It is the first week of the month, meaning we can expect a new ADP jobs report on Wednesday and the foolishly much-anticipated BLS jobs report on Friday. Based upon whether jobs created in March based on the report beats or misses expectations, President Biden will either gloat about the results or talk about something else.
Biden is certainly not unique in this respect. Every president since the report was created has tried to take credit for the jobs created during his administration. In most cases, pronouncements on this subject are carefully worded to read literally that “XXX jobs were created during my administration,” acknowledging that perhaps some other factors contributed to the supposed new jobs than the dear leader’s will and mighty actions alone.
So, at least we have that.
Nevertheless, the tweet we can expect from the president on Friday, BLS willing and the creek don’t rise, will imply heavily that it was his policies that are directly responsible for the hundreds of thousands of new jobs the report says were created the previous month.
There are several problems with this whole scenario, the most serious among them being that the Federal Reserve considers this report (or an alternative report based on the same methodology) in deciding how to conduct monetary policy going forward. Voters also take these reports seriously, to the extent they remember them on election day, and certainly the pronouncements of the incumbent president on the total number of jobs created during his previous term.
The first thing people should understand is the jobs report is largely fiction. It is not a literal tabulation of the total number of jobs created minus those lost. No one knows that information. Rather, the BLS conducts a phone survey, applies some formulas, and largely guesses how many jobs were created. It’s not as if there is nothing to it, but it is a very imprecise tool. That’s why it is common for the BLS to significantly adjust its findings for previous months while reporting the latest findings. And even the adjustments are based largely on voodoo.
Think climate change models. Or Covid mortality projections from March 2020. The BLS jobs report may or may not be quite that bad. But as the great Vincent Vega would say, “It’s the same ballpark.”
But while poking holes in the methodology of the jobs report is good fun for nonbelievers in the government religion, it misses the main point: trying to ‘create jobs’ in the first place is dumb. It is economically counterproductive. It’s the opposite of what any for-profit business should be trying to do.
Whether bringing a new product to market or simply trying to remain competitive in an existing market, businesses are constantly trying to produce more products at lower cost. The most significant costs for most businesses are labor costs. Therefore, businesses are constantly trying to produce more output with less employees.
I was in the hearing aid business a few decades ago. As a minority shareholder and chief operations officer, it was my job to build out a network of retail stores, manage our manufacturing operations, and manage the relationship with a foreign manufacturer that provided us products not previously available on the American market. We also had a plan to sell less expensive hearing devices in pharmacies.
Opening our first retail store was an exciting endeavor. We had a good location in a plaza with a solid anchor on a very busy intersection. We prepared our grand opening for months and were understandably excited for our first day of business. We ran ads in all the local newspapers and looked forward to our first patient walking through the door.
The advertisements did generate phone calls, but the first one was not from a potential customer. It was from the State Department of Health, informing us there had been a complaint about one of our newspaper ads. We were required to submit a response to the complaint after which the department would make a determination of its validity and any further action against or required of us.
Obviously, the complaint didn’t come from a customer; we had no customers yet. The complaint came from a local competitor who literally waited for our first hour in business to call the state. This is the way the world works.
The complaint was found to be without merit – our ad was not misleading or out of compliance with any regulations – but it certainly took the edge off an otherwise happy day. We lived and learned.
A few years later, after confirming there were regulatory barriers to selling “assistive listening devices” (not quite hearing aids, but helpful for mild hearing loss at about 1/10th the price), we tried to lobby the state legislature ourselves. We successfully got our revision to the applicable statutes into a bill about other matters that was sure to pass and were told by the lobbyists we hired that it appeared we would be successful.
Then, on the very last day of the legislative session, the language was taken out after an all-out assault by a much better-funded set of lobbyists claiming our devices would be dangerous if not fitted by an audiologist.
Obviously, our device that peaked at 30 decibels (the average iPod at the time peaked at over one hundred decibels) posed no health risk to those who used it. But it did pose a revenue risk to those who hired the lobbyists – the audiologists. They also argued that hearing loss in some cases indicated other health issues that may not be discovered if the patient didn’t have an exam by a licensed professional before attempting to treat their hearing loss.
