Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Author: Ian Welsh Page 9 of 439

Genocide & Brown Shirts Are Being Normalized

By

On February 19, 2026

31 Comments

So we have an ongoing genocide in Gaza. The death toll, as estimated by scientists, is probably north of half a million. (The official toll is laughable and obviously wrong, growth slowing over time.)

Trump was able to use oil piracy and a kidnapping to bend Venezuela to his will.

Now he’s cut off oil to Cuba, and because of how modern economies work, that means famine.

Deliberately causing a famine is genocidal.

This genocide creep. America could have done this to Cuba any time after the fall of the USSR. Sanctions were nasty and caused a lot of suffering and even deaths, but they didn’t rise to the level of “let’s just starve them to death. They’ll give in.”

Mind you, they tried to do this to Yemen, engineering a low-grade famine. Deaths were in the low to mid hundreds of thousands. Genocide. It was intentional, everyone knew that’s what was the intention.

In Israel a lot were killed by arms, but the cutting off of medical supplies, fuel and food I’m sure will have killed even more people.

Multiple times the US and/or its allies has engineered a famine. In Yemen with Saudi Arabian help. Israel with Israelis taking the lead, but the US supporting it all along the way, as when it cut funding to the primary aid agency, UNWRA.

Now Cuba.

This is the way it works. Whenever something evil is done by the powerful to the weak, they look to see if there were consequences. If not, they expand, moving inwards. Yemen is a place no one cares about in the West: there wasn’t a lot of coverage. Palestine got tons of coverage and even law cases, but in the end no one powerful suffered, and the genocide was and is pushed thru. Opponents lost their jobs, went to prison and were deported or lost their banking access (Albanese, for example.)

Since those responsible for the genocide got away with it twice, they’re now doing it a third time.

Everything the powerful do to someone else is something they are willing to do to you if they think it’s in their interest, or just fun.

In the US we have the ICE crackdowns. I wrote for years that if Trump went wild, ICE would be his brown shirts, and here we are. Substantially we have masked men in unmarked cars without badges or in most cases judicial warrants, terrorizing Americans. Not as bad as what Israelis do to Palestinians or America and NATO did in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the same sort of thing. Just call everyone an immigrant or a terrorist and do what you want to them. Refuse to obey the law, ignore judges (what can they do) and on your way.

Start internally with “immigrants” but sweep up lots of citizens and treat them abusively, without reference to their rights.

Set those precedents. And if you get away with it: if no one important winds up punished, then you can expand it. Go after the citizens next. Kick out native Americans. Keep people locked up for months on end without any real judge even knowing about it. Ignore health care problems, let them suffer and die.

Every time the elites of any country get away with abusing regular people, whether foreign or domestic, the line moves on what is acceptable.

We fight for other people to be treated well not just because we aren’t monsters, but because we know that it could be us. Every time we fail to make sure other people are treated fairly and well, we make ourselves less secure. What was done to them can now be done to us. It is for this reasons that even people accused of the worst crimes, like pedophilia and rape have rights, because an accusation isn’t proof and the government and police often get things wrong or lie.

The precedents are now firm that anyone who isn’t in the elite has limited rights: no free speech, no right to see an attorney, no right to security against search and seizure, and so on.

Genocide and ignoring the rule of law, even ignoring judicial rulings, are now the norm.

And the goal isn’t genocide of foreigners. The goal is to get to the point where they can lock up or kill anyone they want domestically.

That’s what American elites want. If an election is going to be lost, fix it. If a person is against a genocide, lock them up or deport them or de-bank them. Anyone who is inconvenient because they oppose what the elite group in power find the rule of law is increasingly no shield. It’s been broken too often, elites know they can mass murder, rape and traffic children and teens with few or no consequences.

What has been done to outsiders will increasingly be done to us, core Western citizens. By failing to protect others, we set the precedents that we were no longer protected.

Never think “it’s OK to do monstrous things to outsiders” because everyone who isn’t an elite eventually becomes an outsider.

This site is only viable due to reader donations. If you value it and can, please subscribe or donate.

Pre-Internet Journalism Was Optimized For Information Transfer Efficiency, Post-Internet For Inefficiency

By

On February 16, 2026

18 Comments

We’ve all seen the titles of articles “Big Company decides to do something BAD” or “This famous actor’ adorable dog saved his life!”.

