Initially, I wasn’t going to see The Batman (2022). When information appeared about this film and its release, I had almost no interest in it. I didn’t care about who played the role of Bruce Wayne. When it comes to superhero movies, DC Films has a bad track record. Therefore, I wasn’t going to waste my time and money on another DC blunder. But then, about a week ago, when I was taking out the trash late in the evening, something very unusual happened. When I was walking back to the house, I heard a familiar laugh. At first, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. I turned around and began walking toward the nearby bushes, where I thought that the laughter is coming from. The darkness was illuminated by only a few nearby lights. The familiar laughter and giggling continued on and off. Finally, when I was close to the bushes, one of them ignited, but the flames weren’t consuming it. The burning bush spoke, and I realized that the laugh and the voice belong to the one and only Rich Evans, the god of bad movies. Rich, speaking through the burning bush, said, “You will see The Batman.” In my amazement, I said, “Rich, no. Please. It’s like 3 hours long. I don’t think that I’ll be able to withstand seeing such an atrocity.” Rich said, “Silence! You will see The Batman, and you will tell everyone you know about how bad it is.” After that, the flames and the voice of his holiness, Rich Evans, disappeared. I mean, I couldn’t defy a god. Therefore, I decided to see The Batman on home video. I definitely wasn’t going to pay the price of a ticket to see it in a theater. But I must admit that I was a little curious to find out how bad the film really is. Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against the Batman comics. I like the Batman films that were directed by Tim Burton a lot. His Batman films are still the best by far. I can even put up with watching Christopher Nolan’s Batman films, with all of their flaws. But The Batman is something else. It’s a modern film, it’s a film by a different director, and it’s a film by DC Films, a studio that just can’t make a good superhero movie. After seeing The Batman, I understand why the god of bad movies wanted me to review it. This film really is a new level of low. It’s a film that has no reason to exist except to make money, to make the dumb masses throw away their earnings only because the bought and paid for film critics told them to do so and because it’s a new film. This fact makes me weep for the human race, for how misguided and foolish people are. Anyway, The Batman is a mish mash of elements from other, better films. It’s clear that the director, Matt Reeves, wanted to make a kind of film noir, but he doesn’t have the skills or the knowledge to do this well. The detective story in The Batman, around which the clunky plot is structured, was clearly taken from Seven (1995). Seven is a superb film, but The Batman rips it off in a lame way and doesn’t do anything original with the detective story. The cinematography by Greig Fraser is so dark that I couldn’t see what was going on a third of the time. The music by Michael Giacchino is passable but certainly nothing special. The costume designs are bland and forgettable. There’s little action. The action scenes are brief, simple, and not memorable. The characters are poorly developed. None of them stand out. Robert Pattinson does almost nothing as Bruce Wayne. He has the Batman suit on for almost the entire run time of the film. We’re informed that Wayne is a philanthropist, but we don’t get to see him doing any philanthropy and we don’t get to find out what kind of philanthropy he’s involved in. Gotham City in this film is an uninteresting and grungy place that’s stocked with uninteresting people and sights. Like Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy, The Batman features certain propaganda from the establishment, but I won’t get into explaining what this propaganda is. If you want to check what this propaganda is about, see this badly-directed and badly-conceived film for yourself. In conclusion, The Batman is incompetent, modern filmmaking at its most obvious. I just hope that the god of bad movies doesn’t make me go through a trial like this again.

