Edalism

In the west and/or the US, we face such a wide variety of crises that a least require government attention, including but not limited to unaffordable homes, environmental destruction, climate change, biodiversity loss, the fertility rate, AI, debt, a broken judicial system, a broken political system, a broken healthcare system, child interaction with the internet, “doomscrolling”, porn (I will explain my reasoning on this one), reckless consumerism, corporate control of institutions and peoples agency and many more things, even small things like what type of playground kids could have access to (such as adventure playgrounds). I think all of these things could definitely be tackled in a better way than the current political parties and the political system allows for, so this document is an attempt to write down all my ideas on what that better way would be. I don’t expect you to agree with me on every point, but I hope I can spur contemplation that could lead to my mind to change. To start, I will expand on the current political system.  

In regards to the political system, here I am referring to the style of government organization that primarily the west uses. These are multiple party systems with rotating parties controlling the government, often requiring coalitions, quick rotations of power, and a slow lawmaking process. Theres a famous quote along the lines of “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones” that will sometimes be used to back up western governments. The problem is that this quote acts as if the current form of “democracy” is the only possible form, thus using fear to avoid any talks of changing the government. I put democracy in quotes because I do not consider western governments (specifically the US as that is my primary focus) to be working in a true democratic fashion. The US government in particular is acting in a fundamentally broken way, prioritizing the interests of corporations and the wealthy without any long term planning (concerning the debt or climate change for example). No administration wants to deal with any long term problems, pushing these onto the next administration. This next administration, then has a choice. They can either attempt to solve it which will probably require raising taxes, thus facing backlash from the populus or their donors, or they can push it to the next administration, making the long term problems worse (Reaganomics).  

New parties seem unable to even consider actual changes needed to fix our problems, changes that will be large scale. For example, let’s take the American health care system. Nearly every other country in the world has free/universal healthcare, but the US is alone, especially among its peers. In the 50s-70s, every western European country developed a government run healthcare system, systems that were so popular that even when right wing parties come into power they do not touch it. America is alone in its healthcare policy, most due to the fact lobbyists helped convince America that we need a private insurance run system, which then allows these insurance companies to upcharge the consumer, leading to what is the most expensive healthcare system in the world. It is no wonder that there are 3,216 lobbyists for the healthcare industry, spending billions every year to make sure our healthcare system doesn’t change.  

If you hear this and immediately want change, you are not alone, as ~76% of Americans want healthcare reforms. Yet this issue was not mentioned once on the campaign trail for the 2024 election. Neither party remotely cared enough to even bring it up. It is not that these parties themselves are even necessarily the problem, it is simply that the entire system is broken, as I will expand on later, and the American public needs to wake up to the fact that sometimes major changes are ok. Change is hard, but it is also necessary. Big change is what led to the creation of America and with it a new beautiful and flawed form of government, big change is what led to the emancipation proclamation, and the civil rights movement, and big change is what we need today. All these changes were seen as radical at the time, but as time progresses, we are able to see that change is always necessary.  

US Foreign Policy

Most Americans have a fundamentally distorted view of what the US is in the world and within its own history. I would say that most Americans see the US as a shining experiment and progress-driven country, leading the world by example with a few blights to its name. In some ways, this is true. The American people have indeed driven innovation and social movements that have pushed the world further. The founding principles of America have indeed changed the world, likely in a positive manner. The US has indeed engaged in specific conflicts in a positive manner, such as World War II against fascism. 

The problem is that the American government has a secret, in that it has behaved in ways entirely unacceptable to a modern audience, which that audience unfortunately remains unaware of. What follows are brief but intense records of some of these actions, not to attack the American people, but to highlight what our government has done in our name.  

In the Korean War, the US perpetrated a bombing campaign that destroyed every town (according to Gen. Curtis LeMay, the head of Strategic Air Command) and intentionally targeted food production, such as rice fields and dams, which led to the death of around 3 million North Korean civilians. This has led to the North Korean narrative around the US, as it is basically no wonder they hate us. 

Cumings, The Korean War: A History (2010) 

Associated Press, War’s Hidden Chapter: Ex-GIs Tell of Killing Korean Refugees, (1999) (Pulitzer prize) 

  

In 1953, the CIA and MI6 initiated a coup called Operation Ajax to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. This was because, in 1951, Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry, which was previously controlled by the British, who had also received most of the profits. Britain imposed an oil embargo, which put Iran into recession, while the CIA bribed military officers and paid mobs to riot to create chaos, resulting in the toppling of Mossadegh. He was replaced by the pro-Western Shah, who did have some interesting policies but was nevertheless a brutal dictator. In fact, SAVAK, the Shah’s brutal secret police, known for torture and disappearances, was actually trained by the CIA. In the long term, this directly led to the 1979 revolution, and it is no wonder there is tension between the American and Iranian governments. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran

Ervand Abrahamian, The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the Roots of Modern U.S.-Iranian Relations (2013) 

CIA declassified documents (2013) 

  

