Archive for the Sweet & Sour Socialism Special Report Category

Boycott Killer Coke on the 125th birthday of Coca-Cola [Sweet & Sour Socialism Special Report /]

Posted in BBC bias, distortions and lies, China, China-bashing, Colombia, Labor, Sweet & Sour Socialism Special Report on May 9, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

by Zuo Shou 左手

Saw that Coca-Cola corporation was celebrating it’s 125th B-day on May 8…

Just bringing folks’ attention to a boycott of that same corporation that’s been ongoing for several years, I’ve met with the Colombian unionists who’ve lived under the gun because of illegal and deadly labor suppression from “Killer Coke”.

Regarding “Killer Coke” in China:  there are campaigns in China to stop use of “dispatch” (temporary or subcontracted) workers at Coke factories.

At the same time, a caveat…I was not happy to see Coke as an official sponsor of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, I thought that was irresponsible on multiple levels.   However, while the KillerCoke people are highlighting some legitimate grievances at Coke plants in China (posts will follow about that) they are simultaneously engaging in slanderous China-bashing and wild rumor-mongering, featuring a particularly absurd BBC prison labor rumor and Mia Farrow’s discredited and vile “China is criminally responsible for bad things in Darfur” claim.

The big issue is Coke in Colombia…


Google blatantly lies, and the Associated Press spreads the lie. Gmail is NOT blocked in China [Sweet & Sour Socialism Special Report]

Posted in Black propaganda, China, China-bashing, Corporate Media Critique, Google, Intenet control policy / "Great Firewall", Media smear campaign, Obama, Sweet & Sour Socialism Special Report, vs. Google, Western nations' human rights distortions on March 21, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

March 21, 2011

by Zuo Shou 左手

One of the most shocking things about living in China is seeing exactly to what extent capitalist media will distort and outright lie about Chinese situations.  Apparently they count on the fact that most of the audience is ignorant or bigoted about China, and will lap up any anti-communist hogwash the hacks can ladle out, no matter how ridiculous.  One can only speculate on why they constantly do this, and expose their mendacity as much as possible.

With that intro, just a quick message to let folks know that I’ve seen a few articles in the last 24 hours alleging that the Chinese government is going on an alleged anti-Google rampage.

Google is known for crying wolf against the Chinese government before; they’re doing it again, worse than before.

What’s Google’s smear now?  I don’t like to link to garbage, but here’s a headline from the Huffington Post:  “Gmail In China Being Blocked By Government, Says Google”, a reprinted AP article by one Tini Tran.

The bizarre article only relays a claim from Google; in fact there’s no independent investigation whatsoever by the reporter.  The sole voices in the article are Google and the reporter, not one netizen of any nationality is quoted.  The photo to the article is a seemingly random Gmail page, which proves nothing about anything.  More than anything else, the article is simply a unverified Google press release, collaboratively re-written under the AP imprimatur.

This netizen and blogger is here to attest that GOOGLE IS LYING.  AP IS SLANDERING and also lying (about other matters in China in both this article and every other one I’ve seen from them lately – but that’s another story).

I live in China, and have for over six years.  I use Gmail every day, which means regularly receiving and sending emails.  Gmail is not blocked and never has been in all the time I’ve used it here.  It’s open in another tab as I write this.  Internet commenters on the AP story in other parts of China are verifying that “Gmail is fine here”.  I haven’t seen a single commenter confirm Google’s outrageous falsehood.

Google’s dirty China-bashing, coming from a deeply embedded position in the Obama regime, has been exposed by Ben Chalmes at the Sinomania! site:  “GOOGLE HIJACKS US CHINA POLICY”   –  which is must-read to get a clue of what Google has up its sleeve.  I’ll post that article here when I have time.

In the meantime maintain wary skepticism about anything Google claims regarding its operations in the Chinese environment.  Also pay attention to how AP’s stance is to chronically demonize the Chinese government through innuendo and evidence-less claims, portraying it in the most negative light possible while habitually denying it a platform to rebut accusations.


Which government practices true separation of Church and State? Current US Congress is 100% religiously affiliated; China’s CPC is officially atheist [Pew Research Center / Sweet & Sour Socialism Special Report]

Posted in Bourgeois parliamentary democracy, CPC, Pew Research Center, Sweet & Sour Socialism Special Report, USA on February 9, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

February 9, 2011

"…the [U.S.] Constitution promises freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. We are after all not just another nation, but ‘one nation under God.’ " – Joe Lieberman, former Democratic Party Vice-Presidential candidate and currently unpopular retiring U.S. Senator, October 2000

A recent report from Pew Forum on and Religion and Public Life, “Faith on the Hill:  The Religious Composition of the 112th Congress” (Jan. 5, 2011) revealed a remarkable fact about the religious orientation of  the 112th Congress:

“…Perhaps the greatest disparity between the religious makeup of Congress and the people it represents…is in the percentage of the unaffiliated — those who describe their religion as atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular."  According to information gathered by CQ Roll Call and the Pew Forum, no members of Congress say they are unaffiliated.  By contrast, about one-sixth of U.S. adults (16%) are not affiliated with any particular faith…”

Contrast this to the Chinese Communist Party, which in keeping with Marxist-Leninist tradition, takes atheism as a universal technical membership requirement. *

* There is considerable speculation about the number of CPC members who are religious in private, but that factor remains unquantified (to my knowledge).  My experience indicates that strict religious disaffiliation is the deciding membership criteria.  For example, “Chinese traditional (folk) religion”  –  one of the world’s major religions with some 30% of Chinese as practitioners, and which is unincorporated, churchless and without affiliation  –  could possibly be practiced domestically by significant numbers of CPC cadre and wouldn’t overtly interfere with CPC membership.

by Zuo Shou 左手

“As China Rises, So Does Vietnam”- New York Times article cheats, foists Vietnam’s rise over China – UPDATED [Sweet & Sour Socialism Special Report]

Posted in Anti-China media bias, Anti-China propaganda exposure, Beijing, Capitalist media double standard, China, Corporate Media Critique, Economy, Protectionist Trade War with China, Sweet & Sour Socialism Special Report, USA, Vietnam on January 5, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

February 23, 2011  –  UPDATED AND EDITED with additional statistics – Zuo Shou 左手

~ This Special Report is a critique of “As China Rises, So Does Vietnam” [New York Times] by Wayne Arnold, 2010 December 21. NYT article link here ~

by Zuo Shou 左手

January 5, 2011

I don’t dispute the article’s title and initial premise, that China and Vietnam are developing in an economically similar manner.

However, the title proves to be something of a bait and switch as the article eventually transforms into a topic which the title does not portend, of Vietnam gaining at China’s expense — a hypothesis which is over-hyped and at times fundamentally deceptive in its presentation.  Not that there isn’t competition or dynamic changes in flows of capital relative to the two countries, or that the article doesn’t encompass some other ambiguous dynamics of two nations’ inter-related economies. However, in this particular context there are some glaring omissions and mistakes (if not lies) that should be pointed out.

Once it sketches out the relatively recent parallel “socialist market reform” which happened first in China and then in Vietnam, the article moves into a slippier, more propagandistic realm.

The writer expostulates that there is a major shift in industry and investment away from China and towards Vietnam, and a pretext is given that it’s either because “China stumbled” i.e. it’s China’s fault, and Vietnam exploited that based on some inherent advantage; or it’s implied that any changes in the two countries’ relative economic fortunes are simply the working out of impersonal domestic and global market forces.

One support given for the “it’s China’s own fault” rationale is Chinese “nationalist demonstrations”, which are alleged to have spooked Japanese factory-owners in China.  This is interesting in that peaceful demonstrators numbering in the dozens which took place just in September of this year are partially blamed for a factually-unsupported, immediate exodus of Japanese enterprise from China in the following 3-month period. If this author has data to back this up, he should share it… It’s also interesting because critics of China’s government bash it for allegedly suppressing freedom of assembly; yet when Chinese citizens do demonstrate – peacefully — it’s not praised, but branded “nationalist” and marked down as an indication of an unstable investment environment.

The major flaw in this claim’s narrative, intriguing in that it’s originating in the US “newspaper of record”, is the total omission of the ongoing US protectionist policy towards China, in particular in the furniture industry, an industry which the article itself poses as analysing.   It’s telling, or ironic, that this article was published 10 days before the US government renewed bipartisan-supported “anti-dumping” tariffs on Chinese wood furniture for another 5 years, which have been in place since at least 2004. [1][2] It’s also odd because the article recognizes the US tariffs (or lack thereof) on certain Vietnamese textiles.

Furthermore, the article fails to reveal that Vietnam is a direct beneficiary of the very China-curbing US policy it obscures.   Here’s the real story: “…The rapid rise in [Vietnam’s] furniture exports was also helped along by the anti-dumping duties on imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China imposed by the US Department of Commerce in 2002.  Added to this was the US-Bilateral Agreement which reduces the tariff on Vietnam’s furniture exports to the United States from 35% to 3%.  Both developments opened up the US market for Vietnamese furniture leading to its rapid growth….” [3]  This directly repudiates the writers’ claim that if China loses trade to Vietnam, it’s because “China stumbled” and Vietnam was “[w]aiting with its own well-educated, disciplined but much cheaper work force…”

This skewed view of the Chinese-Vietnam furniture export relationship is capped and summarized with a single unbelievable quote: “The whole industry just gradually moved to Vietnam”.   The facts: despite US protectionist policies, China’s global furniture exports in 2009 were over ten times those of Vietnam, $38.9 billion vs. $3.3 billion. And in a further irony, despite the US diverting wooden furniture trade to Vietnam away from China, in 2009 Chinese furniture exports to the US were still 10 times those from Vietnam, paralleling the global trend. [3][4]

The article’s dubious hypothesis of Vietnam outflanking China is further pushed with an anecdote about Intel replacing facilities in some countries like China and moving to Vietnam:

“…This year, Intel opened a new, $1 billion semiconductor factory near Ho Chi Minh City to replace facilities in Malaysia, the Philippines and China…” [emphasis mine]

This too proves to be extremely misleading, and presents an entirely false impression of Intel in Asia, particularly China.  It was reported in 2008 that Intel was developing a major chip-producing facility with $2.5 billion in investment in the northeast Chinese city of Dalian, to be the largest IC-processing base in Asia and Intel’s single largest investment outside of the US. [5]  With the plant fully operational in 2010 and Phase I completed, the total investment is being reported as $6 billion, more than doubling earlier reports.  Further adding to Intel’s total investment in China, the company still has a chip-production plant in Chengdu. [6]  In any case, in terms of real investment this new China plant in Dalian alone obviously surpasses the scale of Intel’s new Vietnam facility and this fact destroys the “Intel helps Vietnam surge past China” point the NYT writer was trying to make.

The article does make the concessional point that lower labor costs in Vietnam aren’t everything, that it is lagging behind China in infrastructure and other developmental indices.

The article concludes with one last major distortion regarding the NYT reporter’s favored theme:

“…Vietnam seems to have won favor as an alternative to China for foreign investors.  Foreign direct investment into Vietnam rose almost fourfold between 2005 and 2008, according to the World Bank, to $9.58 billion, and slipped 20 percent during the crisis in 2009 to $7.6 billion.  In China it almost halved.”

Sounds somewhat convincing, but if read closely, a distorted gauge of comparison should be evident.  Research data reveals the writer is indeed pushing  —  again  —  a demonstrably false claim, that “Vietnam seems to have won favor as an alternative to China for foreign investment”:

from “Top 25 Countries for Overseas Investment” – Business Week


Rank: 1 (Change from 2007: Unchanged)…

2008 Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Inflows: $108.3 billion…


Rank: 12 (Change from 2007: Unchanged)…

2008 FDI Inflows: $8.1 billion…

So the report by consultancy A.T. Kearney and published March 2010 in BusinessWeek shows that whatever the drops that occurred during the financial crisis, China remains the number 1 destination for foreign investment, and what’s more there was no change in the relative rankings of China and Vietnam from 2007 to 2010 as “Top 25 Destinations for Foreign Investment.  So once again the hypothesis of Vietnam “gaining” on China is trashed.

Was this article simply slipshod New York Times hackery, a deliberately distorted propaganda piece, or something in between?  What is clear is an emerging trend of US ruling class strategy is to play Vietnam off against China, a strategic alliance most difficult to swallow, considering the recent genocidal history of the US War on Vietnam; the US elbowing into the South China Sea territorial dispute on the side of Vietnam against China shows this will have both foreign AND trade policy implications.  That there will be deceptive “free trade” propaganda via US government corporate mouthpieces such as the NYT is not so new; what is perhaps new is its hybridization with China-bashing of varying subtlety and the spectacle of a virulently anti-socialist media stalwart promoting a bias of one socialist nation over another, in an attempt to diminish the image of the rising national rival that is China in the eyes of its readership.


1 “ITC explains why it let furniture anti-dumping duties stand” Heath E. Combs, Furniture Today, 2010 December 28

2 “US to slap tariffs on Chinese furniture” (Agencies) ChinaDaily, 2004 June 20

3 “Vietnam’s furniture exports continue to grow in 2009” Benjamin Chiu, Philexport Cebu, 2010 September 12

4 “US-China Trade Statistics and China’s World Trade Statistics” The US-China Business Council (USCBC) Reports, Analysis, and Statistics

5 “Intel’s CEO should receive a medal as big as a frying pan”, Neill Newton,, 2008 December 8

6 “Intel Dalian Plant to start production in October” CNET News China, 2010 August 16

The Guardian’s absurd anti-China bias, from article to heading typo: ‘US fears about China’s “pernicious” presence in China’ [Guardian / Sweet & Sour Socialism Special Report]

Posted in Africa, Anti-China media bias, Anti-China propaganda exposure, Black propaganda, Capitalist media double standard, China, China-bashing, Corporate Media Critique, Economic crisis & decline, Media smear campaign, Nigeria, State Department, Sweet & Sour Socialism Special Report, US imperialism, USA, Wikileaks on January 1, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

I’m not aware of anyone having picked up this ridiculous major typo by the Guardian.

The December 9 headline from the “News Blog” by Matthew Weaver and Mark Tran:

“WikiLeaks cables: Shell, Operation Payback and Assange for the Nobel prize – as it happened”

The (sub)heading:

“The latest batch of WikiLeaks cables revealed Shell’s grip on the Nigerian government and US fears about China’s “pernicious” presence in China while Operation Payback continued revenge attacks across the net and Russia suggested Julian Assange deserved the Nobel prize”

…”China’s ‘pernicious’ presence in China”…?

If you read the article, you can see what’s meant is “…China’s…presence in NIGERIA…”, a reference to a Wikileaks-released US cable where the US diplomat is paranoid about Chinese economic competition in Nigeria; the slanderous cable itself is not worth repeating. I can’t presume full knowledge of China activities in Africa, but China’s growing economic partnerships across the 3rd world, including African countries, are a concrete testament to Chinese non-imperialist or “soft” diplomacy; and their constituting a “threat” to US imperial hegemony is not a bad thing at all to most people of the globe.

The US presuming to the guardian of ethics regarding foreign behavior anywhere in Africa is ludicrous on the face of it, considering the history of brutal slavery and genocide that the US perpetrated on the African continent for which no amends have ever been forthcoming.

What’s more, this anti-China black propaganda cable was released alongside Wikileaks’ cables revealing that Nigerian government is profoundly corrupted by foreign transnationals, in particular Shell Oil, with the US federal-corporate nexus right in the thick of that action; AND the infamous US company Halliburton and even more infamous (former) exec Dick Cheney was simultaneously found guilty of bribery in Nigeria.

As for the heading…right, it’s “just” a typo, but heading a China-bashing article as it does, it seems like a kind of Freudian slip showing the sickness embedded in the Western mentality that the natives in non-Westernized foreign countries (i.e. China) are viewed as the biggest problem in their OWN COUNTRY.

Zuo Shou 左手

Original Guardian article:
(Contains US State Department black propaganda)

US State Department arch-villian Richard Holbrooke is dead. The tributes stop here. UPDATED [Sweet & Sour Socialism Special Report]

Posted in Afghan quagmire, Afghanistan, Bill Clinton, Diplomat, Glenn Greenwald @ Salon, NATO invasion, Obama, Pakistan, State Department, Sweet & Sour Socialism Special Report, US "War on Terror", US drone strikes, US foreign occupation, US Government Cover-up, US imperialism, USA, Vietnam, Wayne Madsen Report on December 14, 2010 by Zuo Shou / 左手

UPDATE Dec. 14, later that evening… “Richard Holbrooke’s Last Words” — Glenn Greenwald at Salon shares from the WaPo’s long obituary of Holbrooke: ‘…his “last words” were according to his family members, which he uttered as he was being sedated for surgery: “You’ve got to stop this war in Afghanistan.”‘

Greenwald’s Salon article link here.  Not quite redemption, but makes a good tombstone epitaph.

AND Wayne Madsen Report refers to deceased Holbrooke as “Henry Kissinger’s evil apprentice”. – Zuo Shou 左手


December 14, 2010

by Zuo Shou / 左手

Ok, enough with the “glowing accolades” of this singularly evil man from the Empire’s executives and their media claque.

From Vietnam’s “Pentagon Papers”, to East Timor genocide, to engendering NATO’s sinister mutation into aggressor against Yugoslavia (and its Chinese embassy), to spreading the US war-infection between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and many more spots on the globe that others more learned than I can document — this prototypical neo-con left a bloody slime trail from nation to nation in the guise of USA power, committing serial outrages against global peace and humanity that no whitewashing can efface.

It’s amazing he didn’t win the blasted Nobel Peace Prize.

He left this earth in the middle of helping orchestrate the brutal and failing occupation of Afghanistan, perhaps ironically the very graveyard of the Empire he never ceased plotting on behalf of.

For some hell is too good a finale.

For reference:

“How Holbrooke Lied His Way Into a War” by Sam Husseini Dec. 2008 [Counterpunch]

…[During Bill Clinton’s administration] shortly before the bombing of Yugoslavia began in late March 1999, Holbrooke met with Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. By his own account, Holbrooke delivered the final ultimatum to Milosevic — that if Yugoslavia didn’t agree to the Rambouillet text, NATO would begin bombing.

The Rambouillet text called for a defacto occupation of Yugoslavia. On major U.S. media, after the bombing of Yugoslavia began, Holbrooke claimed that what was called for in the Rambouillet text, despite Serbian protests, “isn’t an occupation”. Several weeks later, when confronted by a journalist familiar with the Rambouillet text, Holbrooke claimed: “I never said that”. This was a lie, it was also a tacit admission that the Rambouillet text did call for an occupation (why else would Holbrooke deny saying it when he had?) So the U.S. demanded that Yugoslavia submit to occupation or be bombed — and Holbrooke lied about this crucial fact when questioned about the cause of the war.

Here are the specifics: The Rambouillet text of Feb. 23, 1999, a month before NATO began bombing, contained provisions that provided for NATO to basically occupy the entire Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), not just Kosovo. Excerpts from Appendix (B) (I attempted to draw attention to this at the time when I became aware of it.):

7. NATO personnel shall be immune from any form of arrest, investigation, or detention by the authorities in the FRY.
8. NATO personnel shall enjoy… free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters.
11. NATO is granted the use of airports, roads, rails and ports without payment…etc…
Full article link:

“Obama’s Neocon” [on Holbrooke’s central role in the Indonesian occupation and massacres of East Timor] Jan. 2009 [Counterpunch]

In wee morning hours on Friday, January 23, a U.S. spy plane killed at least 15 in Pakistan near the Afghanistan border. It was Barack Obama’s first blood and the U.S.A.’s first violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty under the new administration.  The attack was an early sign that the newly minted president may not be overhauling the War on Terror this week, or even next.

As the U.S. government fired upon alleged terrorists in the rugged outback of Pakistan, Obama was back in Washington appointing Richard Holbrooke as a special U.S. representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, like the remote control bombing that claimed human life, Obama’s vision for the region, in the embodiment of Holbrooke, may not be a drastic departure from the failed Bush doctrine. Or a departure at all.

“[Holbrooke] is one of the most talented diplomats of his generation,” Obama said during a January 22 press conference at the State Department. In his speech Obama declared that both Afghanistan and Pakistan will be the “central front” in the War on Terror. “There, as in the Middle East, we must understand that we cannot deal with our problems in isolation,” he said.

Despite Obama’s insistence that Holbrooke is qualified to leave the U.S.A’s new efforts in the War on Terror, history seems to disagree.

In 1975, during Gerald Ford’s administration, Indonesia invaded East Timor and slaughtered 200,000 indigenous Timorese. The Indonesian invasion of East Timor set the stage for a long and bloody occupation that recently ended after an international peacekeeping force was introduced in 1999.

Transcripts of meetings among Indonesian dictator Mohamed Suharto, Gerald Ford, and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger have shown conclusively that Kissinger and Ford authorized and encouraged Suhatro’s murderous actions. “We will understand and will not press you on the issue [of East Timor],” said President Ford in a meeting with Suharto and Kissinger in early December 1975, days before Suharto’s bloodbath. “We understand the problem and the intentions you have,” he added.

Henry Kissinger also stressed at the meeting that “the use of US-made arms could create problems,” but then added, “It depends on how we construe it; whether it is in self-defense or is a foreign operation.” Thus, Kissinger’s concern was not about whether US arms would be used offensively, but whether the act could be interpreted as illegal. Kissinger went on: “It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly.”

After Gerald Ford’s loss and Jimmy Carter’s ascendance into the White House in 1976, Indonesia requested additional arms to continue its brutal occupation, even though there was a supposed ban on arms trades to Suharto’s government. It was Carter’s appointee to the Department of State’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Richard Holbrooke, who authorized additional arms shipments to Indonesia during this supposed blockade. Many scholars have noted that this was the period when the Indonesian suppression of the Timorese reached genocidal levels…

“Obama’s Neocon” full article link:

Sweet and Sour Socialism loves Wikileaks’ “Cablegate”. Thank you Julian Assange, Wikileaks’ staff and contributors [Sweet & Sour Socialism Special Report]

Posted in Capitalist media double standard, China, Corporate Media Critique, Julian Assange, Media cover-up, Media smear campaign, Sweet & Sour Socialism Special Report, US Government Cover-up, US imperialism, Wikileaks on December 3, 2010 by Zuo Shou / 左手

by Zuo Shou 左手

This is just a short message to indicate support for the Wikileaks “Cablegate” release.

The disclosure of hundreds of thousands of classified US diplomatic documents is hoisting the US empire and its puppets, toadies and stooges on their own petards. The force of these blows against Empire must not be underestimated.

A thorough analysis of how devastating “Cablegate” will be to the failing US empire would require more time and energy than this blogger is capable of at this time. However, do not believe for a moment the US government and its presstitutes’ propaganda that this kind of whistleblowing has no impact. The criminalization campaign and furious persecution, including death threats, being directed against Wikileaks and Assange is proof of that.

Also beware “Cablegate”‘s spin by the mainstream media maestros, whose primary and continuous role is to occlude the ruthless criminality of US foreign policy and act as “force multiplier” of US propaganda, while simultaneously posturing about “free speech”. Presenting US diplomatic gossip, presumptions and prevarications from the cables as “smoking guns” to bolster US foreign policy objectives is and will be a deliberate strategy of the US government in collusion with its media partners to neutralize Wikileaks exposures and re-brand them as operational propaganda weapons against naive US citizens and innocent foreign people. This is the opposite of “Cablegate”‘s intent and this vile tactic should itself be vigorously exposed and criticized.

A lesson to be learned from all of this is just how much of a shady, nefarious backroom political conspiracy exists between the US, its foreign “partners” (i.e. pseudo-independent puppets and satellites of NATO’s ”free world” and beyond) and the mis-named “free” media that simply parrots, covers things up or looks the other way while so much skulduggery goes on right under their noses.

However, as a blogger dedicated to documenting the crimes and general wickedness of US empire, I’m dealing with “too much of a good thing”…how to keep up with this media landslide of BS exposure! But actually this is an example of “problems that revolutionaries want to have”.

Also, I want to point out that Assange is on the record as being anti-Chinese government. My sense is that Assange has an essentially anarchist philosophy. I’m coming from a communist perspective. In truth, anarchists and communists agree about most things, but rather strongly (sometimes fiercely) disagree on others. I’m not here to debate the merits of these two philosophies / systems. I just want to point out that while I may not agree with Wikileaks’ and/or Assange’s missions or positions 100%, I’m 100% in support of Wikileaks “Cablegate” release and every major release they’ve done since this blog started. I will always stick to acting against the appalling US imperial-fascist government, which is by definition my government; and by extension its satellites and lackeys — this genocidal political entity being far and away the greatest current threat to humanity on the globe.

I urge people who believe in global justice and sapping and disarming the genocidally hubristic US empire do what they can to support Wikileaks “Cablegate”.