');
The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Petras Archive
United States and Venezuela: A Historical Background
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
    List of Bookmarks

      Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world and they own it and we want it”

      (Anonymous Trump official)

      Introduction

      US hostility and efforts to overthrow the Venezuelan government forms parts of a long and inglorious history of US intervention in Latin America going back to the second decade of the 19th century.

      In 1823 US President Monroe declared, in his name, the ‘Monroe Doctrine” – the US right to keep Europeans out of the region, but the right of the US to intervene in pursuit of its economic, political and military interests.

      We will proceed to outline the historical phases of US political and military intervention on behalf of US corporate and banking interests in the region and the Latin American political and social movements which opposed it.

      The first period runs from the late 19th century to the 1930’s, and includes Marine invasions , the installation of US client dictatorships and the resistance of popular revolutions led by several revolutionary leaders in El Salvador, (Farabundo Marti), Nicaragua, (Augusto Sandino), Cuba (Jose Marti) and Mexico [Lazaro Cárdenas].

      We will then discuss the Post-WWII US interventions , the overthrow of popular governments and the repression of social movements, including Guatemala (1954), Chile coup (1973), US invasion of the Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1982),and Panama (1989).

      We will then exam US efforts to overthrow the Venezuela government (1998 to the present).

      US Policy to Latin America: Democracy, Dictatorship and Social Movements

      US General Smedley Butler summarized his 33 years in the military as a ‘muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers . . . I helped Mexico safe for American oil interest in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for National City Bank, to collect revenue . . . I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the . . . House of Brown Brothers in 1902 – 1912. I brought a light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interest in 2016. I helped make Honduras right for American fruit companies in 1903 . . . looking back on it, I could have given Al Capone a few hints’!

      During the first 40 years of the 20th century the US invaded Cuba, converted it into a quasi-colony and repudiated its hero of independence Jose Marti; it provided advisers and military support to El Salvador’s dictator, assassinated its revolutionary leader Farabundo Marti and murdered 30,000 landless peasants seeking land reform. The US intervened in Nicaragua, fought against its patriotic leader Augusto Sandino and installed a dictatorial dynasty led by the Somoza regime until it was overthrown in 1979. The US intervened in Cuba to install a military dictatorship in 1933 to suppress an uprising of sugar workers .Between 1952 – 1958 Washington armed the Batista dictatorship to destroy the revolutionary July 26 Movement led by Fidel Castro. In the late 1930s the US threatened to invade Mexico when President Lazaro Cardenas nationalized the US oil companies and redistributed land to millions of landless peasants.

      With the defeat of fascism (1941-45), there was an upsurge of social democratic governments in Latin America.But the US objected. In 1954 the US overthrew the elected Guatemala president Jacobo Arbenz for expropriating the banana plantations of United Fruit Company. It backed a military coup in Brazil in 1964, the military remained in power for 20 years. In 1963 the US overthrew the Dominican Republic’s democratically elected government of Juan Bosch and invaded in 1965 to prevent a popular uprising . In 1973 the US supported a military coup overthrowing democratic socialist president Salvador Allende and backed the military regime of General Augusto Pinochet for nearly 20 years. Subsequently, the US intervened and occupied Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989.

      US propped up rightwing regimes throughout the region which backed US banking and corporate oligarchs which exploited resources, workers and peasants.

      But by the early 1990’s powerful social movements led by workers, peasants, middle class public employees/doctors and teachers challenged the alliance of domestic and US elite rulers. In Brazil the 300,000 strong rural workers movement (MST) succeeded in expropriating large fallow estates; in Bolivia indigenous miners and peasants including coca farmers overthrew the oligarchy. In Argentina general strikes and mass movements of unemployed workers overthrew corrupt rulers allied with City Bank. The success of the popular nationalist and populist movements led to democratic elections won by progressive and leftist Presidents throughout Latin America, especially Venezuela.

      Venezuela: Democratic Election, Social Reforms and the Election of President Chavez

      In 1989 the US backed President of Venezuela imposed austerity programs that provoked popular demonstrations which led to the government ordering the police and military to repress the demonstrators: several thousand were killed and wounded. Hugo Chavez, a military official, rebelled and supported the populer uprising.He was captured, arrested, later freed and ran for presidential office.. He was elected by a wide margin in 1999 on a program of social reforms, economic nationalism, an end of corruption and political independence.

      Washington began a hostile campaign to pressure President Chavez to accept Washington’s (President Bush) global war agenda in Afghanistan and around the world. Chavez refused to submit. He declared, “You don’t fight terror with terror”. By late 2001 the US Ambassador met with the business elite and a sector of the military to oust President elect Chavez via a coup in April 2002. The coup lasted 24 hours ..Over a million people, mostly slum dwellers, marched to the Presidential palace, backed by military loyalists .They defeated the coup and restored President Chavez to power. He proceeded to win a dozen democratic elections and referendums over the following decade. President Chavez succeeded in large part because of his comprehensive program of socio-economic reforms favoring the workers, unemployed and middle class.

      Over 2 million houses and apartments were built and distributed free to the popular classes; hundreds of clinics and hospitals provided free health care in the populous neighborhoods; universities, training schools and medical centers for low income students were built with free tuition.

      Thousands in neighborhood community centers and ‘local collectives’ discussed and voted on social and political issues – including criticism and recall of local politicians, even elected Chavez’ officials.

      ORDER IT NOW

      Between 1998 and 2012, President Chavez won four straight Presidential elections,several congressional majorities and two national referendums, garnering between 56% and over 60% of the popular vote.After Chavez died President Maduro won elections in 2013 and 2018 but by a narrower margin. Democracy flourished, elections were free and open to all parties.

      As a result of the inability of US backed candidates to win elections, Washington resorted to violent street riots,and appealed to the military to revolt and reverse the electoral results. The US applied sanctions beginning with President Obama and deepen with President Trump. The US seized billions of dollars in Venezuelan assets, and oil refineries in the US. The US selected a (non-elected) new President (Guaido) who was directed to subvert the military to revolt and seize power.

      They failed: about one hundred soldiers out of 267,000 and a few thousand rightwing supporters heeded the call. The “opposition” revolt was a failure.

      US failures were predictable as the mass of voter defended their socio-economic gains; their control of local power; their dignity and respect. Over 80% of the population including the majority of the opposition – rejected a US invasion.

      US sanctions contributed to hyper-inflation and the death of 40,000 Venezuelan citizens due to the scarcity of medical products.

      Conclusion

      The US and the CIA followed in the footsteps of the past century seeking to overthrow the Venezuelan government and seize control of its oil and mineral resources. As in the past the US sought to impose a submissive dictatorship which would repress the popular movements and subvert the democratic electoral processes. Washington sought to impose a electoral apparatus which would ensure the election of submissive rulers as it did in the past and as it has done in recent times in Paraguay, Brazil and Honduras.

      So far Washington has failed, in great part because of the peoples’ defense of their historical gains. Most poor and working people are aware that a US invasion and occupation will lead to mass killing and the destruction of sovereignty and dignity.

      The people are aware of US aggression as well as the mistakes of the government.They are demanding corrections and rectifications .The government of President Maduro favors a dialogue with the non-violent opposition; Venezuelans are developing economic ties with Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Bolivia, Mexico and other independent countries.

      Latin America has experienced decades of US exploitation and domination; but it has also created a history of successful popular resistance including revolutions in Mexico, Bolivia and Cuba; successful social movements and voting outcomes in recent years in Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador and Venezuela.

      President Trump and his murderous cohort of Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams have declared war against the Venezuelan people but they have thus far been defeated.

      The struggle continues.

       
      Hide 105 CommentsLeave a Comment
      Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
      Trim Comments?
        []
      1. Mr. Grey says:

        This article reminds me of Noam Chomsky- ignore a nation’s history of corruption, coups and civil wars and only focus on when the U.S. became involved. Venezuela has a long history of political turmoil and dictatorial rule. Maybe the concern should be placed on countries to establish the rule of law and respect for basic freedoms for it’s citizens?

      2. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
        @Mr. Grey

        Please elaborate — and be sure to address Uncle Sam’s role in that “long history of political turmoil and dictatorial rule.”

        Editor: someone should take five minutes to clean up the punctuation and misspellings (“populer”) in the article.

        • Replies: @Mr. Grey
        , @Che Guava
      3. Mr. Grey says:
        @anonymous

        If you are really interested, it’s not hard to do some research. I am not going to go into detail, but even a quick summary of Venezuelan chaos over the years makes for a lengthy paragraph. Starting with the fight for independence from Spain, between 1810 until separating from Gran Columbia in 1830, Venezuela suffered a lot of death and destruction. Slavery existed until 1854. There was a bloody civil war from 1859-63. From the 1830’s to 1935 the country was ruled by caudillos, there was no democracy. This had nothing to do with the United States and everything to do with Venezuelan culture and society. European nations intervened in the early 1900’s due to failure to repay loans. The long history of dictatorships ended in 1935 only to be restored in 1937 by López. Another coup in 1945. Venezuela didn’t get around to holding a free and fair election for President until 1947. Was this the fault of Uncle Sam? Another coup in 1948. The military junta ignores the results of the 1952 electon. Military dictator Jimenez is forced out in 1958. It wasn’t until the 1963 elections that Venezuela had it’s first democratic civilian-to-civilian transfer of power. Where was the U.S. in all this? The 1960’s saw guerilla movements inspired and supported by Castro. There was a failed military revolt in 1962. It wasn’t until 1969 that an incumbent government peacefully surrendered power to an opposition electoral victor. The oil embargo in the 1970’s helps boost Venezuela’s economy, but the economy is eventually mismanaged, leading the the rise of Hugo Chavez in the 1990’s.

