Within 20 to 30 years, the direct witnesses to a war begin to age out of public life.

The Iraq War began on March 20, 2003, when the United States, along with coalition forces, invaded Iraq under the pretext that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

As of June 2025, it has been 22 years and 3 months since the start of that war.

Time to repeat the good faith mistake.  It has been long enough to forget.





Yellow Cake anyone?  Twenty two years, celebrate the new ignorance.  Get yourself a big slice.





Or maybe you are not ignorant, and you just do not care.

He figures he would be a great Pope, so why not Fed Chairman?  No top job is too big for the Trumpenator!  Forget King, let's make him Pharaoh so he can be worshiped as a Living God!

His economic brilliance was so amazing with the tariffs and his Big Beautiful Budget one can only imagine how the economy would thrive if he had absolute authority over the money supply!

Fortunately, he probably can't do this, but he probably will nominate another toady ass kissing syncophant to the position who will dutifully do whatever he suggests in a tweet while taking a dump at 3amm on the WH toilet.  Get ready for negative interest rates and stratospheric hyperinflation in the second half of his term. 

As if things weren't completely FUBAR already?!?!  El Trumpo isn't just the worst POTUS in Amerikan History, he's the worst leader in all of recorded history going back to Biblical times.  Outshines Nero without question.  Bend over backwards and kiss your ass goodbye.

https://thehill.com/business/5356881-trump-criticizes-fed-chair-powell/


Trump rips Powell, suggests appointing himself to Fed

RE

Marxist Theory in Anthropology and Sociology

In the broadest sense imaginable, Marxism is a conflict-oriented economic interpretation of history based on the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It developed into two separate traditions: one political, which aimed to overthrow capitalism in favor of some form of communism, and the other academic, which is far less politically oriented. The academic tradition exists as a form of criticism, an analytical method, and a theoretical lens used to examine everything from literature and architecture to race, gender, and political economy.

The academic tradition is frequently distorted and attacked by reactionaries who will do whatever they can do divorce a connection between Marxism and economics in the popular mind.  Such a divorce in fact makes no sense since the academic tradition was developed by Marx so he could study economics.  The academic tradition being Dialectical Materialism.  It is notable that reactionaries have no idea what Dialectical Materialism is and the louder they scream the louder is their admission of ignorance (Jordan Peterson being a notable example  (K-Dogs value added content)).


Why is Marxism conflict-oriented? In their reading of history, Marx and Engels focused on technological innovation and class conflict as the driving forces behind social development and change. While this is a simplification, they argued that all societies progressed through four stages: primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. Each stage was characterized by distinct technological modes of production and the revolutionary tensions between the wealthy and the poor.

For example, in primitive communism—which Marx imagined as a Stone Age hunter-gatherer society—productive labor was shared equally. Over time, technological innovations like agriculture and animal domestication led to specialized labor, creating class divisions. Some people gained power and established laws to maintain their dominance, resulting in class conflict. This dynamic, Marx argued, drives societal change: new technology exacerbates class tensions, leading to revolutionary shifts in social organization.

That scratches the surface, but leaves way too much out.

Marxist Cultural Theory

In Marxist cultural theory, this historical interpretation was combined with a structural model dividing societies into two parts for analysis:

    The Base (Infrastructure) – This consists of the technological means of production (industry, land, natural resources) and the social interactions
    tied to economic activity (buying, selling, labor relations).

    The Superstructure – This includes media, education, religion, politics, and law—the cultural institutions that shape identities and ideologies.

In classical Marxist theory, the base and superstructure exist in a dynamic relationship, each influencing the other. Marxist sociologists and anthropologists applied this model using dialectical analysis, a method that examines social groups in terms of their conflicting interests. For instance, to understand the bourgeoisie (factory and business owners), Marxist critique would analyze how their economic interests clash with those of the proletariat (working class). The dialectical approach simplifies complex social phenomena into binary conflicts, theorizing how these tensions might resolve or lead to new social structures.
Marxist Criticism

While simplified here, these models were highly influential in the social sciences. They formed the backbone of Soviet anthropology and post-revolutionary Chinese social theory, while also shaping

I am beginning to think this video is a wolf in sheep's clothing.  That last oversimplification was disgusting.  Here is some nuance:

Gramsci's revisions to Base-Superstructure Theory

Rejection of Economic Determinism: Gramsci strongly opposed the crude interpretation that the economic base mechanically determines the superstructure. While maintaining that economic relations are ultimately foundational, he emphasized the superstructure's active role in maintaining social order.