Jacobo Árbenz was elected president of Guatemala in 1951, pushing for mild leftist reforms. The main one was Decree 900, which gave unused land on large estates to commoners. The US United Fruit Company (UFCO) lobbied that Árbenz was a communist threat to be feared. The US then started a coup, imposing an arms embargo, painting Árbenz as a Soviet puppet (with no evidence), and spreading made-up propaganda that rebel groups opposed to Árbenz were winning battles. The US conducted bombings on targets across Guatemala, inciting fear in the population. As a result of the pressure, Árbenz was forced to flee into exile. The new CIA-backed leader, Castillo Armas, became dictator. He revoked the land reforms, increased the UFCO’s power, and banned political parties, peasant groups, and unions. Guatemala then fell into an extremely gruesome civil war from 1960 to 1996, with US-backed governments committing massacres and genocide. Around 200,000 Guatemalans were killed or “went missing”, many of them from indigenous communities. 

https://theoldreview.substack.com/p/a-short-history-of-us-intervention

Katherine A. Gaffey, The Lasting Effects of U.S. Intervention in Guatemala, (2020) 

  

In 1960, the Belgian Congo gained independence following decades of what is basically the worst colonialization in history, as King Leopold II (Belgium) led from 1885 to 1908, resulting in an estimated 10 million deaths. The new prime minister became Patrice Lumumba, leader of the Congolese National Movement (MNC). He sought to be politically and economically independent, while also remaining neutral in the Cold War.

Soon after, the Katanga province, known for its rich mineral resources, seceded, backed by Belgian mining interests. Belgian officers remained in the Congolese army, which influenced Lumumba’s ability to respond. Lumumba asked the UN for help, which was rejected. He then asked the Soviet Union for aid, alarming Washington, as it was the height of the Cold War. The US authorized plans to assassinate Lumumba, which Belgium supported. The president of Congo, Joseph Kasavubu, dismissed Lumumba due to Western pressure. Soon after, Army Chief Joseph-Desire Mobutu, with CIA funding, launched a coup that put Lumumba under house arrest.

Lumumba tried to flee to get to his supporters in the east, but he was captured and handed over to Katanga forces. They killed him. Mobutu then took power, with US and Belgian support at that, and ruled brutally and terribly for 32 years. He amassed extreme wealth while the country fell into poverty, despite being rich in mineral resources. Further, Congo was used as a US base of operations against African leftism. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis

https://worldpolicyhub.com/belgian-colonialism-in-africa-causes-and-consequences/

  

In 1961, the US under Kennedy feared Castro, and so they sent 1,400 CIA-trained Cuban exiles to invade Cuba. They hoped the people would back the invasion, but they did not. It thus pushed Cuba further towards the Soviet Union and was an embarrassing failure for the US. 

https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/the-bay-of-pigs

 

In Iraq in 1958, a nationalist coup led by Abd al-Karim Qasim overthrew the Western-backed monarchy. Qasim was not a communist himself, but many of his policies were aligned with leftism, leading to fear in the US. The CIA kept close watch, communicating with the Ba’ath Party (an Arab Nationalist party with both socialist and fascist tendencies). In 1963, the Ba’ath party enacted a violent coup, killing Qasim and carrying out mass executions (about 5,000) of a list of communists reportedly supplied by the CIA. After the coup, the US immediately recognized/supported the new regime. It is only ironic that Saddam Hussein would eventually lead the same Ba’ath party in 1968. The US effectively created the conditions for a brutal dictator that it itself would have problems with. 

https://towardfreedom.org/story/archives/west-asia/a-peoples-history-of-iraq-1950-to-november-1963

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2%80%93United_States_relations

  

Regarding Vietnam, I will try to keep it brief and include underemphasized aspects. In 1945, Ho Chi Minh (a communist) declared Vietnam to be independent. Minh actually had a lot of respect for the US and even quoted from the US Declaration of Independence in this regard. France wanted colonial control back. The US feared communism and thus supplied 78% of France’s costs by 1954 and about a trillion dollars, adjusted for inflation, over the course of the war. France still lost (big L).

Vietnam was divided along the 17th parallel by the Geneva Accords, which scheduled reunification elections for 1956. The South was a US puppet state led by Ngo Dinh Diem. The South also refused to participate in the elections, with Eisenhower later writing that Ho Chi Minh would have won with 80% of the vote. The US supported Diem with supplies and advice. Diem oppressed Buddhists and peasants specifically due to their support for the Viet Minh. Eventually, the Viet Cong, a revolutionary group in the south, decided to launch a rebellion. The US responded with thousands of military troops and forced relocations of peasantry to disconnect them from the Viet Cong (Strategic Hamlet Program). Eventually, after finding Diem unsuccessful against the communists, the US backed an assassination/coup of Diem.

In 1964, the US exaggerated attacks (elements of the reports were later found to be wrong) on US ships to validate the invasion. By 1965, the US was at war with troops on the ground. The US proceeded to engage in completely indefensible war crimes. One such example was chemical warfare, with napalm and Agent Orange leading to millions of disabilities at birth and cancers. The bombing was also relentless, with about 5 million tons of bombs and 400,000 tons of napalm, leading to long-term ecological damage. For comparison, we dropped 2 million tons in all of World War II. Around 2 million Vietnamese civilians died in the war. The US also lost 58,000 soldiers, as well as losing the general war. 