Now that I’m done reviewing The Batman, let’s get to the good stuff. In the last several months, I’ve seen some very enjoyable films on home video. Seeing just about any film that got made before the 2000s is a pleasure for me. Even the so-called bad films that got made in the 20th century now appear to be good if they get compared to modern films. The film that I enjoyed seeing the most is The Shooting Party (1985). I had no idea what it’s about before I began watching it. I picked it up only because it’s a film from the 1980s. This British drama film turned out to be a delight. The clothes and the makeup for the actors in this film were perfect. The acting is excellent. In short, it’s a well-made historical drama. Like so many other films that got made before the 2000s, it has an artistic touch, which is something that almost all films that got made after the 1990s lack. Another memorable British film that I got to see recently is The Wicker Man (1973). This is an unusual film. It’s usually advertised as a horror film, but it’s not really a horror film. I’d call it a detective story, though the twist at the end of the film overturns the expectations of the viewer. The main thing that makes The Wicker Man work well is Edward Woodward’s excellent performance in the leading role. The other cast members delivered good performances as well. I had heard of this film many times before deciding to see it, but the film’s poster had always put me off from seeing it for some reason. Well, now that I’ve seen it, I can say that it’s definitely worth seeing. Another horror film that I got to seeing is Altered States (1980). This film is one of my favorites from the 1980s. There’s a lot to like about this science-fiction horror film. Now that I’ve see it again, I can point out that the direction by the famous director Ken Russell is very good. There’s a good cast, good acting, good special effects, good dialogue, and a good music score by John Corigliano. It’s just an all-around high-grade and memorable picture. Another film from the 1980s that I watched recently is The Prince Of Pennsylvania (1988). This film didn’t make it on my list of the 50 best teen movies of the 80s, but this was perhaps a mistake because The Prince Of Pennsylvania has some good scenes, especially at the end. Since it’s a film from the 1980s, I can watch it from beginning to end without any problems, but it’s still not a bad film by any means. I was surprised because it has some good comedy, a good cast, some memorable scenes, and it’s definitely worth seeing. I certainly enjoyed seeing the Poltergeist trilogy again. The first film, Poltergeist (1982), is known as a so-called classic horror film. It deserves this honor because it really is a well-made film with many memorable scenes. The cast, the acting, the special effects, the music, and the story in it are all good. It’s one of the most well-known films of the 1980s. So, what about the sequels? The sequels were made in order to cash in on the popularity of the first film. But are they bad? Not at all. They’re competently made and enjoyable films. The cinematography in the sequels is also often beautiful. The acting is just fine. The special effects are good and inventive. Some people criticize the sequels for not making much sense and for being cash grabs. But this doesn’t make them bad films, and I had a pleasure watching them. Like so many other so-called bad films from the 1980s, they now seem good if they get compared to modern films, which are bland and have no artistic touch. I’d rather watch the Poltergeist trilogy than Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy, for example. I’ve already pointed out in one of my posts that I like to watch Westerns now. The Western that I liked seeing the most recently is Arizona Bushwhackers (1968). Like many other Westerns, it’s set during the American Civil War, which is a war that I became interested in after listening to Webster Tarpley talk about it almost a decade ago. It was a big and bloody war. It’s quite interesting to read about it, as it turns out, and, therefore, I recently acquired a book, ‘Battle Cry of Freedom’ by James M. McPherson, in order to learn more about this war. I began reading this book only recently, and I don’t yet know how good it is, but I have to start somewhere. It’s a book from the 1980s, and it’s critically acclaimed. So, I have a feeling that it will be a good read. I watched Arizona Bushwhackers because Yvonne De Carlo had a role in it. Another famous actor who had a role in it is Howard Keel, who also had a role in Dallas from 1981 to 1991. Well, I’d recommend seeing every Western that I’ve seen so far, but Arizona Bushwhackers is the one that I enjoyed seeing the most recently. Another film from the 1960s that I decided to see is Red Desert (1964). Since I’m not against seeing foreign cinema, I’ve already seen many films from overseas, like European, Soviet, Japanese, and Hong Kong films. I got to see many foreign films when I was in my teens and early twenties. For the last several years, however, I’ve been focusing on seeing Hollywood films that I haven’t seen before. I like Red Desert very much, and I think that it’s a memorable film, though it hasn’t become one of my favorite films. There’s a certain artistic quality to it, but it’s clearly not a film meant to entertain. It’s a film for adults because it was directed by Michelangelo Antonioni. Antonioni and cinematographer Carlo Di Palma managed to make Monica Vitti look quite attractive in this film. Richard Harris also had a role in this Italian film, but I didn’t know that he’s in it until I looked at some info about Red Desert on the internet. Red Desert is definitely worth seeing for those people that like foreign films or artistic films.

It seems that I had made an entire post about the recent happenings in Ukraine, but that I completely forgot to mention that I had been to Ukraine. I had been there once as a tourist, and the place where I went is the Crimea, when it was still a part of Ukraine. The climate of this peninsula is sunny and warm. Therefore, I understand why the Ancient Greeks decided to establish settlements on this peninsula. However, I didn’t go to Chersonesus, which is the most famous Greek colony on the peninsula. The place where I went is called Gaspra, where the Swallow’s Nest is located. By the way, there’s an entry about Athens, the famous Greek city, in one of the books that I own, which is ‘Encyclopedia of the World’ (in Colour) by Hamlyn Publishing Group Limited, published in 1978. “Athens is the capital of modern Greece. Athens lies in the plain of Attica by the 500 foot (152 metres) high Acropolis and has 2.5 million inhabitants, if its seaport, Piraeus, is included. This metropolis controls the country’s industry and commerce, and much of the marketing of the agricultural produce – tobacco, coriander, raisins and olive oil. It is also responsible for the import of petroleum, timber and manufactured goods. The modern city dates from the 1830s, from the rebirth of the Greek nation. On the Acropolis stand remains of temples, amphitheatres and statues from ancient Hellas, whose classical civilisation both spread into, and later inspired, the western world in its development of democracy and culture. The most imposing remains are those of the Parthenon, symbol of the glory that was Greece. This white marble temple, surrounded by 46 Doric columns, was built during the ‘golden age’ of Pericles and dedicated to Athena, the city’s patron goddess. Athens reached the peak of her glory in the 5th century B.C., after defeating the Persians at Marathon. Democracy flourished under Pericles, and the names of Socrates, Aristotle and Plato are for ever linked with the city and its culture. The rivalry between Athens and Sparta led to the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.) in which Athens was temporarily subdued, but the city’s power did not finally wane until the Macedonian conquest of Greece in 338 B.C. By the middle of the 2nd century B.C., Athens had declined to the status of a Roman dependency. It remained within the Byzantine Empire until the Crusades, then came under Turkish rule in 1458. The archaeological relics together with the sunny climate have led to the growth of a tourist industry which attracts many visitors to Athens.”