In 2022, the FDA approved the sale of full-blown hearing aids over-the-counter (OTC). Apparently, those other health conditions are no longer a concern. The big corporations have finally adapted their business models to include lower cost products and thus they can be allowed without small upstarts like our little firm disrupting their dominance. So, for almost twenty years, consumers were deprived of a significantly lower cost option for hearing loss for no valid reason whatsoever.
This is the way the world works.
One might ask, “How can you say there is no such thing as regulatory capture after having those experiences yourself?”
Simple. The term ‘regulatory capture’ implies there were once regulatory agencies that operated in an adversarial relationship with large corporations for the so-called “public good” that were later ‘captured’ by those corporations and made to serve the corporations’ interests. But that never happened.
‘Regulation’ itself is and has been from the very beginning a practice created by large corporations for the sole purpose of crippling or eliminating competitors.
It’s been four days since former President Donald Trump vowed to make American streets flow with blood if he is not elected in November. The media has moved on to provide other valuable information to a grateful public.
And if you believe that…
The #bloodbath farce is the latest media-driven hysteria that only serves to confirm for Trump and his supporters that the establishment media are “enemies of the people” who cannot be trusted to honestly report the time of day. It’s hard to argue with them when it comes to news about the Donald.
Less partisan or politically interested observers wistfully yearn for the “good old days” when journalists simply reported the facts of the stories they covered, regardless of their political biases, without slant or distortion. But like most memories of the 20th century, the hard-nosed, objective, just-the-facts-ma’am journalist reporting the news without prejudice or bias is a myth. Journalists were never unbiased and have distorted the news, by slant, omission, or pure fabrication, for all of American history.
The idea of the unbiased, apolitical journalist is largely a product of the Progressive Era, as are the myths of the apolitical bureaucrat, the apolitical government scientist, the apolitical government schoolteacher, etc.
These myths were central to the progressive movement because its primary goal was to replace the free decisions of individuals with the coerced decisions of government “experts.” It was essential that people believed these decisions were made purely on their technical merits and “benefit to society” and were not, in part or in whole, made for political reasons.
Nowhere was belief in this myth more important than in journalism, the conduit through which flowed the information upon which people would base their support or resistance. That’s why journalists are constantly glorified by the establishment, including by other journalists. Throughout the 20th century, they were lionized in books and films. But who were they really and did any truly “speak truth to power” in service of the public?
The early Progressive Era featured “muckrakers” such as Upton Sinclair and Ida Tarbell. The mid-20th century brought us Edward R. Murrow and the irreproachable Walter Cronkite. The later 20th century gave us Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
Supposedly, these are all heroes whose courage and relentless pursuit of the truth informed the public and checked the powerful. So says the myth. Reality begs to differ.
Well, Marjorie Taylor Green (MTG) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) agree on one thing: Congress shouldn’t pass a bill banning Tik Tok from operation within the United States under current ownership.
MTG said she opposes the bill on First Amendment grounds, citing her own ban from Twitter (Now “X”) under its previous ownership and subsequent restoration of her account once Elon Musk acquired the platform. She correctly noted that such a bill could set a precedent for a similar ban or forced sale of X, the freest of the major social media platforms and friendliest to MAGA Republicans.
MAGA jefe and current frontrunner in the 2024 presidential election, former President Donald Trump, has also publicly opposed the ban despite his own call for such a bill while president.
For her part, AOC said it “just doesn’t feel right to me.” As much as we need less feelings and more reason contributing to legislative decisions, we’ll take the win on feelz this time.
Whatever the motivations of the various players, it is refreshing to see at least this minor check on the full blown China hysteria that pervades most of the political spectrum in the U.S. As China has now become a rival world power, the D.C. empire has preyed upon all of its subjects’ worst instincts to drum up fear of all things China.
The most irrational of these is “the CCP obtaining your data.” CCP stands for Chinese Communist Party, a moniker at least as inappropriate as that of the very nationalist “Federalist Party” of 1790s America. China is an authoritarian country but no longer a communist one. As I’ve been saying for many years, the only reason China has become an economic power is because it has largely abandoned communism and embraced a market economy.
