deconstructing US imperialism

table of contents

I. introduction
II. iraq war
III. vietnam war
IV. iran
V. lesser evil
VI. world police
VII. US military budget
VIII. evil is a prerequisite to a good country

------------------------------------------------------

I. introduction

the US government is the planet’s number one purveyor of terror, wars, lies, and plunder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States#Covert_actions). if you don't listen to leftist opinions, like watch chomsky's videos on youtube or read his essays, you are misinformed. but if you only listen to leftist opinions, you are also misinformed. everything that chomsky says is true. but chomsky's opinions are from the purely moral perspective. in this rant, i will give my random thoughts about US imperialism by putting the leftist opinions into perspective. of course morality is important but if an invading army is raping my wife and daughter i'm not going to tell the rapists - "haha jokes on you because you are the bad guys and we are the good guys". normal people with common sense would rather be the perpetrator than the victim if given a choice. we would rather be an imperialist if that's what it takes to lessen the chance we will become victims of atrocities.

II. iraq war

the problem is that the choices are never that clear and simple. i agree with the left that the history of US foreign policy is riddled with atrocities and criminal acts driven on self interest by the powerful elite with no benefits to average americans. the iraq invasion killed 5 thousand of our best men and women, cost us $2 trillion, and all it did was make our enemy iran more powerful and influential in the region.

the iraq war was a strategic blunder. the king of the left, chomsky, gets upset when people call it a strategic blunder because obviously the war was very immoral. any normal person with common sense will agree with chomsky. the problem is that a person with an average conscience won't care that much (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2018/07/conscience.html). this is why chomsky said that if he becomes popular in the mainstream, he will have to examine what he is doing wrong.

most people would also think the iraq war was a necessary evil to secure our future supply of oil. it's true that america has it's own oil reserves that can sustain us for a hundred years but the technology to economically harvest america's oil and solar energy was proven to be feasible only after we already took out saddam hussein.

many are angry about the iraq war, but sadly for the left, it's not because of US atrocities but US casualties. personally, my blood boiled every time a US soldier was killed by a road side bomb in iraq. i'm not an expert so maybe i'm just missing something but i felt we should just have secured the oil wells and pipelines. i have no idea why our soldiers had to roam around the city like sitting ducks. of course it's our responsibility to rebuild iraq but after the first few roadside bomb incidents we should have adjusted our strategy. in fairness to the higher ups, the american casualties in iraq precipitously dropped as soon as it was proven that the new fracking technology can harvest america's oil reserves profitably.

the iraq war put more money in the pockets of our defense contractor oligarchs. but unlike the left, a person with average conscience won't be too upset about this because they think the defense oligarchs are also giving us the most awesome weapons such as the f-35 and patriot missiles. leftists feel people from other countries are their brothers and sisters so of course they would not care about advanced weaponry that will only be used to kill people they care about. when everyone in the world becomes a leftist, there will be no more wars and poverty. in the interim, i feel i should do whatever i can to prevent leftists from influencing our policies. the only solution to wars and poverty is for all bonafide leftists to donate to a sperm bank and all newborns should come from that sperm bank. mankind will be singing kumbaya after only a few generations.

if leftists hit the bulls eye with the  iraq war, why don't i want leftists in government? you will have to read my entire blog to get my complete answer to that question (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2018/12/table-of-contents.html). if me and steph curry makes a three-point attempt, it's very possible for me to make the shot and steph curry to miss the shot. but after 50 attempts, steph curry will surely kick my ass 100% . what if ghandi or a leftist was asked to decide whether the US should enter WW2 or not? we would all be speaking german by now. imagine if a leftist was asked to decide whether we should build the atomic bomb or not? by now the soviets and china would be taking turns raping america.