Click bait. The information you want is “what the big company is what big company did what, or who the actor is.

Back when we had newspapers the titles would have been “X AI is making degrading nudes of people without their consent”. It would name the actor.

The rules of pre-internet Journalism were as follows: the most important information goes into the headline. The first paragraph summarizes the article and each paragraph after includes information in order of importance, with the least important information in the second last paragraph. The last paragraph sums up the article again.”

The rule of thumb I was taught is that half the readers only read the title and that you should expect to lose half the remaining readers per paragraph. I don’t think it was always that bad, and it varied by type of article, more people will read an entire book or movie review, for example, but the thrust of it was correct.

Newspapers knew that people wouldn’t read the whole article so tried to get the most important information to them first, the second next and so on.

Modern internet journalism optimized for clicks and for time on site. The title leaves out the important information to get a click. The article is often written so that the most important information is near or at the end, so you have to read all the way thru, with paragraphs before that being teases, meant to keep you reading.

One reason people are more likely to be ignorant today is simply this change from “get them the information they need as fast as possible” to “get them to click and stay on site as long as possible.” Bonus points if you can get them to click on more links inside your site. While strictly speaking internet news isn’t optimized for inefficiency, it might as well be: that’s the effect.

Overall I think that the internet has been bad for humanity. I don’t make this judgment call lightly, I make my living here, after all, and there’s a lot I love about the internet, especially the ease of looking up information.

Inefficient information transfer is just one part of why the internet has been bad for humans, I’m going to return to this issue over and over during the next few weeks.

This site is only viable due to reader donations. If you value it and can, please subscribe or donate.

Open Thread

By

On February 14, 2026

11 Comments

Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.

The China Super Boosters Are Super Tiresome

By

On February 11, 2026

24 Comments

I stand second to few in my admiration for how well China has done. But the super boosters are super tiresome. If China had been a small nation, the best they would have done is parallel Japan: do very well, then the US breaks your legs. Reminds me of Americans in 1950 or 95.

They remind me of many Americans in 1950 or 1995. “We are at the top because we are the best. Our governance is superior, our culture is superior. It’s just because we’re better than you all, and we always will be.”

I doubt the CPC’s leadership is this stupid or arrogant (yet). They remember China getting its face pushed in for over a hundred years.

China is at the start of a good run. Leaving aside climate change and ecological collapse it’ll last 100 to 150 years, EXACTLY the same as the American run. China’s current rise is just a hegemonic replacement cycle story. Not even as impressive as Britain creating the industrial revolution. This is just taking the lead, China has done NOTHING revolutionary yet. This is a dirt standard hegemonic replacement cycle. Happens every 150 years or so.

(The American run began in the 1880s, when they overtook Britain in industrial production.)

The reason China succeeded when other nations didn’t comes down to three things: competence, the prior hegemon’s help and size. All three were required The Japanese were super competent after WWII, absolutely amazing. When they started to challenge the US, they were forced into the humiliating Plaza Accords. If China was the size and population of Japan, the same thing would have happened to them, no matter how “superior” their culture or leadership is. India failed despite its size because the government and leadership were (and are) terrible.

This also makes Chinese booster sneering at smaller nations the US has beaten down tiresome. It’s not the same situation. “Oh, they’re incompetent.” No, idiot, Cuba is an Island nation with 9.75 million people and no resources to speak of which has been under sanctions for every year of its existence since it through the Americans out. That they even still exist is amazing. Venezuela had 28 million and is close, Iran (though it is larger and further away and thus had a far better hand to play) has likewise been under sanctions since day one, and the Iraq/Iran war was sponsored by America.

China has done great. No regular reader of mine can think I don’t admire the hell out of China’s leadership and people (and I like Chinese culture and Chinese people and have all my life, I was practically raised by Chinese for my first five years.)

But stop with the glazing and remember that hubris is always punished.

This site is only viable due to reader donations. If you value it and can, please subscribe or donate.

 

How Dependent Is Canada On The US?

By

On February 10, 2026

26 Comments

This “issue” has flaired up again as Trump attacks Canada again.

The short answer is that in the short term Canada is moderately dependent on the US and the long term it is hardly dependent on America at all.

