Jan 18, 2023·edited Jan 18, 2023

Even if post-1991 Russia really were guilty of everything it is accused of (it's not, but whatever, work with me, humans!), this would be a pimple on the ass of Yemen or Iraq alone.

The irony is that empire is a choice. The United States chooses empire, and others must take actions in response to that choice.

Expand full comment


A heartfelt fuck you, Michael McFaul! You and your ugly ilk have wanted this war for more than three decades.

Hundreds of thousands were in the streets protesting in the first quarter of 2003 when we all saw the writing on the wall regarding the United States' intentions towards Iraq. Where were you then, huh?

......, and by the time it was Libya and Syria's turn the anti-war movement had been killed.

Expand full comment

If Russians are responsible for their governments, we are responsible for ours. True, anyone who votes in an election is engaging and endorsing that very system. We will inevitably end up with the same blood on our hands. We are accountable. They rule by us (If you are a voter that is). That's Dumbocracy and Freedumb!

When the Capitol Hill 'rebels' went up with their placards and fake 'anger' to confront power..lol... they achieved nothing because they are in truth powerless like the Extinction Rebellion and the BLM and the rest of the peaceful 'protesters' through history. They are powerless for the reasons stated so well in this article.

It is only the threat of relentless and implacable violence that power understands. This is why we still have human wars...why Putin's dove like patience ran out of options and violence, the limited SMO, was the only thing left for him to to bring about negotiation and peace. It seems he misjudged the west and its ability to be reasonable and rational and now we have something more akin to a full war in Ukraine and maybe soon Europe (judging by Poland's desire to become NATO's next proxy). However, to become implacably and relentlessly violent one must give up the very humanity that causes you to feel enraged at the injustice and corruption of power. By this process we (as humans) invariably become the very thing we hate.

If Americans with all their weapons and their beloved second amendment (put in place to defend the nation from tyranny i.e. 'The right to bear arms shall not be infringed' in order to defend the 'Free State' and can't find it in themselves to march on the tyrants with their ample weaponry, it means in effect all they are doing is feigning protest. But also by seeking power to overthrow power we become power and it 'does belong to man to direct his own steps'. We are not designed to rule over each other.

We can enjoy the echo chambers of outrage as long as we might and change nothing. You can't find the solution if you are still part of the problem. Seeking to 'take control' 'change the system' is nothing but more of the same.

To be part of the solution we need to know what the solution is. This is where politicians always score over protesters...what do you want? How can it be done? Are these solutions or just new problems?

Perhaps the solution lies somewhere else entirely.

Expand full comment

This is all true but I think we need to talk about the mechanism. It isn't that Americans are pushing one war after another because we think we'll get rich, or that all the problems Caitlin mentions are worsening because Americans or others are being enriched. Rather a tiny percentage are being enriched--and they're the ones with power, because under capitalism, money is power. Those with the mental illness that makes them crave ever more wealth, once they get beyond the level where they could spend it all, use some of the extra wealth to influence politics, primarily to ensure that the flow of ever more wealth into their hands is unimpeded.

So we have a political system where decision are made by elected "representatives"--but they get elected by spending lots of money on campaigns, and they get the money from special interests, which after the election want payback in the form of special favors. This is how it works, and you can blame the voters for electing these sociopathic monsters, when they could instead have voted for--the other sociopathic monsters. There are lots of ways this system could be fixed but the Supreme Court in the US has blocked them, and I'm sure there are similar reasons other countries work basically the same way--maybe not quite as marinated in corruption as the US but bad enough to provide no challenge to the stinking, ecocidal, rapacious system. We could rise up to force change, but we don't, because as Caitlin so tirelessly says--and yet not enough!--WHO CONTROLS THE NARRATIVE CONTROLS THE WORLD. That is the key.

Expand full comment

I agree and my own country , the UK, is no better. Their governments use the media to conceal from their people the real aims, which is usually money or power.

Expand full comment

Destroying the world is profitable, so that's what They are doing.

Expand full comment

If 100,000s of Americans protested our wars would they end?

Ha ha ha.

How about millions?

No dice, say I.

Expand full comment

Thank you and -- and Ukraine update:

Helicopter carrying Ukrainian Interior Minister (head of the Azov, which is under the Interior Ministry) & his Deputy, aides, shot down by U.S. Stinger missile over Kiev, crashes & hits busy daycare, killing kids - The Dreizin Report

Expand full comment

There are potential solutions to today's insatiable profit-dominated oligarchy, but these solutions must organically build into a counter force capable of surviving long enough to challenge extant power.


- Utopian grand designs can't work

- Every step from A (now) to Z (the better future) needs to be described

- Being right doesn't mean being heard

- Path of least resistance is the prime directive of 90% of human beings

- There's no shame in boxed wine

Expand full comment

Thank you for your writing. Excellent work.

Your noting about how many in the USA believe that China wants to invade this country was quite interesting. It reminds me of the talk of "Who lost China," "Who lost Iran," Who lost Iraq," and "Who lost Afghanistan" questions and rhetoric. The fact remains that the United States still behaves as a "genocidal - enslaving" nation. There are numerous individuals who oppose this mentality, but it has deep roots.

In that light, also, maybe the term colonizer, and colonized needs to be "enslaver," and "enslaved?" This is my own personal thoughts, ones that have been percolating for quite some time.

As you note, military aggression wins out over peace, given the simple fact that the military industrial complex (MIC) runs the USA, and has for generations. The MIC has always been there, just in different forms. Smedley Butler noted that "war is a racket" and that the profits were measured in dollars and cents, and the losses in blood - lost lives and broken and lost limbs. A recent book "Gangster Capitalism" published in the past couple of years really shows how bad the corporate interests have been, including the MIC.

Again, thank you for your work.

Expand full comment

This piece is chock-full of wisdom and wake-up calls! It is also beautifully written. Thank you, Caitlin, for doing this service and protecting my sanity.

Expand full comment

The capitalist system not only fails to SOLVE problems, it CREATES the problems!

Expand full comment

So sickening - the calls encouraging Russian anti-war protests are coming from the same people and institutions that crushed authentic US domestic protests, like Occupy Wall Street or co-opted one, like BLM

Expand full comment

"moral obligation to overthrow their government".

He is exactly an American that is responsible for being the most violent and destructive nation on earth.

We don't even need to "overthrow" the government. All we need is for the masses to be aware of who we are and what we're doing. We could start by having a military expenditure that's not bleeding us and the world around us dry.

Expand full comment

Michael McFaul - LOL

They don't even hear themselves or see that they are implicating us in their implication of others.

Expand full comment

I'm curious.

profit-seeking vs rent-seeking

Are they the same thing?

Is one moral and the other not?

Michael Hudson's definition means rent-seeking is surely immoral.

Caitlin's implied definition means profit-seeking is also immoral.

Does that make business immoral?

Does that mean any exchange of money is immoral?

Are we making noises that seem meaningful to ourselves but which have a different meaning (or no meaning) to others?

Can we be guilty if we don't know what the crime is?

Or is this a "know it when I see it" kind of thing? Where I see it one way and you another?

Are Americans guilty of the crimes committed by their elected leaders even if they didn't vote in the last election? Last 2 elections? Never voted?

Or are they serfs with no control over the Oligarchy?

In what court will the crime be judged? An "International People's Court"?

Expand full comment