III. vietnam and the cold war

the left makes america look like the evil empire of the movie star wars. unfortunately for the left, normal people with common sense are aware that although america's powerful elite may have darth vaders and dark sith lords, america's enemies are no luke skywalkers. normal people with common sense are aware that dissidents like chomsky won't last a minute in russia, china and even iran. chomsky claims america is more fundamentalist than iran but america allows gay people to get married while iran throws gay people in jail just for having sex with each other. imagine if the princess leia skywalker would through gay people in jail just for having sex. at first i thought maybe cuba was the luke skywalker but after i googled it, i learned the cuban government is way more totalitarian and tyrannical - https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/i99ht_069_Cuba.html. i think not allowing your citizens to leave is more totalitarian than the trade embargo.

i watched the movie "the post" about the heroic efforts of americans who revealed the pentagon papers about the vietnam war. imagine what darth vader or the government of china or iran would have done to those dissidents. any normal person with common sense would think the movie was not about good vs evil. they all belonged to the same team. they simply had different "guesses" on what needed to be done. it seems to me that deep inside, mcnamara and nixon already wanted the war to end. when the american troops finally withdrew from vietnam, nixon even said, "the day we have all worked and prayed for has finally come.".  the heroes and villains were all friends. mcnamara was a friend of the owner of the post and he also confided to the main heroe daniel ellsberg that the war was hopeless. the US government did deceive the people as revealed by the pentagon papers but it was more of a blundering effort to do what's good for the country. of course it turned out the higher ups made the wrong call but it was more of an honest mistake and normal people with common sense understands that we are all just making our best guess (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/politics-for-dummies.html). personally, i feel that there are cases where the majority needs to be deceived by the opulent minority for the greater good (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/05/democracy-is-overrated.html).

any normal person with common sense understands that even if the US intentions in vietnam were immoral, it was still a good "guess" considering we live in a dangerous world. it was even chomsky himself who said "every power great or small tries to extend the extent of it's degree to coerce and control and penetrate markets and so on and so forth to get resources". this means if we don't do it, someone else will. and that someone might someday penetrate us. from a purely moral standpoint there is no justification for imperialism. but from a survival standpoint, the only reason why other countries don't do it is because they can't. i don't think the filipinos ever decided they should not colonize other countries because it's immoral. it's because filipinos simply don't have the capacity or ability to colonize other countries.

communism and socialism takes away our right to own properties. leftists try to defend socialism by claiming the ideology or government of the soviet union, maoist china and vietnam was not really socialism because the workers did not control the means of production. they admit those countries are tyrannical and totalitarian. but people with common sense thinks true socialism is also tyrannical because they take away people's freedom to own properties. it's astonishing to realize that the #1 critic of american imperialism, chomsky, also wants to take our properties and rights to own properties (libertarian socialism). he gave a thumbs up to the revolution of 1936 catalonia spain which confiscated or stole the properties (e.g. factories) of people who may have spent blood sweat and tears in building or owning them. the revolution even executed the catholic priests and burned the churches maybe it's just another mythical bloodbath but if it's true, then it scares me because my mom goes to church everyday and i'm sure she will rather burn than be forced to leave church - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/it-is-ok-to-kill-socialists.html

a super intellectual leftist can scientifically convince you that owning properties is not a moral virtue, but i'm not here to tell you "what should be". i'm here to tell you "what is". if you successfully convince a smoker that cigarettes can cause cancer, that won't cure his smoking urges. convincing people that owning properties is evil won't stop people's desire to own properties. many meat lovers i know agree it is cruel to kill and eat innocent cows and chickens but they will kill anyone who tries to ban meat.

the viet cong was an ally of the tyrannical and murderous soviet regime. but then again the argument on who is good and who is evil is irrelevant in the real world. what really matters is that they were our enemies and they were doing whatever they can to take over the world and impose their ideology on our lives. normal people with common sense knows that morality is really just a facade or a "wink wink" pretend game. in reality, morality is just a means to and end. only leftists think morality is the ultimate goal. that's why most people think leftists are lunatics.

it's hard for me to say that the end of the vietnam war was a big win for anti war activists. it was more a big win for people who don't want their sons and brothers coming home in a casket. if the US was committing twice the atrocities it was committing in vietnam but no americans were dying, i think the war would have continued until the viet congs were decimated. that's why the activists failed to stop the iraq war because we already have the weapons technology that minimizes american deaths and removes the need for a national draft. a true win of activism changes the mentality or culture. the civil rights movement and women's right's movement was a true win because it improved our culture.