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/History_of_Vietnam

https://www.vassar.edu/the-wars-for-vietnam/vietnam-war-overview

  

In the early 60s, the US supported the conservative and monarchical Royal Lao Army over the communists in Laos. They sent money to right-wing generals and built an army to fight the leftist Lao and North Vietnamese. During the Vietnam War, North Vietnam’s supply route to the south went through Laos. As a result, the US released what is possibly the most intense bombing campaign ever, no exaggeration. The US dropped 2 million tons of bombs on Laos over the course of the Vietnam War, which is a planeload of bombs every 8 minutes for 9 years. Two hundred thousand civilians died, which was out of a population of 3 million people. There are now millions of unexploded bombs that Cambodia has to deal with to this day, with 20,000 related deaths since 1974. Ultimately, the Pathet Lao, a communist organization, seized power and established the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. 

https://www.scribd.com/document/167549193/12-Years-of-US-Imperialist-Intervention-and-Aggression-in-Laos

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB248

https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/86007119/2020NugentStephensNPhD.pdf

  

Cambodia is easily one of the worst on this list, and most people have zero idea we were ever involved. Post independence from France in 1954, Cambodia was led by Prince Sihanouk until 1970. Sihanouk attempted to remain neutral in the Cold War and allowed some use of Cambodian routes by the North Vietnamese while also rejecting US military bases. The US and South Vietnam grew contentious with Sihanouk’s neutrality, and thus launched covert operations in Cambodia. In 1965, the US began launching secret airstrikes in Cambodia to target the Viet Cong, under the name Operation Menu. In 1969, Nixon/Kissinger expanded Operation Menu tenfold. This was kept secret from the public and even Congress, with fake coordinates being entered into military logs.

In total, the US dropped 2,756,941 tons of bombs, making Cambodia likely the highest per capita bombed country in history. This killed about 300,000 civilians (if not higher). In 1970, while Prince Sihanouk was abroad, the US encouraged General Lon Nol to stage a coup, which was successful. As a result, Cambodia became pro-US, and Lon Nol had US troops attack communist forces in eastern Cambodia. At the same time, Sihanouk aligned himself with the Khmer Rouge, which became especially popular for common folk angered by the bombings. The US would bomb entire villages, which led to lots of displacement and eventually famine. In 1975, the Khmer Rouge easily took power due to high instability from US bombing and proceeded to launch a genocide that killed about 2 million Cambodians.  

https://gsp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/walrus_cambodiabombing_oct06.pdf (great document) 

https://www.catalystproject.net/world/the-hidden-history-of-the-us-involvement-in-the-cambodian-genocide

  

In 1961, João Goulart became president of Brazil. He was a mild leftist, advocating for land reform, the nationalization of oil and certain utilities, and higher taxes for foreign companies. He was also friendly with labor unions and the Brazilian Communist Party. The US, fearing this, spent millions through USAID and the CIA to support opposition politicians and specific media/student groups. The US  ran disinformation (lying) campaigns that showed Goulart as a communist puppet and corrupt. In 1964, the Brazilian military launched a coup with support from the US, and Goulart fled to Uruguay. This led to 21 years of military rule, with an immediate reversal of Goulart’s policy in favor of neoliberal policy. The dictatorship conducted mass repression, with lots of disappearances, torture, and censorship. 

https://www.cafehistoria.com.br/military-dictatorship-in-brazil-a-history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

  

From 1930 to 1961, the Dominican Republic was ruled by Rafael Trujillo, a dictator with mild economic growth, as well as the murder of tens of thousands. The US supported him, although the relationship became strained over time. When he died in 1961, the transition government allowed free elections. Thus, Juan Bosch was elected in 1962. Bosch was a leftist who believed in social justice and democracy. He wanted land reform and less military/foreign corporate influence. In 1963, he drafted a progressive constitution that included labor rights and civil liberties. In September 1963, the Dominican military, with US backing, staged a coup, accusing Bosch of being soft on communism. This created strong tensions between the conservative military and the Bosch supporters.

In 1965, a group of junior military officers and civilians seized control of much of Santo Domingo. They did this to start an insurrection aimed at restoring the 1963 constitution, along with Bosch. The insurrection was quite popular. LBJ and his administration portrayed it as a communist uprising, although they had little evidence to do so. Johnson proceeded to launch Operation Power Pack, with 22,000 Marines and paratroopers invading the Dominican Republic. Through bombing and shooting, the US killed 3,000 civilians in Santo Domingo. The US destroyed the uprising and put power back into the hands of conservative elites. U.S.-backed Dominican forces also tortured people and carried out some executions. In 1966, manipulated elections were held under US supervision, electing Joaquin Balaguer, a former associate of Trujillo. Balaguer was in power for 12 years, with corrupt authoritarian rule. 

https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and-science/us-troops-occupy-dominican-republic

  

After their war for independence from the Netherlands, Indonesia was led by Sukarno, who was a left-leaning nationalist. The PKI, Indonesia’s communist party, gained considerable popularity by the mid-1960s, prompting the US to view both Sukarno and the PKI as a threat. On September 30th, 1965, a group called the “September 30th movement” killed 6 top generals. This led the army under Suharto (not to be confused with Sukarno) to use that event to justify a mass purge, killing around a million PKI sympathizers, trade-unionists, and even some unaffiliated ethnic Chinese. The US supported the event and even supplied lists of suspected communists. Suharto would also take power, leading to three decades of authoritarian rule. 