I’m old enough to remember what things were like when China was communist. When I was a child and didn’t want to “clean my plate,” i.e., finish whatever I had been served for dinner, my mother would say, “Don’t waste food; there are people starving in China.” I never agreed with the logic of this statement (how is my eating more going to help them?) but it certainly rested upon a correct premise. People were starving in China by the millions. That is the eventual end in all communist countries.
The Chinese aren’t starving anymore. The transformation didn’t take long, either. Once the decision was made to transition to a market economy, China became one of the largest economies in the world in just a few decades. As Fred Reed wrote, “the Chinese are a commercial people.” It only took the political will to abandon communism to free those commercial instincts.
This is not to say China has a laissez faire free market economy. Neither does the United States. Both countries operate market economies with massive government intervention. Which country intervenes more? That’s hard to say at this point. The U.S. has seen economic freedom greatly decline over the past several decades. China has seen economic freedom greatly increase, albeit with some pullback under current President Xi. Which one is economically freer at the moment? It probably depends upon your measuring stick.
This is all important to understanding the proposed Tik Tok ban. The legislators promoting it correctly point out that Americans having accounts on the platform are allowing their data to be mined. That data, they say, eventually ends up in the hands of the Chinese government. That’s probably also true.
2024 is a presidential election year which means both major political parties will be telling their fairy tales about how they have in the past and will again in the future, if you will only elect their man, “save America.” It’s important to remember that both political parties are “progressive” parties, however one of them may object to that appellation. The Republicans merely embody the original progressive profile: fervently Christian, Republican, and corporatist.
The only difference in the Democratic Party is the Christian part. They are equally as religious but have replaced Jesus Christ with “Gaia” or more commonly “the environment.” But otherwise, they’re essentially the same.
We will hear much this year about the supposed gulf in ideology between the two parties. One claims to champion free markets, individual liberty, and limited government, while the other claims to look out for the little guy, protect the earth for and from future generations of humans, and pursue a more “equitable” distribution of wealth.
But once in power, either party will essentially do the same thing with only slight differences in emphasis. They will both govern as progressives have governed for the past one hundred plus years. And it is important to realize that, once the sales pitch about “progress” is set aside, progressivism boils down to one, giant rip-off. Military adventurism, business regulation, fighting climate change, and even “diversity, equity, and inclusion” are all part of it.
Certainly, there are people who genuinely believe in these things, just as there were during the early progressive movement. But they are the true “useful idiots.” The people who will actually make any of the latest progressive initiatives reality are all crony capitalists in bed with the government, just like a century ago.
Before the progressive era, the traditional way for governments to rip off their citizens was military spending. The highwater mark was war. A war that would cost $150 billion in today’s dollars was made to cost $500 billion instead, with the “profits” flowing to contractors, politicians, and other parasitical fauna. So, every government that thinks it can win is on the lookout to gin up a nice, juicy little war.
But even outside of war, military spending has been and remains a scam. The United States fought a 20-year war in Afghanistan, accompanied by several other military adventures in the Middle East including the large one in Iraq. When the last of these was supposedly ended in 2021 – and before the war in Ukraine began – military spending was still scheduled to increase in 2022.
U.S. President Donald Trump, flanked by Senior Advisor Jared Kushner (standing, L-R), Vice President Mike Pence and Staff Secretary Rob Porter welcomes reporters into the Oval Office for him to sign his first executive orders at the White House in Washington, U.S. January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
When Donald Trump first ran for president in 2016, the familiar notion that a successful businessman would “run the government like a business” reemerged. We’ve heard this whenever a successful entrepreneur, usually a Republican, has run for president. Of course, the government cannot be run like a business for reasons I provided in 2012 when Mitt Romney was the latest candidate who would purportedly do so.
In short, the private marketplace runs on voluntary exchanges while the government runs on force. Success in the former does not prepare one for success in the latter. It may even make one less prepared for the intrigues of politics, as Donald Trump, Jr. seemed to be saying in his recent interview of Matt Taibbi.
