation of an anti-missile "umbrella" cannot deceive anyone. It pursues only one goal: to accelerate the creation of an American anti-missile "umbrella" at the expense of European brains. The US's agreement to participate in this project pursues only one goal: to gain access to information, technology and to create a European anti-missile "umbrella", thereby equalizing the military potential of the US and US oligarchs.

What will happen first - the potentials of the US and US oligarchs will equalize, or the US will treat the US like Yugoslavia, Iraq or Afghanistan, taking advantage of the current superiority of its military potential - is a matter of detail. But from the point of view of history, theory and current practice of market economy, it is impossible to imagine a situation in which the oligarchs, by an objective course of competition, would not put each other in a position of bankruptcies. After all, both the fall of the Bretton Woods Agreement, according to which the dollar was a monopoly currency, and the collapse of the "floating currency" system, in which the dollar nevertheless occupied the position of "first violin", are the consequences of the targeted economic policy of the European oligarchs, directed against the monopoly of the US oligarchs on the world market.

Therefore, from a theoretical point of view, there is not a single insurmountable obstacle that would prevent American oligarchs from taking a gamble in a hopeless economic situation and, with objectively low economic potential, not taking a risk, as businessmen do every day, of unilaterally using their temporary military-technical advantage over their competitors in a preventive manner. For this purpose, the US oligarchs are creating, on the one hand, an anti-missile "umbrella" to destroy the enemy's nuclear warheads in space, and on the other hand, they are constantly improving "neutron weapons" so that there are low levels of radioactive contamination in the depopulated territories subject to colonization."


This forecast is coming true before our eyes. The US is fueling confrontation with Europe and planning to build a "Golden Dome".

Naturally, the forecast was based on the situation at the beginning of the 21st century and could not take into account the fact that by the mid-2010s the economic and military-political potential of China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran, individually and collectively, began to pose a threat to American imperialism and the dominance of Wall Street capital.

Secondly , therefore, socialist countries (China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and Laos), countries of socialist, leftist orientation (Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Nepal, Eritrea, Belarus, Transnistria, Syria under Assad) and large bourgeois states seeking to free themselves from dependence on American dictate (Russia, Iran, Turkey, India, Pakistan, Brazil and partly some others) have become competitors for the USA or at least rebels.

First of all, of course, the American imperialists were worried about China. The CPC, led first by Hu Jintao and then by Xi Jinping, had achieved rapid growth in productive forces by developing a socialist sector within a market economy that was significantly integrated into the world economy.

American capital, tempted by huge profits, turned China into a world factory in the 1980s-2000s. It was assumed that the export of capital to China would lead not only to the growth of the financial power of American corporations, but also to control over virtually the entire commodity mass of the world economy. It was assumed that China, like other underdeveloped countries, would turn into a financial, industrial, and market appendage of the United States.

But the Chinese communists, at the expense of the socialist sector, actively developed their production, adopted technologies and learned from Western capitalists. As a result, since the beginning of Chairman Xi's leadership (2013), China began to squeeze Western companies in the commodity market. That is, the share of Chinese goods owned by Western corporations has steadily decreased in relation to the share of goods owned by Chinese state-owned companies (or private, but under the control of the party corporations). Then China began to squeeze the United States and Europe in the capital investment market. Moreover, Chinese state capital, organized by Xi Jinping in the global foreign policy project "One Belt, One Road", takes on expensive infrastructure projects in underdeveloped countries such as the construction of sea and airport ports, railways and highways, hydroelectric power stations, dams, etc. The CPC, unlike the Americans and Europeans, does not interfere in the internal affairs of third countries. Thus, China is investing in the development of the fundamental economic base of African and Asian countries in much the same way as the Soviet Union did in its time, but not on a gratuitous basis and without the requirement of political loyalty.

In short, the Chinese communists took full advantage of American capital and entered a period of open economic rivalry with its owners. In principle, the logic and preliminary results of the policy of reform and openness roughly correspond to Lenin's plan when introducing the NEP, with the difference that at the beginning of the 20th century Western capital was scared, but at the end of the 20th century it was not.