The people that follow my blog have probably noticed that I’m again watching all of the films by Marvel Studios in order. This is my third time doing this. I began doing this by accident and out of curiosity at the end of March, mostly to see how well the films from Phase One of the MCU fare against subsequent films in the MCU. The films from Phase One are a little special to me because I got to see them in theaters at a time when I began going to theaters more often than I had before. Moreover, I saw these films in theaters that no longer exist. One of these theaters was called Empire Granville 7 Cinemas and the other was called Cineplex Cinemas Esplanade. Seeing a film in these theaters definitely added to the enjoyment of seeing a film because their auditoriums were built in the old style and their decor was appealing. For example, I remember that after I finished watching Captain America: The Winter Soldier, which is one of the best films in the MCU, in one of the auditoriums of Cineplex Cinemas Esplanade, in the spring of 2014, I came out to the well-designed foyer on the second floor and stopped to look around for several minutes and to look through the large windows at the scenery outside. It was sunny and warm outside, the trees were blooming, and the strong sunlight was beaming through the windows of the foyer. So, I took a moment to stand in the sunlight and enjoy the view. There were also no people around me at that time. The closure of the two theaters saddened me. Cineplex Cinemas Esplanade was the last one that was closed, in 2019. Since then, I haven’t been going to theaters as often as I had before because the experience was no longer the same. The theaters that got built in the 2000s are simply bland. At that time, I also finally came to the conclusion that movie studios in the West can’t make films as competently as they did before the 2000s. Almost all of the films that got made after the 1990s have no replay value. Anyway, I got to see all of the films from Phase One for the first time in theaters. I remember in which theater I saw each film, what the weather was like on that day, and even what happened on that day. I got to see Iron Man (2008), the first film from Phase One, at Cineplex Cinemas Esplanade. This is also where I got to see The Incredible Hulk (2008) a little later on. Of course, at that time, I had no idea what the people at Marvel Studios were planning, that they had an idea of creating a cinematic universe. The film from Phase One that I liked seeing the most at that time is Thor (2011). It’s still my favorite film from Phase One. Admittedly, it’s not the best film from Phase One. That honor goes to Iron Man or The Avengers (2012). But it is my favorite because I got to see it in my favorite theater, Empire Granville 7 Cinemas, on a sunny day, at the end of spring. And the films featuring Thor have remained some of my favorite films from the MCU ever since. I still get excited when I see the Bifrost travel sequence in the first Thor film. There’s also the fact that I like the characters, the action, the music, and the comedy in this film. I’d like to point out that I like all of the films that got made by Marvel Studios. I don’t consider any of them to be bad. I like seeing some of them more than others, but I consider all of them to be enjoyable. I know that I criticized Avengers: Endgame (2019), but I still like this film a lot. Perhaps the film that stood out the most to me this time is Iron Man 2 (2010). I like it more now than I used to. There are some really neat touches in this film. The MK V armor is my favorite Iron Man armor. It looks fantastic. The comedy in Iron Man 2 is quite effective. Sam Rockwell, in particular, is very funny in some scenes. The dialogue is good and so is the action, especially the fight at the end involving Black Widow. The only letdown is the music, which isn’t very memorable, but this isn’t a big problem. One thing that I have noticed when seeing the films from Phase One again is that they’re not geared toward children as much as the films from Phase Four. The films from Phase One are more serious and edgy than subsequent MCU films. They even contain a few horror elements. The Incredible Hulk, in particular, contains a few scenes that can be called scary. I think that after Marvel Studios got acquired by Walt Disney Studios in 2015, MCU films began to be geared mostly toward children, and the typical Disney messages began to appear in MCU films. The one film so far where this is most obvious is Shang-Chi And The Legend Of The Ten Rings (2021). I enjoyed seeing this film, but not as much as I thought I would. The film is clearly geared toward children because it features many cute mythological creatures and childish comedy. At times, it even seemed like a Disney animated film because of all of the CGI action and characters in colorful costumes. Even the presence of Tony Leung Chiu-wai, who looks good as usual, and the cool-looking rings can’t distract from how lightweight this film is at times. But I’ve got to say that the return of Trevor Slattery was a welcome surprise. Moreover, the short All Hail The King (2014), in which this fake Mandarin appears again, is a must-see film, as I’ve recently discovered because I’ve never seen it before. I enjoyed watching Black Widow (2021) and Eternals (2021) about as much as Shang-Chi And The Legend Of The Ten Rings. These films are good, but they’re not my favorite MCU films. I like Scarlett Johansson’s performance in Black Widow and I like the action. Natasha Romanoff is much more appealing as a character in this film than in any of the previous MCU films. In Eternals, I like the CGI and I like the action. When it comes to characters in this film, I think that the character interactions are hit or miss. The big surprise of Phase Four for me so far was Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021). I waited to see this film on home video because I couldn’t go to a theater when it was released in theaters. It’s because vaccine mandates were still in effect at that time. The films in the MCU featuring Peter Parker as the main character have never been my favorites. They’re good, but they just don’t click with me as well as other films in the MCU. May Parker, played by Marisa Tomei, is not an interesting or appealing character at all in the Spider-Man films. She didn’t have much screen time anyway. Tom Holland was the right age to play Peter Parker, but he’s not all that good in the role. Tobey Maguire remains the best Peter Parker for me because he’s a better actor. Anyway, while Tobey is as good as ever in Spider-Man: No Way Home, the real surprise is Andrew Garfield’s Peter Parker. Andrew delivered a very appealing performance, and he’s better in this film than in the two awesome (terrible) Spider-Man films that he starred in. I mean, in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014), Paul Giamatti delivered a simply majestic performance as the Rhino. How can you top that? So, the inclusion of the three Peters and the fact that their friendship was filmed well elevated this film to my favorite film of Phase Four so far and to the best Spider-Man film in the MCU so far. But this is how I felt before Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness (2022) was released in theaters. I got to see Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness several days ago. I can easily say that this film is now my favorite film of Phase Four so far. The reason why this is the case is because I enjoyed watching it from beginning to end. The previous films in Phase Four, even Spider-Man: No Way Home, were hit or miss for me. But Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness isn’t only a feast for the eyes from beginning to end. It also features good performances from Benedict Cumberbatch, Elizabeth Olsen, Benedict Wong, and Rachel McAdams. Some critics criticized the inclusion of the Illuminati, but I actually enjoyed seeing this group of superheroes. I found Earth-838 to be very appealing visually. Even the Earth of the destroyed universe looks incredible. By the way, Olsen, who plays Scarlet Witch, looks better in this film than in any other film in which she has appeared. Her makeup and costume look perfect. Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness is by no means a perfect film. The plot and the characters can be criticized. America Chavez didn’t have to appear in this film, and she was included only as a way of finally introducing this character in the MCU. But I don’t expect to see The Godfather (1972) or Gandhi (1982) when I go to see a film by Marvel. Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness is simply an entertaining, delightful, and well-directed film, and this is good enough for me. So, while Phase Four has suffered somewhat from interference by Disney, I don’t think that MCU films are bad now. For example, Spider-Man: No Way Home and Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness have become some of my favorite MCU films. In order to keep up with what’s going on in Phase Four, I finally got around to watching the series that Marvel has put out since 2021. WandaVision is the first show that got made, and it’s also the best show from Phase Four so far. I wasn’t expecting much from this show. This is why I got around to watching it only a few months ago. But I was pleasantly surprised by the time the show came to an end. I don’t like absolutely everything about this nine-episode series. For example, the idea of having the town of Westview and its residents change their appearance in almost every episode is interesting, but it wasn’t executed all that well, in my opinion. Sure, Wanda and Vision get to wear different clothes, but little else is done with this concept. At least this concept is somewhat important to the character of Wanda because she enjoyed watching some American shows from different decades when she was growing up. I did like the performances of Olsen and Paul Bettany. They definitely contributed to making WandaVision as good as it is. Where this show really shines is the second half, especially the last few episodes. Some of the scenes are truly memorable, and they contributed to making Wanda and Vision much more appealing characters than they had been previously. When it comes to The Falcon And The Winter Soldier and Loki, I don’t have much to say about these shows. I think that these shows are good, and I enjoyed watching them for the most part, but they have their flaws. The Falcon And The Winter Soldier can be noted because it features some impressive action scenes, though they’re sometimes cut so quickly that it’s difficult to see what’s going on. Loki can be noted because it features some impressive visuals. So, there you have it. I somehow ended up making another post about films by Marvel Studios. I didn’t plan on doing this, but I guess that I just had to share my thoughts.

“Like the brief doomed flare of exploding suns that registers dimly on blind men’s eyes, the beginning of the horror passed almost unnoticed.” When a book begins like this, you know it’s going to be good.

William Peter Blatty’s tale of a possessed little girl and a mother who will do anything to save her is probably best known as one of the greatest horror films ever made, and the novel is often overlooked. It shouldn’t be – it really is a phenomenal tale, extremely well-written and full of little details that didn’t survive the transition to the cinema screen.

It’s terrifying, too – remember that episode of Friends where Joey puts The Shining in the freezer? That’ll start to seem like a good idea, although the book is so demonic that I can’t help but wonder whether ice or flames could even damage it.

The characterisation is also much more explicit in the novel than in the film, and by the end of the book I felt like Father Karras was… well, a father to me. In fact, all of the characters are much more believable, and it’s easy to feel both empathy and horror towards young Regan, often at the same time.

Perhaps it’s so believable because parts of the novel are based on real events – Father Merrin is based upon Gerald Lankester Harding, a British archaeologist who excavated the caves where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. In fact, Harding and Blatty met each other in Beirut, and Blatty himself has confirmed that the character was based on his real-life acquaintance.

It’s also thought that the novel is based on the actual exorcism in 1949 of a young boy in Maryland, known under the pseudonym of ‘Roland Doe‘. Blatty himself studied at a Jesuit school in the 1950s, and it was there that he first heard Doe’s story.

It’s Blatty’s Jesuit influences that allow him to write so convincingly on a subject that most would look upon as religious fiction – I’m a thoroughbred atheist, so why was I so terrified by a story about possession?

One of the certainties encountered by any person involved in the realm of political participation for any amount of time is that they will inevitably hear at least a few conspiracy theories. As a phenomenon, conspiracy politics have become more and more in vogue in the United States and elsewhere, and were given a tremendous boost in the post-9/11 era. The political center of each particular conspiracy theory varies, with the popular talk of the “Zionist Occupational Government” (Z.O.G) on the far-right, and other, more pedestrian theories like “who shot JFK” and the 9/11 Truth Movement making their way into the mainstream of the national consciousness and the arena of political discourse.

The position of the American Party of Labor on this issue is two-fold. On one hand, many of what we know to be historical fact is, or would be, considered outlandish conspiracy theories by most of the public at large. Organizations such as the American Party of Labor have seen too much of the true nature of the state and are well aware of the sort of activities the CIA/FBI engage in (MK-ULTRA, COINTELPRO, etc) so there is no “conspiracy theory” as far as we are concerned; it is a generally acknowledged fact. On the other hand, as a rule, the American Party of Labor generally rejects conspiracy politics.

Origins of Conspiracy Theories

The true impulses that give birth to the rise and popular proliferation of the conspiracy theories in the United States are generally related to:

A) The political disenfranchisement of the people, and their inability to control their own circumstances or chart their own future. This leads to a general desire to seek awareness and to know what is going on, since people feel exasperated and helpless to change it.

B) The desire of the people, rooted in their own direct experiences, to know whether or not the state that governs over them is anti-democratic, and to what lengths are they willing to go to maintain their political domination.

This desire to understand and to be aware of the actions of a political power that the overwhelming majority are so thoroughly alienated from often goes to extreme lengths, with generous rationalizations of personal prejudices, to the point where things become ridiculous.

“Both the U.S. and Soviet governments are controlled by the same furtive conspiratorial cabal of internationalists, greedy bankers, and corrupt politicians. If left unexposed, the traitors inside the U.S. government would betray the country’s sovereignty to the United Nations for a collectivist New World Order managed by a ‘one-world socialist government.’”

The above quote is from Robert Welch Jr., the founder of the John Birch Society, a far-right free-market organization with nationalist, anti-labor and anti-Semitic views.

Nevertheless, the desires of the people at the base of conspiracy politics, the desires to be empowered, to take charge of their own destiny, and to make themselves aware of the world around them are very valid desires and will continue until the problem of their disempowerment is rectified.

There is no “conspiracy” as to whether or not the United States is in the hands of a ruling class, who will hold onto power by any means necessary. The American working class doesn’t need to watch the movie “Zeitgeist” to know that. Analyzing published photographs of the Kent State Massacre of student protestors by the national guard and even a brief introduction to the history of the American labor movement, where labor strikes have often been put down by the military with live ammunition, should be a sufficient answer to any uncertainties that still linger.

What Theories Are Popular?

The general proliferation of conspiracy theories is large, and they are a dime a dozen. With the infamous Kennedy assassination, there has been an abundance of compelling evidence compiled to possibly implicate the CIA, the Miami Cuban exiles, etc. in his assassination, but it is still inconclusive. There is similarly compelling evidence that implicates certain forces within the United States government in the actions of September 11th, which has culminated in the “9/11 Truth Movement.”

The leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement are also generally believers in something that they call the “NWO” or the “New World Order.” They are not talking about a “New World Order” in a metaphoric sense, but a literal sense. They believe that a powerful secret group has been planning, for over a hundred years according to them, to take over the world. These people sincerely believe that there is an “NWO” that will make a one world government and that it will force “collectivism” and “socialism” on the broadest sections of the people. They claim that the United Nations is one of those organizations, and that all major figures in world history, from Karl Marx to Woodrow Wilson to Hitler and Noam Chomsky, are all in on it.

These sentiments, often associated with and oriented towards the political right-wing, have long existed in the United States. In the 1990’s, they had the support of the right-wing militia movements made of angry white men, but precious little support other than that—then the events of September 11th happened. The far-right (and even left elements as well) have since rode the wave of anti-Bush sentiment, pushing the claims that the Bush clique engineered 9/11.

Tactics and Methodology

As for the American Party of Labor, we do not place much stock in the theory that the US government orchestrated 9/11, the JFK assassination, or any other conspiracy theory of which we do not have solid proof. Whether or not these conspiracies have elements of truth to them or not is not the issue. The issue with conspiracy politics always boils down to “What are you going to do about it?”

In this respect, the greatest advocates of conspiracies fall flat. The 9/11 Truth Movement and other conspiracy-oriented people and organizations generally revolve all of their tactics around the idea that, “if people just knew the truth there would be spontaneous riots in the streets.” Their vision is one of the angry masses spontaneously taking power into their own hands and rectifying the horrible situation in which they find themselves.

This is a classical textbook example of how far removed from actual struggle and strife the advocates of conspiracy generally are. Because the advocates of conspiracy politics have rarely experienced overt, naked repression, they think that their tactics, which rely primarily around “spreading the word” would be sufficient to get people into the streets to change their circumstances. This is a comically naïve point of view which overlooks the experience of every single country that has ever had the pleasure of living under a military junta, or experienced a coup, or experienced other open repression.

In places around the world where fresh bodies are found in the river every day, and it is common knowledge among the people to hide from government soldiers when they come, why does this not lead to the spontaneous mass anger that the advocates of conspiracy politics hope to achieve? Certainly, historically, this open repression has often lead to small scale insurgencies, often popular with the masses of oppressed peoples, but oppression itself is not and has not been the sole ingredient that leads to uprising.

Why haven’t the entire population of Iraq stood up on their feet against the American occupation? The tanks in their streets are real and tangible, not just the warnings on the distant horizon of conspiracy theorists, but present-day fact. True, there has been a large insurgency in Iraq and it has a popular base, but why has there not been a larger resistance? The decisive ingredient in resistance is, and always has been, organization.

To the Marxist-Leninist, the dissemination of information is always towards the achievement of concrete political goals, and always in the context of organizing. With the conspiracy theorist, there is rarely organizing of any type and only the vaguest of goals accompanied by the vaguest of intentions. Their “movement” is generally typified by a loose association of individuals, rather than an organized entity with goals or aspirations of any kind.

For this reason, rarely is their dissemination of information followed by concrete political demands or a coherent call to action of any kind, nor is any sort of political infrastructure built to carry out any demands. To the conspiracy theorist, “spreading the word” is not the means to accomplish the goal, but is generally the goal itself. Educating and informing the masses doesn’t become a mode of political agitation towards an end; it becomes the focus and long term goal of the entire “movement.”

The tactics of conspiracy politicians are generally non-committal, individualistic and all of their attempts to wake the people up are entirely a matter of individual initiative. The individual has to take the initiative to go on “infowars” and inform themselves after seeing a website URL. The individual has to take the initiative to watch films like “Loose Change” and “Zeitgeist.” The individual has to take the initiative to do whatever they see fit to hamper the forces at the root of perpetrating the conspiracy, without anything resembling collective or coordinated and organized actions towards definite goals.

The uncoordinated complete lack of (bordering on rejection of) organization typified in conspiracy politics is not too distant from the tactics employed by the “anti-authoritarian” left-wing. The most striking similarity is that both have failed to ever produce any tangible change on the planet Earth.

Who Cares Who Shot JFK?

The impotent, sporadic and individualistic response of the adherents of conspiracy politics to what they see as impending doom is hardly the only problem with these movements. In addition to the general glaring fact staring in the face of all conspiracy politics (that without political power in the hands of the people nothing will be turned around, and without concrete political organization there will never be political power in the hands of the people), there is also the fact that many of the contemporary conspiracies are actually a service to the status quo rather than opposition to it.

The JFK assassination theories are a case in point. Again, I understand the needs of the people to know where the ultimate decision making power in the United States rests, and what the forces that hold power are willing to do to keep it. That said, the JFK assassination theories have effectively canonized and absolved a man guilty of his fair share of crimes against the people of the United States and the world.

John F. Kennedy was the head of state of the USA, and the list of crimes of his administration include such highlights as an unsuccessful invasion of Cuba to overthrow the popular revolution in that country, the continued funneling of aid and “military advisers” into South Vietnam to continue and exacerbate the Vietnam conflict, and sanctioning the “removal” (the coup d’état and subsequent murder) of South Vietnamese puppet president Ngo Dinh Diem when he refused to cooperate. Now, if a similar coup d’état took place in the United States, a putsch among the ruling elite, then of what concern is this to the people of the United States and the world at large?

I don’t need to know if agents of the United States government were behind the death of JFK. I know that they were behind the deaths of many prominent Black Panther Party members and American Marxists, and that is enough for me.

I would like to know conclusively whether the United States government killed Anna Mae Aquash, not JFK. I don’t need to know if the Miami Cuban exile community had a hand in the Kennedy assassination—they weren’t exactly saints before then. The Miami Cuban exile organizations have had their hands in numerous acts of sabotage, terrorism, subversion and murder of Cubans over the decades since the Cuban Revolution, so whether or not they had a hand in the JFK incident becomes trivia rather than an incriminating sin.

As for 9/11, whether or not the United States government had a hand in it also becomes trivia, in the context of the legacy of crimes that span the entire existence of the United States. If the US government did orchestrate the entire 9/11 incident, that may be tragic but not at all surprising—the entire history of the United States government is a litany of all of the peoples who have been crushed underneath its jackboot, both domestically and internationally.

I don’t need to know if the United States government was behind the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11th, and the subsequent deaths of 3,000 people. I already know for a fact that the United States government has been behind the destruction of entire cities on every corner of the earth, leading to the death and indirect deaths of millions. I already know that the US government has historical precedents of killing their own citizens covertly. What is so mysterious or scandalous about 9/11, whether the US government had a hand in it or not?

These conspiracy theories about 9/11 are not only diversions from the everyday hardships of the people of the world, but in actuality, they are the epitome of ethnocentrism. More people die in one hour worldwide from starvation, every day, than the total death toll from the events of 9/11.

I say this not to trivialize the deaths of those who perished on September the 11th, but to point out the selective way that tragedy and the loss of innocent human life is measured. Three thousand Americans die, it’s a landmark world tragedy that must be marked every year indefinitely. Over a million Iraqis die and it’s a newspaper clipping, a “current event” of interest, and nothing more. These conspiracies are beyond irrelevance, as they pass into the realm of service to bourgeois reformism and apologizing for the very status quo that they claim opposition to.

Implications & Conclusions to Draw

Conspiracy politics, regardless of their accuracy and legitimacy, have very little to offer the people of the United States or any other country, aside from intriguing or demoralizing trivia. The real road to ending the injustices that weigh heavy on the minds of conspiracy theorists , and on the majority of all peoples in general, is and always has been Marxism-Leninism.

The working class will not change the situation that they find themselves in today by watching online documentaries or enlightening themselves by frequenting conspiracy websites for the latest analysis. While these things may ultimately aid them in their emancipation, and these are measures that are also practiced by the Marxist-Leninist left, the element that is missing from the actions of the conspiracy theorists is the element most fundamentally decisive to turning the situation around and empowering the people: organization.

In order to be a contender to seize power from an organized force (the bourgeois state), the working class and oppressed peoples of the world will likewise have to constitute themselves an organized force as well. At the head of the efforts to realize this aim, you will find the Marxist-Leninists.

You’ve no doubt heard that everything’s bigger in Texas. That’s more than just a trite expression, and I’m not just saying that because Texas is home to U.S. Global Investors.

Want to know how big Texas really is? Let’s compare its economy with that of Russia, the world’s largest country by area. As you probably know, Russia’s been in the news a lot lately, so the timing of this comparison makes sense. The U.S. just levied fresh sanctions against the Eastern European country for its alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election, and early last week President Donald Trump warned Russia that the U.S. military could soon strike its ally Syria in response to its use of chemical weapons—a promise he kept Friday evening.

The Russian ruble traded sharply down following the news, decoupling from Brent crude oil, the country’s number one export.

But back to the comparison. Even though Russia has nearly five times as many residents as Texas, the Lone Star State’s economy is more than $40 billion larger. Texans, therefore, enjoy a gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of around $58,000, whereas Russians have one closer to $8,700.

Texas Is So Much More than Oil Country

The Russian Federation is the largest single producer of crude in the world, pumping out 10.95 million barrels per day (bpd) in January, according to the country’s energy minister. Texas is no slouch, though, as its output came close to 4 million bpd in January. That’s the most ever for a January since at least 1981. And from December 2017 to February 2018, its oil and gas industry accounted for nearly 30 percent of the state’s employment growth, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

But whereas Russia’s economy is highly dependent on exports of oil and petroleum products, the Texas economy is broadly diversified. The state ranks first in the U.S. for not only oil production but also wind energy. It has a robust agricultural sector, and it’s a leading hub for advanced technology and manufacturing, aeronautics, biotechnology and life sciences. Austin, the state capital, is steadily emerging as the most dynamic U.S. filmmaking city outside of Hollywood.

All of this has helped contribute to Texas being among the fastest growing states in the U.S. In 2017, it grew by more than 1,000 new residents per day.

Meanwhile, Russia’s population is slowly shrinking because of low birth rates and low immigration. Its population peaked at 148 million in the early 1990s—right around when the Soviet Union fell—and by 2050, it’s estimated to sink to 111 million.

Can Russia Root Out Its Corruption?

One area where Russia trumps Texas is in corruption. If you think Texas—or any other state—has a corruption problem, Russia takes it to a whole new level. Last year, it ranked 135 out of 180 countries on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), released in February. Among Eastern European countries, only Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan ranked lower. Watchdog group Freedom House was similarly critical in its most recent analysis, giving the country an overall democracy score of 6.61 out of 7, with 7 being “least democratic.”

So notorious and widespread is Russia’s mafia that a number of movies have been made about it. One of the best among them is David Cronenberg’s excellent Eastern Promises (2007).

Having said all that, I believe it’s prudent for investors to underweight Russian stocks for the time being and overweight Western Europe. Because of U.S. sanctions, Americans have until May 7 to divest completely from a number of Russian names, including Rusal, En+ Group and GAZ (Gorkovsky Avtomobilny Zavod), all of which saw serious outflows last week. The MSCI Russia Index, which covers about 85 percent of Russian equities’ total market cap, plunged below its 200-day moving average, but last Thursday it jumped more than 4 percent, its best one-day move in two years.

Weaker Greenback and $1 Trillion Deficit Helps Gold Glitter

Gold is rallying right now, but as I told Daniela Cambone in last week’s “Gold Game Film,” it has little to do with Russian geopolitics, or even trade war fears, which have subsided somewhat in the past couple of weeks. Instead, the price of gold is responding primarily to a weaker U.S. dollar. For the 30-day period, the greenback has dipped close to 20 basis points—for the year, more than 11 percent.

I think what’s also driving the yellow metal right now are concerns over the U.S. budget deficit and ballooning government debt. This week the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said it estimated the deficit to surge over $1 trillion this year and average $1.2 trillion each subsequent year between 2019 and 2028, for a total of $12.4 trillion. By the end of the next decade, then, debt held by the public is expected to approach 100 percent of U.S. GDP.

According to the U.S. National Debt Clock, government debt now stands at over $21 trillion—or, put another way, $174,000 per taxpayer. Imagine what the interest payments on that must be.

The CBO, in fact, commented on this. Believe it or not, the government’s annual payments on interest alone, made even more burdensome by rising rates, are expected to exceed what it spends on the military by 2023. And remember, defense is one of the country’s top expenditures, alongside Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement programs.

There was even more news last week on debt and the deficit, as Congress tried, and failed, once again to amend the Constitution by requiring a balanced budget. The amendment could not get the two-thirds support it needed.

You can probably tell where I’m headed with all of this. Savvy investors and savers might very well see this as a sign to allocate a part of their portfolios in “safe haven” assets that have historically held their value in times of economic contraction.

Gold is one such asset that’s been a good store of value in such times. As I’ve shown before, gold has tracked U.S. government debt up since 1971, when President Richard Nixon ended the gold standard. I always recommend a 10 percent weighting in gold—5 percent in bars and coins; 5 percent in high-quality gold stocks, mutual funds or ETFs.

Asset Allocation Works

On a final note, I think it’s important that investors remember to stay diversified, especially now with volatility hitting stocks and geopolitical uncertainty on the rise. I’ve discussed Roger Gibson’s thoughts on asset allocation with you before, and I believe his strategy still holds up well today to capture favorable risk-adjusted returns.

In the chart above, based on Gibson’s research, you can see that a portfolio composed of U.S. stocks, international stocks, real estate securities and commodity securities gave investors an attractive risk-reward profile between 1972 and 2015. This diversified portfolio, represented above by the orange circle, delivered good returns with a digestible amount of volatility, compared to portfolios that contained only one, two or three asset classes. Concentrating in only one or two asset classes could possibly give you higher returns, but you’d also likely see much greater risk, which many investors aren’t willing to accept.

In the chart above, based on Gibson’s research, you can see that a portfolio composed of U.S. stocks, international stocks, real estate securities and commodity securities gave investors an attractive risk-reward profile between 1972 and 2015. This diversified portfolio, represented above by the orange circle, delivered good returns with a digestible amount of volatility, compared to portfolios that contained only one, two or three asset classes. Concentrating in only one or two asset classes could possibly give you higher returns, but you’d also likely see much greater risk, which many investors aren’t willing to accept.