    Two-Layered Superstructure: Gramsci divided the superstructure into:

    Political Society: The state and its coercive apparatus (law, police, military)
    Civil Society: Cultural institutions (education, media, religion) that generate consent.

    Hegemony as the Key Mechanism: The ruling class maintains power not just through economic control (base) but primarily through cultural hegemony - getting subordinate classes to accept the existing order as "common sense" via civil and social.

    Relative Autonomy: Gramsci argued superstructural elements like ideology have significant autonomy from the base and can react back upon it.
    Counter-Hegemony: Revolutionary change requires winning the "war of position" in civil society before the "war of maneuver" to seize state power.


Western academic criticism.

However, Marxism has faced significant critiques:

    Anthropological Criticisms: Classical Marxist readings of history were seen as overly deterministic and Eurocentric. They imposed a European model of development onto non-European societies, a flaw heavily criticized up through the 1970s.

    Empirical Criticisms: Since Marx viewed social science as a tool for political change, his theories (and those of his followers) were often accused of partisan bias, raising questions about the objectivity of Marxist research.

By the late 20th century, postmodernism led to a generational shift away from grand Marxist narratives. Yet, many scholars retained Marxism's focus on ideology, power, and economic critique, adapting it to analyze contemporary struggles. Thinkers like Judith Butler, Alain Badiou, Slavoj Žižek, and Axel Honneth have reimagined Marxist dialectics to examine race, gender, labor, trans rights, and minority identities.

Today, Marxism is best understood as a diverse theoretical movement with a complex past—one that reemerged as a profound critique of capitalism and its systems of exploitation, mirrored in global liberation movements.

I have to wind this up in a larger font because Marxists absolutely did not make this video.  It is a slick package that may lead you into thinking you are going to learn about Marxism watching it, but the actual fact is that this is a reactionary video that does everything it can to ignore and cancel the foundation of class struggle on which Marxism is built.

Alain Badiou, Slavoj Žižek, and Axel Honneth have all faced accusations of being reactionary.

QuoteThe dialectical approach simplifies complex social phenomena into binary conflicts.

Is an insult.  And very clever.

Dialectics Is Not Binary Reductionism – It's the Opposite

The dialectical method, properly understood, is a dynamic framework for analyzing contradictions without collapsing them into simplistic binaries. Far from being a "simplification," it reveals how apparent opposites interpenetrate, transform, and generate new syntheses through historical movement.

Should America be run like a business?

If we elect Donald Trump and let him run the country like you run a business.

If a commercial company operated the way the federal government does, then it would go immediately bankrupt.

Let me make it clear. Government should not be run like a business.

Now, of course, no one wants their tax dollars wasted. Cutting government waste is a good thing. But you must be careful and methodical. You must make precise cuts with a scalpel, not a - chainsaw! There's a big difference between cutting waste and running America like a business.

First and foremost, the goal of business is to make the most profit possible. Corporations like McDonald's and Walmart, they don't exist for the public good. They exist to maximize their shareholder returns. This often means paying their workers as little as possible.

Before I started comedy, I used to work at McDonald's making minimum wage. Do you know what it means when somebody pays you minimum wage? You know what your boss was trying to say? It's like, "Hey, if I could pay you less, I would." That's why you end up subsidizing Walmart and McDonald's with your tax dollars.

Many Walmart and McDonald's employees rely on government programs like food stamps and Medicaid to make ends meet. When McDonald's says "I'm loving it," the "it" they're referring to is the profits. The aim of government should be to make life better for the people. To provide services that help our nation achieve the common good. It's the very first sentence of the Constitution. See? Promote the general welfare.