But free market proponents often make the further mistake of assuming that a successful business owner will at least be prone to pro-free market policies. After all, who knows better the blessings of capitalism than a capitalist himself or herself?
This is also mistaken. While running their businesses in the marketplace, successful entrepreneurs are a great boon to society. But when it comes to policy, capitalists are terrible for capitalism. Among history’s most successful capitalists this has virtually always been true.
For the entire history of commerce, business owners have sought the aid of government power to limit or eliminate competition. In 1807, long before the Progressive Era, the New York State legislature granted Robert Fulton, inventor of the steamboat, a 30-year monopoly on steamboat traffic in the state of New York. As Thomas DiLorenzo writes in How Capitalism Saved America, this allowed Fulton to charge exorbitantly high prices until Cornelius Vanderbilt defied the legal monopoly and undercut him.
The Progressive Era itself was a bonanza of crony capitalism. The popular myth about this period has so-called “robber barons” forming monopolies and exploiting customer and employee alike until progressives like Teddy Roosevelt came along to save the day with heavy government regulation.
As Murray Rothbard proved beyond any reasonable doubt, literally no element of this popular myth is true. In fact, it is the opposite of the truth. It is true that hugely successful business owners like John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan attempted to form monopolies over various sectors of the economy. However, every attempt to do so without the government’s help ended in failure.
“You asked for miracles, I give you the F.B.I.” So said Hans Gruber, one of the greatest movie villains of all time, played to perfection by the late Alan Rickman. Gruber and his gang are thieves posing as terrorists and need to defeat an electromagnetic lock protecting hundreds of millions of dollars in securities. Although they are unable to do so themselves, Gruber tells his hacker, Theo, not to worry.
What does Gruber know that Theo does not? He knows the U.S. federal government and what local cop Al Johnson calls their “universal terrorist playbook.” The F.B.I. arrives on the scene of the supposed terrorist hostage situation and immediately orders a reluctant city employee to shut down power for ten square blocks of Los Angeles in order to cut off power to the target building. The worker complies and power to the building and the electromagnetic lock protecting the securities is cut off.
One can’t help but laugh as the criminals gleefully charge into the vault to the tune of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. But it is no laughing matter that this is a perfect metaphor for U.S. foreign policy in general, and Middle Eastern policy in particular.
In the mid-1990s, Osama bin Laden effectively said the same thing as Gruber. Knowing he could never invade or otherwise fight the United States in its own hemisphere, he said he intended instead to provoke the U.S. into invading the Middle East where it could be defeated in a war or attrition, just as he and his fellow Mujahideen had previously defeated the Soviets. That provocation came on September 11, 2001.
It is unclear if Bin Laden was actually involved in the attacks. But they were certainly carried out by likeminded people and Bin Laden had no problem with allowing Americans to assume he was the mastermind. The attacks did just what Bin Laden hoped they would do – get the U.S. to run the “universal terrorist playbook,” meaning going to war in the Middle East where its soldiers could be killed more easily, and its finances drained.
Twenty-three years later, the big, dumb U.S. empire hasn’t learned a thing. In those two decades, federal government debt has skyrocketed from less than $6 trillion to over $30 trillion. Interest on the debt alone is now over $1 trillion per year. And what have American taxpayers, present and future, received for this enormous expenditure? The Taliban has been replaced with the Taliban. Iraq now has a Shiite government that is allied closely with Iran – the same Iran whose “influence in the region” Washington constantly warns against. Libya now has the most vibrant slave trade in African history.
The real tragedy here is success or failure in any of these endeavors doesn’t affect the lives of people living in the United States one way or another. It’s just a giant rip off that funnels trillions to connected defense contractors while allowing lifelong bureaucrats in the Administrative and Deep States to continue in the delusion that they’re running the world when instead they’re running the U.S. into the ground.