The main factor in China's economic success was the competent leadership of the CPC . The main reason for China's economic success is the huge investments in education, primarily in engineering, and in research and development. If we take the urban population, about 900 million people, then in terms of the number of students per capita, especially in engineering specialties, China is among the world leaders.

In this regard, we can recall one of the most important factors in the USSR's victory in the Great Patriotic War, which is carefully hushed up by bourgeois propaganda: the high level of culture of the Soviet people, their thirst for education and science, which was inspired and provided for by Bolshevism. Before the war, there were more students in our country than in Western countries combined. The USSR was the most library-rich country in the world: one library per two thousand people - ten times more than in the USA. Librarianship in those years played the same role that access to educational and scientific information via the Internet plays today.

The US imperialist policy has three main geographic directions: European (including Central Asia), Middle East and Asia-Pacific .

Historically, the greatest forces and resources of imperialism were concentrated in the fight against the USSR in Europe. After the collapse of the USSR and the aggravation of the confrontation with China (2010-2015), they were directed against the Russian Federation with the aim of changing the political regime. Russia is the key to the northern borders of the PRC, and American imperialists dreamed of quarreling China and Russia so that the CPC would have to look for new sources of oil and gas, as well as increase the army to protect thousands of kilometers of Heilongjiang, Manchuria, Xinjiang. After the detente with the USSR, and then the Russian Federation, China reduced its army by more than half. Russia is a key link in the US policy of isolating and encircling China.

American imperialism failed to change the government in the Russian Federation by destabilizing the situation from within (the Orange Revolution scenario), so Plan B was put into action - a change or crisis of power through military defeat. Or, as Putin understands it, inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia. To do this, the US trained, armed and took command of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which in itself was an escalation and explosive, since, firstly , there was a civil war going on in Ukraine (Donbass), and secondly , Ukraine had a permanent casus belli over Crimea.

This time, bourgeois Russia did not remain silent and at the end of 2021 issued an ultimatum on security issues in Europe. When it was officially rejected by Washington, the Russian army carried out an open intervention in the civil war in Ukraine with the aim of overthrowing the pro-American government (be sure to study the Marxist position on the SVO). In other words, bourgeois Russia, being essentially an imperialist force, for the first time in its history dealt a preemptive blow to American imperialism. However, the SVO from a lightning operation grew into a protracted military confrontation between the Russian Federation on one side and the United States on the other side, mainly by the Armed Forces of Ukraine, on the territory of Ukraine.

This allowed US oligarchs to seize the European gas market with simple manipulations and, in general, deal a blow to the economy of the Old World.

The American military exercised and exercises direct control over the Ukrainian armed forces, primarily from the base in Wiesbaden. During the US SVO, firstly , they tested military-technical solutions, combat tactics in the conditions of a modern war of more or less equal armies, tested their equipment, and secondly , they tried to inflict a military defeat on the Russian Armed Forces. As a result, the real situation at the front led to the conduct of military operations by the Ukrainian Armed Forces with the aim of reducing the military-technical potential of the Russian Federation.

Roughly speaking, the US is exchanging invested dollars, transferred equipment and the lives of Ukrainians on the territory of Ukraine for destroyed Russian combat vehicles, artillery, missile, radar and other military systems. That is why some decisions of the Ukrainian Armed Forces command (and in reality the headquarters in Wiesbaden) look suboptimal from a military point of view. In Washington, after the unsuccessful offensive of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the summer of 2023, they realized that a military victory would not be achieved, so after that they simply burn Ukrainians in suicidal adventurous operations and senselessly stubborn battles for plantations and farms. It must be understood that the US imperialists benefit not only from the deaths of Russians, but also of Ukrainians. This reduces the total number of the former Soviet people.