note that chomsky and daniel ellsberg are good friends. which is awesome because despite the things that i've just said, i consider daniel ellsberg a true american hero (Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky Discuss Nuclear War). what makes america great is the checks and balances. i criticize chomsky a lot in my rants but that does not mean i don't consider him a super great guy. relative to chomsky, i'm just a cockroach or a mosquito. daniel ellsberg is a good example of credibility. he was working in the US government to try win the vietnam war but he realized it was wrong. unlike chomsky who has been a socialist all his life so someone with a low intellect would think chomsky was anti vietnam war only because he is a communist and him being correct is like a broken clock that is always right twice a day.

chomsky said the cold war was just a pretext for the US and the soviets to dominate their respective domains. but then he says the cuban missile crisis brought mankind very close to a nuclear war. why would there be a possibility of a nuclear war if the cold war was just a pretext? in 1999, when there was no more threat from communism, surprise surprise the US asked suharto of indonesia to step down.

but without chomsky i would be pathetically misinformed right now. example i thought putin is just a jerk for taking crimea and causing trouble in east ukraine. but i learned from chomsky that what putin did was actually justifiable. turns out NATO did not adhere to the agreement after the fall of the berlin wall that NATO would not exapand 1 inch to the east. instead NATO expanded to the point that it is now considering making ukraine a member, which  is a big threat to russia because ukraine's location has a very strategic importance to russia. in fairness, NATO expanded without a single bullet fired. the countries around russia that joined NATO joined voluntarily and willingly. similarly, the people of crimea prefer to be a part of russia by a huge majority. however, putins violent intervention in ukraine makes him no different than the bullies in the washington consensus.

IV. iran

a leftist would tell you that the US overthrew the democratically elected leader of iran. that is 100% true. but they won't tell you the whole story because they just want you to think the US is a purely evil empire. US imperialism is not always black and white. it's usually a grey area. at first i thought iran is just a victim of pure bullying. i thought america and the UK just invaded iran one day stole the oil. unfortunately for the left, there is wikipedia. which is ironic because the left has been clamoring for freedom of information and now that they finally got their wish, it's backfiring. wikipedia prevents the left from manufacturing your consent. wikipedia giveth, wikipedia taketh. wikipedia tells you what happened. my rant tells you what to learn from what happened so that you can better function and prosper in the real world. what i learned is you would have a higher quality of life if you have a leftist friend, a leftist teacher, a leftist entertainer, a leftist athlete, a leftist brother in law. but if the leader of your government is leftist, you are screwed. also you will have an extremely low quality of life if you have a trumpish friend, a trumpish teacher, a trumpish entertainer, a trumpish athlete and a trumpish brother in law.

i read in wikipedia that the conflict started when iran violated it's contract with an oil company from the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company). leftists have this stubborn tendency to ignore the risks and sufferings involved in striking it rich. the left makes us think capitalists are evil people who take advantage of the weak. but the reality is that most capitalists fail and suffer. only a few succeed. here's an excerpt from the wikipedia:

" D'Arcy hired geologist George Bernard Reynolds to do the  prospecting in the Iranian desert. Conditions were extremely harsh: "small pox raged, bandits and warlords ruled, water was all but unavailable, and temperatures often soared past 50°C".[5] After several years of prospecting, D'Arcy's fortune dwindled away and he was forced to sell most of his rights to a Glasgow-based syndicate, the Burmah Oil Company.

By 1908, having sunk more than £500,000 into their Persian venture and found no oil, D'Arcy and Burmah decided to abandon exploration in Iran. In early May 1908, they sent Reynolds a telegram telling him that they had run out of money and ordering him to "cease work, dismiss the staff, dismantle anything worth the cost of transporting to the coast for re-shipment, and come home." Reynolds delayed following these orders and in a stroke of luck, struck oil shortly after, on 26 May 1908.[5]"

as i keep saying i don't like to play the morality or blame game because if you do something bad and you get away with it then congratulations to you. but iran made her bed and now she has to lie on it. at that time UK power was deteriorating so any person would have made the same call to take over the oil infrastructure that the UK company built. unfortunately for iran, UK became like a lieutenant for the US. to make matters worse, iranian dignity, pride, and competence made them double down on their anti-western policy. unlike us filipinos who behave like prostitutes (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/04/thank-god-filipinos-are-prostitutes.html)