Documentary: The Act of Killing – This is an interesting documentary that follows the former people who did the killing in the purge. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/the-indonesia-documents-and-the-us-agenda/543534

  

For some context, in the Cold War, Pakistan and Bangladesh were a combined state (West and East, respectively) that was very supportive of the US. In 1970, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) began demanding greater autonomy. In response, in March 1971, the West Pakistan army cracked down on East Pakistan. This crackdown, named Operation Searchlight, was arguably the worst genocide since WW2. Between 200,000 and 500,000 civilians (if not more) were slaughtered, with sexual violence, and millions fled to India. US diplomats sent  “Blood Telegrams” warning of a genocide, but the US ignored them due to support for West Pakistan. The US, under Nixon (and Kissinger), actually illegally sent fighter jets to West Pakistan through Jordan to show support for the government. Even more so, Nixon sent the Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal, claiming to “Evacuate US citizens”, but this was primarily seen as a method for deterring Indian intervention. 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/genocide-us-cant-remember-bangladesh-cant-forget-180961490

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24480586?seq=1

  

In 1970, Chile democratically elected the leftist Salvador Allende as president, who won in a coalition with other parties. He pushed for nationalization of key industries (banking, copper, etc.), agrarian reform, and general support for peasants. He did have some interesting developments in computers and labor, even in the 1970s (check out Project Cybersyn). The US obviously did not like this, so Nixon and Kissinger employed various tactics to counter his government. These included intense economic pressure and CIA funding for opposition business, media (such as the right-wing newspaper El Mercurio), and political groups. The CIA was also heavily involved in the Chilean military, monitoring coup activity and supplying intelligence. In 1970, the CIA even covertly tried to work with military coup plotters in Chile.

On the 11th of September 1973, Chilean armed forces/police overthrew the government, bombing the presidential palace. Allende died, seemingly of suicide. This is when Pinochet took over from 1973 to 1990, banning political parties, suspending congress, and suppressing dissent. He did this by killing (“disappearing”) around 3,200, along with torturing tens of thousands. He famously had a “Caravan of Death” that dropped people out of helicopters. Pinochet was materially supported by the US, despite publicly criticizing human rights abuses. Pinochet was also the first to implement neoliberalism. 

https://en.segundopaso.org/the-chilean-coup-and-the-legacy-of-us-imperialism-in-latin-america

https://dev.nacla.org/remembering-chile-coup-50

  

In the mid-1970s, East Timor experienced a revolution to gain independence from Portugal. Remember that at this time, Indonesia was a key ally of the US, and this new independence scared both the US and Indonesia. Thus, Indonesia intervened, taking control from 1975 to 1999. The Indonesian occupation killed around 200,000 civilians, sometimes through intentional starvation. Keep in mind that the entire population of East Timor at this time was only 800,000, illustrating just how brutal the occupation was. President Gerald Ford (and Kissinger) met with Suharto in 1975. Suharto was on the fence about invading, but they gave the green light and assured Suharto of “understanding” if action was taken in East Timor. The US also provided weapons and training to Indonesia, which was fundamental to the invasion. At UN meetings regarding resolutions that condemned Indonesia’s invasion, the US would abstain. 

https://gsp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/03-263_ch_09.pdf

https://international.ucla.edu/masterpages/cseas/humanrights/Bradley-Simpson-WS1-2005-CWH-Timor.pdf

  

The US had prior knowledge of Argentina’s 1976 military coup, and after they provided money, training, and intelligence in the first few years of the dictatorship. The dictatorship employed state terrorism, with extrajudicial killings, torture, and even the kidnapping of children. Declassified documents reveal that not only did the US know of all this, but they also assisted in some aspects of it. 

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/Voices/2019/05/10/Secret-archives-show-US-helped-Argentine-military-wage-dirty-war-that-killed-30000/1491557491237

https://latinamericasecurityreport.com/polity-governance/2019/05/12/truth-justice-and-declassification-secret-archives-show-us-helped-argentine-military-wage-dirty-war-that-killed-30000

  

In the 70s, the US was afraid of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime getting close to the USSR. In response, the US provided money and weaponry to the Kurdish people to bring Hussein to the table. For context, the Kurds are a nation of people without access to a state of their own, and there are many of them in northern Iraq. The US has had a long history of support for the Kurds since after WW2. Yet here, once Hussein came to the table with the US and the two made a deal, the US effectively abandoned the Kurds. This led to the Anfal Campaign, with over the next 13 years, around 200,000 Kurds killed by Hussein through mass killings and chemical warfare, along with internment camps and forced resettlements.  

https://us.gov.krd/history-of-kurdistan-region

https://kurdistantribune.com/henry-kissinger-realpolitik-genocide

In the 1970s and 80s, the US supported Operation Condor, which officially started in 1975. The operation was a secret coordination of repression and the sharing of intelligence between the military dictatorships in South America. It included intense persecution of leftists and opposition to the governments, with 80,000 murdered (many of them being people simply disappearing) and around 400,000 tortured. Compared to other events, this might seem like a relatively low death count, mainly since it is spread across multiple countries over many years. Yet it’s insidious in its danger, in that if you kill a large group of people at a time, it will create backlash. Yet if you slowly assassinate and torture, this breeds a culture of fear that makes the backlash stop on its own. Which my very own country supported by the creation, as well as providing resources/intelligence.