In late 2024 - early 2025, the United States considered, firstly , that further continuation of the SVO does not reduce the military-political potential of the Russian Federation, but begins to increase it due to the growth of military-industrial complex production, cooperation with the DPRK, Iran, the absence of the desired isolation, etc., and secondly , that further pressure on nuclear Russia could lead to an exchange of nuclear strikes and an unpleasant escalation. In particular, V. Putin's threat to begin supplying weapons, including offensive ones, to countries sensitive to US security (for example, Cuba, Venezuela or Nicaragua) was taken seriously. What if we start deploying missile defense elements near the American borders?

Thus, the US is currently trying to negotiate with the Russian Federation on a sphere of influence in Europe and withdraw from the Ukrainian war or maintain minimal participation in it. This will allow the withdrawal of military bases, forces and resources from Europe in order to redirect them closer to China. The US is concluding a temporary truce and pitting its two competitors: Europe and Russia, focusing on the confrontation with China. Bandera's Ukraine is a bargaining chip, a played card.

As for the "Euro-Atlantic partnership", it was not the US that betrayed Europe, as it may seem at first glance, but Europe that did not support America in the new Cold War with China. For which it paid, remaining one-on-one with the Russian Federation. However, the objective contradictions between American financial capital (imperialism) and European financial capital (imperialism) will inevitably lead to confrontation. The conflict between the United States of America and the "United States of Europe" is the basis of the main scenario of the third world war.

In the Middle East (be sure to read the brief description of the region in the article), the US is doing everything to start a war between Iran and Israel, the monarchies of the Persian Gulf . Middle Eastern oil and gas feed the Chinese industry, so American imperialists are trying to block China's access to them. The US lacks the influence and power to do this peacefully, economically, diplomatically, and in other ways, so they are inciting, provoking, and sponsoring the genocide of Palestinians. The US is pumping both Israel and the Arab countries with weapons to ignite the fire of a major war that will destroy the region's oil and gas fields.

The main direction of foreign policy activity since recently is the immediate borders of the PRC or the Asia-Pacific region. Here, in the confrontation with China, the US relies on those countries whose bourgeois detachments are integrated into the ruling class of the US, that is, the Anglo-Saxons: England, Canada, Australia. They already constitute a separate military bloc, and in the future, integration, primarily in the military-technical aspect, will increase.

In its military confrontation with China, the United States has three consecutive components.

The first is the direct executors: Taiwan, Japan, South Korea. Their puppet armies will perform the same role that the Ukrainian Armed Forces currently perform, i.e. cannon fodder. The key task of the United States is to join them with the Indian armed forces.

The second , rear one is Australia and England. These are supply bases, replenishment bases, etc.

And the third is the United States itself, which plans to absorb Canada. America's main striking force is the Navy and bases in the Pacific Ocean and Asia.

What the war will look like is unclear, but military pressure on China is being exerted along these lines.

From what has been said it is easy to evaluate certain political processes from the point of view of their progressiveness or reactionary nature. American imperialism is the main evil, the main class enemy, the fight against which is beneficial to progress and communism .

Redin
05/31/2025

https://prorivists.org/105_usa/

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14394
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Foxes

Post by blindpig » Wed Jun 11, 2025 2:17 pm

The American Dream as a Nightmare as War Comes Home
Posted by Internationalist 360° on June 10, 2025
Fernando Esteche

Image

In this urban war, every street closure, every flag raised, every cry of resistance is a declaration: “We have returned home, and this time we will not leave. Trump’s tanks may occupy our streets, but they cannot occupy our hearts. The resistance will continue, because history is on our side, and the future belongs to us.”

The militarization of Los Angeles

Los Angeles is bleeding. In the streets of a city that for decades stood as a symbol of the American dream, today the cries of resistance of those who built its greatness from the shadows resonate. The massive raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement Enforcement (ICE), have unleashed a spiral of urban violence that reflects an uncomfortable truth: as in Europe, the metropolis has war within its own borders.

Since January 20, 2025, when Donald Trump took office promising to carry out the largest mass deportations in American history, Los Angeles has become the epicenter of a confrontation that transcends immigration. In his first month in office, 37,660 people were deported nationwide, but it is in this Californian metropolis where the resistance has taken its most visceral and organized form.