at first i thought america goes to the middle east to steal oil. i was surprised to learn america actually pays for the oil at fair market price. chomsky says we are there to control the oil. even if america is already overflowing with it's own oil and don't really need the oil in the middle east anymore, controlling the oil in the middle east is still vital for america's global power and influence. i understand you have more power over people if you control a resource that they desperately need. but i still don't understand what it means to "control the access to oil". i haven't heard america dictating to an oil producing country who to sell to. maybe chomsky means that in case of war or instability, america is in a military position to block the world's supply of oil. i think it has something to do with "america spends, asia lends". america needs the control and power for when the time comes when america's spending habit cannot continue any further.

note that D'Arcy took all the risk and original contract was to give 16% of profits to iran for the next 60 years. if iran asked for a higher share D'Arcy would probably have backed out of the deal because iran was a harsh and dangerous area to prospect for oil. in the real world (evil trumpish world), outside the theoretical bubble that the left lives in, a deal always has to be worth all the risk and sacrifice. when D'Arcy's operation started to be very profitable, iran wanted to raise it to 25%.

profits dropped because of the great depression and oversupply of oil in the global market. normal people would understand and expect the payments to iran to be low. but instead iran became suspicious and tensions increased. iran started harassing the oil company through taxes and other demands to exploit loopholes in the contract. if iranians were like filipinos, they would just have understood the lower payments were due to the great depression and crashing of oil prices.

i think iranians have a tendency to overreact. for the past decades my hometown cebu had lots of medical students from iran. about 8 years ago a group of iranian students went on a field trip to the mountains and their bus fell over a cliff. all the students died. my nieces where having a picnic nearby and went to see what was going on when they heard the sirens of the ambulances. ever since then the iranian government banned their students from studying in the philippines which pissed me off because all my favorite kebab restaurants closed down.

iran threatened to cancel the contract. the british oil company went to international courts to seek justice. i think the british bribed the leader of iran who suddenly sided with britain and even gave britain a new favorable contract. but note that it was iran's distrust and harrassment and not respecting the contract that started all this. contracts are the lifeblood of a strong society. if you look at messed up countries (iraq, syria, venezuela, palestine, etc ..) and great countries (israel, america, EU) it's really the ability of society to make contracts and uphold contracts that makes a difference. greece just relies on ad hoc contracts and under the table bribery system so it's imploding. that's obvious even to a low intellect like me. but what does the 2 smartest intellectuals yanis and chomsky say? it's the IMF's fault. of course the IMF is not perfect but c'mon man. the left is not making it easy for me to be unbiased and objective here. i explain this further in this rant - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/04/dont-greece-the-hand.html. chomsky even wants to do away with contracts and property rights by advocating for libertarian socialism. that's crazy. i'll rather support the crazy evangelists because at least if i work hard i will prosper - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/05/socialism-demystified.html

the british badly needed iran's oil for it's new navy. then came WWII. the soviets and british were under serious threats from the nazis so they colonized iran to secure their oil supplies for the war. after the WWII, nationalism and discontent arose in iran. meanwhile, britain was devastated by hitler and can't just give iran what it wanted in the renegotiation.

meanwhile america and saudis are making deals and contracts. because of technological advancement and US prospecting equipment and less risk or dangers in the dessert, a 50-50 deal was fair. unlike D'Arcy and the UK oil company that had to face cholera and heat exhaustion. the iranians did not understand the difference and the entire iranian population became extremely jealous of the 50-50 deal between US and the saudis.

the iranians wanted to violate the contract and nationalize the oil industry. was it right for iran to do this? that's a stupid question. the question should be, what are the risks? in the leftist bubble, you evaluate morality. in the real world, you evaluate risk. iran took the risk in provoking a mafia boss. in fact the prime minister knew it would be the worst idea because it would just lead to conflict, chaos and suffering for the rest of iran's history. at this point, the iranians were lucky their prime minister did not have the leftist poor instinct for self preservation. unfortunately, the mighty proud and high pedigree iranian people assasinated their prime minister and nationalized the oil company. THAT'S TRUE DEMOCRACY !!!  super great idea !!!.