https://www.cels.org.ar/especiales/plancondor/en/#condor-i-ii-y-iii

https://latinxhistory.com/history/operation-condor

  

El Salvador in the 70s (and before) was characterized by extreme inequality, with a small group of elite landowners controlling the economy/politics. Any attempt at reform was labeled as communist and dismissed. Thus, the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN), a leftist guerrilla group, arose in the early 1980s, declaring war against the Salvadoran state. The US, in reaction, provided over $4 billion over the next 12 years of war, along with tons of weapons, aircraft, and training. The El Salvadorian state during the war engaged in terrible violence. Take the 1981 El Mozote Massacre, where an El Salvadorian battalion backed by the US murdered hundreds of villagers in cold blood. The war ended in 1992 through a peace deal, yet of course (like all of these) has had lasting effects on El Salvador. 

https://stewardshipreport.org/el-salvadors-forgotten-war-and-americas-hidden-role

https://www.nzz.ch/english/us-role-in-el-salvador-war-revealed-by-new-testimony-evidence-ld.1625008

https://www.dwherstories.com/timeline/u-s-intervention-in-el-salvador

  

Nicaragua was ruled by the Somoza family for 44 years, full of corruption, inequality, and suppression of opposition, while also keeping close ties with the US. In 1979, the leftist Sandinistas popularly overthrew the Somoza regime, implementing land reform and improving literacy. The US then supported the Contras, a right-wing paramilitary group, in attempting to overthrow the Sandinistas. The US provided tons of military support and implemented an embargo that devastated the Nicaraguan economy, services, and infrastructure, along with 30,000 deaths. In 1990, an opposition government won the elections, leading to peace talks and the end of the war. Congress actually passed laws during this time (1982-84) to block sending aid to the Contras. To get around this, Reagan and Lt. Col. Oliver North illegally sold weapons to Iran, which was under an arms embargo at the time. They then used the profits to fund the Contras. The revelation of this became a massive scandal known as the Iran-Contra affair. Oliver North now goes on Fox News as a commentator. 

https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-Contra-Affair

  

In Honduras, the US used the country as a base of operations in the fight against the Contras. It also trained/funded units that then carried out political assassinations/disappearances of leftists/critics. 

https://rightsaction.org/emails/back-to-the-past-in-honduras-us-backed-death-squads-in-honduras

  

Skipping the US Grenada invasion which you can look into if you want, as there was at least a very slight justification although it should still be condemned as it was in the UN (108 – 9). 

  

In Panama, General Manuel Noriega ruled as a dictator from the 1970s with the support of the CIA. In the mid-80s, Washington no longer liked him because he was involved in drug trafficking, corruption, and had relationships with some US enemies (like Cuba). In 1988, he was indicted by two federal grand juries on drug trafficking charges. The US embargoed Panama and froze his assets. Noriega lost the 1989 election but remained in power through the use of the military. After a US Marine was killed at a roadblock in Panama City, the US invaded with heavy attacks in dense areas. This led to around 2,000 civilians deaths, with later declassified documents/journalism finding evidence of hidden mass graves. The US then installed a pro-US president (at a US military base, lol). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama

https://www.jstor.org/stable/45316500?seq=5

  

In 1990, Haiti held its first democratic election after decades of dictatorships backed by the US. Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a left-leaning Catholic priest with 67% (lol) of the vote. Aristide sought military reform, elite corruption reform, and raising the minimum wage. Soon after, in 1991, the military, under General Cedras, overthrew him. The army and a supportive paramilitary death squad FRAPH killed thousands of Aristide supporters. The US publicly condemned the coup secretly cooperated with the military regime. Members of FRAPH were on the CIA payroll.

International pressure due to massacres and refugees forced the US to act. A diplomatic mission got Cedras to step down, and the US sent in troops without engaging in any combat. Aristide was restored, but under strict supervision. Specifically, the US and the IMF protected the military and forced Aristide to implement neoliberal reforms, including wage suppression and privatization. Aristide called it a “financial occupation”. Nevertheless, he remained in power, winning reelection in 2000. Then, in 2004, he was overthrown in a coup by the Haitian military/elites, with cables revealing the CIA was likely involved in supporting the coup. Aristide “resigned” and was flown to South Africa, although Aristide claims that the US essentially kidnapped him. The US, in coalition with other countries, then sent troops in (Operation Secure Tomorrow). In summation, it failed and hurt Haitian democracy while empowering bad actors. 

https://thegrayzone.com/2024/03/01/secret-cable-cia-haiti-coup

https://haitipolicy.org/2004/01/haiti-crushed-by-u-s-power

https://africannugget.com/haitis-historic-debt-crisis-a-legacy-of-coercion-and-control

  

I’m not going to go into Afghanistan in detail, as I suspect you are already aware of it. Nevertheless, the invasion, spurred by post 9/11 fervor, was done extremely poorly and led to around 60,000 civilian deaths, not even including the trillions spent on it, only for it to “fail” in the end with the Taliban’s return in 2021.

  

This summer, I will be traveling to Iraq to conduct in-depth research on the US role in Iraq, and I believe it deserves its own section, so I will skip that for now. 