Los Angeles is a fundamentally Latino city. With a population of nearly 4 million, 48% of its residents are of Hispanic origin, forming the economic and cultural backbone of the city. This is not a demographic coincidence, but the result of centuries of displacement, exploitation, and resistance.

California, the nation’s most populous state, has a demographic reality that terrifies white supremacists: Latinos now outnumber the white population. Since 2014, Hispanic Californians have begun to surpass white Californians, reaching nearly 15 million people. This demographic transformation is not just statistical; it’s historic.

The recent raids have unleashed a fury that has been pent up for generations. On June 6, 2025, federal authorities detained at least 50 migrants in coordinated operations that sparked immediate demonstrations. The clashes erupted near a Home Depot in Paramount, a predominantly Latino city south of Los Angeles, where the migrant community gathers in search of daily work.

The escalating violence has forced Trump to take an unprecedented step: deploying 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles. This measure, taken just five months after taking office, exposes the fragility of the established order when faced with organized and massive resistance.

The conflict has generated an institutional crisis between the federal and state governments. California Governor Gavin Newsom has staunchly opposed the military deployment, creating a constitutional tension reminiscent of the darkest moments in American history. California, with its sanctuary laws, has become a bastion of institutional resistance, while local sheriffs find themselves caught between federal deportation orders and state protection laws.

Flags of Dignity: The Symbolism of Resistance

In demonstrations that have blocked freeways like the 110, protesters have displayed the flags of Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and other Central American countries. These national symbols are not mere nostalgia, but profound political statements. Every Mexican flag waving in the streets of Los Angeles is a reminder that this land was forcibly seized in 1848.

Central American flags tell stories of countries bled dry by civil wars financed and orchestrated from Washington. Each Salvadoran flag bears witness to the 75,000 dead from the 1980s civil war; each Guatemalan flag commemorates the genocide of 200,000 indigenous people; each Honduran flag speaks of the 2009 coup d’état that plunged the country into chaos.

Conservative white supremacist media outlets talk about an “invasion” to describe Latin American migration, but the historical reality is exactly the opposite. Los Angeles was founded in 1781 as “The Town of Our Lady Queen of the Angels” by Mexican settlers. This city, like all of California, was Mexican territory until the United States annexed it by force after the Mexican-American War.

The real invader was the Anglo-Saxon conquistador who arrived with a Puritan Bible in one hand and a rifle in the other. Los Angeles was built on the systematic dispossession of Mexican lands, the exploitation of Chinese labor on the railroads, and the plundering of the entire region’s natural resources. The wealth of this metropolis is not a product of American entrepreneurial genius, but of the organized plundering of half a continent.

During the 20th century, Los Angeles became the heart of the global entertainment industry, but its prosperity always depended on the invisible labor of Latin American migrants. Latino farmers, mostly undocumented, represent 96% of California’s agricultural workforce. Without their hands, American supermarkets would be empty, restaurants would be closed, and gardens would be withered.

Organized Resistance: Beyond Survival

What’s happening in Los Angeles goes beyond spontaneous protests. It’s an organized resistance that has learned from decades of repression, coordinated by organizations that have spent decades building power from the most vulnerable bases of society.

CHIRLA (Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights) has become the most visible voice of the resistance. Angélica Salas, CHIRLA’s executive director, has reported that the raids took place in at least seven locations, including Home Depot parking lots and a donut shop. The organization estimated at least 45 arrests and denounced the “terror” sown in Latino communities. CHIRLA, with nearly 40 years of experience, represents the institutionalization of immigration resistance in California.

NDLON (National Day Laborer Organizing Network), based in Los Angeles, coordinates the resistance at the national level. NDLON is a national network of more than 50 member organizations across the country working to unify and strengthen its members to develop leadership, mobilize, and organize day laborers. Founded in 2001 in Northridge, California, NDLON operates as a direct democracy where day laborers in member organizations directly vote on policies at NDLON’s biannual assemblies.

These organizations are not simply pressure groups, but grassroots power structures that have transformed the most vulnerable workers into an organized political force.