at this point, the US was happy with saudi oil and had no interest in iran. but the US needed UK support for the korean war, and the US cannot allow iran to nationalize it's oil industry because the cancer might spread to other countries. so the US partnered with the UK in raping iran. the US government even forced US oil companies to invest in the much lower quality or less profitable oil in iran. this destroys chomsky's narrative that corporations control the US government.

now iranians are in the mob world. they are now soldiers. iran was now fair game. just like in the godfather movies, with all the brutality and killings of don corleone, they try not to harm civilians. they only whacked the mafia "soldiers" because the soldier made the choice to get into that life knowing the consequences and risks. there are many mobster movie scenes where a mobster is about to be whacked and they would be reminiscing old times and be sentimental to each other. there are no hard feelings. it's just business.

at this point "the game" was in full throttle. US response was perfect. any normal person would be impressed. first, the US tried it's best so that there will be no need to overthrow the democratically elected govt. the UK and US even consented to pseudo or quazi nationalization as a compromise. but iranians rejected the offer. so in 1953, the US and UK overthrew the iranian government under the usual pretext that it was too unstable and it could easily fall into the hands of communists. of course to leftists that's very evil. to normal people, yes it's evil but also smart and practical because if they let the iranians get away with violating the CONTRACT, this will endanger all their other foreign contracts all over the world. allowing the nationalists to succeed in iran will also inspire other 3rd world countries to do the same.

iran struck back with the 1979 islamic revolution that held 52 american hostages. that probably was not such a bad idea because they allied with the soviets who were formidable at that time. since then, iran has been a full fledged wise guy. they supplied arms and expertise to hamas and hezbollah to attack israel. the iranian president even called all muslims to wipe out israel from the face of this earth. that's a pretty serious rhetoric. iran also supported paramilitaries in iraq after saddam's ovethrow to attack US and coalition forces. you reap what you sow so if america bombs iran, the world won't really boycott US products. that is why in 2013, the US government was not afraid to declassify documents proving they were responsible for the 1953 coup in iran. people will think it was just like a sopranos episode. in 2018 iraqis were even protesting against iran involvement in their country. iran is probably starting to realize what i'm ranting here because recently, it has stopped supporting hamas and hezbollah after realizing they are only causing more harm to their allies (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2017/01/leftists-harming-the-palestinians.html). the recent protests and uprisings in iran are also making iran realize they are not mobster material. a mobster is suppose to live a life of wealth and prosperity in exchange for the risks.

what's iran's future? its' heavily dependent on oil. so if the left takes over america and reduces our oil consumption, this will crash the price of oil and iranians will suffer proverty and starvation. the left is iran's worst enemy. just kidding. the reality is that iran is building a nuclear power plant and leading the world in combating climate change (Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger).

V. lesser evil

we should vote leaders who would make an effort to put an end to US atrocities but they still need to be pragmatic and consider each decision on a case by case basis. i believe it's for the greater good that the US remains strong. i'm sure normal people with common sense feels the same way. it's not rocket science. if we isolate ourselves, another empire, possibly more viscous might step in and be very powerful. meanwhile, america becomes poorer because of lack of markets and resources.  a weak america is more susceptible to corruption and make it easier for it's enemies to control it's nukes. part 2 of this video is a warning sign - 60 Minutes" Presents: 21st Century Cons. a poor america would also make it easier for corporations to bribe government officials to bypass environmental laws which could accelerate mankind's march toward the cliff.

i feel that if we stop supporting saudi arabia in yemen, the uprising could spread to saudi arabia and topple the already unstable monarchy. the new saudi government might de-peg their currency from the US dollar and other countries could follow suite. the fall of the petrodollar could lead to a depression in america. if the US becomes too weak to protect taiwan or the philippines from china, then more deaths and suffering could erupt that would dwarf all US atrocities. the chaos could spread as mankind adjusts to the new world order. peace can only exist if the other guy has a much bigger stick.

we know the saudi government is supporting the spread of wahhabism that caused 9-11 and the terrorist attacks in UK and france. but the saudi royal family also have no choice but to appease their islamic clerics who are the only ones who can appease the saudi people and prevent an uprising. i know hundreds of thousands of children are suffering and dying in yemen because of the war.  it's a sad, ugly, but very delicate balance that could bring humanity back to the dark ages if it tips over. i learned about the dangers of the petrodollar getting de-pegged from my youtube fave kim iversen - What our government isn't telling us about Venezuela. i tried to google chomsky's opinions about the petrodollar but can't find any so maybe it's just a theory.

when the left talks about yemen all they talk about is the role of saudi arabia, the US and britain as if they are the only ones causing the problem. but when a person with common sense watches this video -  Inside The World's Worst Humanitarian Crisis, they will realize the houthis and iran are just as guilty. iran is supporting the houthis who are committing atrocities. this is another reason why normal people think the left are lunatics who wants to side with our enemies.  i watched an interview of john pilger where he points out the goal of the US is to destabilize a country like syria. but normal people with common sense knows syria and other arab countries attacked israel first in 1949. so maybe syria deserves to be destabilized.

wikileaks exposed a video showing a US military helicopter killing civilians in baghdad where a voice on the transmission urged the pilots to "light 'em all up". why wasn't there enough world outrage or condemnation? maybe because in those places you could get killed for building a christian church or a gay person can be killed or jailed just for having sex with another guy. in places like the philippines where any religion can build a church and gay people are free to have sex with one another, you don't see US drones targeting civilians. i'm not saying the US atrocities are justified. i'm just trying to explain why they are getting away with murder.

i think snowden is a decoy to distract people from paying attention to chomsky. the media portrays snowden and wikileaks as a traitor but i think anyone with common sense would think all snowden did was show everyone that the world is better off if the super power is america instead of it's enemies such as china, russia or iran. here are the 10 most important revelations in the documents he leaked - https://mashable.com/2014/06/05/edward-snowden-revelations/. a normal person with common sense people would think - that's it? i mean i actually want the NSA to violate my privacy because my biggest problem in life is nobody pays attention to me. i even wrote a super lengthy rant accusing everyone of being gay just to attract attention (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/politics-for-dummies.html). chomsky should be the one in the headlines because he reveals more US war crimes - https://www.counterpunch.org/2004/12/27/an-interview-with-noam-chomsky/. i wouldn't be surprised if snowden turns out to be a decoy working for the powerful elite.

 
i saw a video about the abu omar case. the italian government was about to arrest him for terrorism charges. abu omar is very lucky it was the CIA who abducted him, tortured him and imprisoned him for 4 years because now he is free and awarded $1.5 million. if the italians arrested him, he would probably still be in jail right now and not receive $1.5 million - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case. either way, if it was russia, china or iran that abu omar crossed paths with, bye bye abu see you in the next life. my opinions are also the typical opinions of normal low intellects with common sense that's why the super smart high intellect leftists cannot understand why there is not enough outrage towards the US atrocities.

but we should at least punish the unnecessary murders. here's an example i got from kyle kulinski's show -  Disturbing Story Of An American Wár Criminál. but (there's always a but) on second thought, for those who believe in trump's policies such as the trade war with china and allowing businesses to flourish and generate more jobs, then it's sad to think that the disgusting act of trump supporting a war criminal will have to take a backstage. however, trump's lack of action on combating climate change is also a valid reason not to vote for trump, because dying from environmental disaster is for me the biggest issue.

VI. world police

keep in mind the US is the only world's police. of course it's not perfect but it's better than nothing. imagine living in a place where there are no cops. or imagine china or russia being the world's police. china even tortures thousands of falon gong members just for practicing medition - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/rare-perspectives-on-huawei-issue.html. chomsky tries to make the world angry at america by emphasizing that america thinks it owns the world after it's leaders were asking "who lost china". but many countries like canada, japan, and the philippines are glad america acts like a mafia boss or else there would be no stopping china from invading the philipines. i also find chomsky's reaction ridiculous because a normal person with common sense would understand it's just a figure of speech just like saying "i lost my wife". only idiots would interpret that as saying he owns his wife.

besides, the US acting like a mob boss is the only way to effectively combat climate change. if america drastically reduces it's carbon emissions, this will only make oil cheap and cause oil thirsty developing economies to boom and use more oil (just like when america finally felt guilty and cut it's subsidies to the arkansas rice farmers so that haiti can be more competitive, brazil stepped in and took the place of america in undercutting the haitian farmers). chomsky cherry picks and points out that indigenous people in bolivia and ecuador are choosing to save the environment and keep their oil reserves on the ground (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/04/us-disaster-race-noam-chomsky). of course indigenous people can easily make that choice but that's because their biology is well adapted to living without air conditioning. i would rather die than live in the tropics without air conditioning. i'm sure most people all over the world would prefer to have a higher standard of living if given the chance. fossil fuel usage will skyrocket if america implements the green new deal.

hopefully social media is making it harder for the US to commit more atrocities. but the world is still a dangerous place and i don't see any reason why america can't be a fair and transparent empire. china is flexing it's muscles with acts of territorial aggression towards it's neighbors in the south china sea. i'm sure many countries would want our protection and they can pay us through fair and transparent trade deals. i think the powerful elites will make more money but this time everything is transparently negotiated and agreed upon and published on a centralized collaboration website or app, with detailed accounting or estimates on how much america is earning from each country. america will also ensure no country, including russia, iran and china is ever left out and always given some trade deals to help them prosper. i really feel if america sincerely apologizes to iran, the iranians will be happy and want to become friends again. i think all they want is respect. countries would still be encouraged to arm themselves just like in america where people own guns even if we have the best police force in the world. this will provide a check and balance and discourage america from stepping out of line. the military industrial complex in america would continue to make money.

for now, the best thing to do is educate everyone on america's atrocities so americans will vote more humane leaders like bernie sanders. left can be more effective in educating the public if they also put their message in perspective and emphasize that the world is still better off having america as the world's mafia boss. i think the lack of perspective from the left is weighing down on their supposedly important narrative. people with common sense are aware there will always be a mafias boss no matter what because in the first place there is no such thing as a world police or international state government.

america commits the most atrocities but only because it won't allow it's enemies to commit atrocities. just imagine japan right now is a free and benevolent society, yet when it was given a chance to do what it wanted, they were throwing babies up in the air and impaling them with their bayonets - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_massacre. the US don't do these kinds of atrocities directly although they tolerate their proxies smashing babies against rocks like in El Salvador.

the world is like a libertarian socialist society where the countries are the individuals so it's a free for all. in a libertarian socialist society that the leftists are strongly advocating for, i can seduce my 15 year old neighbor and never fear going to jail. my punishment will only be to go to a nice rehab center. this is another example that shows leftists live in a bubble and are very naive about true human nature. this is why i feel society will collapse if leftists become our leaders.

can you imagine if the more repressive countries like iran, china and russia get the chance to do what they want? the khmer rouge has taught us that the underdog can become the bad guys if they get a chance. in fact i even fear america might give up it's imperialist role because that would give china the freedom to do what it wants in the philippines. it's not like china is not already starting to violate our sovereignty in the scarborough shoals. i almost fainted when my leftist classmate posted in facebook we should buy norwegian battle ships to counter china's threat because to me even if the philippines and it's southeast asian neighbors spend all of it's GDP on military spending, china will still crush us like an ant in 1 second. however, i am aware i'm just an idiot compared to the more knowledgeable leftist intellectuals so i googled it. turns out the president himself agrees with me (https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/03/10/1900300/duterte-stresses-philippines-not-equipped-wage-war-china). however, president duterte is also an idiot relative to leftist intellectuals. it's a hung jury.

the mafia boss is the de facto world police. even if by some miracle your speeches about morality will convince the mafia boss to step down, there are many much worse mafia bosses waiting in line to take his place and can't wait to ravage the world. maybe there will be less violence if palestinians and iran will try to be like japan after world war 2 and just bow down to the mafia boss and it's lieutenant israel (https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2017/01/leftists-harming-the-palestinians.html). america committed the worse atrocity ever by dropping those presents in nagasaki and hiroshima yet i saw a youtube video where the japanese people celebrated in the streets welcoming the US soldiers returning to japan after the korean war. from the leftist point of view, that's just deplorable. but to me, south koreans are the smartest people in the world. that's why my fear is that the leftists will become our leaders. there is also a danger that the mafia boss might feel empowered to worsen it's abuses if everyone bows down. i doubt it based on it's treatment of japan after the war despite the pearl harbor attack.

VII. US military budget

(excerpt from https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/politics-for-dummies.html)

the mother of all context in political discourse is the national budget (~$4.1 trillion total). understanding the budget should include knowing total tax revenues (~$3.6 trillion) and national debt relative to GDP (~$21 trillion which is 100% of GDP). most of the contested policies and issues involve money therefore the core reference of most political arguments should be the national budget pie chart. people can never make an informed decision if they don't at least get a rough idea of our national budget. pundits should briefly display the pie chart of our national budget in most discussions yet they never do. it might even benefit the left because any person with common sense will be astonished at the size of the US military budget.

i did look closer into our military budget thinking maybe there is something like the missile gap scandal that is causing the bloated budget. turns out only 1/4 of the military budget is spent on weapons development. i'm not an expert but i think that's rational.  most of the military spending goes to salary, benefits and pension. which to me is a blessing in disguise because as more and more jobs are obsoleted due to automation, having a big military would serve as a universal basic income (UBI) program. when the time comes when there is too much automation we probably should start encouraging college students to volunteer in the ROTC by giving them lifetime allowance upon completion of the course. even if the world is at peace. it beats digging ditches then covering them up afterwards.

we also need to protect our markets and interests overseas and according to the experts in the left and right, our military is already over extended. both the left and right agree that america's dominance is fragile. asia lends, america spends. we are kept afloat by the confidence in the petrodollar and our strong military. we continue to control the middle east even if we are already overflowing with oil and natural gas because to control the world we need to control it's most important resource ( https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/04/deconstructing-us-imperialism.html). but most people are not smart enough to be aware of this so the budget pie chart would benefit the left because the military budget will naturally seem bloated to the untrained eye. they would want to trim $200 billion from the $700 billion military spending so that everyone gets health insurance - https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2014/05/crystal-care.html

i agree with bernies sanders that the pentagon needs to be audited. probably $50?billion in annual defense spending that can be scrutinized as potentially excessive for the times in which we live. if the audit might reveal valuable information to our enemies, at least only release the information to congressional members with security clearance like llhan omar (so i can enjoy judge jeanine's reaction).

VIII. evil is a prerequisite to a good country

before i end this rant, allow me to sneak in a more wacky theory of mine. i suspect that many of the moral virtues are just luxuries that can only be enjoyed by societies who have done evil in the past. maybe democratic virtues become a liability in societies whose people are not competent or selfless enough. maybe it's not that a country is prosperous because it's democratic. maybe it's more "a country is democratic because it's prosperous". or a country is prosperous despite being democratic. maybe there is no freedom of speech in china because it did not colonize other countries so it's not rich enough to absorb the negative effects of imperfect human beings having a say in society. unlike america who stole land from the native americans by decimating them to near extinction and enslaved black people for more than 2 centuries. the windfall profits from free land and free labor gave america the huge capital for the industrial revolution and allowed it to build a powerful military, access and control cheap resources around the globe and dominate the world markets.

i notice that being humane is correlated to competence. i am no social scientist but i notice that usually, a person is more humane if their abilities or competence is much higher than their standards or expectations (selflesness = aptitude - standards, https://ian-crystal.blogspot.com/2019/06/inborn-aptitudes-and-standards.html). example chomsky is super intelligent but i'm sure he does not crave for private jets or world domination. also, places where poor people live are usually more dangerous than places where rich people live. scandinavian countries such as norway and sweden are more humane and competent than the rest of the world. then i read in quora that the reason why scandinavian countries are more competent is because when vikings attacked a village, they killed everyone but kept the women with good genes for breeding. it's like artificial selection. although i can't find an article that verifies this. or maybe it has something to do with the theory that humans evolve better in harsh cold climates because the genes of those who are not competent enough to build a house strong enough to withstand the harsh climate will die out.

(for more of my knowledge bombs, click the "ian's knowledge bombs" banner at the top of this article and choose any article in the table of contents that piques your interest)