  

In 2009, the military successfully staged a coup against the mildly leftist democratically elected president of Honduras, leading to abuses like assassinations and suppressions of protestors. It was widely condemned, and although the US publicly condemned it, they continued AID and did not formally call it a military coup. This was likely due to fear of strategic and economic interests, such as business elites opposing the former president’s minimum wage increases. 

https://thegateuchicago.com/2016/05/30/how-to-hide-a-coup-the-us-role-in-the-2009-honduran-coup

  

Here is a list of additional abuses/ failures regarding US foreign policy, which I encourage you to research on your own, but I will omit here for the sake of time. 

  

• Lebanon 1958 set a bad precedent against what the people of Lebanon wanted  
• Supported dictator Said Barre in Somalia despite massacres and torture (1978-1989) 
• Supported UNITA rebels in Angola despite atrocities by their leader, Jonas Savimbi (1970s) 
• When South Koreans protested for democracy in 1980, the US approved of the military using force, which killed hundreds 
• In Liberia, supported Samuel Doe in and after his 1980 coup despite ethnic mass killings AND later did not care about, and likely even helped, Charles Taylor rise to power, who would go on to commit horrific crimes (just read his convictions on Wikipedia). 
• Lebanon 1982-1984 was a failure that radicalized Hezbollah 
• Mistreatment in Iraq in 1991, with targeting civilian infrastructure and sanctions that led to the death of tens (if not hundreds) of thousands 
• Somalia 1992-94 – Just peacekeeping/food was fine but eventually became a terrible mission (Black Hawk Down, US indiscriminately firing on crowds) 
• Colombia in the 1990s – US military support went to right wing militias and destruction of peasant/indigenous crop systems 
• Supported the Algerian military junta in 1992, which led to the military’s current control of Algerian politics 
• Supported Paul Kagame after the Rwandan Genocide despite ethnic massacres in Congo 
• Failed coup of Hugo Chavez (2002) 
• Backing the 2006 Ethiopian invasion of Somalia (which created a radical Islamist group) 
• In Syria, where we had different groups fight each other unironically that were supported by different US branches, as the FSA, backed by the CIA, and the SDF, backed by the Pentagon have fought multiple times (Syria was/is a mess to be fair) 
• Failure in Yemen (2015-present) 

  

And this is all just the obvious stuff. There have been decades of secret deals, economic pressure, and intelligence operations that shaped a world order designed around American dominance. It’s a world where the dollar is the reserve currency, global markets are mandatory, and U.S. interests define what “freedom” and “stability” mean. 

The US military/navy, after World War II, allowed for a system of international trade, as the US essentially became the policeman of the world and reduced piracy. Today, this means that the US has 800 military bases around the world and spends by far the most on its military. This military (usually) does not act in a just way, instead exploiting lower income people to enforce US elites interests (oil/control of financial systems). 

The irony is, when people join the military, they often do so because they want to help others. The military found that when soldiers volunteer to help disadvantaged children where they are stationed, it boosts morale tremendously. These programs were found not to be helpful to the kids, but the military continued to use them anyway because they provided such a significant moral boost. I hope that one day, funding for military control will decrease, and we can instead allocate more resources to actually helping kids.  

In total, the tragedy is not only that the US perpetrated all of these terrible acts, but that it continues to do so, and continues to act as the military and global center of justice for the world, which it is in no position to deserve.  

On an overlooked aspect of the current Financial System

The USA has a trade deficit, where we import more products than we export, and a government deficit, where our government spends more than it takes in. This would be a lethal combination for most countries, ending with a financial collapse. For the US, it is fine. While a complex topic, the reason the US can do this boils down to the dollar’s dominance in trade and as a reserve currency. This dominance is everywhere. When a South African farmer wants to sell tangerines to Brazil, he most likely needs to sell through SWIFT or a related US network. SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) is a Western network that connects around half of the world’s cross-border payments. The South African farmer will pay to convert his Rands into USD through this. Then, the Brazilian purchaser has to pay to convert USD into Rual. Through all this, America gets two things. They get extra money by charging both the South African and Brazilian, and they get to see what transactions are occurring worldwide. The extra money is exactly as it sounds: free money for the Fed. The knowledge gained from viewing this transaction is also extremely beneficial. US and European farmers, miners, and other industries pay a lot of money every year to see what countries are buying so they can plan what to grow or produce.

Another thing is that when capitalists sell, say, their factory products, they will most likely get back USD. Instead of converting it into their home currency, which costs extra, they will invest it in the US economy. They may invest it in US real estate and stocks, but mainly in US debt. In this way, the US can always pay its debt and does not suffer a debt collapse (so far). Being the reserve currency comes with more than just financial and market advantages. The US can put crippling sanctions on countries it does not like, such as Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and Russia. This power is only possible with the dollar being the world’s reserve currency. Russia, in particular, is significant. This is because in 2022, after the Ukraine war, Biden seized 350 billion from Russian oligarchs who had money sitting in US banks. To be clear, I am not a supporter of Russia’s war in the slightest, and I understand why Biden did it. That said, the effect is that any country that may not be the best of friends with the US can see this as a potential problem. A Chinese businessperson may be slightly more hesitant to put their money in US banks, further eroding the trust in the US system. I do not even really need to explain how Trump’s tariffs/general actions are, of course, terrible in this way. These tariffs are bad for everyone short term, but they are worse for the US in the long term, as markets will adapt in ways disadvantageous to the US.