        This article does a nice trick of listing U.S. interventions in other countries, then segueing into a discussion of Venezuela, It gives the misleading impression that the U.S. has had a long role in disrupting Venezuela. The fact is Venezuela, like many other Latin American countries, has shown to be quite capable in creating it’s own turmoil and chaos.

      4. Mr. Grey says:
        @Mr. Grey

        I also should have mentioned that Venezuela is a founding member of OPEC. So Venezuela certainly has had it’s own effect on the U.S. economy, one could reasonably argue more than the U.S. has had on Venezuela.

      5. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
        @Mr. Grey

        Thanks for this detailed response. If you don’t mind taking a bit more time, would you agree that Uncle Sam has no justification for now attempting to change out the government in Venezuela? If not, how would you justify it?

        • Replies: @Mr. Grey
      6. Mr. Grey says:
        @anonymous

        I’m not a fan of regime change, I was very much against the Contra war, having visited Nicaragua back in the 1980’s. But now it looks like the U.S. has no choice but to take more of an active interest in preventing unrest in Latin America, since the Democrats are now for open borders and accepting any and all migrants who claim to be refugees to come to the U.S.

        • Replies: @anonymous
        , @FB
        , @Low Voltage
      7. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
        @Mr. Grey

        Thanks again, but I think that you’re rationalizing imperialism. It has become apparent that the Establishment controlling both the Republican and Democrat parties are only pretending to fight over immigration and most other issues. It’s also clear that “preventing unrest” is neither the objective nor the result of these undeclared wars. And if you don’t want migrants, the last thing you should support is your government trying to run their countries.

        Americans who want to help overthrow governments in places like Libya, Syria, and Venezuela are free to do so on their own time and dime, a la the Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War. But they would rather send the gullible 19 year old enlistee from the wrong side of the tracks.

        • Agree: Alfred
      8. @anonymous

        @annonymous

        sweet jesus you’re an unlettered idealouge…little slogans and lots of hot air.

        look, you clearly need to read up. You sling around meaningless and inapplicable worlds like ‘imperialism’

        Think Panama has the right to self-determination? Thank the U.S. they paid for their independence from Columbia, built a world changing canal and gave it back to Panama…doesnt sound imperialist to me.

        Think the the Monroe Doctrine was imperialist? By 1823 Britain was creating havoc toward virtually all countires in this hemisphere including the American republic which had no imperial designs…the Monroe doctrine kicked the British out of Central and South America and enabled the start of self-determination for virtually all of latin america…

        dont conflate a countries self-intreats (which all countries have) for imperialism.

        Finally, be honest, youve never pulled any type of pussy or a nice piece of ass with dumb talk like that…and jesus you basic ‘abraham lincoln brigade’ i can tell you’ve never read ‘homage to catalonia’

        ps i went with mr grey down to nicaragua in 1987 we went on our own during the us embargo…and we saw some bullshit…plenty of gasbags like you

      9. Logan says:
        @hotthickcock

        Sorry, but your point about Britain and the Monroe Doctrine is simply not accurate.

        The UK in fact proposed a joint declaration by the two powers putting the western hemisphere off-limits to further European colonization. This being not long after the War of 1812 the US instead issued its unilateral declaration.

        Nevertheless, the actual enforcement of European exclusion was for most of the rest of the 19th century pretty much up to the Royal Navy, as the US Navy simply didn’t have the punch.

        Britain wanted to trade with the New World, not colonize it.

        BTW, was recently in Panama, and there are certainly quite a few people there who think the US is/was imperialist. Not that this necessarily means they are right.

        • Replies: @hotthickcock
      10. Logan says:

        The funny part about this article is that the main historical interference by the US involving Venezuela was on the Venezuelan side in am 1895 border dispute with UK.

        • Agree: Mr. Grey, Colin Wright
      11. onebornfree says: • Website

        Same old story: one very large gang of crooks [US gov.] trying to overthrow another, smaller gang of crooks [Venezuela gov.], for the benefit of yet more crooks – central banks and corporations.

        All done in the name of “freedom” and “democracy” , and carried out entirely with stolen money and/or wholly counterfeit money.

        You gotta love it.

        “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”,”improved”, nor “limited” in scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature.” onebornfree

        “Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class.” Albert J. Nock

        Regards, onebornfree

        • Agree: Mark G.
      12. Biff says:
        @hotthickcock

        Think Panama has the right to self-determination? Thank the U.S. they paid for their independence from Columbia, built a world changing canal and gave it back to Panama…doesnt sound imperialist to me.

        A good friend of mine was in the U.S. army when they went down to Panama to shoot the place up. When their once installed useful stooge Noriega started to get out of line they needed a show. They needed to make an example out of him. They got a lot of people killed just for theatrics. Panamanians got to know who’s BOSS!
        My buddy ditched the army shortly thereafter saying he felt like a pawn in an ugly game of chess.

        Saddam was next.

        That my un-friend is the pure definition of imperialism.

      13. @Mr. Grey

        Actually, you are repeating here the standard prejudiced view on Latin America that is so widespread in the US and Western Europe. In Latin America, it is allegedly all chaos, corruption, treachery, violence, misery and lawlessness. I suggest you read Antonello Gerbi’s unsung masterpiece to understand the background of your prejudice. States that exhibit the rule of law, orderly government, safe streets are and were few and far between. The exception rather than the rule. A brief look at the world today will confirm this and you will agree that the US is not among those states. Perhaps Switzerland, and I presume Iceland; Singapore, Japan, North Korea. I may miss a few states, but you get my drift. These are not states where one would want to live. Not even Switzerland, where society was once described by Adolf Muschg as a tiled bathroom wall: everything out of the ordinary was squeezed into the narrow plaster between the tiles.

        There is no fundamental difference between the US and Latin America, other than that Spanish is a more beautiful language, that Latin Americans tend to have better manners (except the people south of the Mason-Dixon line), and that coffee in Latin America is often better than the sorry brew one is served in the US.

        The interventions in Latin America cannot not exclusively be blamed on the US, its ruling class and the desinterestedness and laxity of its population. They would be unthinkable without the collaboration of local elites (known as cipayos, sepoys, or vendepatria, those who sell their homeland) and their cohorts.

        Since it conquered Western Europe in 1944/45 (and Japan, for that matter), the US has been treating its newfound “allies” like it has traditionally been treating its backyard in the Caribbean and Central America. Today, all nations, except Russia, China, Iran and, of course, Israel are treated the same way: its governments just have to carry out the orders they receive from Washington. Whoever attempts to resist is a “rogue state,” a “state sponsor of terrorism” or whatever term the shortsighted, dimwitted and uneducated denizens of the corridors of power dream up.

        • Agree: Jacques Sheete
        • Replies: @Wally
        , @Mr. Grey
      14. Tadeo says:

        Come on, please. I’m Venezuelan and I had to leave the country in 1999 when Chavez came up to power. He was an ignorant snake’s oil salesman, a puppet of Cubans and Colombian drug trafficking guerrillas. Obviously, Chavez and Maduro destroyed the oil and energy infrastructure that was basically built by American, Japanese and Italian companies with competent Venezuelan engineers since 1958, making Venezuela sort of a swiss utopia in South America,
        Prior Venezuelan governments were somewhat corrupt, but society worked relatively well for 40 years and average joes like me could live, learn and even study abroad with public scholarships like the Gran Mariscal de Ayacucho’s program. I learned to speak English in the States and was able to find a job in Europe because of my higher education, coming from a humble household and thanks to my hard-working father. Now I see people like this Petras guy or other democrats or lefties defending the Chavistas and what they’ve done to the country in the last 20 years. That shows me drug money can buy lots of friendly propaganda. Venezuela was totally destroyed by Chavez, Maduro, Cabello and the rest and is now giving passports to Hezbollah, Colombian drug dealers and giving away oil and rare earth minerals to the Chinese and the Russians. Remember that every time a friend or relative of yours dies or gets addicted to cocaine and heroine peddled by these fuc****g rats

        • Replies: @Hans Vogel
      15. @Tadeo

        That shows me drug money can buy lots of friendly propaganda. Venezuela was totally destroyed by Chavez, Maduro, Cabello and the rest and is now giving passports to Hezbollah, Colombian drug dealers and giving away oil and rare earth minerals to the Chinese and the Russians. Remember that every time a friend or relative of yours dies or gets addicted to cocaine and heroine peddled by these fuc****g rats

        Really? Cocaine and Heroin are produced under the auspices of the CIA (and in Afghanistan under the watchful eye of the US armed forces and NATO vassals). The DEA is employed to eliminate competitors. Cocaine is exported to foreign markets by the CIA. Heroin finds its way to customers in US Air Force cargo planes flying it out of Afghanistan to US bases in Iraq and from there to Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo for distribution in Europe. The entire operation is funded by the US taxpayer while the profits disappear into the pockets of people like Wesley Clark.