Right now we (Canada) have a lot of trade with the US. We buy mostly finished goods, and pay fees to American tech and copyright holders. The US buys oil (which it cannot easily substitute away from in the short term). The US buys cars from us (#2, but deceptive, since they’re made by US companies in Canada), a small amount of machinery like nuclear power equipment, and a grab bag of other industrial goods. We also sell Potash (about 80% of what the US needs) and aluminum to the US, for which there is no easy substitute: these things are in global shortage, and the best alternative for potash is Russia and despite various bullshit about American/Russian alliances, Russia doesn’t trust the US at all and would not be a reliable trade partner. Without potash American farmers are screwed, since it’s used for fertilizer. America can’t significantly improve domestic potash production, there isn’t enough in America.

There’s substantially nothing we buy from the US that we can’t get from China for less or Europe for a bit more. And what the US sells Canada is high value add goods, not resources. We’re a valuable customer.

And, at the brass tacks level, if all trade stopped tomorrow, Canada could feed itself and would have plenty of energy. Our houses would stay hot in the winter and cool in the summer, our trucks would have gasoline and diesel, our trains would run and our planes would fly.

Canadian dependence on America is about 80 to 90% a legacy issue. We currently do a lot of trade with America, but we don’t have to. We can sell manufactured goods to Europe, and resources to China and buy from China and Europe and various other nations. Nothing we get from the US is a “must have with no feasible replacement.”

So the game is very much along the lines of the old joke about saying nice things to a barking dog while you find a rock. Not that we will ever fight the US unless they invade, but we just need time to disentangle our economies and move to reliable trade partners.

America could hurt us a lot if they cut of trade, but it wouldn’t be a mortal blow and we would recover. We’d prefer to do it slow, but if we have to do it on an emergency basis it can be done.

Canada doesn’t need the US. It just needs some time to change trade partners, and that’s what Carney is doing, because as he has said, it no longer makes sense to do business with the US.

We’ll talk a bit more about trade with the US from a global perspective soon, but basically the US has a legacy trade position: no one needs to buy from it any more unless they’re stupid (Europe refusing to buy Russian gas). Selling to it is still necessary for many nations, but that will become less true over time.

America’s prosperity and power are both legacies, they have no solid foundation to stand on any more. Ironically Canada is in a better position in the middle to long term than America simply because it only has 40 million people and is a continent sized country with a continent’s worth or resources. The only significant danger is an American invasion.

This site is only viable due to reader donations. If you value it and can, please subscribe or donate.

America Psychopathy Continues To Stun (Cuba Edition)

By

On February 9, 2026

33 Comments

So, as you probably know America is stopping all fuel from reaching Cuba. They’ll be out in days. Tomorrow the jet fuel runs out, so no more international flights.

But the real issue is that no fuel means no diesel tractors, no distribution of food, not enough refridgeration: in a word, famine.

This is deliberate US policy. Mexico has a sent a couple of ships full of food with a military escort, but that’s irrelevant: without fuel the food will not get where it needs to go and cannot be preserved. She doesn’t have the guts to send oil, which is understandable.

This is the problem with the fall of the USSR. No one these days has the balls, desire and ability to stand up to the US when it pulls shit like this. Russia’s busy and a lot weaker than it used to be, plus they’re basically just off-brand capitalists now, China doesn’t care and doesn’t have a navy with enough projection power yet, and the EU are spineless (that may be changing somewhat, but not fast enough.) Everyone else is too weak and too scared.

An international convoy system, with each convoy guarded by military ships from multiple countries might work, but I see no sign anyone is even talking about it, let alone organizing.

So Cubans will starve if Trump keeps this up and Cuba doesn’t capitulate and let America choose its government.

This is a direct result of Trump getting away with his naval blockade on Venezuela: in that case not letting them send oil out. No one did anything to stop America or to even impose a cost, so on to Cuba.

China could simply cut off all access to some key manufactured goods like magnets or any of hundreds of other goods where they’re the only supplier, including goods that the US has to have to make weapons. But this doesn’t really matter to them, so they aren’t. Or a coalition of other countries could all sanction the US at the same time, but again, no.

Perhaps your question is “why should they?”

I’m glad you asked, imaginary but helpful reader.