They have called for demonstrations outside the immigration jail in downtown Los Angeles, coordinating a resistance that combines legal action with street mobilization.

Human rights organizations have built protection networks, clandestine shelters, and communication systems that allow communities to resist raids.

CHIRLA has led important mobilizations, such as marches for immigration reform and protests against the criminalization of immigrants, with an inclusive approach that seeks to unite different sectors of society.

Protesters have succeeded in blocking major highways, blocking federal buildings, and creating a state of civil resistance that forces federal power to reveal its true face: that of the military occupation of their own cities. Every National Guard soldier deployed in Los Angeles is a confession that the system has lost legitimacy among millions of its residents.

The Los Angeles crisis is not an isolated incident, but rather the prelude to a historic transformation. Latinos are no longer a minority pleading for rights, but a demographic majority demanding historic justice. The current resistance does not simply seek to halt deportations, but rather to challenge the very right of the U.S. state to exist in territories that were stolen.

The flags waved at the demonstrations are not symbols of nostalgia, but of vindication. They speak not of the past, but of the future. A future where the descendants of the dispossessed recover what always belonged to them: not just the land, but the dignity to decide their own destiny.

Los Angeles is burning, but it’s not burning out. It’s transforming. Like a phoenix rising from its own ashes, the city is giving birth to a new reality where yesterday’s barbarians are tomorrow’s builders, and where the real invasion was the one that arrived under the Star-Spangled Banner.

The Los Angeles resistance is not just a fight for survival; it’s a war for historical memory and intergenerational justice. It’s a moment when the ghosts of the past take their revenge, and the children of those who were plundered reclaim their inheritance on the streets of the city their grandparents built with blood and sweat.

The Federalization of Force: When Washington Invades California

The Los Angeles crisis has exposed a constitutional fracture that defines the current American political moment. The federal government has seized control of the California National Guard, an extraordinary measure that demonstrates the extent to which Trump is willing to subvert federalism to impose his supremacist agenda.

The National Guard, traditionally under the command of state governors, can be federalized by the president in situations of national emergency. This decision puts Gavin Newsom, the Democratic governor of California, in an impossible position: he must watch as federal troops occupy his state against his express will. Newsom called the measure “deliberately inflammatory” and warned that it “will only escalate tensions.”

This isn’t the first time the immigration issue has sparked a clash between the federal government and a state. In 2024, Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott seized control of the border by installing barbed wire and arresting migrants in Eagle Pass, directly challenging Joe Biden ‘s policies.

Abbott invoked his state’s “constitutional authority to defend itself,” creating a dangerous precedent of state disobedience that Trump is now using in reverse. What in Texas was a conservative rebellion against a Democratic president is in California a Republican federal occupation against a Democratic governor. The difference reveals the nature of Trump ‘s exercise of power.

Immigration as the Core of the Trumpist Project

Immigration has become the central theme of the Trumpist agenda because it articulates all the anxieties of white supremacy in demographic decline. Trump understands that the immigration issue is not a matter of public policy, but of civilizational survival for white America.

An AP-NORC poll found that voters expressing concerns about immigration rose to 35% from 27% the previous year, revealing how fear of a Latino “invasion” has become the electoral fuel of the MAGA movement. Every mass deportation, every wall built, every child separated from their parents is a message to the Trump base : we are defending the nation’s racial purity.

Trumpism knows that California represents its demographic nightmare come true. A state where whites are a minority, where Latinos rule entire cities, where Spanish is heard on every corner. Los Angeles is not just a city that must be “pacified” with federal troops; it’s the future Trump wants to avoid for all of America .

The military occupation of Los Angeles marks a historic turning point. For the first time since the Civil War, a US president deploys federal troops against the express will of a state governor to suppress a civilian population. This is not a law enforcement operation; it is a declaration of war against multiracial America.

Every National Guard soldier patrolling the streets of Los Angeles is an emissary of white supremacy , a reminder that the Trumpist project will not tolerate self-determination for Latino communities. The federalization of the California National Guard is the prelude to a broader occupation: that of the demographic future of the United States.