        As far as I know, the rats are not the Chinese, Russians or your Venezuelan compatriots, but US spooks and the MIC. The drug business is far too lucrative to leave to foreigners!

        • Agree: anarchyst
        • LOL: Wally
        • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
      16. US failures were predictable as the mass of voter defended their socio-economic gains; their control of local power; their dignity and respect.

        And the USA failures in the homeland are, in large part, due to the opposite; i.e., voters don’t defend much of value but are easily seduced by the same tired old BS. Furthermore, there are extremely low titers of dignity and respect for anyone or anything. Most are content with tales of drama and being told how “great” they are.

        Meanwhile the marmelade messiah and the rest of the mafiosi continue to pick the dupes’ pockets while laughing all the way to the (international) banks.

      17. @Mr. Grey

        This article reminds me of Noam Chomsky- ignore a nation’s history of corruption, coups and civil wars and only focus on when the U.S. became involved.

        Why get involved when its none of our business? Why woould an American criticize them much before the US sticks its nose into their business? Anyway, if you’re so concerned about corruption, then go back and read the article and ask yourself why the US has long and consistently supported corruption by the most violent of means. Then remove the beam from your own country’s eye.

      18. @Mr. Grey

        I am not going to go into detail, but even a quick summary of Venezuelan chaos over …

        All of that is beside the point of the article. How about Americans mind their own business and clean up their own corruption before yapping about others’? Why is that concept so difficult?

        Anyway, if you read the article you might see that if people are left alone they may come to clean up their own act in their own way, something the US has long failed to do at least in my view of things. Maybe it’s time for us ‘Merkins to get off our high horses, roll up our sleeves, and start cleaning our own stables for once. We have plenty of work to do beyond pointing our fingers at others, and the longer we piss around, the deeper the compost gets and it has stunk to high heaven way too long already.

        In that regard it’s pretty black and white; there are no grey areas.

        • Replies: @Mr. Grey
      19. @anonymous

        Thanks again, but I think that you’re rationalizing imperialism.

        Yep, more of the same and they wonder why people, including many decent Americans, have a problem with US foreign policy.

        But they would rather send the gullible 19 year old enlistee from the wrong side of the tracks.

        Under the pretexts of liberty, democracy, and law ‘n order while shoving the bill to the US taxpaying chumps.

      20. Realist says:
        @Mr. Grey

        Maybe the concern should be placed on countries to establish the rule of law and respect for basic freedoms for it’s citizens?

        None of the US’s goddamn business.

      21. @hotthickcock

        Think Panama has the right to self-determination? Thank the U.S. they paid for their independence from Columbia, built a world changing canal and gave it back to Panama…doesnt sound imperialist to me.

        Now that’s funny. The US paid for their independence? I guess that’s one way to put it, but it amounts to a huge load of mephitic compost. Independence? That’s a good one.

      22. @Biff

        My buddy ditched the army shortly thereafter saying he felt like a pawn in an ugly game of chess.

        Your friend was correct. Smedley Butler correct, in fact.

      23. @Hans Vogel

        Agree button already used.

        I wonder how many Americans realize the extent to which many US wars are fought not only to place control of the oil markets but also the trade in opium derivatives into the hands of the East Coast establishment as well as the international banking mafiosi. The Brits’ Opium Wars were nothing compared with what the US has long been doing.

        Corruption? The rest of the world are pikers, laughably small time hoods by comparison.

      24. Wally says:

        “Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world and they own it and we want it”

        (Anonymous Trump official)

        IOW, there’s no proof that anyone said that.

      25. Wally says:
        @Hans Vogel

        said:
        “Actually, you are repeating here the standard prejudiced view on Latin America that is so widespread in the US and Western Europe. In Latin America, it is allegedly all chaos, corruption, treachery, violence, misery and lawlessness. I suggest you read Antonello Gerbi’s unsung masterpiece to understand the background of your prejudice. States that exhibit the rule of law, orderly government, safe streets are and were few and far between. The exception rather than the rule. A brief look at the world today will confirm this and you will agree that the US is not among those states”

        Yep, that must be why countless millions of Latin Americans are flocking to the US.

        said:
        “Not even Switzerland, where society was once described by Adolf Muschg as a tiled bathroom wall: everything out of the ordinary was squeezed into the narrow plaster between the tiles. ”

        Please show us the original German document where Hitler supposedly said that.

        • Replies: @RobinG
      26. Che Guava says:
        @anonymous

        I agree, very imperfect myself after a few or too many drinks, second language and lazy entry, but I am usually trying, for the last year or so, to be correct.

        Since I was reading the article by `Professor` Petras when absolutely sober (which I am not now), the number of basic errors was surprising me.

        Even an `a` `an` choice error. He never is replying to comments here, but it is making me think `Are you truly literate, “Professor”?`.

        It is not the job of unz.com to correct his several errors, it is the job of the `professor`before posting the article.

        Many interesting comments on this, but the article has nothing that anyone who is not a party-hard teen or twenties person, or an ultra-left moron of the type (almost) unique to the west, and who is reading, does not already know.

        I am agreeing with the commentor who was saying, in summary, that much of central and South America is capable of making disasters of their own places, but it is also essential to realise that Uncle Sam has also played a central role all too many times.

      27. Hi Wally!

        Many people are named Adolf and not all Adolfs are Hitlers. I referred to the well-known Swiss author Adolf MUSCHG, not Adolf HITLER.

        As to why Central Americans and Mexicans are entering the US, good question.

        I cannot imagine why anyone with a healthy mind and body would want to go live there. Perhaps with the dumbing down process in the US now reaching its final stages, those poor Central Americans and Mexicans feel they finally have a chance of improving their living standard, which partly due to US neocolonialism has never been great. Many of them can read and write and are still capable of critical thinking. I should think also that most of those new immigrants are not obese like 50% of the US population and thus can do the kind of work all those fat and dumbed down people are incapable of.

        • Replies: @Wally
      28. Agent76 says:

        Jul 26, 2017 CIA director hints US is working to topple Venezuela’s elected government

        CIA Director Mike Pompeo indirectly admitted that the US is pushing for a new government in Venezuela, in collaboration with Colombia and Mexico.

      29. Mr. Grey says:
        @Hans Vogel

        “The interventions in Latin America cannot not exclusively be blamed on the US…”

        Thank you for agreeing with me. I don’t have prejudice against Latin America. I have enjoyed visiting several countries south of the border. All I did was recite a list of wars, coups and dictatorships. I guess one could argue that these were good things, maybe that is the prejudice of which you speak.

        • Replies: @Hans Vogel
      30. Of course, the Monroe doctrine was imperialistic. But that’s not the point. Venezuela debacle shows that the Empire still has bark, but has no bite. The chances of Guano to become president of Venezuela are about the same as my chances of becoming the Emperor of the East. As a consolation prize, a few guanos took over former Venezuelan embassy in Washington. That’s funny: a attempt to cover up humiliating defeat in Venezuela by a pathetic “victory” in Washington, DC.

      31. Mr. Grey says:
        @Jacques Sheete

        “US hostility and efforts to overthrow the Venezuelan government forms parts of a long and inglorious history of US intervention in Latin America going back to the second decade of the 19th century.”

        I chose not to comment on the current crisis in Venezuela (trying to force Maduro from office), instead I am of the opinion that the author made an attempt to conflate the history of U.S. interventions with the history of Venezuela, to give the misleading impression that the destruction of the Venezuelan economy is the fault of the United States.

        • Replies: @Curmudgeon
      32. @Biff

        im not your friend and dont apply presentist thinking towards historical fact

        • Replies: @obwandiyag
      33. @Logan

        the british controlled sea trade theought the carribean and latin america. until
        the monroe doctrine they occupied virtually all of central america. eastern nicaragua still has english names because of that fact. read about the start of the war of 1812 and the British blockades and privateering.

        you say the us navy was basically no rival? the british marines were routed at the battle of new orleans and lost the war…and capitulated to the monroe doctrine because of that fact

        the monroe doctrine was, in its own way, responsible for latin american self determination

        however, the monroe doctrine was not responsible for latin american incompetence, greed and corruption

        • Replies: @obwandiyag
        , @Curmudgeon
      34. @Mr. Grey

        The prejudice, of 16th-century European origin, is that the New World is split between a “good” and an “evil” part (e.g. the Shakespearean antithesis between Ariel and Caliban). Over time, Northern Europeans, especially the English, Dutch and Germans have come to project everything negative on the part of the Americas conquered by the Roman Catholic Spaniards and Portuguese. This prejudice has been transferred to the US and upon closer examination, tends to color most of what is written and said about Latin America. Conversely, the blind admiration for everything US among Latin Americans also emanates from the same age-old prejudiced dichotomy. The “left” in the “West” (including James Petras, whose earlier work I really apreciate) has a tendency to invert the dichotomy and to regard everything Latin American as intrinsically positive and everything US as bad. That is why I recommended Gerbi.

        • Replies: @Curmudgeon
      35. Read the book The Secret Team, the CIA and its allies in control of America and the world by Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, for a look at how the CIA has overthrow Latin and South America governments.

        • Agree: Agent76
      36. FB says: • Website
        @Mr. Grey

        I’m not a fan of regime change…But now it looks like the U.S. has no choice…

        What a blubbering idiot…so the US ‘has no choice’ but to break international law…threatening a nation with aggression…illegal seizures of property etc…

        Your ‘arguments’ don’t hold up bozo…as ‘anonymous 340’ has destroyed your puffery…

        • Replies: @Mr. Grey
      37. @Mr. Grey

        Paid troll liar.

        • Replies: @Mr. Grey
      38. Hurray for Chavez, the poor people of Venezuela, socialism, the fight against the ineffably evil CIA, James Petras, Maduro, and all who oppose the US foaming at the mouth mad dog.

        And fie on all you lying weasels on here.

        • Agree: FB
      39. @hotthickcock

        Yes it was. The US is wholly responsible for incompetence greed and corruption in Latin America. Anyone who knows any real history knows this. Period.

        • Replies: @Colin Wright
        , @Wally
      40. @hotthickcock

        You are a retard, though. You can’t even read. He called you “un-friend,” you imbecile. And defending the US’s history in Panama is like defending, I don’t know, ax murder. Congratulations on your fine sensibilities.

      41. Wally says:
        @Hans Vogel

        – Yep, your beloved Latin America, that you do not live in because you know it’s a sh-thole, is so great that their low IQ populations are fleeing as fast as they can.

        – “Neo-colonialism”? LOL

        More laughable & tired Marxist jargon.

        – Actually the US makes crappy Latin America’s living standard higher, much higher.

        Tens of billions of untaxed dollars are remitted to laughable Latin America every year.
        https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/22/report-migrants-remittances-drain-150-billion-year-economy/

        – Obese? True some Americans are overweight, but then there’s fat Mexicans. LOL

        Let’s us know when you back up your BS and move to Latin America.

        • Troll: L.K
        • Replies: @L.K
      42. @hotthickcock

        If I understand your rationale correctly, the Monroe doctrine was valid, because of US exceptionalism. The fact that, at the time it was declared, Britain controlled a landmass to the north of the US that was 3 times the size of the US, and had colonies in Central and South America, was not to be considered. They just needed to go away and let the US have control over whatever it wanted.

        As for the Battle of New Orleans, just as in the Revolutionary War, the US was fortunate that Britain was engaged in other wars at the same time. In 1814 most of its army was busy helping defeat Napoleon, and its navy was blockading France. What was happening in North America was a distraction for them, but were still able to torch Washington, and drove the invading American forces out of Canada. Had the entirety of the British armed forces been unleashed in North America, Monroe wouldn’t have been elected President, and there would have been no doctrine.

      43. @Hans Vogel

        I don’t see any projection at all. It is irrelevant whether the Spanish and Portuguese were good or evil. The issue is that it is none of the USA’s goddam business what political system, political views, and constitutions other countries have in respect of domestic policies. If the people of Venezuela want socialism, that’s their business, not yours, or anyone else’s who is not a citizen and resident of Venezuela.
        This has dick all to do with the Latin America and their “corruption”. The US and UK, now joined by the (((banking cartel))) have been telling the world what its business (and corruption) was going to be, for more than a century. They were trying to dictate what Germany and Japan could and couldn’t do economically. That was the cause of WWII, not the horseshit served up daily by the (((owners))). All of it done at the behest of the (((bankers))) who were being denied their skimming.
        All wars are economic wars. The sooner you figure that out, the easier you’ll cut through (((government))) bullshit.

        • Replies: @Hans Vogel
      44. The Chileans overthrew Allende all by their lonesome. They have repeatedly made it quite clear, for those with any ability to hear, that they didn’t get any help from the US. They shot their own dog.

        • Replies: @L.K
        , @Miggle
      45. @Curmudgeon

        You sound a bit like Henry Ford: “all history is bunk.”

      46. L.K says:
        @Wally

        Yep, your beloved Latin America, that you do not live in because you know it’s a sh-thole, is so great that their low IQ populations are fleeing as fast as they can blah, blah

        Just as once, not that long ago, millions of Europeans left Europe for North America, Latin America, Australia, etc.
        Clearly some of the Euros who went to what became the US were very low IQ, producing imbeciles such as yourself.

        Actually the US makes crappy Latin America’s living standard higher, much higher.

        A ridiculous LIE.
        Anyway, Paul Craig Roberts, who cannot be accused of being a “Marxist” writes:
        https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/04/17/the-triumph-of-evil-2/

        What is going on is that American oil companies want to recover their control over the revenue streams from Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. Under the Bolivarian Revolution of Chavez, continued by Maduro, the oil revenues instead of departing the country have been used to reduce poverty and raise literacy inside Venezuela.

        The opposition to Maduro inside Venezuela comes from the elites who have been traditionally allied with Washington in the looting of the country. These corrupt elites, with the CIA’s help, temporarily overthrew Chavez, but the people and the Venezuelan military secured his release and return to the presidency.

        Washington has a long record of refusing to accept any reformist governments in Latin America. Reformers get in the way of North America’s exploitation of Latin American countries and are overthrown.

        With the exceptions of Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua, Latin America consists of Washington’s vassal states. In recent years Washington destroyed reform governments in Honduras, Argentina and Brazil and put gangsters in charge.

        According to US national security adviser John Bolton, a neoconservative war monger, the governments in Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua will soon be overthrown. New sanctions have now been placed on the three countries. …

        • Replies: @Wally
      47. L.K says:
        @Quartermaster

        Neocon troll quatermaster

        The Chileans overthrew Allende all by their lonesome.

        You are a LIAR.
        A series of declassified US documents have revealed the extent of America’s role in the Chilean coup, reports Jonathan Franklin
        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/10/chile.jonathanfranklin

        • Agree: AnonFromTN
      48. Leave them boys alone and let them sing their song…

      49. @Che Guava

        Professor Petras is now very old. His brain is slowing down. He is not so sharp as he used to be.
        But he is still O. K.

        • Replies: @Che Guava
      50. “A genuine man goes to the roots. To be a radical is no more than that: to go to the roots.”
        — José Martí

        For the past weeks we have following the reports, mostly biased, of the dramatic events occurring in Venezuela. There have been quite a few articles trying to explain what the problem is with Venezuela, a country that a decade ago was one of the richest in the American hemisphere. Nevertheless I will offer a very simple, one-word explanation of what I consider the cause of Venezuela’s true problem: oil.

        Yes, oil. Venezuela has one of the largest oil reserves in the world, probably larger than Saudi Arabia. This has been Venezuela’s blessing, but also its greatest curse, mostly thanks to the criminal activities of John D. Rockefeller, an evil man who once said: “Competition is a sin.”

        One of the main goals of the Rockefeller’s Standard Oil was destroying competitors by all means necessary, including threats, arson, dynamite and even assassination.[1] In order to hide his fortunes, JDR created a legal aberration called the trust. He also invented the so-called “charitable foundations,” a way to give away some of his money to avoid paying taxes while still having control over it.

        The foundations directly or indirectly under the control of the Rockefeller family have been a powerful force brainwashing people into accepting the New World Order they envision. Disguised by alleged good intentions, the foundations they control have promoted most of the worst things going on in America and the world, from eugenics to cultural Marxism.

        Even more, JDR invented the trust, a corporation of corporations, another aberration that has proven to be highly damaging to modern civilization. Actually, corporative capitalism, whose main goal is destroying competition, is not capitalism at all, but either Fascism [Benito Mussolini called Fascism “the corporative state.”] or Communism.

        Nevertheless, John D. Rockefeller faced a big problem: contrary to being a scarce, limited resource, as he and is minions claimed, it is an abundant commodity. The Earth holds almost limitless amounts of oil. Moreover, oil is abiotic; it is not a “fossil” fuel and has nothing to do with the dinosaurs. Actually, oil and natural gas deposits are mostly formed by inorganic means, rather than by the decomposition of organisms. [2]

        Explaining the current U.S. war drive as an imperialist fight for economic resources —the die hard leftist myth of “war for oil”— has actually helped the conspirators’ efforts in hiding their true current goals, which they have expressed on innumerable occasions: the elimination of at least 85 percent of the world’s population and the destruction of industrial civilization. This will result in the reduction of the few survivors to pre-industrial, medieval levels of consumption in a communo-fascist totalitarian system they call the New World Order. Obviously, this has nothing to do with greed and exploitation, but with something much worse and evil.

        So, once he was in control of most oil resources in the world, JDR worked hard to hide or destroy oil resources he didn’t control. A typical case was Russia.

        At the end of the 19th century, the Russians discovered a large amount of oil in Baku, near the Caspian Sea in Azerbaijan. At the time, the Baku oil field was considered the largest known oil deposit in the world. By the early 1880s, Russian crude production reached 10.8 million, almost a third of U.S. production.[3]

        As expected, Rockefeller and his criminal associates of the American International Corporation (AIC), Andrew Mellon, J.P. Morgan and Andrew Carnegie, were deeply alarmed about the Russians challenging their ambitions of controlling the world oil supply, and they began conspiring to develop a plan to stop the Russians in their tracks.[4] They concluded that the only way to achieve their goal was to depose Czar Nicholas II, and the only way to accomplish that was through a “revolution.”