BRICS+, a conglomeration of countries including China, India, Russia, six more rising industrial powerhouses, and dozens of interested partners, have long realized this advantage for the West. Thus, what does the West expect? It has a system set up that benefits it financially, in markets, and in power. It is slow, expensive, and inconvenient. It is no wonder these countries want to develop a more world-centered system.

One thing must be made clear. These countries do not want to eliminate the US dollar, at least not yet. After all, all these countries’ governments and capitalists have their money in US debt. Instead, they want to replace the system that gives the West an unfair advantage. In the long term, capitalists and central banks could put just some of the USD they got back into their home currency, potentially hurting the USD. Yet, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The USD will remain the world’s reserve currency for now and the foreseeable future. In fact, a new BRICS system could likely use the USD as its reserve currency.

We can see an example of this on a smaller scale with Tether. Tether is a cryptocurrency pegged to the USD, also called a stablecoin. This allows its users to use Tether as a substitute for USD without going through the US banking institutions. Consequently, Tether is used in countries like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, allowing citizens and businesses to avoid sanctions. Since Tether is a private company not located in the US (not located anywhere, really), it is not under the same pressure as banks. The crazy thing is that Tether has 350 million users worldwide and is the most traded cryptocurrency in the world. All this has only happened in the last couple of years, and it provides a direct model for BRICS, specifically China, to set up. We can envision a BRICS stablecoin tied to the USD. This would keep the dollar as the world currency, WHILE allowing for a separate financial system to develop without the advantages Western countries got from the Western system. If this can be as successful and useful to BRICS+ as I have just laid out, it could have a disastrous effect on the US and EU financial systems.

On AI

Recently, the news about AI has been pretty negative, and for good reason. Be it AI slop, AI in schools, or AI’s insane energy use, the public’s view on AI is overall down (despite increased usage). There’s a common saying I have seen that goes “I thought AI would take all the hard jobs and we could do art all day, instead AI’s doing all the art and we’re doing the hard jobs”. It sucks to watch artists, a group who already struggle in terms of finances, find it harder still to find work. Nevertheless, if we want to examine AI, both the benefits and consequences, first, we must take a step back. 

Due to the functioning of our global market economy, one company or country deciding to progress slower with AI only hurts them, as their competitors will simply not slow. That is point one. Unless we are to have a Butlerian jihad (destroy all the AI unanimously which will never happen as we can’t even unite around climate change), our functioning as separate states with independent companies within said states means that AI progress will not stop.   

The second point is that there is a good chance that this progress will likely go beyond anything thought previously possible. It seems that every week a new AI model comes out that beats the benchmarks of the last, and when we compare the models from 2022 to 2025, it’s a completely different ballgame. To think in 2022 that AI would be able to code better than many developers and make entirely realistic looking videos by 2025 would be unbelievable. How will models look in 2030?  

The third point is that assuming these “2030” models are at least slightly better than they are now (although I think they will be much better), we have to assume the worst. Structural unemployment is when someone loses their jobs due to changes in technology, such as the milkman. If AI reaches the point where work such as accounting, lawyering, and general white collar work can be laid off and easily replaced without having to give a salary, then these companies or going to do it.  

There are obvious cons to this, as many people will (and already are) lose their jobs. It will mean a group of investors getting widely rich while employment becomes much less steady for everyone else. To fix this, a starting proposal would be higher taxes on those companies and using that tax revenue to fund new jobs in areas where market allocation cannot account for (public works, planting trees, etc.). This would be similar to FDR’s Works Progress Administration. Long term, a better world could be created through AI, freeing up specific jobs, allowing for reduced working hours, IF AND ONLY IF government intervention in this regard is done right. I am not saying that I think AI use is currently headed there; I only think it should head there.

It is also true that AI does use a good amount of electrical power, but there’s two things to consider with this. For one, AI is becoming more cost-effective over time and, in turn, more energy-efficient. One of the reasons Deep Seek was such a big deal was that it could produce results similar to those of top AI models for a fraction of the cost. The second is that I don’t think AI should be used for every single question.  AI should be used for big picture problems, such as in medicine, where AI has proven it can diagnose more effectively than doctors in specific scenarios (source), and in science with medical and agricultural possibilities (source). Just imagine how advanced this skill will be by 2030. It has the potential to improve clinical diagnosis and medical practice for the better, not to mention the hundreds of other careers that will also be transformed.   

Regarding AI in politics/government, this may be out there for many of you, but it could be implemented in helpful ways. For example, if AI could analyze bus routes and identify a more productive route, that would be a useful tool. The question is how far we can/should take it, which I will leave open for now.

On Work/Bullshit Jobs

One of the most important pieces of political work I have seen in the 21st century is David Graeber’s “Bullshit Jobs”. While I would encourage you to read the book itself, the premise is that many people  (perhaps 30-45%) have jobs that are not fully productive to society. These can include jobs where no (or very little) work is done or where work is done but could be removed without any loss to society. Examples of the second include telemarketers, doormen, corporate lobbyists, and more. The first is more of general principle, such as an office job that has 2 hours of actual work per day and then the rest of the day has nothing, or worse, purposefully assigned pointless work to keep the workers busy.  

Eliminating or reducing (such as by cutting working hours) for these jobs is not bad AS LONG AS meaningful and fulfilling jobs can be provided in turn. These could include jobs such as constructing nature trails, planting trees, working on a farm, teaching, building homes, and the list goes on. The problem is that saying this comes across as capitalistic, when in reality, if done correctly, it is the opposite. The point is to use all our available time for practical purposes and to use the rest for leisure.  

The Netherlands has the lowest average working hours in the EU at 32 hours, making it effectively a 4-day workweek (which they are now implementing in policy). The benefits of this are great, with more energy, more time to be with kids and family, and a better quality of life, which in turn leads to a more productive worker.  

There is more to Bullshit Jobs, and despite the somewhat unserious title, it is a highly informative analytical text that should be more talked about, and I highly encourage you to check it out. It’s funny as well.  

Additionally, as I have said before, AI also has the power to change the workforce incredibly rapidly, so we must use policy actions to both adjust accordingly and not fall behind in terms of work practices as well as protect workers livelihoods.  

Regarding salaries, in general, indeed, the wealthy earn far too much. Here, this is not about a doctor who earns a decent bit more than their neighbor or a popular book writer with a solid income. It is about two groups (which are sometimes the same): upper management and capital entrepreneurs. 

In regards to upper management, these are people who worked their way up (or were handed through “connections”) through a company and now find themselves in a position where they both impact company policy and make 200x that of the lower worker, which is where I draw a problem. The amount of money made is unnecessary, and it is definitely not proportionate in the slightest to the amount of work being down. In fact, I would argue that your average worker has a more stressful and intense workday than their upper management and CEOs who reap the benefits of their success. It is not to say that CEOs, CFOs, COOs, corporate lawyers, and the like have done nothing to deserve their position, rather that the position itself should be changed to be less powerful. Even the incentive of climbing the corporate ladder often leads to some of the wrong people at the top, as they are the people who are most able to hurt others for their own benefit. It is no wonder that the rate for psychopathy is much higher in business leaders (4-12%) than in the general population (1%).  

Instead, a company where the workers keep similar salaries with slight differences depending on things like stress load and intelligence required, with incentives such as bonuses for hard work, and the ability for the workers to have agency over some of the decisions in the company, such as through voting structures, would be good. This is not to say there would be no leadership positions, but rather that leadership positions would be balanced and always rightfully earned. It reminds me of a story where a Jesuit in the 17^th century, writing about indigenous Americans, said this: “The chiefs command nothing; they have no authority to enforce. If the young men do not wish to follow, they do as they please. The only power of the chief is in his eloquence.” The Jesuit was effectively saying that the tribe chiefs couldn’t order people to do anything, although their leadership was trusted, so that if they thought the order made sense, they might likely do it. A good leader does not have complete power over their decisions, as we, as humans, are not infallible. Accountability is necessary to prevent corruption. This applies to both the workforce and the government in general.  

With capital Entrepeneur’s, these are people who are definitely smart and have used their intelligence to build companies or tech that can influence the world around us (positively and negatively), as well as vast wealth that can influence politics and people’s agency. Think Elon, Zuck, Gates, etc. Nothing wrong with entrepreneurialism, as new inventions solve our old problems and improve the quality of life for many. Yet here, the owner has control over a product that can actively harm its users, such as with the negative mental health effects of social media. More importantly, they gain access to wealth they can use to influence elections for their own benefit and political interests. This should not be a feature in a democratic system.  

The problem is that most of their wealth is in stocks, so “taxing them higher” doesn’t really apply. It is more ingrained in our current system, and while I encourage someone to think of a solution at this point in time, I am going to suggest limiting the political power of money, which I go into more depth later, and move on.  

On the Fertility Rate

Here is a map of the worldwide fertility rate, with the current total rate around 2.25. The fertility rate, in its simplest form, is the number of births per woman. 2.1 is the general replacement rate, meaning that for every couple there would be 2 children, with the .1 to account for premature deaths.  

When you actually examine the map, most of the world, excluding Africa and south/eastern Asia, has birth rates below 2.1. There is some general concern about what this will mean for the future, and it’s not hard to see why. Advances in healthcare enabled more births to survive, leading to high birth rates over the last 200-ish years. As women joined the workforce and raising children became more expensive, among many other country-specific and general factors, large families simply became both less attainable and less desirable.  

There are two immediate “solutions” to decades of low birth rates, aside from increasing birth rates, because this is surprisingly hard to achieve (it hasn’t worked in Hungary, Russia, or South Korea, really) and is a much longer-term solution.

Assuming a country that does not pursue these solutions (which will be addressed later), we can first examine the potential problems.  

For one, our economy generally operates under the assumption that firms aim for higher profits each year, and thus a considerable downsizing of the consumer base of a market will generally require a shift in how markets operate.  

It also means much greater spending on the elderly, as the longer lifespans enabled by modern medicine will be unaffordable for many, in addition to a higher and higher percentage of the country being elderly.  

This also applies to social security for the world, which will require more funding and/or a reworking, as there is a lower percent of workers to support a higher precent of retirees.  

There are basically so many changes that it is hard to predict, with more severe changes for countries with lower birth rates. For example, here is South Koreas population pyramid.