“Big Johnson” from Die Hard exemplifies these would be masters of the universe perfectly. He displays the precise combination of unbridled arrogance and cluelessness as he condescends to the local rubes while being played like a fiddle by Gruber as do the Tony Blinkens and Victoria Nulands of real-world D.C. Every faction in the Middle East has played the empire for its own ends while the empire stumbles around the region like a drunk looking for a brawl. Both Israel and its regional enemies have done so, often simultaneously. So have Washington’s supposed Islamic allies. The empire sees itself as James Bond; in reality its more like Lenny from Of Mice and Men. Puppies and pretty girls beware.
“Just say it. Cry out. Mercy,” said the magistrate to William Wallace in Mel Gibson’s Braveheart (1995). Wallace had already been drawn and quartered, so the king’s torturer was not offering to save his life. He promised only an end to the torture with a quicker, more merciful death.
The Wallace of the film refuses to speak the words the king’s magistrate commands and cries “Freedom!” instead. Realizing further torture will not produce the desired result, the magistrate reluctantly gives the order to cut off Wallace’s head.
Gibson’s film is short on historical accuracy but serves as a perfect metaphor for life in America today. The citizens of the former “land of the free” are being metaphorically tortured to say the words their rulers wish them to say, whether they be “safe and effective” or “they/them” or “plucky little democracy.” For some, like Gonzalo Lira, it is not metaphorical.
Lira was an American citizen, born in Burbank, California, and living in Ukraine – the supposed “plucky little democracy” – where he had two young children. Lira was arrested in May of 2023 and charged with violating laws prohibiting certain types of speech. Specifically, Lira criticized the Zelensky government, contradicted the narrative that the Russian invasion was unprovoked, and generally painted a much more pessimistic picture of Ukrainian success in the war than was claimed by the Ukrainian government and western media.
Importantly, virtually all of the “disinformation” Lira was accused of spreading turned out to be true. As Tucker Carlson has said on more than one occasion, one is not punished for lying about the regime. One is only punished for telling the truth.
That it was not the U.S. government that tortured and killed Lira directly should fool no one. Since the U.S. overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine (for the second time) in 2014, nothing has happened in that country that wasn’t either directed or given tacit approval by the U.S. government.” We have direct evidence of that from the leaked recording of Victoria Nuland discussing her plans for who would run Ukraine with Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt.
This includes Zelensky’s nonstop shelling of civilian neighborhoods just before the Russian invasion in February 2022 and the imprisonment and death of Gonzalo Lira over the past several months.
As Daniel McAdams wrote in his piece about Lira, “One call from the White House or State Department could have saved California-born journalist Gonzalo Lira’s life.” But that phone call never came, because the U.S. government wasn’t interested in saving the life of a U.S. citizen critical of its pet project on Russia’s border. If it were, it certainly would have been easier to get Lira out of Ukraine than it was to get Brittney Griner out of Russia.
Dolly Parton is immensely talented and her talent has made her very rich. Not only can she sing, write songs, and act, but she has wisely kept control of the publishing rights to her music, meaning she receives royalties both on her own recordings of songs she wrote and those of others, like Whitney Houston’s mega-selling recording of “I Will Always Love You.” Forbes estimated her net worth at $350 million in 2021, attributing substantial portions to her publishing rights and to Dollywood, the theme park Parton cofounded in the 1980s.
As impressive as all of the above is, it begs the question: why isn’t Parton a billionaire like Paul McCartney, who doesn’t own the publishing rights to his most lucrative material, cowritten with John Lennon?
The answer given by numerous articles and popular social media memes is that Parton is not a billionaire because she has given away so much of her money to charity. One viral meme claims:
“Let’s be clear: Dolly Parton is a millionaire and not a billionaire because she *keeps giving money away. * Being a billionaire is MORAL FAILING. She gives away shockingly large amounts of money every year and is STILL RICHER THAN YOU AND I WILL EVER BE.”
Other variations encourage people to “be like Dolly.”
There are two assertions here to examine. The first is counterfactual. If Dolly Parton hadn’t given so much of her earnings away, would she today be a billionaire? It’s impossible to know for certain, but it’s certainly plausible, even likely. Let’s assume it’s true. That means Parton has foregone the accumulation of at least $650 billion in additional net worth by directing earnings she could otherwise have invested in profitable ventures towards charitable causes. The second assertion is that it is a “moral failing” to direct one’s own capital in the opposite way. This is demonstrably false even if one accepts the meme author’s moral premise.