        History books, mostly written by unscrupulous CFR-controlled disinformers passing as historians, have painted the Russian revolution as the result of a spontaneous uprising of the Russian exploited proletarian masses against their oppressive government.

        According to this vision, Russia’s disastrous participation in WWI, which had cost the lives of four million men, created widespread discontent. A growing economic crisis and food scarcities contributed to increase the problems. Demonstrations of people asking for food started in many cities. This chaotic situation created the conditions for the revolt that overthrew the czarist government and eventually changed Russia into the Soviet Union, a new society based on the anti-capitalist, communist principles of Marxism.

        But this vision is not exactly true.

        Mainly thanks to the efforts of scholars like Antony Sutton,[5] G. Edward Griffin[6] and others, now we know that the “spontaneous” Russian “revolution” was actually a covert operation planned and carried out by international bankers and oil magnates. It would have been impossible to succeed without the money supplied by some of the most notable millionaires at that time.

        Tsar Nicholas II already had initiated the implementation of a series of reforms directed to change Russia from a medieval into a modern society, which included the emancipation of the serfs, the creation of a Duma —a national assembly—, and rural communes. These reforms would have encouraged the Russian people to think about the possibility of a benign government in which the people would democratically participate.

        But some influential Wall Street bankers and oil magnates were not happy with these changes in Russia, and conceived another plan. In order to proceed with their plan, John D. Rockefeller, together with fellow conspirators, such as bankers Mellon and Morgan and steel magnate Andrew Carnegie, plus several of America’s robber barons, joined their resources for up to $50 million (an enormous sum at the time), and created the American International Corporation (AIC), a powerful cartel allegedly devoted to stimulate world trade. The truth, however, is that the AIC was created to fund the overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II by a small group of professional revolutionaries: the Bolsheviks.

        To this effect, between 1907 and 1910 the conspirators met several times with Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, already living in exile in New York, and with Vladimir I. Lenin, another Russian revolutionary living in exile in Zürich. Eventually the arch-capitalists struck a deal with the arch-anti-capitalists: in exchange for financing their “revolution,” the capitalists would be allowed to have a hidden hand in designing the economy of what was soon to become the Soviet Union —allegedly the staunchest anti-capitalist nation in the world.

        With the help of the conspirators, Lenin returned to Russia with plenty of gold in his famous “sealed” train, and, soon after Trotsky, under the protection of President Wilson and Colonel House, followed Lenin’s path with more gold. This gold made possible the Russian “revolution” that eliminated Russia as a competitor in the oil business.

        After the Bolsheviks they had sent to overthrow the Russian government took power over Russia, the Rockefeller’s Standard Oil bought 50 percent of the huge oil fields in the Caucasus, thus having control over the oil production in the area. Moreover, in 1927 their Standard Oil built a modern refinery in Russia and, soon after, the Vacuum Oil Company, a subsidiary of Standard Oil, made a deal with the Soviet government to market Russian oil in Europe.

        So, controlling oil production was the key goal of he Rockefellers to control competition. That was the reason why the CIA, an organization they created and controlled, orchestrated the assassination of Jorge Gaitán in Colombia, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, and Enrico Mattei in Italy, as well as the coup that overthrew Mossadegh in Iran. It was also the reason why, following David Rockefeller’s orders, Castro invaded Angola, [7] an oil producing country.

        It was also the reason why the U.S. military invaded Iraq to overthrew Saddam Hussein, after falsely accusing him of developing weapons of mass destruction, and why, more recently, the U.S. overthrew Muammar Gadaffi in Libya. It is not a coincidence that all of them wanted their countries to compete in the oil market.

        Something similar happened to Venezuela, another potential competitor the Rockefellers feared and managed to keep under their control.

        Notes:

        1. Ida Tarbell, The History of the Standard Oil Company, McClure, Phillips and Co., 1904.

        2. “Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find,” http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html. Also, Jerome Corsi, The Great Oil Conspiracy: How the U.S. Government Hid the Nazi Discovery of Abiotic Oil from the American People. For information about how the Rockefellers and their minions manage to hide America’s huge oil reserves in Alaska, see Lindsey Williams, The Energy Non Crisis.

        3. Daniel Yergin, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power, Part I (New York: Pocket Books, 1991), p. 59.

        4. John Christian Ryter, “The Secret Life of AIC,” NewsWithViews.com, March 31, 2009.

        5. Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House, 1974).

        6. G Edward Griffin, The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve (Appleton, Wisconsin: American Opinion, 1994).

        7. Castro’s soldiers protected the Gulf Oil refineries in Cabinda from “saboteurs,” and Castro was paid in dollars for their services. Half of the production of Gulf Oil in Angola ended up in U.S. refineries.
        At the time, the Rockefellers’ Gulf Oil Company reported that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (CFR) had given the company permission to pay the Castro-backed regime in Angola about $100 million in oil royalties that Gulf had placed in escrow. Gulf holds the concession to operate the oil fields in Cabinda, an Angolan province.
        In 1976, CFR agents inside the State Department pushed the Clark Amendment, named after Senator Dick Clark (CFR). The Amendment forbade the U.S. to give any help to Jonas Savimbi’s UNITA group in Angola in its fight against the Rockefeller-backed Castroite troops.
        What was the result of Castro’s victory in Angola? A few months after Castro’s troops took control of the country, Angola became one of the U.S. largest commercial partners in Africa. Chase Manhattan Bank, Bankers Trust, Citibank, and Morgan Guaranty, gave large loans to Angola. The business of General Motors, General Tire, Caterpillar, Boeing, IBM, NCR, Pfizer, Xerox, and other American corporations, flourished in the country. Ninety-five percent of Angolan oil was exported to Western countries.
        For one of the best analysis of how oil has been the true motivation behind most U.S. military actions in the XX century, see William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. Unfortunately, it has continued in the XXI century.

      51. GENTLEMAN

        Latin America has always had a small white mostly Spanish elite and vast Mestizo underclass with a population of Indians in complete poverty. And blacks in Brazil.

        No matter what, this small but powerful white Hispanic population of Basques, Andalusian and Catalan were going to remain the landowners and business elite from Mexico all the way to Buenos Aires.

        While the US has made a variety of arrangements with the Spanish in Latin America no matter what the Indians and Mulatto would seek to escape the “Hacienda” system of Latin America.
        The exception is Cuba, where it was the Spanish who fled Communism to Florida.

        With or without US interference thousands of Mestizos or Indians would flee Northwards because the history of Central America is rooted in the Red Man vs White Man struggle.

        As a result of this, the US simply gets Amerindians and Mestizos while the white Hispanics in Mexico City or Guatemala continue to enjoy life from the views of their haciendas.

      52. RobinG says:
        @Wally

        Hans Vogel: “Not even Switzerland, where society was once described by Adolf Muschg as a tiled bathroom wall: everything out of the ordinary was squeezed into the narrow plaster between the tiles. ”

        Wally: Please show us the original German document where Hitler supposedly said that.

        My God, you’re an idiot. If you weren’t such a fervently jew-hating Hitler fan-boy, you wouldn’t last a minute around here.

      53. ‘…The first period runs from the late 19th century to the 1930’s, and includes Marine invasions , the installation of US client dictatorships and the resistance of popular revolutions led by several revolutionary leaders in El Salvador, (Farabundo Marti), Nicaragua, (Augusto Sandino), Cuba (Jose Marti) and Mexico [Lazaro Cárdenas]…’

        This suggests to me we’re headed into fractured fairy tales. Leaving aside the somewhat more obscure cases of Marti and Sandino, Cardenas certainly did not lead any ‘resistance’ to the US. On the contrary, he benefitted from US support. This statement in particular is an outright falsehood:

        ‘…In the late 1930s the US threatened to invade Mexico when President Lazaro Cardenas nationalized the US oil companies and redistributed land to millions of landless peasants…’

        When Cardenas nationalized Mexico’s oil industry, Britain and others wanted to intervene. It was the US that insisted that Mexico had a right to nationalize whatever it pleased within Mexico. Look it up.

      54. @obwandiyag

        ‘Yes it was. The US is wholly responsible for incompetence greed and corruption in Latin America. Anyone who knows any real history knows this. Period.’

        The circle is completed. IQ is shown to be a wave function.

        …or something. What would be sarcasm from anybody else is sincerely meant by obwandiyag.

      55. @Servando Gonzalez

        Czar was not overthrown by Bolsheviks To claim otherwise is a historical error.
        Czar was overthrown by Democratic Duma led by Kerensky, and put on house arrest.
        Bolsheviks took power from Democrats nine months after the arrest of the Czar.

        • Replies: @Servando Gonzalez
      56. Wally says:
        @L.K

        – Indeed, Europeans left Europe, built, produced, prospered. Thanks for the reminder.

        – Unproductive Latin American ‘immigrants’ tear down, steal, and degrade.
        Just look at the countries they come from, 3rd world toilets all.