And let's not forget.  Running a government like a business isn't just inefficient, it's dangerous. Look at what happened in the Soviet Union under Stalin. He reversed the revolutionary ideals of worker control, turning the state into a top-down autocracy that functioned like a ruthless corporation.  Exploiting labor, Stalin prioritized output over people, and he crushed dissent. The wished for "dictatorship of the proletariat" became just another dictatorship, betraying the workers it claimed to empower. A government should serve its citizens, not treat them like expendable cogs in a profit machine. State capitalism is not a replacement.

The aim of government should be to make life better for the people. To provide services that help our nation achieve the common good. It's the very first sentence of the Constitution. See? Promote the general welfare. (K-Dog's value added content)

But making people's lives better costs money and it doesn't return a profit. Wait, hold on a second. Making a profit is not the point of government. Should we gut health care services for our veterans because it's not profitable? What about inspecting our food? Should we cut Social Security and let seniors starve?

And think about schools, highways, libraries, national parks, mail delivered by the Postal Service. These are public goods that are paid for by the public and are available to everybody. That's the beauty of them.

What politicians really mean when they say they want to "run the government like a business" is they want to privatize services for their corporate backers. Wall Street would love to have its hands on your Social Security. The Trump Organization would love to turn Yellowstone National Park into a private resort for only the wealthiest to enjoy. It's not about efficiency or because these public goods "cost too much." That's rubbish.

Private corporations want to profit at your expense. But we are citizens, not customers. We're voters, not shareholders. Trump and his cabinet are not our CEO and board of directors. They are supposed to be public servants. They are supposed to be working for us.

And let's not forget Trump sucks at running businesses anyway. I can make a whole video about Trump's many, many business failures. And I have. You can watch that next. Businesses take risks in pursuit of money. That is perfectly fine. And if you run a company into the ground, you can go bankrupt like Donald Trump and start a new one. But when you take risks with the US government, you're gambling with people's lives, their constitutional rights, and their pursuit of happiness. You can't just shrug it off and start another country. Again.  The purpose of government is not to show a profit. It's to achieve the common good.

Why profit is theft

Right now, as you're listening to this, you are being robbed. A chunk of everything your hard work creates is being stolen from you. And it's a system called capitalism that's robbing you. Every day, when you check in to work for your boss, you are being taken advantage of and stolen from. You are being deprived of the full value of what you contribute.

What is a capitalist? Let me break it down. A capitalist isn't someone in a top hat burning library books to run a misery factory. Anyone who puts forward capital – money – to set workers in motion becomes a capitalist, and their goal is to turn a profit. People will tell you it's innovation, or competition, but down in the real world, it's pretty simple: capitalists have one goal, and that goal is to turn a profit. Pursuing profits to accumulate money is just how capitalism works. That's the nature of the beast. It's the single impulse of capitalism. That doesn't make capitalists personally greedy, though some might be. We're not even talking about good or evil here: capitalists need to maximize profit, to the exclusion of all other considerations, or they'll get eaten up by capitalists who are smarter or more ruthless than them. The Jungle Law. That's the jungle law of the market. So capitalists need profit to survive.

But where does this profit come from? That's where you come in. Literally. Profit comes from YOU. Here's a little thought experiment. Meet Harold. Harold has a chain of buildings full of kitchens full of ingredients. But Harold doesn't know how to make a burger himself. How does Harold get someone to make enough burgers that he can sell them and turn a profit? It's not a trick question – he pays you! Because you know how to make really good burgers. The money he uses to pay you is what we call "capital." That's money used to set production into motion.

Let's say Harold spent $1,000 buying all the ingredients in the restaurant. After you work for a few weeks there—turning the ingredients into burgers—they brought in $3,000. That's not bad! You added $2,000 worth of value to the ingredients.

But wait. You don't get all the money.

Because Harold now has $3,000 on his hands. $1,000 of that just covers the cost of the ingredients. And if you were paid for the full value of your labor, you'd be making $2,000.

But then Harold decides not to pay you for the full value of your labor. Maybe he pays you just $1,000 of the value you produced. Maybe he pays you $1,500. The Dirty Truth. No matter what, you've been stolen from. You spent more of your labor than you were compensated for. But here's the dirty truth: the story doesn't end with you and Harold. This process plays out across your city or town, your state, the country and the entire world – the rich get richer and the little guy barely gets by. We call the process – a boss's stealing from you – "exploitation." We don't mean that in an emotional sense about how we feel about it, but something that's actually a documented economic phenomenon – the gap between how much the worker produces and how much they get paid. Exploitation is a universal feature of capitalist economies. And it never ends: the system requires more and more exploitation – paying workers less, making them work more, or making them more productive without increasing wages.

When you see in the newspaper that a corporation's recording record profits, that is what they are doing: your hard work is producing more value, but you're not getting enough compensation in return. There are tens of thousands of Harolds out there. But billions of people just like you. You and Harold are two different types of people. You belong to two different classes. There's a capitalist who owns the means to produce goods and services, and there's workers who only have their own labor to survive on. The capitalists appropriate the value that the worker's labor creates and keeps it for themselves. And you are not immune from it. At any job you work at, the condition of your employment is that you produce more by your labor than you get paid. So in the capitalist system, no one is paid what they're worth. Capitalism means they get paid significantly less. All profit is value extraction. And that means that all profit is theft – from you.

This is Richard Wolff, professor of economics at the New School and founder of Democracy at Work, for the Gravel Institute.

And to make matters worse, Harolds don't just control the means of production; they also effectively control the political system. Through massive campaign donations, high-paid lobbyists, and their ownership of influential media outlets, the Harolds of the world ensure that laws and regulations are written to favor their interests, not yours. They fund the politicians who promise to cut taxes on corporations, weaken unions, and dismantle worker protections, all under the guise of "economic growth" or "job creation." This ensures that any chance you have to collectively bargain for fairer wages, safer working conditions, or a greater share of the value you create is systematically undermined. They create a system where the rules of the game are rigged in their favor, making it nearly impossible for workers to challenge the exploitation and secure a truly fair shake, or to create a more just fair, and sustainable world.

This is K-Dog, webmaster of this place on the dark web, for the Doomstead Diner.

Interview with Emmanuel Todd

Host: Hello, Emmanuel Todd. Thank you very much for accepting our invitation and coming to speak on Fréquence Populaire.
Emmanuel Todd: Thank you. I'm very happy to be here.
Host: This is a new show, and we wanted to invite you to discuss current events with your unique perspective and your method, which involves taking the long view of history. Could you tell us a bit about that?

Todd: Well, people know me for my analyses of immediate history, prospective studies, but I'm not sure they realize that when I do this, I'm simply applying techniques I learned as a student. I'm considered an intellectual rebel, but people don't see my incredible methodological conformity. For example, I focus on long-term historical variables that define societal trends beyond the actions of leaders.

While everyone obsesses over what Trump will do or what's happening on the Ukrainian front, I look at the long-term decline of the U.S. or the balance of power between the U.S. and Russia. The Annales school of history, of which I'm one of the last representatives, didn't focus on "great men" but on deeper forces. They wouldn't have taken Napoleon or Louis XIV entirely seriously—and I don't take Trump or Putin entirely seriously either, methodologically speaking.

The deep forces are the populations—it's a democratic vision of history because it concerns the whole population. The variables I study aren't ones I invented; they're what I was trained to analyze. For example, family structures vary by country—I did my thesis with Peter Laslett, the pope of traditional family structure studies. Religious history, education dynamics—these were all things we studied.

I also work on demographic variables because mortality or birth rates can't be falsified like GDP figures. Alfred Sauvy, the founder of France's National Institute of Demographic Studies, said demographic variables are much more solid than economic ones. So I prioritize rising infant mortality rates over GDP to study a society's trajectory.

I'm not original—I'm just applying methods I learned for the 17th and 18th centuries to the present, and it works remarkably well. It's a tribute to my teachers because it proves they were right.

Host: This first episode will focus on the U.S. You've written extensively about it in your latest book, The Defeat of the West. With Trump's inauguration for his second term approaching, how would you define the long-term trend of the U.S.'s position?

Todd: It's funny—right now, everyone is talking about Trump's aggressive imperial proclamations. He's suggested annexing Greenland, taking over the Panama Canal, and attacking his closest allies. But people interpret this as a sign of Trump's power. I saw a ridiculous magazine cover showing Trump spinning the globe on his finger like a master of the world—a reference to Chaplin's The Great Dictator, perhaps?

But the reality is that Trump is arriving as president of a defeated country. The U.S. is suffering its greatest humiliation in history—losing to Russia in Ukraine. The military aspect is secondary. The Ukrainians fought bravely, but their defeat comes down to two things: the U.S. couldn't supply them with enough weapons, and Russia outproduced the West.

The sanctions against Russia, meant to cripple its economy, failed spectacularly. Europe is on its knees, while Russia's economy is growing. The U.S. has lost control of the world, and Trump is inheriting this defeat.

Host: Do you think demographic indicators in the U.S. played a role in this decline?

Todd: Absolutely. If you look at demographic indicators, you see the truth immediately. The U.S. now has a life expectancy five years shorter than Europe's. Infant mortality is worse than in Russia or Belarus. Since 2022, U.S. infant mortality has started rising again. Meanwhile, Europe is more developed demographically.

Economic indicators are also misleading. The U.S. trade deficit is stable as a percentage of GDP, but since GDP is inflated, it masks growing dependency. The U.S. can't even compete in machine tool production—China, Japan, and Germany dominate that market.

And then there's education. The U.S. produces fewer engineers than Russia, despite having 2.3 times Russia's population. Americans prefer finance or law degrees—fields that make money. The U.S. lacks the skilled workforce to revive its industry.

Host: Could you assess Trump's first term? He pushed protectionism, deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, and conservative judicial appointments. In foreign policy, he sent weapons to Ukraine, withdrew from nuclear treaties, and took a hard line on Iran. Now, for his second term, he's starting with aggressive moves against allies. What do you make of this?

Todd: Trump's protectionism wasn't contradictory with deregulation—it's a form of economic liberalism. Friedrich List, the 19th-century German economist, saw protectionism as a way to shield domestic industry while keeping the economy liberal internally. But protectionism only works if you have a population capable of industrial work—and the U.S. doesn't.

Trump's policies didn't reverse inequality or rebuild industry. The U.S. is now more dependent on imports than ever. The problem isn't just Trump—it's systemic. The U.S. produces dollars, not goods. It's a rentier economy living off the dollar's dominance, oil, and the English language. But these advantages are slipping.

Host: Do you think the rise of BRICS could force the U.S. to reform?

Todd: That's an interesting idea. Historically, external competition can drive internal cohesion. But the U.S. is too far gone. Its educational collapse, deindustrialization, and moral decay are too advanced. The protestant work ethic that built America is gone.

Russia, meanwhile, has been strengthened by Western sanctions. They've been forced into a protected, state-driven economy that's now growing. The U.S. can't compete.

Host: What about Europe?

Todd: Europe is the big loser in this war. Its economies are stagnating, and its political systems are collapsing. Germany is a occupied country—the U.S. controls it. But Germany has also cleverly dismantled its own military, making it harder for the U.S. to drag it into war.

In the end, peace will come from a Russo-German reconciliation. The U.S. has brainwashed us into thinking war is inevitable, but it's not. Russia doesn't want to invade Europe. Peace is easy—it's the U.S. that makes it seem impossible.

Host: Thank you, Emmanuel Todd.

Todd: Thank you.






If the translation above is insufficient this explanation by Jeff Rich in English can help.

Getting the original is difficult, and has been removed from X. And everyone who has a copy wants to spin it.  I post one of these packaged reports here.

Tulsi knows Trump can't read.  She knows he spends five days golfing for every day he looks at a security briefing.  So Tulsi came up with a way to try and make Trump pay attention to some world realities by making her own Fox news type presentations for Trump to watch.

What Tulsi does not get is that Trump does not care about what is happening in the rest of the world, and he as not worried about consequences.  The divinely chosen are without fear.  Trump is Teflon, he makes is own reality.  Trump has lived in a Michael Jackson type bubble all his life.  Divorced from reality.  Trump believes the assassins bullet missed him because he has been divinely chosen to do his own thing because he is a special child.  God has his ear.

Tulsi is wasting her time.  To be intellectually curious is to seek truth.  Trump is not intellectually curious.  I would be grilling my intelligence advisors twice a day, and they would be working their asses off to get me correct info.  But I am one of 10,000 men in Seattle * who would do a better job than Trump.  But Trump bumbles along in his ignorance without anyone stopping him, as a fascist always does.

An imbecile is in the White House.  An imbecile who wears a dog collar for foreign powers.

He does it for coin.  Not that Trump is alone.  Our system is corrupt.  The wheel turned, and corruption became the order of the day.

* But maybe only 5000.  I give people too much credit as we all do.  We think other people are like us.  Anyway a proper 'soviet' ** would identify the capable, and give them a term in office, while also holding them accountable.  2000 ?

** soviet (noun): A council or governing assembly, where representatives of worker councils make collective decisions. The term originates from the Russian word "совет" (sovet), meaning "advice" or "council."  A soviet operates on principles of collective decision-making rather than hierarchical authority.

Or or we going to continue to believe that our system which puts one unaccountable moron in office after another is better.

That is why he has them sleeping on floors, to push them over the edge.  He only needs one to flip out if the camera angle is right.

SpaceX's next Starship rocket exploded in South Texas late Wednesday.  This deals another blow to a program struggling to overcome three consecutive failures from a company which appears to be mismanaged.


Elon Musk's self-proclaimed genius in efficiency and innovation is a carefully constructed myth.

Far from being a visionary, his leadership is marked by chaotic mismanagement, systemic failures, and a blatant disregard for safety in his engineering and workplace practices.  As demonstrated by his record of consecutive explosions.

Due diligence is never 'efficient', but it does prevent rockets from blowing up.  Money is saved when rockets do not blow up.


SpaceX's "Fail Fast" Model: A Cover for Incompetence and Waste

Musk's "fail fast, learn faster" mantra is not a disciplined engineering philosophy. It promotes reckless trial and error at the expense of safety and cost-efficiency.

SpaceX has a development process that is riddled with avoidable failures that traditional aerospace firms would never tolerate.  Musk's exploding rockets are multi-million-dollar disasters that could have been avoided with proper engineering.  The NASA waterfall model, though slower, ensures rigorous verification before risking hardware. SpaceX's spiral development skips critical validation steps, saving paperwork by not making any.  But each Starship explosion requires rebuilding entire prototypes, and this cancels any savings from 'rapid iteration'.  The world's richest man, is also the world's biggest spender of your money. 

A spender not of his money, a spender of yours.

SpaceX employees endure brutal hours and unrealistic deadlines.  Musk pushes workers beyond reasonable limits, and he sleeps on factory floors when his bipolar disorder pushes him to do so.  The Musk empire is built on reckless speed, corner-cutting, worker exploitation, and flim-flam lies.  His "fail fast" dogma is an excuse for poor planning.  His leadership is a liability.  Musk dazzles fans with grand visions, but the Musk reality is a trail of broken promises, preventable disasters, and a constant flow of propaganda using words like 'efficiency', A subject which sounds good rolling off a silver tongue, but a subject that Musk really knows nothing about.

This is fabulously convenient logic.  Define immigration as a National Security issue.  Thus, anywhere there are immigrants, NS is threatened.  The POTUS is responsible for protecting the NS with military force if he deems it necessary.  Therefore, the POTUS can deploy the military anywhere there are immigrants, which is everywhere but concentrated in Blue state Big Shities.  Thus the POTUS can deploy military troops to patrol all Big Shities.  This is the precedent that Trumpolini is setting, and the SCOTUS probably will buy it.

I'll bet His Trumpness deploys a unit of Marines to protect every ICE detention center and dispatch office complete with the grunts carrying M-16s loaded with full metal jacket ammo to deter the graffiti artists.  Pretty soon the FSoA will look like  Chile under Pinochet.

.762,,,Full...Metal...Jacket...


https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/18/trump-national-guard-los-angeles-pete-hegseth.html

Trump deploys 2,000 additional National Guard troops to Los Angeles

RE