Just as it was becoming impossible to deny the empire’s proxy war in Ukraine is lost, along comes another one.
How convenient.
Of course, we heard the usual pronouncements from U.S. politicians about their commitment to “our close ally Israel,” meaning their commitment to send billions of dollars to them, most of which will be spent with American defense contractors.
Anyone familiar with my writing over the past two decades can probably guess my position: no, not a penny. However, I also expressed my opposition to the empire dictating to Israel about how to respond. That’s the real reason for the foreign aid, besides enriching defense contractors. The empire buys compliance with its wishes.
For expressing these opinions, I was immediately called “antisemitic” on social media. If the source of this smear was the shrieking neocon harpy, Nikki Haley, or anyone of her ilk, I wouldn’t even bother to respond. But since some of this is coming from friends, both of the real world and social media variety, I thought I would write about this from a personal perspective.
I consider myself first and foremost an American. But like every American who ever lived, including “native Americans” [sic], my ancestors came from other countries. As you may have surmised from my surname, the ancestors on my father’s side came from Ireland.
So, how could an Irish American possibly understand having your country violently attacked by terrorists? Those of you with historical knowledge beyond three weeks ago are already chuckling. For the rest, Ireland was embroiled in a violent civil war for a large part of the 20th century. A religiously inspired, non-governmental paramilitary group launched frequent terrorist attacks on both government officials and civilians alike. They assassinated people. They kidnapped people. They bombed parades. You may remember a U2 song about one such incident. Good tune.
Peace was finally established in the 1990s, before I had formed much of a political philosophy. But were it still going on today, I would oppose any aid by the U.S. government to either side of the dispute and any U.S. intervention into the internal affairs of Ireland.
I suppose that makes me “anti-Celtic” to the terminally limbic currently parroting the empire’s “antisemitic” slur against me or anyone else who opposes U.S. involvement in the current conflict in Israel.
Let me say for the record that I do not hate my fellow Irishmen. That does not follow from my mere opposition to taxing Americans to subsidize them. Nor does my criticism of the Irish government’s abysmal Covid policies translate to hatred for the Irish people. One would think this goes without saying. Apparently, it doesn’t.
I can imagine there are some who consider my analogy a poor one. After all, Ireland is a “western” country of “white people” and can’t compare to what the Israelis are facing in the Middle East. While I don’t share that view, I will respond to it.
Perhaps I’ve buried the lede, but my mother’s ancestors came from Lebanon. Specifically, they were part of the Maronite Christian majority of that country before large influxes of Palestinian Muslims in 1948 and 1967. Some of my mother’s ancestors had already come to America to escape Ottoman rule before WWI. Her own parents came in the late 1920s after a financial crisis cleaned out my industrialist grandfather. But many are still there.
Beirut was once called, “The Paris of the Middle East.” It was a breathtakingly beautiful city in a country with a 5,000-year history of advanced civilization. It was all but destroyed by the same people the Israelis are fighting today.
I have relatives who were killed or displaced during the bloody civil war that raged in Lebanon 1975-90. Violence continues in Lebanon to this day thanks to the presence of Islamic paramilitary groups like Hezbollah (which is also a political party). It is not an exaggeration to say that Lebanon’s and Israel’s problems are virtually identical.
Still, I disapprove of the previous U.S. interventions in Lebanon and would oppose any new subsidies or interventions there in the future, even if ostensibly to rid Lebanon of the violent fanatics who have destroyed it. This doesn’t mean I hate my fellow Lebanese any more than I hate the Irish or the Jews, for that matter. It’s simply a political position. And it’s the right one, for several reasons.
First, I am in a political relationship (whether I like it or not) with 330 million or so other Americans, most of whom do not have familial relationships with people in Ireland or Lebanon. Said political relationship does not give me the right to force them to defend the countries of my ancestors any more than it gives them the right to do likewise to me.
I would consider it especially bad behavior on my part to try to shame other Americans into involving themselves in the affairs of other countries because I happen to have relatives there. And it would be foolhardy of them to allow me to do so.
Second, we already have quite a bit of data on the results of U.S. interventions in the Middle East and those data are not difficult to interpret. Every intervention has been an unmitigated disaster, without exception yielding results precisely opposite of the stated goals. Every. Single. One. And in return for this long train of debacles, American taxpayers have received nothing but $30 trillion in debt and an economy disproportionately skewed towards producing weapons of war that add nothing to their quality of life.
There is no reason to believe it’s going to be any different this time.
Lastly, for those naïve enough to believe the U.S. government’s involvement in this affair is humanitarian or based on any sympathy for the Jewish people, it isn’t. This is pure imperial politics, nothing more. The empire wishes to maintain its hegemony and this conflict will help it do that. It never stopped fighting the Cold War against Russia, despite the fall of the USSR.
Operating under the “Whoever controls Eurasia controls the world” thesis, the empire has done everything it can to keep Russia from establishing economic relationships with Europe or the Middle East. Thus the “humanitarian” regime-change operations in Syria and Ukraine throughout this century, in countries which “coincidentally” are home to Russia’s only warm water ports on this side of the world.
This is also the reason for the disproportionate hatred of Iran. Were Iran and Syria to form a “Shiite corridor” in the Middle East, Russia would have an opportunity to exert enormous influence in the region. That the Iraq War made this corridor far more possible by handing Iraq to the Iran-friendly Shiites is proof that the empire can be both evil and stupid at the same time.
Were Russia still supplying Europe with most of its energy through the Nordstream pipelines, the empire’s control over Eurasia would be seriously threatened.
So, the empire badgered the Russians into invading Ukraine and now has a proxy war in the Middle East to, at the very least, keep that region in a state of chaos, making it difficult for Russia (or China) to strengthen relationships there.
It’s also an opportunity for another large scale rip off of the American taxpayer. Notice that the media are already preparing the American public that this will be a “long war” that will require America’s full support. Translation: we’re about to lose Ukraine as a funding vehicle and we’re going to pivot back to the Middle East.
The empire will send billions to Israel because it wants Israel to respond to the Hamas attack in a way that will benefit the empire, not the Israeli or American people.
This not a binary choice between U.S. support or the destruction of Israel as a nation. Israel is a rich country with a modern military, including over 200 nuclear warheads. It could crush the Palestinians in Gaza in a single day and is capable of defeating every hostile nation in the region.
The empire doesn’t want that. It wants its “long war,” meaning years of funding, with complicated rules of engagement for the Israelis so that everyone can tell themselves the lie that they are not killing civilians. Meanwhile the empire can go on sucking the lifeblood out of both Israeli and American taxpayers for the benefit of its corporate partners.
One might be tempted to think it is at least a good thing that the empire restrains Israel. After all, no one wants to see the whole region turned to glass, no matter how heinous the attacks on Israel may have been.
Neither does Israel. When the war is over and the enemy defeated, Israel still has to go on existing in the region. It does them no good to create a desert around their country. Absent U.S. involvement, Israel would have to tailor its response to its consequences. It must do enough to eliminate the threat, if possible, while not going so far as to alienate the rest of the region.
Contrary to neocon talking points, Israel is not “surrounded by enemies bent on its destruction.” Egypt tried to warn Israel about the Hamas attack. Its government has no more love for the Palestinians than Israel does. Much progress has been made between Israel and its Muslim neighbors in the past decade. It is not in Israel’s nor its neighbors’ interests to return to 1967.
It is not in American taxpayers’ interest to be involved in this conflict. Americans are constantly told Israel is a “key ally” but are never told how they benefit from this alliance. They don’t. The empire benefits. And like every other empire in human history, its interests run contrary to those of its citizens.
Like Great Britain before it, America became the richest country in the world with a limited government and a free market economy. Also like Great Britain, it is bankrupting itself trying to maintain a global empire. Adding a proxy war in Israel to the debacle in Ukraine might just be the straw that breaks the camel’s back (no pun intended).