        Hell, they even know it, hence they leave the filth they created behind ….. and do the same thing all over again wherever they go. It’s hardwired in them.

        – So now you dodge the fact that tens of billions of remittance dollars are sent to these pathetic sh-tholes from the US. You just can’t handle the truth. Hurts don’t it. LOL

        – Oh wow, US companies want to do business with Venezuelan oil sources. This is news? LOL

        – Roberts doesn’t even try to present proof of his silly claims. But hey, you’re all in. LOL

        – Please present the verbatim text from John Bolton on the laughable takeover claims. You cannot because it’s bullshit.
        Besides, the last thing US wants is a bunch of 3rd world basket cases to support. We already have Puerto Rico.

        – BTW, Venezuela used to be a decent country, by Latin America’s lowly standards, before your beloved Communists took over. Ah.

        – You are a leftist faker, full of crap, and who wouldn’t dare live in a Latin American 3rd world rat hole.

        Regards.

      57. Biff says:
        @Servando Gonzalez

        Wow. Quite the little essay you got there. You should be a columnist.

      58. Wally says:
        @obwandiyag

        said:
        “The US is wholly responsible for incompetence greed and corruption in Latin America. Anyone who knows any real history knows this. Period.”

        You mean Communist propaganda “history” which doesn’t pass the smell test.

        BTW:
        Tens of billions of untaxed dollars are remitted to parasitic Latin America every year from the US:
        https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/22/report-migrants-remittances-drain-150-billion-year-economy/

        • Replies: @jeff stryker
      59. @Wally

        WALLY

        The intrinsic problem of 10% of the population of Latin America descended from Spanish landowners controlling the economy while Indians live in squalor would not be different without US intervention.

        • Replies: @Wally
      60. @Servando Gonzalez

        SERVANDO

        Spanish elites in Latin America would keep control of the economy and Mestizos and Indians would have to come to America anyhow.

      61. MY FELLOW POSTERS

        Amerindians and Mestizos of mostly Indian ancestry would flee Central America no matter what because of the inherent White Hispanic Supremacy of those countries and the fact these European aristocrats don’t want to share the economic pie with Aztecs and Mayans and that Mestizos for some reason went along with the colonial caste system after Independence from Spain.

        No matter what, Amerindians would come to America because whites in Latin America own everything and the Amerindians have nothing.

        Mestizos in America would be a problem no matter what because of Aztec primitiveness or that of other Amerindian tribes which construe the majority of MS-13.

        Nothing would change this because they are Amerindians.

        • Replies: @Hans Vogel
      62. @jeff stryker

        Like some other commenters here, you are focusing merely on ethnic and racial backgrounds. However, racial purity, especially in places where different races have been living together for any length of time, is nonexistent. Everybody in Latin America is the product of miscegenation. Only the degree varies. What you call “Whites” are no exception. Even in mostly White Argentina, the traditional White elite families all have one or more Indian and Black ancestors. Not unlike the US South, where so many “Whites” also have Black and Indian forebears.

        • Replies: @jeff stryker
      63. Wally says:
        @jeff stryker

        “Indians” (migrant Asians) in the US get a free ride. What are you talking about?

        Hence millions of over breeding, crime prone, low IQ Latin American “Indians” are flooding into the US seeking the same free ride, bringing their vile habits with them. Just look at the filthy US neighborhoods they’ve created.

        Indians in Latin America that do live in squalor do so because of their own life choices. I have no compassion for such people. I’ve traveled extensively in Latin America, there are vast programs just for them and they still blow it. It’s hardwired.

        The question is, how long would Mexico continue to last without the untaxed remittances that they receive from the US. Not to mention all the free foreign aid.

        Cheers.

        • Replies: @Hans Vogel
        , @L.K
      64. @Hans Vogel

        So why do the Mexican presidents look like Vincente Fox and the illegal immigrants look like American Indians.

        Buenos Aires never had many Indians and most immigrants from Spain and Italy came as families as oppose to single males, same as North America.

        Not everyone in Latin America is a product of miscegenation. Certainly not the 10% who own everything.

        • Replies: @Hans Vogel
      65. @Wally

        You say you have traveled extensively in Latin America. I hope your Spanish and/or Portuguese is/are bettter than your German. If not, travel in those parts is a waste of money.

        Indeed there is a lot of squalor and misery in Latin America. Like in the US, where one third of the population has trouble making ends meet. Been to England? One third of the population lives off welfare, in abysmal misery and in a lousy climate with lots of rain, and dreadful beer, too. Is that all as a result of their own choice? Surely most of the poor in the US and England are not Black or Amerindian. At least not yet.

        As for the US supposedly bestowing benefits on Latin America and the rest of the world: much of the money sent home by immigrants has been earned in exchange for honest work. And the families receiving those dollars may call themselves lucky that dollars are still accepted in many places and can be used to buy Chinese consumer articles. The US no longer produces anything anybody would want.

        The only objects the US gives out for free are bombs, bullits and missiles, just ask the Iraqis, Serbs, Libyans, Vietnamese etc.

        • Replies: @jeff stryker
        , @Wally
      66. @Hans Vogel

        HANS

        Serbia was an internal beef that Europe was unable to contain and America was only reluctantly drawn into.

        From a German-American perspective, my grandparents country is merely a refugee camp that produces some nice cars. The richest grandson of a German national is now Donald Trump.

        • Replies: @Hans Vogel
      67. @jeff stryker

        Outward appearance is not a good indication. All Latin Americans are mixed, like probably most US people, or at least a plurality. What you are referring to regarding Vicente Fox and the Mexican majority is explained by the Gaussian curve, or normal distribution.

        • Replies: @jeff stryker
      68. @Ilyana_Rozumova

        You are right, but in order to avoid an article to become a book you have to cut some corners. Anyway, the fact you mention does changes the overall results.

        • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
      69. Wally says:
        @Hans Vogel

        My German is fine. My Spanish is not bad. Your logic & fact checking is nil.

        said:
        “Been to England? One third of the population lives off welfare, in abysmal misery and in a lousy climate with lots of rain, and dreadful beer, too. Is that all as a result of their own choice? Surely most of the poor in the US and England are not Black or Amerindian. At least not yet.”

        – Been there a numerous times.

        – The UK has an ever increasing Marxist government. So of course lots of people are on the dole. That IS Marxism, dumsky. They buy votes. Hence there are good reasons for Brexit.

        – Proportionate to their numbers, low IQ, unproductive blacks and browns are the overwhelming recipients of taxpayers money in the UK and everywhere.

        said:
        “As for the US supposedly bestowing benefits on Latin America and the rest of the world: much of the money sent home by immigrants has been earned in exchange for honest work. And the families receiving those dollars may call themselves lucky that dollars are still accepted in many places and can be used to buy Chinese consumer articles. The US no longer produces anything anybody would want.”

        – “Honest work” my ass. By sheer numbers they drive down the ages of working class US citizens.
        The money they send / remit is not taxed yet they use vast amounts of taxpayer paid resources / programs in the US. They are the epitome of parasites.Note that even Hispanic US citizens are surging for Trump. Oops!

        – “The US no longer produces anything anybody would want.”
        LOL.
        World export leaders in dollars:
        1 China 1,990,000,000,000
        2 United States 1,456,000,000,000
        3 Germany 1,322,000,000,000
        4 Japan 634,900,000,000
        5 South Korea 511,800,000,000
        6 France 507,000,000,000
        7 Hong Kong 502,500,000,000
        8 Netherlands 495,400,000,000
        9 Italy 454,100,000,000
        10 United Kingdom

        said:
        “The only objects the US gives out for free are bombs, bullits and missiles, just ask the Iraqis, Serbs, Libyans, Vietnamese etc.”

        – Yep we all now about the issue of the MIC which I detest.
        But so what?
        We’re talking about dumb, parasitical Latin Americans here, you’re merely trying to change the subject.

        I suggest you quit digging, you are vastly over matched.

        Cheers.

        • Replies: @Hans Vogel
        , @Curmudgeon
      70. @jeff stryker

        I am afraid you are wrong about Serbia. The US owns Europe (unfortunately) and has the last say in all key issues. The EU is a US vassal organization. NATO is a an organization providing mercenaries for US military adventures. The war against Serbia was about destroying a strong, proud state that was considered an obstacle to US interests. The US wanted military facilities there and therefore created Kosovo (then a Serb province, actually the historical heartland of Serbia), and today a rogue state if there ever was one, run by a bunch of ruthless killers and organ smugglers. And the US is the protector of the Balkan Mohammedans, in Bosnia, Macedonia, Kosovo, Albania and Bulgaria. So, no “internal beef that Europe was unable to contain.” I presume you are referring here to the “European Union,” better referred to as the Fourth Reich, a brutal dictatorship in anything but name.

      71. @Wally

        You are quite good at labeling and name-calling, please do not confuse that ability with reasoning or intelligence.

      72. @Hans Vogel

        German-American here

        No, African-Americans do not want to “mix” with German-Americans although blacks and Germans have lived in cities like Milwaukee together for 100 years.

        Most White Americans are descended from immigrants who arrived from 1880-1920 for the most part. Trump is pretty typical-his father was CONCEIVED in Germany but born in New York. His mother was born in Scotland.

        Natives died or were marginalized too quickly for whites to intermarry with them.

        Also, you have to remember that MORE women than men in some instances immigrated from places like Italy. At one point, more women immigrated from Ireland to American than males. Latin America received mostly males except for Cuba.

        • Replies: @L.K
        , @Hans Vogel
      73. L.K says:
        @Wally

        I’ve traveled extensively in Latin America

        There you go, LYING again. Pinocchio would be proud.

        My point re the massive European immigration in the 19 and 20th centuries is quite simple;

        Overpopulation, poverty, unemployment, to say nothing of wars, were quite common in Europe and drove people to search new opportunities in other continents.
        This includes Northern Europe btw. IOW, there were plenty of sh*holes in Europe not that long ago.

        As for remittances sent to Mexico and other countries, nobody denies it, however that is pocket change when compared to how Latin America has been & continues to be looted by the US.

      74. L.K says:
        @jeff stryker

        Latin America received mostly males except for Cuba.

        You are quite obsessed with race and ethnicity, eh?

        The above article is NOT about that and there are other places here at Unz where you one-issue types can go discuss this sort of thing.

        BTW, Uruguay, Argentina, the South and Southeast of Brazil, Chile too to some extent, received masses of European immigrant families during the 19th up until the mid-20th centuries.

        • Replies: @Hans Vogel
        , @jeff stryker
      75. @Servando Gonzalez

        Although Kerensky did put Czar on house arrest he did not confiscate his properties and bank accounts. Kerensky wanted Czar out of Russia. He did beg England France Holland and Denmark and some other West European countries to take him. All Western European countries ignored his pleas.
        Czar and his family did have huge bank accounts in Swiss banks which never were returned to Russia
        after Czar and his family were executed by Bolsheviks.

      76. @jeff stryker

        Indeed, I am familiar with US demographic history.

        You can be sure there was much more miscegenation in the US than you would be prepared to admit. Just look at US “blacks:” by any standard they are mostly “café con leche,” brown in all hues and rarely shiny pitchblack. In the Deep South, it sometimes seemed every other white I used to meet declared having “Cherokee ancestors.” May I remind you also of the fact that according to 20th-century paternity research carried out in various places in Europe, invariably at least 10% of children born are not fathered by their mother’s husband? This seems like a constant and there is no reason to believe that the situation was any different in the US.

        As for your assertion that “Latin America received mostly males except for Cuba,” I beg to differ as well. Cuba, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and Southern Brazil received over 12 million European immigrants from 1870 to about 1950. At least in Argentina and Uruguay, they effectively whitened a population that had become heavily mesticized by the late 19th century. The Black and Amerindian ancestry is in the blood but generally no longer in evidence.

        • Replies: @L.K
        , @L.K
        , @jeff stryker
      77. @L.K

        Sorry, I only later saw your apt comment. I also answered this point.

        • Replies: @L.K
      78. L.K says:
        @Hans Vogel

        Hello Hans,

        In the Deep South, it sometimes seemed every other white I used to meet declared having “Cherokee ancestors.”

        I had the same experience, doesn’t mean it is true though. For instance, a Texan dude I befriended actually told me he was “Indian”, which I found amusing considering that he and all family I met looked pretty much like your avg US white. Maybe he had a little bit of admixture, maybe he just thought he did. It is true that tens of millions of white Americans have a little admixture but it is quite low as genetic studies show. Re the US South, the following might be what you were thinking of:

        …for many base wretches amongst us take up with negro women, by which means the country swarms with mulatto bastards, and these mulattoes, if but three generations removed from the black father or mother, may, by the indulgence of the laws of the country, intermarry with the white people, and actually do every day so marry. Now, if instead of this abominable practice which hath polluted the blood of many amongst us, we had taken Indian wives in the first place, it would have made them some compensation for their lands…. We should become rightful heirs to their lands and should not have smutted our blood….”
        (The Reverend Peter Fontaine of Virginia, 1757 – quoted in Tilton, Robert S. Pocahontas: The Evolution of An American Narrative. Cambridge University Press, 1995).

        • Replies: @jeff stryker
      79. L.K says:
        @Hans Vogel

        As to the notion that all Latin Americans are mixed, well, I would say that is a stereotype. There are many who are, of course, but at least in those countries we have both mentioned, there are plenty of people who are of full European descent. Interestingly, in the South/Southeast of Brazil, one can find German dialects and food recipes that are all but gone in Europe.

        Another stereotype is that whites in Latin America only make up the super rich minorities, the 1%.
        Although the 1% is often indeed white( or at least predominantly white), in those countries that received large numbers of European immigrants, there are many who live simple lives or even live in poverty.
        Pomeranian Germans in the Brazilian Southeast:

        • Replies: @Hans Vogel
      80. gsjackson says:
        @Che Guava

        Speaking as someone who has worked in the newspaper and magazine business, and written a monthly newsletter, I can tell you that many such errors are inserted by “editors” and typesetters. First time I took the newsletter to a typesetter (this was way back in 1980) it came out with a couple dozen errors that weren’t there when I turned it in. I started checking the copy after it was laid out, and still she managed to get some errors in after I’d done that. About drove me crazy. In my honest opinion my copy benefited from an editor’s efforts only once, and that was a crazy neocon chick at the WSJ.

        • Replies: @Che Guava
      81. L.K says:
        @Hans Vogel

        An excellent book which explains how Latin America served as the laboratory where what would later become US global imperialism was first developed is Grandin’s Empire’s Workshop.

        Empire’s Workshop
        LATIN AMERICA, THE UNITED STATES, AND
        THE RISE OF THE NEW IMPERIALISM
        by historian Greg Grandin

        IN RECENT YEARS, ONE BOOK AFTER ANOTHER HAS sought to take the measure of the Bush administration’s aggressive foreign policy. In their search for precedents, these books invoke the Roman and British empires and draw lessons from postwar reconstructions of Germany and Japan. Yet they consistently ignore the one place where the United States has had its most intimate imperial experience: Latin America.

        An original and brilliant excavation of a long-obscured history, Empire’s Workshop is the first book to show how Latin America has functioned as an indispensable laboratory for America’s rise to world power. Historian Greg Grandin follows the United States’s imperial operations, from Thomas Jefferson’s aspirations for an “empire of liberty” that would govern Cuba and Spanish Florida to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy, which taught the U.S. how to use “soft power” more effectively and provided a blueprint for its postwar European and Asian “empire by invitation.”

        Empire’s Workshop is also the first book to examine how a preemptive foreign policy in Latin America, which included sponsoring coups, death-squad states, and paramilitary insurgencies, has transformed America’s domestic politics, forging today’s ruling coalition of neoconservatives, Christian evangelicals, free marketeers, and nationalists….

        • Replies: @Hans Vogel
        , @Hans Vogel
      82. Agent76 says:
        @Servando Gonzalez

        Good post Servando Gonzalez!

        The Origins of Oil – falsely defined in 1892

        Col Fletcher Prouty explains how oil was falsely classified a “fossil fuel” in 1892 and how that deception was advanced further in the 70’s by Kissinger and Rockefeller.

        • Replies: @Curmudgeon
      83. @L.K

        Thanks, that’s great! I am just finishing a book where this argument constitutes the basis of the last chapter. It appears Greg Landin beat me to it.

      84. @L.K

        Indeed, those portions of Latin America are like a storehouse of cultural and linguistic practices that have disappeared from Europe. Thirty years ago I met a Brazilian cattle specialist who spoke an ancient kind of German.

        As for Argentina, which I really know very well for having lived there, studying and teaching its history and culture, I can assure you that especially its seemingly all-white upper classes all have Amerindian and often even Black forebears. This is evident, for instance, from the thousands of family group photographs in the Whitcomb collection.

        You may recall that this reminds one of one of the causes for the collapse of the apartheid regime in South Africa. After the publication of a genealogical research article in a rather obscure specialist journal, it became known that ALL allegedly all-white Boer families, especially the most important ones, had Hottentot and Bushmen ancestors as recently as the late 1800s. Mind you, these families all seemed white as snow and the news came as a terrible shock. The myth of racial purity thus destroyed, the basis for the apartheid regime evaporated overnight.

        • Replies: @jeff stryker
      85. @Hans Vogel

        Americans in the Deep South are descended from the original British colonists and it is possible that some intermarriage took place with Cherokee women just like a few of the founding population of Iceland were Native Women traded to Vikings by tribes in Maine or Canada. A very small amount and distant.

        Most white Americans in the US North arrived during the industrialization of the late 19th or early 20th centuries like the Jews, Irish and Italians of the East Coast.

        There were no blacks in the Northern US in any significant numbers until the 20th century. Businesses intentionally imported Jews, Irish, Polish and Italians as an alternative to slavery. The Upper Midwest generally attracted Scandinavian and German families, as oppose to single bachelors.

        • Replies: @Hans Vogel
      86. @L.K

        L.K.

        This is sort of like the Amerindian DNA in Icelanders from the few Micmac women that Vikings kidnapped/traded in New England and Canada in order to have company on their long ships.

        A few of the founding population of Iceland were Native American women but the amount of Native DNA in modern-day Icelanders is extremely minute.

        Similarly, in Americans from the South with colonial British roots this Native American admixture, like that of Iceland, would be very distant.

        Also, the Northern US was populated by more recent immigrants whose great-grandparents arrived during the late 19th or early 20th centuries like Donald Trump.

        • Replies: @Curmudgeon
      87. @Hans Vogel

        HANS

        Every Buenos Aires Argentinian I met, most of whom happened to be engineers, were Italian.

        I thought there were very few blacks in Argentina. But I should state I have never been to Argentina and have avoided Latin America my entire life.

      88. @L.K

        L.K.

        I was responding to a comment about the root cause of immigration from Mexico and Central America which I suggested was the result of white Hispanics owning everything in Latin America.

        When was the last time you saw a Mexican white who looked like Vincente Fox swimming over the Rio Grande?

        • Replies: @EastKekistani
      89. Miggle says:
        @Quartermaster

        The Chileans overthrew Allende all by their lonesome. They have repeatedly made it quite clear, for those with any ability to hear, that they didn’t get any help from the US. They shot their own dog.

        I agree 100 percent. I mean with L.K. who calls you a LIAR.

        Of course you could be just a clueless, total idiot. But the obscenity of your comment is so glaring that I couldn’t stay quiet.

        The overthrow of Allende is well documented, e.g. in Mark Zepezauer’s The CIA’s Greatest Hits. Quoting him:

        The CIA interfered massively in Chile’s 1958 and 1964 elections. In 1970 its fears were realized …

        Allende had been elected.

        Horrified, President Nixon ordered the CIA to prevent Allende’s inauguration. The agency did its best to promote a military coup …

        As in Venezuela today the military stayed loyal. So the CIA “plotted with fanatics in the military” to assassinate the army’s chief of staff, General Rene Schneider.

        The killing backfired, solidifying support for Allende, who took office as scheduled.

        That approach having failed, the CIA was ordered to create a “coup climate.” (“Make the economy scream,” President Nixon told CIA Director Helms.) CIA-backed acts of sabotage and terror multiplied. … [Gets uglier and uglier.]

        He goes on (skipping a horrific paragraph):

        When the coup finally came, in September 1973, it was led by the most extreme fascist members of the military. … Allende was assassinated (some CIA apologists maintain he committed suicide—by shooting himself with a machine gun!). …

        This is Hit #17: Chile, in a hook with chapters such as Hit #3: Iran and as its last chapter, Hit #42: Yugoslavia. His chapter, Hit #8: The Bay of Pigs has a cartoon of a boat with an outboard motor, just big enough for three to travel in it, Nixon, JFK and LBJ. Along its hull in big letters are the words, “PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY”. Anyone heard that expression lately?

        The present chapter on Chile ends with:

        No wonder the CIA tries to deny it was involved in the Chilean coup. It turned a democratic, peace-loving nation into a slaughterhouse.

      90. @jeff stryker

        I am familiar with US demographic history. No need to recant textbook renderings. However, if you know of any more recent, insightful monographs, then please.

      91. Mr. Grey says:
        @FB

        I was being facetious since I made my point and was done with the conversation. But using humor is always a good way of exposing low intelligence ideologues.

      92. Mr. Grey says:
        @obwandiyag

        People like you are the reason I don’t call myself a Leftist anymore. My initial comment consisted of two things: my opinion about how the author framed his article, and secondly, a list of factual events in Venezuela. And the cartoon Left responds by saying I am paid, and only doing this to mess with… who? James Petras? When I wrote my comment, I assumed some would disagree with me, and that is fine, I enjoy debating ideas and issues with other people but how can one respond to this kind of juvenile accusation?

      93. Venezuela is racially FUBAR. Hence it is inherently beyond help and I won’t miss it if it disappears.

      94. @jeff stryker

        I was responding to a comment about the root cause of immigration from Mexico and Central America which I suggested was the result of white Hispanics owning everything in Latin America.

        Nah. The root cause is that Spaniards did not fulfill their duty to nature and completely racially whiten Latin America. This is their key mistake.

      95. Che Guava says:
        @gsjackson

        My sympathy is with you. I am always posting from a broken stupidphone here of late, so am embarassed by the number of errors in recent posts.

        My work is nearly perfect, I never drink before or during working time and, of course, do not type on a broken phone at work.

        I also have the people introducing errors at times, it is frustrating, but what can one do?

        As asides from a worker in roughly the same field, I offer a few comments on points that truly irritate me.

        On the ‘Wikipedia’, the headline for references is ‘See also’. Any time I saw that from many years ago, I was thinking it was an unnatural word order, specifically Yiddish. It makes me think of the way a cheap nasal-toned fake Jewish ‘academic’ speaks.

        The correct word order in English is ‘Also see’, not ‘see also’.

        Stopping there for now, must sleep, but anyone with a mind will know that it is true.

      96. Che Guava says:
        @Ilyana_Rozumova

        Thank you, Ilyana.

        I never intended lack of respect, and like much of what Prof. Petras is saying most of the time, but did not know what you told me until I read your comment.

      97. @Mr. Grey

        Mark my words, regime change in Venezuela will unleash at least 30 years of armed conflict in the Americas. In the end, borders from Quebec to Chile will be redrawn. At first, refugees will swarm to the US, and then they will swarm out.

      98. @Mr. Grey

        to give the misleading impression that the destruction of the Venezuelan economy is the fault of the United States.

        To suggest that the seizure of Venezuelan state assets worth tens of billions of dollars, and the imposition of sanctions (an act of war) have played no part in the destruction of the Venezuelan economy is ludicrous. All wars are economic wars. Venezuela, like Iraq, Iran, and NS Germany threatened the international banking cartel. Venezuela, Iraq, and Iran sell and sold oil in currencies other than US dollars. That threatens the value of US dollars and the Bank of International Settlements taking its cut on (manipulated) currency exchange. Part of Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution was to trade commodity for commodity, such as oil to Argentina for beef. This is similar to NS Germany’s trading structure of commodity for commodity, either in raw materials or manufactured products. Again, this is a threat to the Bank of International Settlements, which doen’t get its take, as no currency is exchanged.
        I find it curious that so few Americans oblivious to the fact that the US economy has been destroyed and is being propped up by petrodollars and printing presses. Yet, these same people are quick to claim Venezuela’s economy as being destroyed with no external intervention. The US interfered in Argentinian and Brazilian elections to get their South American Yatsyniuks in place to cut off that commodity for commodity trade.

      99. @jeff stryker

        A few of the founding population of Iceland were Native American women but the amount of Native DNA in modern-day Icelanders is extremely minute.

        Landnámabókin – the Book of Settlement for Iceland, is very specific who the founding people were and where they settled. Native American women aren’t among them. There are some, however, that say the few places with Irish or religious names indicate there were Irish monks living there, prior to 870.

      100. @Wally

        So of course lots of people are on the dole. That IS Marxism, dumsky.

        Unfortunately, on this topic, you are talking through your anal sphincter.
        Marxism is communism. Having been at university in Scandinavia, in the early 70s, and actually having met Soviets, Czechoslovakians, and East Germans who were more than willing to brag about the wonders of their system, I can tell you that you are dead wrong. Two things they didn’t understand were unemployment and taxes. The dole, for unemployed, seldom lasted more than a couple of weeks – just long enough for someone to find out why you were let go, and find another place where you were going to report for work, whether you liked it or not. Efficiency was never the goal, keeping people occupied in employment, was. Those who were repeatedly let go, were seen as social pariah. They were at risk of losing the dole and being sent to a re-education camp. As for taxes, they didn’t pay any, because the state owed everything. They kept all that they earned.

        In the same vein, the “old” Social Democrats who brought Scandinavia the world’s highest standard of living, expected people to work. The view was that the social safety net was to be in place for those unable to work, or were temporarily out of work, but people needed to be employed in a meaningful way, for their own mental and physical health. Unlike the Angl0 American model that sees unemployment as an opportunity to suppress wages, the Scandinavians saw unemployment as a drain on the economy, because people had less disposable income. One more thing, immigration was discouraged, and the few that were allowed in were required to integrate, or risk being deported.

      101. @Agent76

        Col Fletcher Prouty explains how oil was falsely classified a “fossil fuel”…

        Stalin didn’t believe it either. He had Soviet scientists study that in the 30s. They concluded that oil was abiotic and a naturally occurring substance from the earth’s core. That could explain how the Soviets were finding oil in their deep drilling, where there wasn’t supposed to be any oil.

      102. @Biff

        That my un-friend is the pure definition of imperialism.

        No, imperialism implies constructive hard work in civilizing natives and building functioning economies. This is just destruction for destruction’s sake, out of some nomad horse tribe playbook.

      103. Anounder says:
        @hotthickcock

        Can’t tell if Neocon or just Beaner who’s desperate to be seen as a proud American instead of part of what makes America mongrel trash.

      Current Commenter
      says:

      Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


       Remember My InformationWhy?
       Email Replies to my Comment
      Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
      Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Petras Comments via RSS
      PastClassics
      Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
      What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
      Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?