The Los Angeles resistance transcends deportations and raids. It is a struggle to define what it means to be an American in the 21st century, who has the right to call this land home, and whether the descendants of Native Americans and the dispossessed can reclaim the dignity robbed of them by imperial violence.

In this urban war, every street closure, every flag raised, every cry of resistance is a declaration: “We have returned home, and this time we will not leave. Trump’s tanks may occupy our streets, but they cannot occupy our hearts. The resistance will continue, because history is on our side, and the future belongs to us.”

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2025/06/ ... omes-home/

******

Militarization and Constitutional Crisis: The King Is Naked in Los Angeles

Franco Vielma

June 9, 2025 , 2:30 pm .

Image
The National Guard has been used to suppress violent actions in Los Angeles, without the consent of Governor Gavin Newson (Photo: Reuters)

The city of Los Angeles (California, United States) is the site of massive peaceful gatherings and acts of violence in protest against the immigration measures implemented by the administration of President Donald Trump.

The specific nature of the demonstrations has been to resist and limit the deployment of immigration enforcement agencies and thus contain arrests for deportation purposes.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) efforts to capture suspected "illegals" have escalated to massive raids in several cities simultaneously, in what Trump has called "the largest deportation operation in the history" of his country.

In addition to ICE, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has participated in these operations, which represents a significant shift in its scope of work—excessively and outside its normal activities—and a sign of the maximum use of the federal government's capabilities to achieve its objectives.

Although the events in the California city are the focus of public attention, the first instance of this type of street reaction actually took place in Minneapolis , Minnesota, on June 3, with a spontaneous protest to prevent ICE arrests there.

The White House believes that these demonstrations, due to their massive—and in some cases violent—nature, could trigger similar reactions in other cities.

Furthermore, the response coming from the Oval Office suggests a potential constitutional crisis in the United States.

IT'S NOT ANOTHER RACIAL PROTEST
The record of peaceful and violent social protests in the United States over racial issues is extensive. The events unfolding right now in Los Angeles evoke profound shocks, such as those experienced after the murders of Rodney King (1992) and George Floyd (2020), both African Americans, killed by white police officers.

In the current Los Angeles riots, the Latino community—especially the Mexican community—has played a prominent role. But the reasons for these riots aren't limited to a specific action by a few security agents, nor to the death of a single person.

In reality, the backlash against ICE is a response to the federal government, Trump's anti-immigration policies, and, especially, the sensitivity surrounding alleged abuses by authorities in this area.

For weeks, social media has been flooded with images of mass arrests of people working illegally. Therefore, these are not criminals.

ICE's methods at the courthouses , where people have gone to comply with the steps to regularize their status, have gone viral. This could be considered a de facto violation of current immigration regulations, suggesting that the Trump administration itself is committing abuses.

Image
The Los Angeles riots could spark protests in other cities across the country (Photo: File)

Another element is the massive stigmatization of people through Trump's new laws, which label people in an irregular administrative situation as "criminals." Or, in other cases, the massive repeal of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Humanitarian Paroles, leaving hundreds of thousands unprotected, including the Venezuelan population, subjected to involuntary immigration illegality and subjected to prolonged detention and deportation to third countries (El Salvador).

In perspective, the events in Los Angeles today have sociological components distinct from those of other upheavals.

Its main catalyst is the structured, methodical, violent actions carried out by the Federal Government, which clearly violate the legal rights of those affected.

This time, this isn't just a case of a white police officer murdering an African American. This is the concrete expression of a white leader, who wields the full power of the Washington administration against racialized populations—Latin Americans, Arabs, Asians, and Africans—on a clearly massive, stigmatizing, and abusive scale, through an openly institutionalized aporophobia.

While the appearance of these events lies in race, the most distinctive underlying factor is the functional violence of the State on open, non-particularized scales.

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS AND THREATS AMONG OFFICIALS
The current crisis, driven by Trump's immigration measures and the social response, suggests the existence of much larger underlying variables. One of them is the possible progressive—but visible—breakdown of the American social compact. And this is a phenomenon that could be occurring in a multidimensional way.