Because Trump started with Venezuela, then went to Cuba. Who will he go to next? There are four strategies for dealing with bullies:

  1. Join them and beat up their victims. (We’ll call this the NATO strategy.) If you help them, and kiss their ass enough, maybe they won’t attack you. Works surprisingly well, until it doesn’t. Ask Denmark about that. Or Canada. Or, well, the EU as a whole.
  2. Fight back. If you’re too weak, get together with your friends. Even if you lose, make them hurt. And you might win (Vietnam says “Hi! America still cringes every time they hear our name!”)
  3. Scurry like rats into corners and hope they don’t pick you as their next victim.
  4. Ignore them if you’re as strong or stronger than them. Bullies only attack those weaker than them. You aren’t. Who cares who they beat up as long as it isn’t you?

Most of the world is picking : “scurry like rats!” China isn’t, they’re picking “Who cares if they beat someone else up, they can’t do it to us!”

There’s a lot to be said for , as long as you’re sure you’ll never be weaker than the bully (a safe bet for China right now) and don’t give a damn about anybody but yourself.

But , “scurry like rats, hoping you aren’t the next victim” is stupid. Each successful victimization just whets the bully’s appetite and the more cowardice he sees, the more he pushes people around. Victims multiply.

Don’t want America, under Trump or another President to revisit the Greenland situation with an amphibious assault one fine morning?

Send those convoys to Cuba or find some other way to hurt America in general and Trump in specific. Not because you care about Cubans or, heck, human welfare. Gaza has revealed you don’t give a shit. But because you’re protecting yourself by protecting others, setting the precedent that the powerful can’t just pick you off one by one.

But that would require statesmen with guts, wouldn’t it?

Ain’t none of them in the EU with any power.

So I guess the Cubans will starve, just like the Palestinians, in a 100% manmade famine which the US either caused (Cuba) or which couldn’t have happened without American assistance (Palestine.)

Remember, the Athenians in the Melian dialogue were right “The powerful do what they will, the weak suffer what they must” but so were the Melians when they pointed out that with every atrocity the Athenians were alienating others, and that they, too, would suffer.

This site is only viable due to reader donations. If you value it and can, please subscribe or donate.

Open Thread

By

On February 7, 2026

16 Comments

Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.

Are The Boomers To Blame For America’s Decline?

By

On February 6, 2026

30 Comments

It’s common to slap all the blame on Boomers, but it’s not really fair, though they certainly did plenty of harm. (Yes, some Boomers, elites are more to blame, yadda, yadda.)

But it wasn’t just the boomers. The so-called Reagan Republicans included a ton of GI Generation and Silents. The issue is that the people who created the FDR system weren’t GI Gen, they were Lost and Missionary generation. GI Gen and later lived in the economy created by those generations, but they didn’t really understand how and why it worked because they weren’t adults during the 1920s, so they didn’t get what it was reacting against or what it was trying to fix and avoid a recurrence of.

GI Gen and Silent leaders looked at all the rules FDR and co had put in place and they didn’t really understand why they existed: the rules looked stupid, there seemed to be tons of them,  and they figured “we’re smarter than they were, we won’t do stupid things and life will be a lot easier with less regulation.”

Well that was the rationalization: the other issue was simple enough. Getting rid of the rules let a lot of people become rich and even the middle class thought they’d benefit (and many did, with rising housing and stock prices and lower taxes.) The rules had, quite explicitly, been intended to make sure there couldn’t be another Gilded Age nor another roaring twenties — no stock bubbles, no super rich.

But, of course, a lot of people, especially with power, wanted to become super-rich, or at least richer and getting rid of the rules that were meant to stop that was a no-brainer. Enough middle class people were convinced to go along, and enough racists also joined in (Reagan and Nixon ran heavily on racism.) So a coalition was created which destroyed what had come before.

This started before Reagan, as someone will chime in to tell us, but Reagan was the formalization, the big break.

It happened because people wanted unearned wealth, and because the old system had broken (oil spikes, end of Bretton Woods, end of gold money, staglfation, and no one knew how to fix it (or no one anyone was willing to listen to) because the architects were all old or dead.)

So when offered “you can get rich or at least affluent without work and stick it to the niggers too” a lot of people took that deal. It wasn’t just the Boomers—Silents and GI were key to it, more key than the Boomers in the early years. It’s just that they’re all dead now so we blame the Boomers. Gen-X was complicit, but were still children when the key changes were made.

Boomers get all the blame, but they didn’t start the fire that burned down the old order, they simply threw fuel on it (Clinton, especially) when they could.

This site is only viable due to reader donations. If you value it and can, please subscribe or donate.

Page 9 of 439

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén