The immigrant proletariat, the Muslim ban, and the capitalist class

Editor’s note: This piece was originally written on February 1, 2017 so it is outdated in some respects, but broadly still valid. This is reposted from Dissident Voice.

The Trump administration has dug in its heels, declaring that the 90-day (for now) Muslim ban on refugees, from seven predominantly Muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia), enshrined in a January 27th executive order, is just “extreme vetting” and that the media is engaging in “false reporting.” In contrast, hundreds of diplomats have criticized the travel ban, top Democrats have criticized the ban while Republicans like Paul Ryan have said it necessary to protect the “homeland.” Also Jewish groups, over six thousand academics, varying UN agencies, and pro-refugee groups have criticized Trump’s action, along with protests in airports across the country, while immigrants have suffered with more crackdowns to come.

Numerous companies and CEOs have put out critical statements about Trump’s order. This included the top executives of Microsoft, Apple, Netflix, Airbnb, Box, GE, Lyft, Uber (later on), Koch Industries, TripAdvisor, SpaceX/Tesla Motors, JPMorganCase, and Goldman Sachs, most of whom pledged to help their own employees directly affected. [1] Others that spoke out on the ban included the head of the Internet Association, an industry trade group for the Internet industry, with some investors, like Chris Sacca, sending thousands of dollars to the ACLU, just like Lyft, Tim Cook of Apple declaring that “Apple would not exist without immigration, let alone thrive and innovate the way we do” and Twitter mirroring this by saying “Twitter is built by immigrants of all religions. We stand for and with them, always.” [2] Some exploited the misery of the order by trying to help their bottom line: Airbnb said that it would “provide free housing to detainees and travelers” affected and Starbucks is planning to hire 10,000 refugees “over five years in the 75 countries where it does business,” starting with those people who “have served with U.S. troops as interpreters and support personnel.” [3] What seems clear is that the actions of Trump may have crossed a “red line” as Hunter Walk, a partner at the San Francisco-based venture capital firm Homebrew VC, told the Washington Post, indicating possible anti-Trump action by Silicon Valley in the future, as more companies realize it is a “bigger risk to their investors and bottom line to stay quiet than it is to protest Trump’s ban on refugees and travel from seven Muslim-majority nations, betting vocal opposition to the executive order scores them a moral and fiscal victory.” [4]

Such statements mean that the one group that remains constant in opposition to the racist executive order is a sect of the capitalist class. While the recent lawsuits filed in Darweesh v. Trump, Aziz v. Trump, Doe v. Trump, Sarsour v. Trump, San Francisco v. Trump, Louhghalam et al v. Trump, have mainly made constitutional arguments against the racist immigration ban, one suit revealed more about the interests of the capitalist class, especially those in the tech industry. This lawsuit, filed by the Attorney General of the State of Washington, Bob Ferguson, and joined by Expedia and Amazon, among other companies, declared the following, showing how this industry depends on immigrants:

Immigration is an important economic driver in Washington. Many workers in Washington’s technology industry are immigrants, and many of those immigrant workers are from Muslim-majority countries. Immigrant and refugee-owned businesses employ 140,000 people in Washington. Many companies in Washington are dependent on foreign workers to operate and grow their businesses. The technology industry relies heavily on the H-1B visa program through which highly skilled workers like software engineers are permitted to work in the United States. Washington ranks ninth in the U.S. by number of applications for high-tech visas. Microsoft, a corporation headquartered in Redmond, Washington, is the State’s top employer of high-tech—or H-1B visa holders and employs nearly 5,000 people through the program. Other Washington-based companies, including Amazon, Expedia, and Starbucks, employ thousands of H-1B visa holders. The market for highly skilled workers and leaders in the technology industry is extremely competitive. Changes to U.S. immigration policy that restrict the flow of people may inhibit these companies’ ability to adequately staff their research and development efforts and recruit talent from overseas. If recruiting efforts are less successful, these companies’ abilities to develop and deliver successful products and services may be adversely affected Microsoft’s U.S. workforce is heavily dependent on immigrants and guest workers. At least 76 employees at Microsoft are citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, or Yemen and hold U.S. temporary work visas. There may be other employees with permanent-resident status or green cards. These employees may be banned from re-entering the U.S. if they travel overseas or to the company’s offices in Vancouver, British Columbia. Seattle-based company Amazon also employs workers from every corner of the world. Amazon’s employees, dependents of employees, and candidates for employment with Amazon have been impacted by the Executive Order that is the subject of this Complaint. Amazon has advised such employees currently in the United States to refrain from travel outside the United States. Bellevue-based company Expedia operates a domestic and foreign travel business. At the time of this filing, Expedia has approximately 1,000 customers with existing flight reservations in or out of the United. States who hold passports from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, or Yemen. The Executive Order will restrict business, increase business costs, and impact current employees and customers.

Such a section comprises six paragraphs of Washington State’s argument against the immigration order, a section that the lawsuit depends on to be successful. Immigrants are clearly vital to the tech industry. Of the 250,000 Muslims living in the San Francisco Bay Area, who are mostly of Arab or South Asian descent, many of them work at “companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft.” [5] These immigrants are seen as “essential” to the growth of Silicon Valley, with 37 percent of workers in the area being foreign-born, with immigrants creating “some of America’s biggest tech companies,” like Yahoo, Apple, or Google, and allowing them to survive (and “boom”), since they rely on “talent from abroad to fill positions and to meet their global ambitions.” [6] After all, the “superstars of the high-tech industry are all immigrants” as one article points out.

Since immigrants account for a “significant part of the workforce in the tech industry,” the industry has advocated for looser laws to “increase the flow of skilled immigrants into the U.S.” and is heavily reliant on the H-1B visa program. The program, which started in 2000 with bipartisan support, “allows software engineers and other skilled workers to work in the U.S.,” resulting in their active role in the political arena to push for looser immigration restrictions. [7] Hence, Silicon Valley is afraid of the upcoming immigration restrictions during the Trump administration. This is especially the case since Trump has reportedly drafted an executive order to overhaul the H-1B visa program, which companies depend on so they can “hire tens of thousands of employees each year,” the “talent” they need to thrive, with their support of Trump basically non-existent in the recent presidential campaign. [8]

By the mid-1990s, those who live in the Valley divided “along racial and economic lines” with older and wealthier whites “concentrated in the west Valley,” Latinos have fanned across the floor of the valley, with many of the immigrants poor, bringing with them “crowding and new welfare burdens,” a division that angers many Latinos. [9] In recent years, the immigrant community which undergirds Silicon Valley has been in trouble. [10] With immigrant youth comprising a major portion of “both the population and the workforce in the Silicon Valley,” the Valley had “deep disparities when it comes to the lives of undocumented immigrants,” with such youth facing barriers in accessing education, concentrated in low-wage jobs, and serving as a diverse and “core part of the Silicon Valley community.” Immigrants from the Asian continent, whether Chinese, Filipino, or otherwise, form, as of April 2015, the “largest racial block in Santa Clara County, exceeding the proportion of non-Hispanic white residents for the first time.”

Despite such dependence on immigrants, the tech industry does not treat these employees fairly or justly. One academic report in 2012 says that the stated reasons of the tech industry (lack of study of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), rapid technological change, and needing to hire best and brightest workers for “innovations” to occur) cannot be confirmed upon close inspection, leaving cheap labor as “the remaining explanatory factor.” The report goes on to say that legal loopholes allow for foreign workers to be unpaid drastically compared to American-born workers, with many of the workers coming from India, China, and the Philippines, along with other Asian immigrants, comprising from 50-80% of the workforce of top technology companies, with the tech industry claiming a “labor shortage” and lack of talent, although this cannot be supported by existing data. Interestingly, even the conservative media scoffs at the claims of the tech industry, with arch-conservative National Review declaring that work permits “are basically de facto green cards and give the foreign national complete flexibility in the job market” and that the visa program will hurt the middle class (not sure if that’s true) while the similarly aligned FrontPage Magazine questioned the shortage of “high-skilled American labor,” saying that the visa program provides “a supply of lower-wage guest workers.” [11] Of course, they oppose the claims for anti-immigrant reasons and don’t really care about the well-being of immigrant workers in the United States.

Mistreatment of immigrants in Silicon Valley is nothing new. There is no doubt that high-skilled immigrant workers “are being exploited by employers,” with the H1-B visa program benefiting the corporate bottom line, especially providing protection against unions and labor strikes, but hurting the workers. The program itself gives employers great power over workers, allowing them to “hire and fire workers…grant legal immigration status…[or] deport the worker” if they don’t do what they like. In 2014 Wired magazine reported on a study showing that major tech companies (ex: Cisco, Apple, Verizon, Microsoft, IBM, JPMorgan Chase, and Google) have pocketed wages and benefits from workers, especially among new Indian immigrants to the Valley, leading to an “ecosystem of fear” in the area among the workforce. The tech companies collectively withheld at least $29.7 million from such workers, forcing them to pay fees they shouldn’t have to pay, creating a form of indentured servitude, as some called it, where there exists an “underground system of financial bondage by stealing wages and benefits, even suing workers who quit,” making “business and profit by having cheap labor” as one worker put it. [12] This shows that the tech companies are, in their own way, engaging in a form of organized crime against the immigrant proletariat. Such crimes are only part of their business model which includes top Silicon Valley CEOs conspiring in wage-fixing to drive down the wages of 100,000 engineers, ultimately involving one million employees in all.

With the exploitation of the immigrant proletariat, mainly those that are “high-skilled,” by the tech industry, this explains the harsh opposition from Silicon Valley to Trump’s executive order. Without the visa program, the industry would likely collapse or at least be weakened. As for other industries, immigrants are employed in jobs across the US economy, even as they face similar constraints to the native-born poor along with restrictions related to their citizenship status, especially in cities like New York. As a result, it can be said that immigrants ultimately benefit the US economy, even those that are undocumented, and are not a drag on the “native-born” section of the working class, making the country a better place for all, as even free-marketeers and libertarians would admit. [13] This is important to point out with nativists getting a new lease on life under the Trump administration.

As we stand now, the authoritarianism of the Obama administration has increased under Trump’s nightmarish state in regards to immigrants, Muslims killed by drone bombing, and violence supported by the murderous empire across the world, among much more. While we should undoubtedly be critical of bourgeois liberals and bourgeois progressives who claim to have the “answers” and solution to fighting Trump, rejecting their pleas to move the capitalist Democratic Party “more left” to fight the “bad Republicans,” there is no reason to sit idly by. We must get involved in pushing for revolutionary politics by at minimum engaging in actions that show solidarity with the immigrant proletariat, whether documented or undocumented, in the United States. In the end, perhaps we should heed what Homer Simpson declared about immigrants all those years ago:

Most of here were born in America. We take this country for granted. Not immigrants like Apu [who immigrated from India and on a green card], while the rest of are drinking ourselves stupid, they’re driving the cabs that get us home safely. They’re writing the operas that entertain us everyday. They’re training out tigers and kicking our extra points. These people are the glue that holds together the gears of our society. [14]



[1] Nathan Bomey, “Elon Musk to seek CEO consensus on changes to Trump immigration ban,” USA Today, Jan. 29, 2017; Fredreka Schouten, “Koch network slams Trump immigrant ban,” USA Today, Jan. 29, 2017; Jill Disis, “Starbucks pledges to hire 10,000 refugees,” CNNMoney, Jan. 29, 2017; David Pierson, “Facing Trump’s immigration ban, corporations can’t risk keeping silent,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 31, 2017. As Elon Musk (of Tesla Motors and SpaceX) tried to “seek a consensus” among fellow business CEOs who were affected with the order and trying to work with Trump, Uber changed course from crossing a picket line and profiting from the misery, to condemning Trump’s action as impacting “many innocent people” and the CEO of Uber, Travis Kalanick, declaring “I’ve…never shied away…from fighting for what’s right,” even as they continue their horrid practices with exploitation of their workforce.

[2] Jessica Guynn and Laura Mandaro, “Microsoft, Uber, Apple, Google: How the tech world responded to Trump’s immigration ban,” USA Today, Jan. 28, 2017.

[3] Jill Disis, “Starbucks pledges to hire 10,000 refugees,” CNNMoney, Jan. 29, 2017

[4] Brian Fung and Tracy Jan, “Tech firms recall employees to U.S., denounce Trump’s ban on refugees from Muslim countries,” Washington Post, Jan. 28, 2017; David Pierson, “Facing Trump’s immigration ban, corporations can’t risk keeping silent,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 31, 2017; John Ribeiro, “US tech industry says immigration order affects their operations,” CIO, Jan. 29, 2017; Anthony Cuthbertson, “How Silicon Valley Is Fighting Back Against Trump’s Immigration Ban,” Newsweek, Jan. 30, 2017;

Eric Newcomer, “Silicon Valley Finds Its Voice as Immigration Ban Fuels Outrage,” Bloomberg Technology, Jan. 30, 2017; PCMag staff, “Here’s What Silicon Valley Is Saying About Trump’s Immigration Ban,” PC magazine, Jan. 29, 2017; Matt Richtel, “Tech Recruiting Clashes With Immigration Rules,” New York Times, Apr. 11, 2009. On the subject of US-Mexico migration some companies have tried to get on the game as well: an Israeli company said they will help build the “great wall” on the US-Mexico border.

[5] Brian Fung and Tracy Jan, “Tech firms recall employees to U.S., denounce Trump’s ban on refugees from Muslim countries,” Washington Post, Jan. 28, 2017.

[6] John Blackstone, “Tech industry, fueled by immigrants, protesting Trump’s travel ban,” CBS News, Jan. 31, 2017; Kerry Flynn, “Immigrants have built America’s tech industry,” Mashable, Jan. 31, 2017; Carmel Lobello, “The tech industry’s case for immigration reform,” The Week, June 2, 2013; Sarah McBride, “One quarter of U.S. tech start-ups founded by an immigrant: study,” Reuters, Oct. 2, 2012. Even a Forbes contributor, David Shaywitz,” said that immigrants are an “inextricable part of the valley’s cultural fabric and a vital element of its innovative potential.”

[7] Jessica Guynn and Laura Mandaro, “Microsoft, Uber, Apple, Google: How the tech world responded to Trump’s immigration ban,” USA Today, Jan. 28, 2017; Katie Benner, “Obama, Immigration and Silicon Valley,” BloombergView, Jan. 22, 2015; Gregory Ferenstein, “No Exceptions For Tech Industry: High Skilled Visas Now Tied To Comprehensive Reform,” TechCrunch, Dec. 1, 2012; Stephen Moore, “Immigration Reform Means More High-Tech Jobs,” CATO Institute, Sept. 24, 1998; Jessica Leber, “Silicon Valley Fights for Immigrant Talent,” MIT Technology Review, July 26, 2013; Amit Paka, “How Legal Immigration Failed Silicon Valley,” TechCrunch, Sept. 7, 2015.

[8] Peter Elstrom and Saritha Rai, “Trump’s Next Immigration Move to Hit Closer to Home for Tech,” Bloomberg News, Jan. 30, 2017; Gretel Kauffman, “How Trump’s immigration stances could affect the tech industry,” Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 20, 2016; David Z. Morris, “Tech Industry Could be “First to Suffer” From Trump’s Immigration Stances,” Fortune, Nov 19, 2016; Salvador Rodriguez, “Why Tech Companies Need Immigrants to Function,” Inc, Jan. 30, 2017; Paresh Dave and Tracey Lien, “Trump’s shocking victory could squeeze Silicon Valley on immigration and trade,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 9, 2016; David Jones, “Silicon Valley Up in Arms Over Proposed H-1B Overhaul,” E-Commerce Times, Jan. 31, 2017; Marisa Kendall, “Trump poised to overhaul H-1B visas relied on by Silicon Valley tech,” Mercury News, Jan. 31, 2017; Hansi Lo Wang, “In Silicon Valley, Immigrants Toast Their Way To The Top,” NPR News, Apr. 19, 2014; Marie-Astrid Langer, “Silicon Valley Wants High-Skilled Immigration on Campaign Agenda,” Wall Street Journal, Sept. 18, 2015.

[9] Andrew Murr, “Immigrants In The Valley,” Newsweek, Dec. 25, 1994.

[10] Some immigrants are doing well however. Even by 1998, one study found that “Chinese and Indian immigrants were running a quarter of the high-tech businesses in Silicon Valley, collectively accounting for more than $16.8 billion in sales and over 58,000 jobs.”

[11] Ian Smith, “Obama Games the Visa System to Lower Wages and Please the Tech Industry,” National Review, September 30, 2015; Arnold Ahlert, “The Tech Industry’s Immigration Lies,” FrontPage Magazine, April 2, 2014.

[12] The report shows that most of those who are the “well educated, highly skilled and specialized foreign workers” accepted under the H1-B Visa program are from China, India, the Philippines, and South Korea, with thousands of other petitions accepted from the United Kingdom, Mexico, Japan, Taiwan, France, Pakistan, Germany, Turkey, Brazil, Nepal, Venezuela, Colombia, Italy, Russia, and Spain, among other countries.

[13] H.A. Goodman, “Illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy,” The Hill, Apr. 23, 2014; Rowena Lindsay, “How immigration helps the US economy: Report,” Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 24, 2016; Ted Hesson, “Why American Cities Are Fighting to Attract Immigrants,” The Atlantic, Jul. 21, 2015; Daniel Griswold, “Immigrants Have Enriched American Culture and Enhanced Our Influence in the World,” Insight (CATO Institute publication), Feb. 18, 2002; Rohit Arora, “Three Reasons Why Immigrants Help the U.S. Economy,” Inc, Feb. 24, 2015; Timothy Kaine, “The Economic Effect Of Immigration,” Hoover Institution, Feb. 17, 2015; Sean Hackbarth, “Immigrants are Good for the Economy,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Dec. 5, 2014; A. Barton Hinkle, “Immigration Is Good for the U.S. Economy,” Reason, Jul. 21, 2014; Minyoung Park, “The vast majority of undocumented immigrants in the US are here working: BAML,” Yahoo! News, Jul. 21, 2016.

[14] This speech is made by Homer near the end of the Simpsons episode, Much Apu About Nothing (Season 7, episode 23, May 1996) when Homer has the realization that the measure that would deport immigrants from Springfield, proposition 24, proposed by the loyal mayor, Joe Quimby, to distract from the “bear tax” to pay for the worthless “Bear Patrol” is wrong. Regardless, the measure passes anyway, with 95% approval, and Homer declares that democracy “doesn’t work” while all of the immigrants have gained citizenship (after passing the citizenship test), except for Groundskeeper Willie, who goes on a ship back to Scotland.


Snowden, the CIA, and conspiracies


Almost a month ago I wrote about celebrity whistleblower Edward Snowden. Some corners of twitter criticized me for my post, basically saying that I didn’t go far enough. Some claimed that Snowden was “concocted” by the CIA and was a personality just like Mickey House (see here and here) while others claimed I had contempt for people who didn’t agree with me. There’s much more than that in terms of criticism, but I think I addressed it adequately on twitter so it seems silly to address it here. However, in this post, which I promised in the past, aims to look at Snowden’s connection to the CIA and some conspiracy theories, to put it rightly, about Snowden floating around the web.

Snowden’s story with the CIA

There is no doubt, even if you are skeptical of Snowden’s story, that he worked for the CIA He admitted this himself in a primetime interview with NBC over two years ago:

 “I was trained as a spy in sort of the traditional sense of the word — in that I lived and worked undercover, overseas, pretending to work in a job that I’m not — and even being assigned a name that was not mine. Now, the government might deny these things. They might frame it in certain ways, and say, oh, well, you know, he’s a low-level analyst…I’ve worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, undercover, overseas. I’ve worked for the National Security Agency, undercover, overseas. And I’ve worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency.”

In the same interview he also said that he basically, as noted above and summarized by BBC, “worked for the CIA and NSA undercover, overseas, and lectured at the Defense Intelligence Agency.” He also claimed that he was a “technical specialist…[and] a technical expert. I don’t work with people. I don’t recruit agents. What I do is I put systems to work for the United States. And I’ve done that at all levels from — from the bottom on the ground all the way to the top,” possibly even working at a CIA overseas station.

One may ask what he did when he worked at the CIA. One website summarizes the story, saying that in 2007 Snowden is sent to Geneva as part of IT, and is put “in charge of maintaining computer-network security for the CIA and US diplomats” with one incident souring Snowden, but he still “leaves the CIA and goes to work in the private sector” in 2009, then claims that the CIA experts may have accessed NSA documents and “handed them to Snowden” over time, perhaps, since Snowden “worked for the CIA in Geneva, in a high-level position, overseeing computer-systems security.” Wired and the New York Times don’t have the same viewpoint. Wired says that Snowden was offered a position at the CIA, “after attending a job fair focused on intelligence agencies,” with Snowden assigned to “the global communications division, the organization that deals with computer issues” at CIA headquarters at Langley. The story continues by noting that Snowden was sent to the “CIA’s secret school for technology specialists,” living in a hotel for six months and then traveling to  “Geneva, Switzerland, where the CIA was seeking information about the banking industry” in 2007, then “assigned to the US Mission to the United Nations.” The story goes on to say that in Geneva, Snowden saw “firsthand some of the moral compromises CIA agents made in the field” and goes on. The New York Times, in a June 9, 2013 article titled “Ex-Worker at C.I.A. Says He Leaked Data on Surveillance,” by Mark Mazzetti and Michael E. Schmidt, tells a different story. It described Snowden as a “29-year-old former C.I.A. computer technician” who feared that the “C.I.A. might try to spirit him out of China, and speculating that it might even hire Asian gangs to go after him” and that he was “later hired by the C.I.A. to work on information technology security, serving in Geneva.”

Some have openly questioned if Snowden is a spy. Former CIA officer, Robert Baer, scoffed at the notion that Snowden could be considered a spy. He not only implied, laughably, that Snowden was working with the Russian government since 2007, which he couldn’t prove, basing it mainly on “his landing of Moscow” which made him “very suspicious.” If there was anything valid in what he said, it was when he declared that Snowden was “a systems administrator…[and] communicator” for the CIA in Geneva, sitting in “an office and relays messages” and then claimed that “the NSA doesn’t have spies overseas. It’s got technicians who sit in American embassies. They are not even analysts.” A much better article was by Dan Murphy, staff writer for Christian Science Monitor, who said that just because someone works for a spy agency doesn’t make them a spy and that it is “standard practice” for CIA employees overseas to get cover identities. The article continues by saying that not only is “building computer systems” not spying but that if Snowden did “have a lot of high-level spy training, it would appear that either the training stinks or he was an exceptionally poor student, judging by his actions,” including making “arrangements for his flight after he’d blown his own cover” and that there may be some intersecting of Snowden’s interests and those of the Russian government.

You can easily dismiss what these posts say and push them away, but the response to Snowden, Greenwald & co. later on is not disputable. These include that a “secret US government jet – previously employed in CIA “rendition” flights on which terror suspects disappeared into invisible “black” imprisonment – flew into Europe in a bid to spirit him back to America” but failed to make it fully to Moscow, only setting down and waiting at Copenhagen Airport apparently. William Blum, a premier foreign policy analyst of US empire, said that “Edward Snowden had something inside him shaped like a conscience, just waiting for a cause” and then talked about the trials and tribulations of Philip Agee when he ran away from the CIA. Then there was former CIA director James Woolsey claiming, despite the CIA’s record as a handmaiden of imperial destruction, that Snowden had “blood on his hands” because his leaks would supposedly help “terrorists,” and CIA director John Brennan declaring that “any unauthorized disclosures that are made by individuals who have dishonored the oath of office that they raised their hand and attested to undermines this country’s security.”

Some may wonder how Snowden, assuming that the CIA did not assist him in a  covert manner, was able to get away with such leaking. Stories came out that showed that years before the leaking the CIA was suspicous of Snowden. One story said that CIA superiors of Snowden suspected in 2009 that he was “trying to break into classified computer files to which he was not authorized to have access,” and so they decided to “decided to send him home” from his job in Geneva, but that didn’t stop him for doing something that some claimed was “wrong”: gathering documents of misdeeds, mostly of the NSA. All of these stories derive from an article in the New York Times by Eric Schmitt (October 10, 2013) titled “C.I.A. Warning on Snowden in ’09 Said to Slip Through the Cracks.” The article said that before Snowden was about to leave Geneva in 2009, his “supervisor wrote a derogatory report in his personnel file, noting a distinct change in the young man’s behavior and work habits, as well as a troubling suspicion.” The article then claimed that “the red flags went unheeded” and the “supervisor’s cautionary note and the C.I.A.’s suspicions apparently were not forwarded to the N.S.A. or its contractors.” The Times also said that in mid-2006 Snowden got an “information technology job at the C.I.A” and that despite formal credentials, “he gained a top-secret clearance and a choice job under State Department cover in Geneva.” Later on, of course, the Justice Department sued a private company, US Investigation Services,  which “provides background checks of the staff being recruited by the US state agencies.”

Another part of this story doesn’t involve Greenwald’s heroic casting of Snowden, like in this opinion piece, Snowden’s claim about the CIA keeping documents away from Congress or the angry CIA veteran who hates Snowden’s guts. This part of the story is the supposed “hilarious” CIA review of Glenn Greenwald’s book on the whole Snowden story, as you can call it, which developed since 2013. The review, by Hayden Peake, in Studies in Intelligence covers many books, including three about Snowden.

Despite what some said about the review, the FIRST SENTENCE of the review praises the book as “the most complete, though far from the most objective account of the Snowden affair to date.” That doesn’t sound like they don’t like the book. The review goes in to talk about the view point of “lawyer-journalist Glenn Greenwald” with the book focusing on the relationship between Snowden and Greenwald, with a “quasi-clandestine meeting in Hong Kong.” The review, of course, goes on to claim that “intelligence issues” led to the adoption of mass surveillance by the NSA, that Snowden should have followed “official whistle-blower procedures” and supposedly ignoring “other interpretations regarding the legality of the NSA’s collection programs.” Peake then claims to be be “surprised” that Greenwald harshly “attacks selected members of the media” for their efforts to  discredit him and that Greenwald criticizes “the Bush and Obama administrations and various private individuals,” along with calling numerous other journalists “dutiful spokespeople for political officials.” Even if you accept that Greenwald is adversarial, it is clear that with statements like this he is boosting his own ego and acting like he is more independent that he is in reality. The review closes by saying that Greenwald says Snowden’s actions are justified and that “journalists have the absolute right to be the final arbiters of what to publish.” Peake, as part of the establishment, doesn’t like the latter, and claims that Greenwald has an “often bitter ad hominem rationale for this” but there is no doubt he is correct that this book is “unlikely to be the last word on the subject.” All in all, I actually think the review is MUCH more positive toward Greenwald that many websites are claiming, even though it obviously tries to cut him down in certain ways. This review is also telling because it shows that Greenwald is not as opposed to the establishment and adversarial then he claims.

The theories, the theories

Now it is time to move onto the conspiracy theories as they should be accurately called. Before that, it is important to make two points. For one, there is no theory that Snowden didn’t read all the documents, since he, as he admitted to liberal blowhard John Oliver, that he didn’t read them all. Secondly, despite some (see here and here) reposting a “story” about Snowden as a “lethal operative” and “lethal killer,” it turns out that the website of that “story” is a satire site.

The first conspiracy theory comes from a site called “Veterans Today” which holds viewpoints in one could call the “Alex Jones camp” in the conspiracy theory world. In the article, Webster Tarpley argues that Snowden is likely “a limited hangout operation, in which carefully selected and falsified documents and other materials are deliberately revealed by an insider who pretends to be a fugitive.” The article also claims that Snowden’s relations have benefited the CIA, that “Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon papers” along with “the case of Assange and Wikileaks” being limited hangout operations. Tarpley then goes on the say that “limited hangouts have been around for a very long time” and goes on to claim that these operations cats someone as “the darling of the controlled corporate media.” Tarpley goes into wacko land by claiming that Ellsberg’s Pentagon papers were “doctored”  and claims that those really in opposition to the establishment are “kidnapped, renditioned or liquidated,” which pushes away the obvious response by such establishment of ignoring critics. Tarpley goes on and on about Cass Sunstein involved in “creating” Wikileaks in his view,claims that Norman Solomon is a “former State Department public diplomacy asset”and that limited hangouts say little. He goes on to claim that “Assange’s Wikileaks document dump” did little to seriously damage “one US, British, or Israeli covert operation or politician,” that Assange “had a hand in preparing one of the largest destabilization campaigns mounted by Anglo-American intelligence since 1968” and much more. In sum, even if Tarpley’s view has some merit, it is hard to take him seriously as he has only ONE quote in the whole article, has no links to other sources, and seems to just be writing a lot without verification. While I say all this, I am aware that Ellsburg, Assange, and Snowden should be criticized, but to call them intelligence operations seems far-fetched and just putting oneself down a rabbit hole with no escape.

In the same realm, could be this discussion, but is more likely this post which builds off Tarpley. The writer, a certain”Jay,” claims that there is a charade around Snowden,a bogus narrative around people such as Assange, goes as far as to claim that the Chinese Communist Party and Mao were created by the OSS and CIA, forgetting the change over time which he brought China to be more sympathetic with the West, and that there is a “Snowden Psy Op.” Where is no do doubt that Assange and Snowden are likely not in as much danger as supporters claim, to claim they are intelligence assets and other wacky things like the Chinese Communist Party created by certain U.S. covert elements is something that is so ridiculous that it isn’t worth taking anything that this “Jay” says seriously at all.

The final post addresses a supposed division between the CIA and NSA. In the post,  anonymous intelligence community sources claimed to the Wayne Madsen Report that Snowden got “access to and released tens of thousands of classified NSA documents” because a CIA faction “was growing increasingly alarmed over the massive surveillance system controlled by NSA” and that “highly compartmented CIA covert operations abroad were made known to NSA” which did not make them happy. The article then goes on to claim that “a group of active and retired CIA officers, in addition to CIA contractors, set out to expose the NSA’s massive surveillance operations” and that Snowden “was chosen by the CIA faction as the person best positioned to collect NSA documents and leak them to the media.” It is also claimed that a civilian “who worked at the NSA Regional Security Operations Center in Kunia, Hawaii” worked with Snowden and that “the CIA faction helped arrange, through its own back channels, safe passage for Snowden from Hong Kong to Moscow.” The site where the article is reposted then claims that there is no way of confirming ” whether NSA is actually being brought down by CIA or not” but that “Snowden’s transition from zero to immaculate spy was managed by Booz Allen and CIA” and that even if this is partly true, the war “between CIA and NSA…is representative of a collapse of the elite police force.”

The last post actually seems to be the most plausible of all the theories while the others have problems of verification or are just so off-the-wall as to not be taken seriously. One can easily dismiss all of these theories as hogwash. I am almost tempted do this myself. Still, it is should always be the case that people should think outside the box and challenge themselves.


I could look more into this and bring in some posts by Douglas Valentine, whose book on the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (Strength of the Wolf) I liked very much. I could look into statements by Snowden under his username of “Truehooha” but I feel that has already been done. While I could have written as a piggyback off Fivek’s post about the problems of the peace movement in the United States, that is for another day. In the future I am to use some of the science fiction books I have read on the way to work to write posts on numerous subjects, including but not limited to, animal rights, possibly in relation to the incident on the Cincinnati Zoo, and a criticism of capitalism, of course. As I continue in my new job, which is a temp job, I won’t have much time to write posts such as this, but I may even write some narrative posts. We’ll see what happens. Anyway, I look forward to all of your comments as always.

Reflecting on the “human rights watcher” guy


There is one troll and/or deluded person on the twitterverse called the “human rights watcher.” This post aims to point out his delusions, his connections to broader forces of the Celebrity Left, and give more of an overview.

My conversation with Garry

It all started when this Human Rights Watcher, with the abbreviation being the same as the supposed human rights organization named Human Rights Watch (HRW), with the twitter handle GarryR10 smeared a comrade. He claimed that Emma Quangel (EQ), along with RedKahina (RK), was rich and had a “fat” bank account. [1] How he would know this information is beyond me, hence what he was saying is just pure conjecture and arguably makes him a “fascist stalker” as @kazahann (Karen) tweeted in response. GarryR10 later laughably claimed that Karen would have lawyers go after him and that “you piss on Russian graves with your cultist fantasies.” Yikes. I jumped right into this conversation, being a good comrade and ally, wondering where this guy was going. After criticizing his response to Karen, I said that I didn’t know who he was working for with such wacky statements, which I still agree with but will expound on later in this article. Others rightfully poked at his response (see here and here) and said that he sounded mad.

GarryR10’s didn’t get any better. He claimed that Karen was of the “type” that the Russian people kicked “out of their government as fast as they could” and said this was “probably with good reason.” I’m still not sure what “type” of person he is thinking of or what he really isn’t talking about, but this was obviously odd and problematic to say the least. That’s not all. He claimed that he wouldn’t trust American communists again because he apparently hadn’t met “or seen a single one who was not a hoarder themselves & millions starve.” [2] This wacky statement sounds almost like a statement out of anti-communist propaganda and is more like what actions a capitalist would take. I guess that coincidence isn’t a surprise since he claimed that EQ would not be harmed by the doxing, which is utterly preposterous. [3]

This is only the tip of the iceberg. He almost creepily claimed that those who criticize Crabapple don’t donate to causes, and that such critics seem “like a clique based in NYC, pretending to be a “communist party”” and “obsess” over Molly Crabapple (MC), a statement to which he provided no evidence at all. [4] Clearly this indicated that she, MC, should be left alone to which he responded by claiming that critics of Crabapple started the feud “with Crabapple & Vice, after they gave you an opportunity to debate them fully” (he later claimed that this was fracturing the Left too) Before going on, I can say this is utterly false and is arguably historical revisionism. In the first iteration of my account, which I then called CrabappleWatch, I had planned to response to Crabapple as an informed critic and to learn what all the hullabaloo was about. After literally five tweets I was blocked by Crabapple. If she had really wanted to give “an opportunity” to debate her, then she wouldn’t have blocked me. That was not the case. As will be shown later, doxxing of critics has become the accepted method to “discredit” critics in the minds of Crabapple and co. All this is no surprise since Garry admitted, at one point, he would work for VICE even as he said that MC had her “own misguided view,” which is very telling.

I started to challenge Garry even more directly. I called him out on his supposed “exposure” of what he claimed was a “dumb clique,” saying point blank: “Dumb clique. What’s your problem?” His reason for saying this was that he apparently wanted people who criticize MC to “apologize and be better for it” even as he admitted that “I liked some of their points” but thought that “they hoard IMO.” In the same breath he called out MC critics, well-meaning comrades some whom he accused of having “fat bank accounts,” for supposedly not donating and saying that they should do research on “the best charities and funds.” Is he a walking advertisement for a humanitarian org. or philanthropy or what? Just wacky stuff. Of course, I responded by saying that “donation isn’t everything” and that he was being kooky (or acting like a spy).

Garry’s other tweets make him seem even more out there. He said that in “certain times of crisis or despair” the desires or  prudence for martial law was understandable, seemingly implying that he would support martial law under those circumstances. This tweet, which disturbed me, was followed by others such as one saying that he wasn’t communist because “images of Stalinist paranoia or torture” are apparently accepted. I really don’t know where he gets his information. But it almost sounds like the Black Book of Communism. Then he started to get really wacky. He claimed that people were neglecting their ethical duties by not giving aid (which is his big answer to poverty) and claimed the American people were responsible. His exact quotes were that the people of the United States are “accessories & beneficiaries of untold mass murder of the most vulnerable” and if they are shown the facts, “we can avoid further suffering while fully giving aid to the most vulnerable and innocent, desperate for education & opportunity.

I responded to Garry by saying that his statements were not a good start for activism and later said that this approach will make it hard to gain followers.He responded by saying that the “posts about EQ and MC” were apparently “a commentary in a way on American and Western leftist activism” and that their ethics are “typical.” Hmm, who would have thought that from someone who claimed that NO ONE in the United States cares about global starvation, meaning that people who are starving in this country don’t care about their own starvation, and that their ethics should be questioned. Still, he apparently cares about the one million Iraqis that died from the US invasion as this tweet seems to evidence but also supports the actions of Snowden which positions himself in a certain camp with certain types of people (Greenwald and co for example). This isn’t a surprise since he claims that MC and others have done “positive” work. What.

Then the tweets back and forth began. They started with Garry’s response to a tweet from humanitarian interventionist and current US representative to the UN, Samantha Power, a tweet which he claimed was “strange.” I commented on his tweet calling Power an imperialist snake. But it was not this that set off the conversation. [5] Instead it was a set of tweets in which he claimed: (1) stereotype of “Ugly American” is ignored, (2) he was skeptical of “global Wests,” and that millions of people apparently turn away UNICEF donations. I argued that UNICEF was only one organization of many, to which he barked back “Is this your excuse for a debate? I’m right here but it’s like you’re talking over my head” and that UNICEF is only one example. He apparently cares so much about global starvation that he said that Ken Roth had spooky posts and that the US didn’t have “moral fibre” on starvation. Uh huh. He later almost implied that we should be more critical of each other than the economic system with greed seemingly as an “incorrect” side effect instead of one that was intended. [6] Beyond this, he took a stand against factory farming, and is apparently a vegetarian, but in the grand scheme he barely talks about it. [7]

The true back and forth only started in earnest later on. He responded to my earlier tweets first and foremost. He claimed the EQ was Canadian (without evidence), didn’t donate anything, and implied she was a hoarder once again. In response to his “excuse for a debate” tweet I said that I was only trying to say that UNICEF was only one organization (and imply that he hadn’t mentioned any others). Also, in response to one tweet, I said that those living on $2 a day are not hoarders as it seemed he was implying, when I actually think in hindsight he was claiming that EQ was a hoarder again. Garry went even further and said that EQ didn’t donate an “ethical amount” to which I responded was basically irrelevant to her politics. In response to my tweet he went into wacko land and claimed three things: (1) in time some will recognize “the dire situation” of global starvation, (2) people in the West are greedy, and (3) that he has to get on a “base ethical level” when debating with “Wests,” including people like me. To (3) I responded by saying that he is wrong to think that “Wests” are dumb, arguing “some are but some aren’t.” I also responded to (3) by saying that I didn’t understand what he meant by “ethical level.” He responded to this by claiming that “USAs have shallow, bad ethics, thus, starvation” (I later said that this was too much of a generalization) and that by ethical level he meant “confronting the basic beliefs of what is right & wrong, & how a person should behave morally.” As for (2), I responded by saying the following: “there are people starving in the West too. Hence I wouldn’t say everyone in the West is greedy but some are.”

This is only the start. In another response to (2) I argued that the malnutrition in the world is a result of the capitalism, with him backing away from the word capitalism! I responded by saying that the word should still be used. Still he is a person who claims he he is neutral on abortion but agrees with the pro-choice side. Hence, he is NOT neutral on abortion. [8] Anyway, he is also the same person who claimed Samantha Power killed more in Africa than Hitler and is “dumb like [the] Nazis.” Those tweets, almost for shock value as I can see in retrospect, led to a long series of tweets. I responded by asking why she is the only one to blame in his mind. He responded by saying that she should resign because of global starvation. I responded to this by saying that she is a person who pushes humanitarian imperialism. In response to this, Garry argues that the US embassy may write her tweets and that she is reading from a script. He went even further and almost defended her despite he claim she is “or became a horrific mass murderer in my view,” claiming “she is actually in control of a huge embassy, plus shes twitter lonely” despite the fact she is clearly part of the foreign policy establishment. Instead of accepting this claim, he sidetracked, called her a useful tool of neocons and the US military (see here, here, and here), and had this strange tweet. He even thought that those who called the GOPers who signed the letter against the Iran deal “traitors” was irony when it really wasn’t. Later he said that the GOP was incompetent to which I reminded him the Dems were incompetent too. As the conversation chain came to an end he claimed he couldn’t debate with me anymore because I didn’t subscribe to his view that NO people in the US could be trusted on their ethics, calling them “ethnically hazardous.” In response I argued that: (1)”I don’t think Americans overall are “ethically hazardous.” I think like any people there are good, deep-seated values”; (2) “I’m aware that there’s a lot of fucked up stuff in America from a war machine, police killings, sexual violence, & so on”; (3) “I still have faith in Americans or Usians sure. Not sure what “America” constitutes anymore.” The last point was an opening to further conversation which he never explored. But his responses were clues for what was to come.

In a short conversation Garry claimed it was Power’s job to be on top of global starvation. In response I argued that “I don’t think a representative of an imperialist state would magically become more principled.” He fired back by saying it happened with Iraq but not now forgetting that that was a specific circumstance unlike what he describing. Before going on, I think it important to recognize that he seems to be emotionally/mentally unstable as these two tweets (see here and here) seem to indicate. Perhaps that is related, or not, to him calling a wacko Freemasonry video “excellent” despite his criticisms. He also started to get full of himself, liking his own tweets (also noted here and here) which is just bizarre. He even claimed that me calling her part of the foreign policy establishment was unfounded and that she resigned even though this was not the case, as I noted at the time. Then he kinda mocked me and my belief about Power with my response as follows: “Um, you can’t magically think you know what I believe.” Clearly the tension was being raised. He even claimed that Power was a “clownish millionaire” instead of an “imperialist mouthpiece” as I argued. In response to his argument that I hadn’t been engaging in a reasonable debate, I noted that I hadn’t called him any names and he claimed he was just talking about people of the United States as a whole instead, a view I still disagree with.

Herein starts a new thread. In a tweet I was responding to, likely when he said that the people of the United States didn’t care about starvation, I argued that such people support public assistance to the poor, and in response he cited FAO stats. I shot back saying that deaths from malnutrition are the result of capitalism and that giving money to a charity isn’t going to make them disappear (see here and here). He then tried to tell me what ethics was and claimed I was being snobbish when I questioned this. I responded by saying that the US capitalists had the real money, not the populace (see here, here, here, and here). He then cited the amount of US GDP despite the problematic nature of this measure along with claiming the median income was $53,000 which I later learned was wrong according to BLS stats (see here and here. He used this to argue that every person should give $1,000 to which I said would not solve the fundamental problems that cause malnutrition and incur other costs (see here and here). He then cited this NY Times piece once again saying that it would cost $30 billion to end the world food crisis, to which I said he should be pushing the US government to do it rather than the populace, a suggestion he roundly rejected, almost mocking me. He then went even further, making it seem that because people were not giving aid the way HE wanted they were committing genocide (a conspiracy) to which I said the capitalists are responsible, and he said it was “shameful” that I did not feel responsible. [9] I responded with a classic Sarah McLachlan commercial just to show his level of understanding.

Garry said things that were even more wacko. He claimed I had “grand plans” for starving people in the world without evidence and that the USA people don’t care. I countered this by saying that they do care, along with noting UNICEF funding, the former which he characterized as “rationalizing” their actions. It was in this tweet he claimed that I should face starvation so I can “learn” about it: “Disturbing how you try to rationalize their actions. I hope you have to face starvation, so you can learn how bad it is.” [10] What sick individual would wish that for someone? Gosh, what the heck is wrong with him? I later called him out on this, even saying that I was NOT rationalizing the actions of the US populace, and he claimed that he had little “faith that you will ever take or feel responsibility.” He went even further and said wackily that, and I quote, “You don’t care about the people starving now. It’s like bathing a cat simply trying to get you to admit that it happens.” Yikes. What in the world. As for characterizing me a snob, I can’t laugh enough at that and say that by his own standards his own ethics can be questioned (see here and here). When he went down his wacko way, I asked for help from my fellow comrades who helpfully gave me support. Garry continued on saying that there was an “epic situation” of global starvation, that I should blame myself for it and more. I responded by saying again that the capitalist system was more to blame, which he rejected and later called be partially delusional which implies that I should blame myself which I refuse to do. He later said that it is harsh to call me delusional but that “it’s about the life or torturous death of 9 million people every year.” Finally, after I blocked him he declared “not surprised to be blocked by yet ANOTHER person with an antagonistic hate-crush on Molly Crabapple. Sigh… Lol” despite the fact that I have been blocked by Crabapple since DAY ONE of my account and don’t have a “hate crush” but rather believe she should be criticized. Also what’s ridiculous is that the conversation was barely if at all all about Crabapple and he still tried to smear me with it. It’s just absurd.

Later, I said that the whole incident was like this Simpsons clip (along with this one and this one). After I soft-blocked him, I decided to fully block him for good after his wacky tweets, along with joking about it. For those like @africommunist who said Garry should fuck off, they are totally right. And here’s some tweets I found which I thought would close the chapter on Garry the “human rights watcher.” But I was wrong.

Garry entering the world of doxxing

In the past, Garry has shown he was willing to unite with twitterers who favored MC (Molly Crabapple), almost forming a pro-MC front of sorts. Examples include responding directly to MC and to Chuckles of course. [12] He even allied with a Crabapple backer who worked in distributing US imperial propaganda in the past as noted in tweets here and here. In recent days he has said he wanted to smear EQ with something other than words, said he was being slandered, and stalked the TL of @rancidsassy (RS). Lest us remember that Garry is kinda obsessing over EQ, which is interesting since he accuses people of obsessing over MC, falsely claims that she is threatening journalists and calling her a murderer. Jeez. Perhaps all of this is related to his depression, which is as RS notes, a sad story but it doesn’t forgive his actions. Hard to know. At the same time, he find Melanie Trump attractive for some reason, and has a long series of tweets which are bit creepy in which he says he wants to marry an immigrant or non-US citizen, with a focus on a Russian girl, and this messed up tweet. Then he claimed that RS was lead-poisoned, which implies, as noted by his earlier tweet, that RS and critics of MC are just totally brainless beyond belief.

Recently he took another step. He began sharing private information with Chuckles, MC and others. In help with a user named @OzKaterji, he doxxed people who chose to stay anonymous. For Garry, he is ON RECORD as doxxing RK. If you can, report him for this. As for his friend, @OzKaterji, he claims to be a “real” journalist, mad at MC critics for pictures such as this one, and supports the actions of FEMEN (see here and here). [11] At one pint, even when RS was trying to be supportive Garry seemingly threatened RS with doxxing, declaring: “You are a really sad person to me. You can’t hide behind a computer screen any longer. Get used to it.” Clearly since I blocked him, the “desperate idiot,” he has become more wacko, so I regret nothing about that blocking since he can’t bother me anymore. Since I don’t want to perpetrate the dox, it is important to recognize that Oz, with the help of Garry, publicly revealed the names of five people who chose to be anonymous, three of which Oz called “anonymous twitter trolls” as the tweet, which I recently posted, shows:





A conclusion

I could continue on with this article but I think it is important to bring it to an honest conclusion. As we all know, this doxing/doxxing business, at least in recent memory, started with Crabapple outing EQ for purely political reasons, saying that she worked for a UN agency and was supposedly doing something heinous when she really was not. A good question to ask, as I did on twitter is who Garry, the “human rights watcher and his snievly friends, in concert with Crabapple and co., will dox next.” Its hard to know. But what is clear is that the pro-Crabapple forces, which may even be a limited characterization, are engaging in actions that reinforce the imperial status quo. Whether Garry and his friend Oz like it or not, they are reinforcing the aims of the murderous US empire. Likely they don’t care much that this is the case or are naive enough to think they are not reinforcing these objectives by giving fodder to the propaganda machine. Never once have these forces tried to dox bigots or racists, instead they dox those who criticize them and reside on the radical left. That is totally unacceptable. It is an open question in my mind if any form of doxxing is acceptable such as against racists and bigots, and if not, then there should be a strong stance against doxxing across the board no matter who it is. As those critical of the Celebrity Left which includes Glenn Greenwald, Deray, Molly Crabapple, and numerous others, there should be no backing down from criticism but instead there should be movement forward. Efforts by the Celebrity Left to reinforce the status quo with faux criticism should be opposed at all costs but this should not include using the same tactics used against comrades such as myself. That would be hypocrisy of the highest degree and would just give more ammunition to the forces in favor of the Celebrity Left. In the end, those on the critical and/or sensible left as some have called it, should oppose doxing, revealing it to show their true tactics, and to serve as a place of criticism and radical thought not available elsewhere. I look forward to your comments.


[1] In one tweet I found he condemned EQ claiming that “her job is puffy by global standards” and without evidence said “didn’t see her donating her large salary either.” He also said that “I don’t get it, Em didn’t even respond to the attack, scared for her puffy job likely.” Really starting to think he is a spy or something.

[2] Elsewhere he said the following in a tweet of his own that he favorited: “Mind you, I have never been a communist, but have felt they had some good arguments & materials, and also interesting reads on Twitter.” Also see these tweets related to this: here, here, and here. He also said in a statement that throws radical theory out the window the following: “Western communists should likely fall into this, not worthy of respect, but I don’t have as much experience. 99% hoarders & typical selfish.” Jeez, where does he get his information?

[3] In one tweet I found he said the following: “You’re right. I don’t feel huge sympathy for Emma though, no bad will happen to her.” What a heartless asshole who doesn’t feel anything for commies.

[4] He also used the term “clique” elsewhere to describe people who work at water utility companies who are apparently corrupt (see here and here). So I’m not sure if he even knows how he is using the term.

[5] Even my response to a tweet in which Garry claimed that people in the United States are “the most ethnocentric and self-centered people I’ve ever met, & I’ve met many. I’m hesitant of embracing any of them” did not trigger a response from him. Neither did my response to his comment about the US’s mass media market or my question to his strange tweet about a magical database he had heard of.

[6] In a classic Garryism he demanded that people who care about global starvation have a job “to be at the front of the debate-line to demand the 9 million get aid” with the number 9 million coming from the UN’s FAO apparently. That for one isn’t a democratic notion and it ignores WHO will get the aid. In another classic Garryism, he tweets that “it’s somewhat scary to me seeing Germany having a nationalistic government, diplomatic envoy, huge military on the rise – and a new bigotry.” How is only somewhat scary? What really scares him? This tweet really doesn’t make sense to me. Oh and lets not forget that despite the fact that Femen is a supposedly feminist organization run by an abusive man, as I noted on twitter, he supports them. Just see what he says: “I am a funny American, a part of this generation, who might hang out with Femen – but also support fairness towards Russia & minorities.” Still he took positions which seemed to take a positive view of the Syrian government (see here, here, here, and here). But this could just be posing. After all he has some strange views on the US Civil War which don’t mention black confederates. But hey, this is in his character when he, almost in a racist way, calls out “gang rapper profiteers” whatever that means. Don’t worry, he’ll tweet videos like this (also here, here, and here) which either is legit or not at all and claim that political correctness exists when it really doesn’t. Then he has strange tweets like this.

[7] This series of four tweets [here, here, here, and here] is the ONLY place he talks about this I could find.

[8] Just see this set of tweets (see here, here, here, here, and here, along with this one)  to prove this assessment. He ignores that rights to abortion and contraceptives has been under attack since the 1970s.

[9] You could argue that the US public is responsible for genocide especially of the indigenous people and the enslavement of thousands of black Africans. After all, the wealth of the United States is built on the blood, sweat and tears of Asian immigrants (especially Chinese and Japanese), enslaved blacks, indigenous people (by stealing their land), Mexican immigrants (especially after the war of 1846-8), and many others. However, what he is talking about is not genocide in the slightest.

[10] Later he favorited my response for no apparent reason.

[11] He also supports overthrow of Syria’s government, mad that his version of events isn’t being distributed by certain sources (also see here, here, and here), is part of some supposedly pro-refugee charity (also see here), is pro-intervention in Syria, and much more. He describes himself on his blog as “a writer, filmmaker, journalist, secularist and Scotch enthusiast who spends his time bouncing between London and the Middle East and binging on international politics.”

[12] I could get into the recent tweets of Chuckles but that is for another day. For that, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.