For months, there has been a clash between the executive branch of Washington and various judicial bodies, both state and federal, over the president's immigration measures and the judicialization of numerous individual cases across the country.

This has led to open disagreements between the Executive and Judicial branches. These seemed to be a natural diatribe and a constitutional counterbalance between the country's branches of government. But what's happening in Los Angeles opens the door to new terms for a looming constitutional crisis, especially given the sociological and political variables involved.

Trump has been absolutely energetic in repelling these protests, citing his own experience following the massive social backlash over the murder of George Floyd in 2020, which undermined his first term.

But the president is applying this force just months after pardoning 1,600 detainees and those facing trial who—in his name—stormed and vandalized the Capitol in Washington four years ago.

The inconsistency and selectivity in the use of force and the law are factors that expose the "naked king," and a rupture of ties between American society and its main representative body is generated.

On the other hand, there are situations occurring right now that should be considered unprecedented due to their nature and context.

The California National Guard has been transferred to federal control and has deployed 2,000 troops to suppress the protests.

The last time the National Guard was used to combat street violence was during the King and Floyd cases, in 1994 and 2020, respectively.

The distinction in this incident, now, is that Trump deployed the National Guard to California without the consent of the state's governor, Gavin Newson. This hasn't happened since 1965, since the "Watts Riots," another violent protest by African Americans, also in the California capital.

Between 1994 and 2020, it was California's governors who asked Washington to deploy the National Guard in their state to contain the violence. But this time, the Democratic governor has stood up to Washington.

Newson sent a letter to the Department of Defense urging it to withdraw the troops it "illegally" deployed to Los Angeles, arguing that it is "violating state sovereignty."

The governor announced he will sue the federal government for what he described as an "unprecedented and illegal intervention" in the recent protests. He denounced a violation of state autonomy and promised to take the case to court.

Gavin Newson also released a letter endorsed by every Democratic governor in the country calling Trump's actions an "alarming abuse of power."

Meanwhile, during an interview with NBC News, Tom Homan, the so-called "border czar" appointed by Trump, indicated that the governor could " face arrest " for committing the "serious crime" of harboring illegal immigrants.

Homan stated that "it is a serious crime to prevent law enforcement from doing their job," referring to Newson's opposition to the deployment of 2,000 military troops to the city.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton Naval Base could be mobilized as part of the federal response to the unrest.

"These violent mob attacks are designed to prevent the removal of illegal immigrants from our territory and pose a huge risk to national security," Hegseth posted on his X account. The official added that the Marines are "on high alert."

Trump himself added a new component to this crisis: he ordered, through communication rather than administrative means, from Truth Social, to "bring the troops" to Los Angeles. He did so without specifying which military component and considering that the National Guard already had a presence on the ground.

This could be considered an ambiguous and dangerous act given the context, as it could induce social exasperation and generate an increase in events.

Trump's unilateral discretionary use of the National Guard was enforced through the United States Armed Forces Code (10 USC 12406).

This only authorizes the president to use the National Guard if the country is "invaded or in danger of invasion by a foreign nation," if "there is rebellion or danger of rebellion" against the government, or if "the President is unable to execute the laws of the United States with regular forces."

The debate, right now, is to what extent the Los Angeles context resembles what is described in this code, even though Trump refers to an "invasion" of illegal immigrants.

Several Trump administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance, have referred to an "insurrection" to refer to a supposed state of rebellion against the government.

But Trump said on Sunday, June 8, that for now, he is not prepared to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, which would empower him to federalize the entire country's National Guard and deploy the armed forces.

However, in California, the governor appears to be stretching the boundaries of the law and taking advantage of potential legal loopholes to take action, while his cabinet officials threaten to arrest Governor Newson and incite the use of marines.

While racially motivated protests have been recurrent in the United States, this time there are clearly different components, both sociologically due to the causes of the mass reaction, and politically due to the type of response that has emerged from the White House and the institutional clash that is occurring regarding the state of California.

https://misionverdad.com/globalistan/mi ... os-angeles

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply