“When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product
of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done.”
John Maynard Keynes
"Life is a school of probabilities."
Walter Bagehot
Neoliberal economics (aka casino
capitalism) function from one crash to another. Risk is
pervasively underpriced under neoliberal system, resulting in bubbles small and large which hit the
economy periodically. The problem are not strictly economical or political. They are ideological. Like
a country which adopted a certain religion follows a certain path, The USA behaviour after adoption
of neoliberalism somewhat correlate with the behaviour of alcoholic who decided to booze himself to
death. The difference is that debt is used instead of booze.
Hypertrophied role of financial sector under neoliberalism introduces strong positive feedback look
into the economic system making the whole system unstable. Any attempts to put some sand into the wheels
in the form of increasing transaction costs or jailing some overzealous bankers or hedge fund managers
are blocked by political power of financial oligarchy, which is the actual ruling class under neoliberalism
for ordinary investor (who are dragged into stock market
by his/her 401K) this in for a very bumpy ride. I managed to observe just two two financial crashed
under liberalism (in 2000 and 2008) out of probably four (Savings
and loan crisis was probably the first neoliberal crisis). The next crash is given, taking into
account that hypertrophied role of financial sector did not changes neither after dot-com crisis of
200-2002 not after 2008 crisis (it is unclear when and if it ended; in any case it was long getting
the name of "Great Recession").
Timing of the next crisis is anybody's guess but it might well be closer then we assume. As Mark
Twain aptly observed: "A thing long expected takes the form of the unexpected when at last it comes"
;-):
This morning that meant a stream of thoughts triggered by Paul Krugman’s most
recent op-ed, particularly this:
Most of all, the vast riches being earned — or maybe that should be “earned” —
in our bloated financial industry undermined our sense of reality
and degraded our judgment.
Think of the way almost everyone important missed the warning signs of an impending crisis.
How was that possible? How, for example, could Alan Greenspan have declared, just a few years
ago, that “the financial system as a whole has become more resilient” — thanks to derivatives,
no less? The answer, I believe, is that there’s an innate tendency
on the part of even the elite to idolize men who are making a lot of money, and assume that they
know what they’re doing.
As most 401K investors are brainwashing into being "over bullish", this page is strongly bearish
in "perma-bear" fashion in order to serve as an antidote to "Barrons" style cheerleading. Funny, but
this page is accessed mostly during periods of economic uncertainty. At least this was the case during
the last two financial crisis(2000 and 2008). No so much during good times: the number of visits drops
to below 1K a month.
Still I hope it plays a small but important role: to warn about excessive risk taking by 401K investors
in neoliberal economic system. It designed to serve as a warning sign and inject a skeptical note into
MSM coverage. There are not many such sites, so a warning about danger of taking excessive risk in 401K
accounts under neoliberalism has definite value. The following cartoon from 2008 illustrated this point
nicely
As far as I know lot of 401K investors are 100% or almost 100% invested at stocks. Including many
of my friends. I came across a very relevant to this situation joke which nicely illustrated the ideas
of this page:
Seven habits that help produce the anything-but-efficient
markets that rule the world by Paul Krugman in Fortune.
1. Think short term.
2. Be greedy.
3. Believe in the greater fool
4. Run with the herd.
5. Overgeneralize
6. Be trendy
7. Play with other people's money
I would like to stress again that it is very difficult to "guess" when the next wave of crisis stikes
us: "A thing long expected takes the form of the unexpected when at last it comes".
But mispricing of risk in 401K accounts is systemic for "overbullish" 401 investors, who expect that
they will be able to jusp of the train in time, before the crash. Usually such expectations are false.
And to sell in the market that can lose 10% in one day is not easy psychologically. I remember my feelings
in 2001-2002 and again 2008-2009. That's why many people who planned to "jump" stay put and can temporarily
lose 30 to 50% of value of their 401k account in a very short period of time (and if you think that
S&P500 can't return to 1000, think again; its all depends on FED). At this point some freak out and
sell their holdings making paper losses permanent.
Even for those who weathered the storm and held to their stock holdings, it is important to understand
that paper losses were eliminated mostly by Fed money printing. As such risks remains as at one point
FED might find itself out of ammunition. The fact that S&P500 recovered very nicely it does not diminish
the risk of such behavior. There is no guarantee that the third crisis will behave like previous two.
Next crash will have a new key determinant: the attitude toward the US government (and here I mean
the current government of Barack Obama) and Wall Street after 2008 is the lack of trust. That means
that you need to hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Injection on so much money into financial
system was a novel experiment which is not ended yet. So how it will end is anybody's guess. We are
now in uncharted waters. I think when Putin called Bernanke a hooligan, he meant exactly this. Since
Bernanke was printing money out of thin air to buy financial paper, his action were tantamount to shoplifting.
In some way this probably is more similar to running meth labs inside Fed building. The system was injected
with narcotics. Everybody felt better, but the mechanism behind it was not healthy.
The complexity of modern financial system is tremendous and how all those new financial instruments
will behave under a new stress is unknown. At the same time in the Internet age we, the great unwashed
masses, can't be keep in complete obscurity like in good old time. Many now know ( or at least suspect
) that the neoliberal "show must goes on" after 2008 is actually going strongly at their expense. And
while open rebellion is impossible, that results in lack of trust which represents a problem for financial
oligarchy which rules the country. The poor working slobs are told be grateful for Walmart's low (poverty-subsidized)
prices. Middle class is told that their declining standard of living is a natural result of their lack
of competitiveness in the market place. Classic "bread and circuses" policy still works but for how
long it will continue to work it is unclear.
But nothing is really new under the sun. To more and more people it is now clear that today the US
is trying to stave off the inevitable decline by resorting to all kinds of financial manipulations like
previous empires; yesterday, it was the British Empire and if you go further back, you get the USSR,
Hapsburg empire, Imperial Russia, Spanish empire, Venetian empire, Byzantium and Roman empire. The current
"Secretary of Imperial Wars" (aka Secretary of Defense) Ashton Baldwin Carter is pretty open about this:
“We already see countries in the region trying to carve up these markets…forging many separate trade
agreements in recent years, some based on pressure and special arrangements…. Agreements that…..leave
us on the sidelines. That risks America’s access to these growing markets. We must all decide
if we are going to let that happen. If we’re going to help boost our exports and our economy…and
cement our influence and leadership in the fastest-growing region in the world; or if, instead, we’re
going to take ourselves out of the game.”
For the US elite it might be a time to rethink its neocon stance due to which the US is exposing
ourselves to the enmity of the rising economic powers, and blowing serious cash to maintain it hegemony
via maintaining huge military budget, financing wars and color revolutions in distant countries. In
a way the US foreign policy became a financial racket, and racket can't last forever because it incite
strong opposition from other countries.
Neoliberalism (aka casino capitalism) as a social system entered the state of decline after 2008.
Like communism before it stopped to be attractive to people. But unlike communism it proved to have
greater staying power, surviving in zombie state as finanfial institutions preserved political power
and in some cases even enhanced it. It is unclear how long it will say in this state. Much depends on
the availability of "cheap oil" on which neoliberal globalization is based.
But the plausible hypothesis is that this social system like socialism in xUSSR space before entered
down slope and might well be on its way to the cliff. Attempts to neo-colonize other states by the West
became less successful and more costly (Compare Ukraine, Libya and Iraq with previous instances of color
revolutions). Some became close to XIX century colonial conquests with a lot of bloodshed (from half
million to over a million of Iraqis, by different estimates, died ). As always this is mainly the blood
of locals, which is cheap.
Libya and Ukraine are two recent examples. Both countries are now destroyed (which might be the plan).
In Ukraine population is thrown in object poverty with income of less that $5 a day for the majority
of population. And there is no other way to expand markets but to try to "neo-colonize" new countries
by putting them into ominous level of debt while exporting goods to the population on credit. That is
not a long term strategy as Greece, Bulgaria, and now Spain and Portugal had shown. With shrinking markets
stability of capitalism in general and neoliberalism in particular might decrease.
Several researchers points to increased importance Central banks now play in maintaining of the stability
of the banking system. That's already a reversal of neoliberal dogma about free (read "unregulated")
markets. Actually the tale about "free markets", as far as the USA is concerned, actually was from the
very beginning mainly the product designed for export (read about
Washington consensus).
While it is stupid to argue that neoliberalism does not exist: it exits both as ideology, economic theory and politicl
pratice (much like Marxism before it; yet another "man-made" ideology -- actually a variation of Trotskyism, this discussion does
illuminate some interesting and subtle points.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism is a time-limited global system sustained by coercive imposition of competitive behaviour, parasitic finance & privatisation. ..."
"... But it's better to think of neoliberalism as a bunch of arrangements ("system" if you remove connotations of design) rather than as an ideology. Ed has a point when he says that almost nobody fully subscribes to "neoliberal ideology": free market supporters, for example, don't defend crony capitalism. ..."
"... Perhaps the texts of transnational trade treaties might be the best place to search for a de facto definition of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Whether or not the present neoliberal system is the result of a single coherent ideology, it emerged from the 70s on as a set of related (if not deliberately coordinated) responses to the structural crises of the older postwar Keynesian system. And there was definitely a cluster of policy-making elites in the early 70s making similar observations about the failure of consensus capitalism. ..."
"... It is possible to have 'hard' and 'soft' neoliberalism depending on whether the state employs 'carrots' or 'sticks', but essentially almost the entire UK political system agreed that 'There Is No Alternative' until Corbyn became Labour leader. ..."
"... I think Will Davies has hit the spot with his definition of neoliberalism as "the disenchantment of politics by economics". In other words, neoliberalism is first and foremost a political praxis, not an economic theory. It is about power, hence the continuing importance of the state. ..."
"... That is the Great Transformation and neoliberalism as its current phase are about turning institutions into businesses (including marriage), and part of this is "managerialism". This is not done because businesses are inherently better for every purpose than institutions, but because businesses are better vehicles than institutions for tunnelling (looting) by their managers. ..."
"... Neo-liberals are not opposed to all types of government intervention. But like neo-classical economists, they believe ultimately in the price mechanism to allocate resources - in the long run, if not the short. ..."
"... In terms of sincerity, Milton Friedman asserted in "Capitalism and Freedom" that the more a society was "free market," the more equal it was. Come the preface to 50th anniversary edition, he simply failed to mention that applying his own ideology had refuted his assertion (and it was an assertion). ..."
"... Neo-liberalism never been about reducing "the State" but rather strengthening it in terms of defending and supporting capital. Hence you see Tories proclaim they are "cutting back the state" while also increasing state regulation on trade unions -- and regulating strikes, and so the labour market. ..."
"... Somewhere along the line neo-liberalism got associated with austerity and small-government policies. The latter I think was because they are (correctly) associated with promoting privatisation and deregulation policy. ..."
"... But the market is the creation of man. It has no power, no judgement, other than that bestowed on it by us. My problem with neoliberalism is the belief that decisions can be made on the basis of a money metric whereas we know that money is not necessarily a good measure of value. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is real, but only describes background theoretical claims. It is wrong to apply the term to the broader political movement it supported. The political movement was dedicated to maximizing the power and freedom of action of large-scale capital accumulators. Lots of ideas from neoliberal intellectual argumentation were used to increase the power of capital accumulators, and neoliberal economists tended to ignore many aspects of the political movement they supported (strongr state power, crony capitalism, monopoly power) not strictly part of neoliberal theory ..."
"... usually the theory was just a weapon used in internal battles or as a PR tool to mask less savory political objectives. ..."
"... Repeating the message: "neoliberalism" has a pretty much official definition, the "Washington Consensus". And the core part of the "Washington Consensus" is "labour market reform", that is in practice whichever policies make labour more "competitive" and wages more "affordable". ..."
"... The "free markets" of neoliberalism are primarily "free" labour markets, that is free of unions. ..."
"... I would argue that, in terms of practical working definitions, Max Sawicky's definition of neo-liberalism seems to work well, at least in the U.S. context (second half of post): https://mikethemadbiologist.com/2017/04/28/remember-the-victims-of-the-nebraska-public-power-district/ ..."
Is neoliberalism even a thing? This is the question posed by Ed Conway, who
claims
it is "not an ideology but an insult." I half agree.
I agree that the economic system we have is "hardly the result of a guiding ideology" and more the result of "happenstance".
I say this because neoliberalism is NOT the same as the sort of free market ideology proposed by Friedman and Hayek. If this were
the case, it would have died on 13 October 2008 when the government bailed out
RBS .
In fact, though, as Will
Davies
and Adam Curtis
have said, neoliberalism entails the use of an active state. A big part of neoliberalism is the use of the state to increase the
power and profits of the 1% - capitalists and top managers. Increased managerialism, crony capitalism and tough benefit sanctions
are all features of neoliberalism. In this respect, the EU's treatment of Greece was neoliberal – ensuring that banks got paid at
the expense of ordinary people.
I suspect, though, that measures such as these were, as Ed says, not so much part of a single ideology as uncoordinated events.
Tax cuts for the rich, public sector outsourcing and target culture, for example, were mostly justified by appeals to efficiency,
and were not regarded even by their advocates as parts of a unified theory. To believe otherwise would be to subscribe to a conspiracy
theory which gives too much credit to Thatcher and her epigones.
Neoliberalism is a time-limited global system sustained by coercive imposition of competitive behaviour, parasitic finance
& privatisation.
I'm not sure about that word "system". Maybe it attributes too much systematization to neoliberals: perhaps unplanned order would
be a better phrase. But it's better to think of neoliberalism as a bunch of arrangements ("system" if you remove connotations
of design) rather than as an ideology. Ed has a point when he says that almost nobody fully subscribes to "neoliberal ideology":
free market supporters, for example, don't defend crony capitalism.
And it's useful to have words for economic systems. Just as we speak of "post-war Keynesianism" to mean a bundle of policies and
institutions of which Keynesian fiscal policy was only a small part, so we can speak of "neoliberalism" to describe our current arrangement.
It's a better description than the horribly question-begging "late capitalism".
This isn't to say that "neoliberalism" has a precise meaning. There are varieties of it, just as there were of post-war Keynesianism.
Think of the word as like "purple". There are shades of purple, we'll not agree when exactly purple turns into blue, and we'll struggle
to define the word (especially to someone who is colour-blind). But "purple" is nevertheless a useful word, and we know it when we
see it.
If neoliberalism is a system rather than an ideology, what role does ideology play?
I suspect it's that of post-fact justification.
Put it this way. In the mid-80s nobody argued that the share of GDP going to the top 1% should double. Of course, many advocated
policies which, it turns out, had this effect. Some of them intended this. But those policies were justified on other grounds, often
sincerely. Instead, the belief that the top 1% "deserve" 15% of total incomes rather than 7-8% has mostly followed them getting 15%,
not led it. A host of cognitive biases – the just world illusion,
anchoring
effect and status quo bias underpin
an ideology which defends inequality. John Jost calls this system
justification (pdf) . You can gather all these biases under the umbrella term "neoliberal ideology" if you want. But it follows
economic events rather than is the creator of them.
So, I half agree with Ed that neoliberalism isn't a guiding ideology. But I also agree with Paul, that it is a way of describing
a particular economic system.
I don't, however, want to get hung up on words: I'd rather leave such pedantry to the worst sort of academic. What's more important
than language is the brute fact that productivity and hence real incomes for most of us have
stagnated for years. In this sense, our existing economic system has
failed the majority of people. And this is true whatever name you give it.
Perhaps the texts of transnational trade treaties might be the best place to search for a de facto definition of neoliberalism.
There's not much room to blur, obfuscate (beyond the natural impenetrability of legalese) or wreath around with dubious ethicism
in these documents I'd imagine.
if it's a way of describing the prevailing economic system, does it make sense to describe people as neoliberals? Does that imply
that everyone who is not a radical revolutionary (i.e. anyone who if they got their way in government would still be within normal
variation in policies from a USA Republican administration to the Danish Labour party?). So the Koch brothers are neoliberals
and Brad De Long is a neoliberal despite them disagreeing vehemently about most things?
I know we have lots of other words that are used in wildly inconsistent ways (capitalism, socialism) but I can't help being
irked by the sheer incoherence of the things that neoliberals are accused of. Most recent example to come to mind, somebody in
conversation with Will Davies on Twitter claimed neoliberals oppose redistribution (and Will did not correct him). FFS.
'But, despite the fact that neoliberalism is frequently referred to as an ideology, it is oddly difficult to pin down. For
one thing, it is a word that tends to be used almost exclusively by those who are criticising it - not by its advocates, such
as they are (in stark contrast to almost every other ideology, nearly no-one self-describes as a neoliberal). In other words,
it is not an ideology but an insult.'
Well political science and history uses models too. What is the problem of say David Harvey's definition in, A Brief History
of ...that which doesn't exist (2007)?
Rather I think he means it upsets 'main stream' economics professors, to be called this term, and rather than opt for Wren
Lewis gambit (there is such a thing as 'Media Macro' or 'Tory Macro', or 'Econ 101', which I found interesting as it happens)
Conway has gone for pedantry and first year Politics student essentialism, ie what is Democracy? type stuff.
Neoliberalism, at least in the UK, was in part a reaction by Thatcher & Co to the excesses of previous Labour administrations:
excesses in the form of "if an industry looks like going bust, let's pour whatever amount of taxpayer's money into it needed to
save it". Thatcher & Co's reaction was: "s*d that for a lark – the rules of the free market are better than industrial subsidies
(especially industrial subsidies in cabinet ministers' constituencies)"
Whether or not the present neoliberal system is the result of a single coherent ideology, it emerged from the 70s on as a
set of related (if not deliberately coordinated) responses to the structural crises of the older postwar Keynesian system. And
there was definitely a cluster of policy-making elites in the early 70s making similar observations about the failure of consensus
capitalism.
"if it's a way of describing the prevailing economic system, does it make sense to describe people as neoliberals?"
Yes, these are largely people who reacted to the 'series of events' that occurred in the global economy in the 1970s by essentially
accepting a certain set of policies and responses, many of which involved seeking to insulate the state against collective popular
demands, intervening against organised labour, deregulating finance and targeting state intervention towards private business.
It is possible to have 'hard' and 'soft' neoliberalism depending on whether the state employs 'carrots' or 'sticks', but essentially
almost the entire UK political system agreed that 'There Is No Alternative' until Corbyn became Labour leader.
Many of these people were hardly hardcore ideologists but rather pragmatic
or unimaginative types that were unwilling to challenge the 'status quo' or the prevailing economic system, just as there were
very few classical liberals from WWI onwards.
I think Will Davies has hit the spot with his definition of neoliberalism as "the disenchantment of politics by economics". In
other words, neoliberalism is first and foremost a political praxis, not an economic theory. It is about power, hence the continuing
importance of the state.
This instrumentality echoes Thatcher's insistence that "Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul",
which shows that there was more in play in the late-70s and early-80s than simply responding to the "structural crises of the
older postwar Keynesian system".
You should be reading Philip Mirowski instead. The economist and historian of science Philip Mirowski is considered the foremost expert on this subject, he has written many
books on this the latest is:
"The Knowledge We Have Lost in Information: The History of Information in Modern Economics":
Neoliberalism is a philosophy based on the metaphor/idea that the "market" is an information process ad it is quasi-omniscient,
that "knows" more than any and all of us could ever know. It makes certain claims about what "information" is and what a "market"
is. It's mostly started with the Mont Perelin Society think-tank.
"productivity and hence real incomes for most of us have stagnated for years."
But for many, usually people who vote more often or more opportunistically, they have been years of booming living standards.
The core of the electoral appeal of thatcherism is that thatcherites whether Conservative or New Labour have worked hard to
ensure that upper-middle (and many middle) class voters collectively cornered the southern property market, creating a massive
short squeeze on people short housing.
So many champagne leftists of some age talk about policies and concepts, but for the many the number one problem for decades
has been managing to pay rent.
"neoliberalism is first and foremost a political praxis, not an economic theory. It is about power, hence the continuing
importance of the state."
That's a very good point, but I would rather say that's a good description of New Right/thatcherite (and "third way" clintonian/mandelsonian)
politics, and neoliberalism is the economic policy aspect.
There is after all something called "The Washington consensus" that is a "standard" set of neoliberal economic policies.
"Neoliberalism is a philosophy based on the metaphor/idea that the "market" is an information process"
Written that wait it evokes Polanyi's "Great transformation" where markets mechanisms have displaced social mechanisms in many
areas.
But Just yesterday I realized that Polanyi was subtly off-target: it is not markets-vs-society (two fairly abstract concepts)
but instead institutions-vs-businesses.
That is the Great Transformation and neoliberalism as its current phase are about turning institutions into businesses
(including marriage), and part of this is "managerialism". This is not done because businesses are inherently better for every
purpose than institutions, but because businesses are better vehicles than institutions for tunnelling (looting) by their managers.
"the "market" is an information process ad it is quasi-omniscient, that "knows" more than any and all of us could ever know"
There have been a few books arguing that "the market", being omniscient, all powerful, and just in judging everybody and giving
them exactly what they deserve, has replaced God, and today's sell-side neoliberal Economists are its preachers:
Economists started using the term neo-liberalism a bit later, after it became a derogatory term - and after 2008 began to disassociate
from it (a few, and very few, did after the Asian Financial Crisis).
It is important to realise I think that it is a term that closely linked to political science -- and in particular a branch
of international relations. The person most associated with Neo-liberalism is Francis Fukuyama. What he did was link capitalism
and democracy; both he said had triumphed and because they respect the freedom of individual liberty and they allowed markets,
which are the most efficient way of allocating resources, to operate liberally. Its heyday was at the time of the collapse of
the Berlin Wall - "the end of history" as FF famously said.
Political scientists see neo-classical economics and neo-liberalism as very compatible, because of the formers basic construct
of individual optimisation, rational choice and market efficiency. Often they are grouped together and contrasted with radical
and realist (realpolitik) approaches. For neo-liberals and neo-classicists, markets get prices right, whether they do so with
a lag is a minor point.
Neo-liberals are not opposed to all types of government intervention. But like neo-classical economists, they believe ultimately
in the price mechanism to allocate resources - in the long run, if not the short.
They have no problem with welfare states. Like neo-classical economists they accept the second welfare theorem.
They are pro-globalisation: they don't like international trade, capital or immigration controls. Why? Because they impact
on individual liberty and distort market prices.
International relations were often guiding reasons behind economic policy that were pro-globalisation. By encouraging globalisation,
you were encouraging international capitalism and thereby the spread of democracy (a la Francis Fukuyama). International relations
policy was close to the PM, and run from the Cabinet Office.
I would argue that Blair and Jonathan Portes are prime examples of neo-liberals. And indeed the Clinton/Blair years were quintessentially
neo-liberal in the formerly correct use of the term. Thatcher, as a strong opponent of the welfare state, was not.
One further point. Neo-liberals are progressively and socially liberal, as well as economically liberal. They believe in cosmopolitanism
and diversity and put much emphasis on minority and women's rights.
"In fact, though, as Will Davies and Adam Curtis have said, neoliberalism entails the use of an active state."
It has always been like that -- Kropotkin was attacking Marxists for suggesting otherwise over a hundred years ago.
"In the mid-80s nobody argued that the share of GDP going to the top 1% should double. Of course, many advocated policies which,
it turns out, had this effect. Some of them intended this. But those policies were justified on other grounds, often sincerely."
Yes, different rhetoric was often used -- but the net effect was always obvious, and pointed out at the time. But you get better
results with honey than vinegar...
In terms of sincerity, Milton Friedman asserted in "Capitalism and Freedom" that the more a society was "free market," the
more equal it was. Come the preface to 50th anniversary edition, he simply failed to mention that applying his own ideology had
refuted his assertion (and it was an assertion).
Neo-liberalism never been about reducing "the State" but rather strengthening it in terms of defending and supporting capital.
Hence you see Tories proclaim they are "cutting back the state" while also increasing state regulation on trade unions -- and
regulating strikes, and so the labour market.
"intervening against organised labour" China bans unions, doesn't it? Are they in this tent too?
"targeting state intervention towards private business" not quite sure what that means but pre-1970 import substitution industrial
policy is what?
am I a neoliberal because I think markets do process dispersed information and that competition does some good things (I am
worried about monopolies, I would be worried about non-competitive government procurement) or am I not a neoliberal because I
am nowhere near thinking markets are omniscient and could write long essays on how markets fail?
am I a neoliberal because I think the Washington Consensus is broadly sensible (with some reservations) or not a neoliberal
because I'd like to see far more social housing?
Somewhere along the line neo-liberalism got associated with austerity and small-government policies. The latter I think was
because they are (correctly) associated with promoting privatisation and deregulation policy.
But neo-liberals have never been against welfare states in principle or counter-cyclical policy in principle.
Key-neo-liberals, however, were pro-austerity policy after the Asian Financial Crisis - but this included most of the mainstream
economics establishment (most crucially of all Stanley Fischer at the IMF). Their rational (naturally enough) related to consistency,
credibility, incentives and moral hazard arguments. There were a few who protested (eg Stiglitz). But they were exceptions.
@ Luis Enrique
I don't think you'd make the grade as a 'true' neo-liberal unless you'd be happy for your social housing to be less then optimal
and only for the destitute. Do you see moral hazard if the housing market is once again sidestepped in favour of decent homes
for average every-day heroes, or do you subscribe (explicitly) to the view that the state must sanction and hurt in order that
individuals strive?
"There have been a few books arguing that "the market", being omniscient, all powerful, and just in judging everybody and giving
them exactly what they deserve, has replaced God...."
But the market is the creation of man. It has no power, no judgement, other than that bestowed on it by us. My problem with neoliberalism is the belief that decisions can be made on the basis of a money metric whereas we know that
money is not necessarily a good measure of value.
'"intervening against organised labour"
China bans unions, doesn't it? Are they in this tent too?'
Well yes. They have taken it further than most countries, stripping back their welfare system while increasing state promotion
of capitalist development.
'"targeting state intervention towards private business" not quite sure what that means but pre-1970 import substitution industrial
policy is what?'
Import substitution industrial policy is protectionism, not neoliberalism. I'm referring to governments' privatisation and
outsourcing of public services and industries, taking them out of political responsibility and collective provision, while at
the same time providing them with subsidies and guaranteed markets.
Ben, ok protectionism is a different tactic than outsourcing but it's intervention towards private business so maybe that's not
a defining characteristic of neoliberalism?
And if the Chinese Communist party is neoliberal and also the Koch brothers I am not convinced this is a useful nomenclature
Is Productivity Growth like Evolution ?
Is it possible that productivity growth is like evolution: It can be a fortitous accident or it can happen due to competitive
pressure. The fortuitous accidents are the new technologies whose advantages are so obvious they are quickly adopted.
The competitive pressures can be constraints on profits or resources that force greater efficiency. Perhaps, now, in the UK, there is no shortage of reasonably priced personnel, infrastructure and goods. So, if productivity growth is low, you can be certain neither requirement has been met.
If neither requirement has been met, then, it may well be that there is excessive unused capacity and, if that is the case,
GDP growth has been suboptimal.
Which leads to the best question: Is greater GDP growth the result of greater efficiency or is greater efficiency the result
of greater GDP growth?
The conclusion is that it may be a mistake to guide policy under the assumption that GDP growth must he preceded by productivity
growth. Failing to realize this may be a cause of unnoticed suboptimal GDP growth.
.
1. Neoliberalism is real, but only describes background theoretical claims. It is wrong to apply the term to the broader political
movement it supported. The political movement was dedicated to maximizing the power and freedom of action of large-scale capital
accumulators. Lots of ideas from neoliberal intellectual argumentation were used to increase the power of capital accumulators,
and neoliberal economists tended to ignore many aspects of the political movement they supported (strongr state power, crony capitalism,
monopoly power) not strictly part of neoliberal theory
2. The overlap and confusion between neoliberal theory and the political movement for unfettered freedom for capital accumulator
is consistent with the broader history of movement conservatism. After WW2, conservatives (broadly defined) had a fixation with
developing an intellectual foundatation/justification for their policy preferences. Partly as a reaction to the perception that
FDR-LBJ era liberalism was based on theories published by Ivy League professors. The Mont Pelerin intellectual thread that Mirowski
and others describe was part of this process. But (even for the liberals) it was always a mistake to claim that intellectual/ideological
theorizing lead to political policy and action. It was sometimes the opposite; usually the theory was just a weapon used in internal
battles or as a PR tool to mask less savory political objectives.
3. Democratic neoliberalism (Brad DeLong) was always a totally different animal. It was a reaction to the economic crises of the
70s/80s--New Deal policies written in 1934 didn't seem to be working; maybe would should incorporate market forces a bit more.
At the same time Republican neoliberalism had abandoned all pretense of detached analysis and was now strictly a tool supporting
the pursuit of power.
"Put it this way. In the mid-80s nobody argued that the share of GDP going to the top 1% should double. Of course, many advocated
policies which, it turns out, had this effect. Some of them intended this. But those policies were justified on other grounds,
often sincerely. Instead, the belief that the top 1% "deserve" 15% of total incomes rather than 7-8% has mostly followed them
getting 15%, not led it. "
This is just not true. People did argue that, did announce the intent of these policies in public. Bill Mitchell's former student
Victor Quirk is great on such declarations of war on the poor from the rich throughout history. Mitchell himself wrote that he
was surprised how many and how blatant these declarations were.
"But the market is the creation of man. It has no power, no judgement, other than that bestowed on it by us."
But the neoliberal thesis is that it is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-judging. "vox populi vox dei" taken to an extreme.
"My problem with neoliberalism is the belief that decisions can be made on the basis of a money metric"
That to me seems a very poor argument, because then many will object that ignoring the money metric means that you want someone
else to pay. Consider the statement "everybody has a right to healthcare free at the point of use": it is mere handwaving unless you explain
who and how to pay for it.
The discussion in the money yes/no terms is for me fruitless, because there are two distinct issues in a project: the motivation
for there being the project, and the business of doing the project.
Claiming that the *only* motivation for a project should be money seems to me as bad a claiming that given a good motivation
how to pay for a project does not matter.
Projects don't reduce to their motivation any more than they reduce to the business of doing them.
An extreme example I make is marriage: for me it is (also) a business, as it requires a careful look at money and organization
issues, but hopefully the motivation to engage in that business is not economic, but personal feelings.
That's why I mentioned a better-than-Polanyi duality between businesses and institutions: institutions as a rule carry out
businesses but for non-business motivations, while "pure" businesses have merely economic motivations.
For example a university setup as a charity versus one setup a a business: both carry out business activities, but the motivation
of the former is not merely to do business.
Repeating the message: "neoliberalism" has a pretty much official definition, the "Washington Consensus". And the core part
of the "Washington Consensus" is "labour market reform", that is in practice whichever policies make labour more "competitive"
and wages more "affordable".
The "free markets" of neoliberalism are primarily "free" labour markets, that is free of unions.
@ Blissex "ignoring the money metric means that you want someone else to pay."
Not sure I follow. If payment is made via money then that is not ignoring the money metric, i.e. money as a measure of value.
Do we want someone to do the project and is someone willing and able to do it? If, yes, then money is not (or at least does not
need to be) the constraint. It is a mechanism to facilitate the project. If we want universal healthcare, money is not the constraint,
the constraint is the ability of society to train and sustain (feed and house) the required expertise.
Neo-liberalism is an economic idea based on the conjecture that by reverting the level of state spending and regulation of an
economy to that which existed at an earlier stage of its economic development will produce the same level of economic growth which
the economy experienced then.
But the level of output of an economy is a reflection of the level of the efficiency of that economy, the level of economic
growth therefore reflects the rate of increase in its efficiency in terms of increased economic output as the economy develops,
a measure which inevitably reduces in its order as an economy approaches its maximum level of efficiency and output. So the rate
of economic growth of an economy will inevitably be progressively reduced as an economy matures as the opportunities for efficiency
improvements are exploited and the number that remain diminish.
The level of state spending and regulation typical of economically developed societies are responses to the social change which
economic development itself has brought about. Abolishing those responses therefore is likely only to serve to reintroduce the
social problems which led to their introduction and to make the social consequences of economic development more arduous for the
lower social and economic groups disfavoured by that process of social change.
Neo-liberalism is, like other materialist ideology of the progressive left and right, a predominantly economic idea which is
a product of the affluent and intellectual classes who themselves, being a product of their elevated economic condition, being
dependent upon it and therefore having a vested interest in its continuance, are imbued with a bias which sees the improvement
in the general economic condition as a natural unmitigated good and are therefore oblivious or apathetic to its non-material consequences
as material progress causes a society and its population to diverge from its native and surviving character as it adapts to the
historically exceptional conditions of modernity and undermines its cultural foundation and ultimately threatens its long term
cultural future.
It seems clear from the above posts that there is no clear consensus about what neo-liberalism actually is.
I suggest the use of the term is little more than a cloak used to cover up an uncomfortable reality for those on the left.
Traditional left wing policies, such as nationalisation, state intervention in the economy such as rent controls, high marginal
tax rates, and strong trade unions systematically failed to deliver prosperity. States which moved to economic models involving
more reliance on markets to shift labour and capital to new activities seemed to prosper far better. Rather than say that conservatives
such as Friedman were proved right about the fundamental propositions about how an economy should be organised, the soft left
adopted conservative policies, and have dressed it up as 'neo-liberalism' to save face.
Indeed, some on the left, such as 'filthy rich' Mandelson, embraced the market economy with the zeal of converts, and have
ignored its faults and problems, and have failed to seek to mitigate or remedy these faults and problems.
The best thing to do is consult a first or second year undergraduate political science or international relations text. Burchill
"Theories of International Relations, Palgrave is a good one, and used in many UK universities. There will be a chapter on neo-liberalism
in them. These texts give you the standard blurb on what neo-liberalism really is (as well as what the other major schools of
thoughts are together with critiques of all of them).
Neo-liberalism is very much a coherent (but by no means flawless) theory.
Neo-liberalism comes from the subject of international relations. Fukuyama is the most representative neo-liberal. Important
is the notion of 'soft power': the spread of capitalism and western culture and other forms of globalisation spreads western notions
of democracy and human rights. It was important to integrate countries into the international capitalist (and engage them in the
multilateral) system. At the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall this seemed to be a convincing theory. It was very much adopted
as a key foreign policy strategy in the UK and the US. One of its biggest blows, however, is the lack of political reform we have
seen in China. What this showed was that democratisation does not necessarily follow capitalism and globalisation.
Just to qualify what I said above - the would not use the term "western notions". Ie they would not associate democracy or human
rights with being western. They are very cosmopolitan, and believe in the notion of universal, (not relative), values.
""ignoring the money metric means that you want someone else to pay."
... then money is not (or at least does not need to be) the constraint. It is a mechanism to facilitate the project. If we want
universal healthcare, money is not the constraint,"
Oh please, this is just two-bit nominalism: "money" then is just the mechanism by which "you want someone else to pay" and
indeed:
"the constraint is the ability of society to train and sustain (feed and house) the required expertise."
That is the *physical* aggregate constraint, regardless of whoever pays, the practical constraint, given that physical stuff
is purchased with money, creating or obtaining that money.
The question is then distributional, who is going to pay the money to "train and sustain (feed and house) the required expertise".
Unless there are ample unused resources, someone will have to pay.
What right-wingers object to is the idea that "universal health care" is paid for as a percent of income, so that someone on
£100,000 a year pays £8,000 a year for exactly the same level of service that someone on £10,000 a year pays £800 a year for.
@Luis Enrique: Correct - you are not a neoliberal as you'd like to see far more social housing? A neoliberal believes in more
economic freedom, so you achieve the aim of housing people who need state help for housing, food, energy etc by giving them the
money to buy a basic level of those things. The State should not be in the business of saying this house here is not a social
housing one, but this next that gets built is.
Blissex: "Oh please, this is just two-bit nominalism: "money" then is just the mechanism by which "you want someone else to pay""
Umm, no. In real terms, the someone else who is paying in health care is mainly the health care professional treating you.
"Unless there are ample unused resources, someone will have to pay."
But in all modern capitalist countries there are ample unused resources as far as the eye can see. Medicine is one way to use
them up, nearly cost-free, and all benefit. Most people value "not being dead" highly. As Paul Samuelson said responding to stupid
worries about the cost of the US health care system, so it's 15% (or whatever). It's the best 15% of the economy.
The real problem is that "socialized medicine" is too efficient in real terms, and doesn't create corrupt and powerful satrapies
to demand public money, as the US health system does. Since the UK has the most efficient health care system, it has the least
real resource "someone has to pay" problem, but it causes the biggest demand gap, the true longterm, macro problem. The opposite
for the USA. The real right wing concern is that the underpeople get health care at all, not some smokescreen triviality about
nominal taxation.
Most written about health care, as about war, follows the backwards, mainstream way. C Adams is following the correct, MMT/Keynesian
way. If that is two-bit nominalism, we need more of it.
Until recently I haven't been closely following the controversy between Wikipedia and
popular anti-imperialist activists like John Pilger, George Galloway, Craig Murray, Neil Clark,
Media Lens, Tim Hayward and Piers Robinson.
Wikipedia has always been biased in favor of
mainstream CNN/CIA narratives, but until recently I hadn't seen much evidence that this was due to
anything other than the fact that Wikipedia is a crowdsourced project and most people believe
establishment-friendly narratives. That all changed when I
read
this article by Craig Murra
y, which is primarily what I'm interested in directing people's
attention to here.
The article, and
this one which
prompted it by
Five Filters
, are definitely worth reading in their entirety, because
their contents are jaw-dropping. In short there is an account which has been making edits to
Wikipedia entries for many nears called Philip Cross. In the last five years this account's
operator has not taken a single day off–no weekends, holidays, nothing–and according to their time
log they work extremely long hours adhering to a very strict, clockwork schedule of edits
throughout the day as an ostensibly unpaid volunteer.
This is bizarre enough, but the fact that this account is undeniably focusing with
malicious intent on anti-imperialist activists who question establishment narratives and the fact
that its behavior is being aggressively defended by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales means that
there's some serious fuckery afoot.
"Philip Cross", whoever or whatever that is, is absolutely head-over-heels for depraved Blairite
war whore Oliver Kamm, whom Cross mentioned as a voice of authority
no
fewer than
twelve times
in an entry about the media analysis duo known collectively as
Media Lens. Cross harbors a special hatred for British politician and broadcaster George Galloway,
who opposed the Iraq invasion as aggressively as Oliver Kamm cheered for it, and on whose Wikipedia
entry Cross has made an astonishing 1,800 edits.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of constant malicious editing, as well as outright admissions
of bias by the Twitter account linked to Philip Cross, Jimmy Wales has been extremely and
conspicuously defensive of the account's legitimacy while ignoring evidence provided to him.
"Or, just maybe, you're wrong,"
Wales
said
to a Twitter user inquiring about the controversy the other day. "Show me the diffs or
any evidence of any kind. The whole claim appears so far to be completely ludicrous."
"Riiiiight,"
said
the
totally not-triggered Wales in another response. "You are really very very far from the facts of
reality here. You might start with even one tiny shred of some kind of evidence, rather than
just making up allegations out of thin air. But you won't because trolling."
"You clearly have very very little idea how it works,"
Wales
tweeted
in another response. "If your worldview is shaped by idiotic conspiracy sites, you
will have a hard time grasping reality."
As outlined in the articles by Murray and
Five Filters
, the evidence is there
in abundance.
Five Filters
lays out "diffs" (editing changes) in black and white
showing clear bias by the Philip Cross account, a very slanted perspective is clearly and
undeniably documented, and yet Wales denies and aggressively ridicules any suggestion that
something shady could be afoot. This likely means that Wales is in on whatever game the Philip
Cross account is playing.
Which means the entire site is likely involved in some sort of
psyop by a party which stands to benefit from keeping the dominant narrative slanted in a
pro-establishment direction.
A 2016 Pew Research Center report found that Wikipedia was getting some
18
billion page views per month
. Billion with a 'b'. Youtube
recently
announced
that it's going to be showing text from Wikipedia articles on videos about conspiracy
theories to help "curb fake news". Plainly the site is extremely important in the battle for
control of the narrative about what's going on in the world. Plainly its leadership fights on one
side of that battle, which happens to be the side that favors western oligarchs and intelligence
agencies.
How many other "Philip Cross"-like accounts are there on Wikipedia?
Has the site always functioned an establishment psyop designed to manipulate public perception of
existing power structures, or did that start later? I don't know.
Right now all I know
is that an agenda very beneficial to the intelligence agencies, war profiteers and plutocrats of
the western empire is clearly and undeniably being advanced on the site, and its founder is telling
us it's nothing. He is lying. Watch him closely.
* * *
Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing my daily articles is
to get on the mailing list for my
website
,
so you'll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely
reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking
me on
Facebook
,
following my antics on
Twitter
, checking
out my
podcast
, throwing some
money into my hat on
Patreon
or
Paypal
,
or
buying my new book
Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers
.
Vote up!
13
Vote down!
0
reading the "talk" tab page background on ANY wiki page is ALWAYS
recommended - it shows the content war by different editors. - Anything on
Israel / Palestine for example.
Post or edit anything on that shit site that goes against the
ziomaster's narrative and you will be blocked. Wikipedia just rehashes
all the bullshit from the corporate media on Television.
Metabunk and Rationalwiki are the exact same thing too.
Does the pope shit in the woods after playing with little boys?
95% of things placed in top 3 of
Google search
are PSYOP. The remaining 5% are those pesky old
school blackhat SEO guys that know how to game the search engine.
Wikipedia is as fake as WWE is. But at least WWE has some juicy
stuff:
The Zionist side is ALWAYS the side that is
presented.
Eustace Mullins was a
truly kind individual. His only crime was to not
swallow the hogwash Koolaid of the ZioNAZI. For that
he was followed by the FBI for 30 years.
But of course all the standard tropes are
trotted out on Wikipedia. I suspect that Wiki / Wales
gets a lot of funding from YOU KNOW WHO. Same people
who has the Germans put people in jail for thought
crimes.
You are only safe when you are looking at a
page regarding theoretical mathematics. But not
mathematics about global warming.
among scientists, wiki is well known for utility
and accuracy of boring stuff like the thermal
conductivity of copper. any controversy involved,
and it is worthless.
Wikipedia is completely unreliable. Especially when it comes
to politics.
You can find LIES GALORE. You can edit the Lies out,
document them and backup with sourced justification; but within
an hour they will have reset the Lie.
Aaaand finally: James Corbett of Corbettreport.com, a prolific documentary
filmmaker--whose docs are always top rated on topdocumentaryfilms.com, doesn't
have a wikipedia page, despite MANY people trying to create one for him. Why is
that, you ask? Because they are extremely subversive to the CIA and the
established globalist order, and therefore that fact of suppression of Corbett
suggests coordination between Wikipedia and the globalist thalassocracy of the
empire of the city
How much 'filtering' is being done, and through what channels do filtering
requests arrive? (if any)
Lots of news outlets have changed over the last few years. Formerly respected
papers have been reduced to tabloids. The Washington Post is now the Bezos Blog,
for example. Twitter is popping up 'warnings' about 'fake news'. All the radio
and TV channels run identical bullshit war stories within minutes of each other.
And Wikipedia has been going downhill for years.
So, is ZH immune to the effluvia from the ministry of truth?
Nice article, but there is a much better way of proving that Wikipedia=CIA. It's
true, everybody can edit Wikipedia, but not everyone gets to keep their edits.
Here is an experiment that everyone can carry out
:
If
you edit well or create a new informative page on something of no interest to the
FBI or CIA, say astronomy or physics, no problem, your contribution stays. But
try to provide evidence--and there is plenty--that the government was involved in
the assassinations of MLK, JFK, RFK or the demolitions of 9/11, and you'll be
"reverted" (their term) within FIVE minutes. Try to quote Russia's version of
the Crimeans' overwhelming vote to join Russia, and you'll be "reverted" lickety
split. Provide evidence that Winston Churchill--lionized by our rulers--was an
imperialist, a racist, a champion of inequality, and the contribution will
disappear while you pause your honest labors for a cup of tea! Our rulers are
masters of propaganda, and Wikipedia is just one of their brilliantly vicious
outlets--created, controlled, and edited to brainwash us!
The reason we are not given a straight answer as to why we're meant to want our institutions
fighting an information war on our behalf (instead of allowing us to sort out fact from fiction
on our own like adults) is because the answer is ugly.
As
we discussed last time , the only real power in this world is the ability to control the
dominant narrative about what's going on. The only reason government works the way it works,
money operates the way it operates, and authority rests where it rests is because everyone has
agreed to pretend that that's how things are. In actuality, government, money and authority are
all man-made conceptual constructs and the collective can choose to change them whenever it
wants. The only reason this hasn't happened in our deeply dysfunctional society yet is because
the plutocrats who rule us have been successful in controlling the narrative.
Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. This has always been the case. In many
societies throughout history a guy who made alliances with the biggest, baddest group of armed
thugs could take control of the narrative by killing people until the dominant narrative was
switched to "That guy is our leader now; whatever he says goes." In modern western society, the
real leaders are less obvious, and the narrative is controlled by propaganda.
Propaganda is what keeps Americans accepting things like the fake two-party system, growing
wealth inequality, medicine money being spent on bombs to be dropped on strangers in stupid
immoral wars, and a government which simultaneously creates steadily increasing secrecy
privileges for itself and steadily decreasing privacy rights for its citizenry. It's also what
keeps people accepting that a dollar is worth what it's worth, that personal property works the
way it works, that the people on Capitol Hill write the rules, and that you need to behave a
certain way around a police officer or he can legally kill you.
And therein lies the answer to the question. You are not being protected from
"disinformation" by a compassionate government who is deeply troubled to see you believing
erroneous beliefs, you are being herded back toward the official narrative by a power
establishment which understands that losing control of the narrative means losing power. It has
nothing to do with Russia, and it has nothing to do with truth. It's about power, and the
unexpected trouble that existing power structures are having dealing with the public's newfound
ability to network and share information about what is going on in the world.
Economic analysis often uses the term ceteris paribus -- all other things being equal -- but all other
things are not equal. The worker Tesla employed might have found employment elsewhere; it may have
even been more stable, safer employment that did not entail payment in Tesla equity, that is
subject to some uncertainty as to its ultimate value.
To highlight this point, it may be helpful
to consider the economic activity generated by Tesla's competitors in California. These
competitors' operations are being impaired by Tesla's sale of deeply subsidized cars in the state.
While Tesla's competitors do not manufacture cars in the state, they account for
1,366 dealerships
employing 140,596 jobs (that pay cash),
accounting for $8.56 billion in wages,
paying $9.38 billion in taxes, and
making $50 million of charitable contributions per year.
On a more minor point, the IHS Markit report assumes that the $2.1 billion in "wages" paid to
Tesla workers is spent in the California economy. As discussed above, the report includes in these
"wages" Tesla equity granted to employees without quantifying what percentage of wages this equity
represented. We are skeptical as to how many employees spent their Tesla stock to boost local
economic activity.
Thanks to Friday's carefully crafted deep-state disclosures by WaPo and the Times , along
with actual reporting by the Daily Caller 's Chuck
Ross, we now know it wasn't a mole at all - but 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor
Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by
the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election
.
the "American academic who teaches in Britain" described by The Times,
Seems like Carter Page knew what he was talking about in this May 11 tweet.
Carter Page, Ph.D. @carterwpage
No @JackPosobiec, not me. But if what I'm hearing alleged is correct, it's a guy I know
who splits most his time between inside the Beltway and in one of the other Five Eyes
countries.
And if so, it'd be typical: swamp creatures putting themselves first.
4:17 AM - May 11, 2018
I think Rudy's flipped seeking redemption for his role in 911.
The deep state is not going down quietly or without a fight and they are in full attack
mode. Multiple questionable instances yesterday to change news cycle, plus a week worths of
leaks by major media mouthpieces justifying their crimes.
What's great is they are so caught up in their nest of lies, each new lie just contradicts
previous ones and exposes more of the truth.
Now the question is: How do you bring these people to justice without starting a violent
backlash / Civil War?
The cognitive dissonance is very strong on the left and they've fallen victim to hive
mentality, simply regurgitating talking points they hear through pop culture and media. We
are so afraid of not fitting in (as a society) that we will willingly accept completely
contradicting "facts", defend them, and deride those who disagree. Further, there is no room
for disagreement, for they are the party of tolerance, and if you disagree with them, you are
intolerant, which cannot be tolerated in an open and free society (see how that works?).
The real hope is people are able to break the spell and think for themselves again. But I
worry it's too late. A generation of children assaulted with excessive vaccination are now
adults and it shows...
People in the USA better get a grip real fast and realize that it's not Russia, China or
Iran that is the real enemy of Americans, it's the British . . . the money gnomes in London
and the "Queens men". They've caused more problems for the USA in the last 100+ years than
the other three combined many times over.
Let's see. Money was exchanged, foreign govt agents and contractors hired. The FBI knew
about Hillary's criminal enterprises and illegal dissemination of classified documents and
apparently has been complicit in helping or protecting her. The NYT and WaPo along with the
network media regurgitated much of the anti-Trump rhetoric together in sync with the tsunami
of fake news, either in creating it or knowingly participating in it. No wonder the news
media in a sudden shift have been trying to paint themselves as now being on the other side
of this Russkie Fubar after they promoted it 24/7 for two years without let-up. What's the
penalty for trying to overthrow the President of the United States? Lots of folks here are
sitting on potential indictments for treason. Enough talk. With all they got from the
Congressional hearings, and now this, it's time!!!... for Trump to start draining.
Because that is what (((they))) want. Do a little research on how that came about in the
US you will find that the same ole (((culprits))) got the law changed to their benefit of
course.
Lemmings get what they deserve.
Almost always as the iron law of oligarchy implies. Period of
revolution and social upheaval are probably the only exceptions.
In 2018 there is no doubt that Trump is an agent of Deep State, and
probably the most militant part of neocons. What he the
agent from the beginning or not is not so important. He managed to
fool electorate with false promises like Obama before him and get
elected.
Ask yourself why Sessions ordered Rosenstein to resign and Trump
declined his resignation? Likely because Sessions was recused from
Russia investigation and could not be told Rosenstein was working for
Trump from day 1.
(Mueller also met with Trump the day before Rosenstein appointed him
SC.)
Also relevant, Rosenstein is Republican and in 2007/8 was blocked
from getting a seat on appeals court by Dems. Doesn't seem he would be
loyal to the Obama crowd and trying to take down Trump with a phony
investigation.
You better
believe it. What's happened to the NYC detectives who viewed
the "insurance policy" on Weiner's laptop? The kiddie stuff is
the real hot potato here. The power "elite" are pure
unadulterated filth.
Yes....when you start to add up various facts coming from this
investigation it is easy to argue that the prime beneficiary has
been Trump. Why would Trump even consider firing this guy? The
more Mueller digs the more crap surfaces about the Dems, and they
are in full support of it without any seeming awareness of the
results. They are so blinded by their hatred they cannot see
reality.
The info from Weiner's computer is really going to make for
major popcorn sales. All Hitlery's "lost" emails are in there. All
the names in his address book will also make for some interesting
reading. Just a guess but there are a lot of very nervous NYC
elected officials and pedos making sure their passports are up to
date. The Lolita Express to Gitmo....
You guys see everything through Trump colored glasses. Trump is dirty and just
because the evidence hasn't been shown to you doesn't mean it isn't there.
Mueller has the dirt on Trump. It will show. Does everyone here forget that
Watergate took 2 1/2 years to play out?
Being in the business he is in, there is little doubt that Trump has paid
out millions of dollars over the years in bribes and payoffs to greedy
politicians, regulators, and zoning commissioners given to filthy lucre in
return for building permits, zoning variances, and law changes.
I know he
is but what are they? This could be one reason the politicians, regulators,
and zoning commissioners hate him so much. He knows what they know.
Trump is no dirtier than other politicians and much less than some.
He is just dirty in a way (he was usually the payer, they were the payees)
that bothers the other ones.
There is no man or
woman who has or ever will run for office that is not dirty.
As Dershowitz so acutely pointed out, every one of them with an
opposition Special Counsel on his case, can find at least 3 crimes they
committed.
The only reason theBamster wasn't probed at all is because no one dared
go after the only black man to ever run and win for POTUS. HE instead, was
protected from any probes.
You're an idiot that doesn't know anything about what this is really all
about. Or pretending to. Or a troll. Fuck you for being any of them.
Obama has a history of taking out his opponents in their personal life, so
that he doesnt have to meet them in the political arena, just look at his
state campaigns, and then his senate campaign. Look at how he used the
bureaucracy during his admin to preempt opposition, not allowing opposition
groups to get tax exempt status and sending osha/fbi/treasury etc to harrass
people that were more than marginally effective.
With that context set I would like to know the following.
1. Did the brennan/comey/clapper cabal have investigations running on all
the gop primary front runners?
2. Did they promote Trump to win the GOP primary, to eliminate those
rivals from consideration, just to attempt to destroy him in the general with
the russian collusion narrative and his own words.
3. Was Comey's failure to ensure Hillary's victory due to incompetence or
arrogance? I say arrogance, because his little late day announcement of the
new emails was obviously ass covering so that he could pass whatever senate
hearing that would be required for his new post in the hillary administration.
Having to learn how to deal with mobbed-up lawyers and unions in NYC turns out
the be pretty damned good preparation to be President Of The United States. I
love watching this guy work.
The illegitimate liberal MSM is sucking all the oxygen out of the room for
legitimate criticism of Trump. This Russian Collusion stormy daniels stuff is
a bunch of bologna, and it's making a smokescreen for Trump to carry out his
zio-bankster agenda.
Hegelian dialectic, Divide and conquer, kabuki
theater
For the most part I like Peter Schiff. I don't think he talks
enough about the criminal manipulation of commodities by the
banksters and the seemingly endless reluctance by our glorious
leaders to prosecute them.
On this topic: The lawlessness of
the 17 agencies is beyond the pale. They have set themselves
apart and for this they will have to pay eventually. I have no
doubt that in the minds of the Bureau principals there was motive
and there was opportunity. I don't believe anything that comes
out of their mouths. Robert Mueller is a three letter word for a
donkey. He is a criminal and a totally owned puppet of the deep
and dark state. Last I heard, the FBI planted a mole in the Trump
campaign. Iff true, that speaks volumes...
It is amazing that President Trump is still standing on his feet and still out
there swinging. The man is no coward. I'm glad I voted for him, although I am
disappointed in some of his failings.
"although I am disappointed in some of his failings."...
Yeah I know
just what ya mean...
The treason of war crimes he's committed exceeding all of his
predecessor(s) in his short assed existence as President and threatening
war on two nuclear superpowers that could easily wipe his office and 4
thousand square miles of CONUS "
off the map
"!...
Endorsing a torturer murder to head the CIA condoning her efforts in
public "thumbing his nose" at Article 3 Geneva the U.S. Constitution and
for his military to tacitly continue disobeying the UCMJ as a response
to that "selection"!...
Telling the parasitic partner that owns him through blackmail that
Jerusalem is the Capital of IsraHell as over 200 Palestinians are
murdered and 3 thousand others injured in joyous celebration of that
violation of international law which is the equivalent of pouring
"gasoline" on a building that has already been reduced to "ash"...
They didn't really think things through when they plotted against Trump and
figured Hillary would win and they could sweep this under the rug and then she
lost. Funnier is that many expected her to lose as she never won an election
in her life despite her being "The Most Qualified" candidate as her parrots in
the media lovingly called her. Now Trump and his team will stomp them all into
the ground. My guess is that he'll pinch others in her gang who have big egos
so that they'll talk and drop a dime which they will. The libtards are turning
on themselves in every area now. Look at Hollywood and the sexual harassment
cases in the pipeline.
It's just so pleasurable watching your enemy fall on their sword while you
sit back and enjoy life and smile....
Was the Trump campaign "Set-up"? It's just another way the oligarchy
is deflecting what the real problem is. Americans are fed up with the
political status quo in this country, and wanted a change. Neither political
party offers any change for the better. It is also why Bernie Sanders had a
huge following, but no one is calling his campaign a "set-up", and he would
have been the more likely choice the Russians would have helped.
It really doesn't make any sense why the Russians would have selected
Trump, but it makes a lot of sense why the oligarchy would want to discredit
Trump any means availble to them. And since they have always hated Russia so
much, that is the big tip-off of who comes up with these stupid stories about
Russians meddling in our elections.
We voted against the powers that be. With Truman, we got a decent man that
was manipulated by the Deep State. With Trump, we got a not-so-decent man,
but still manipulated by the Deep State. Sigh.
there needs to be a schedule drawn up of charges against individuals. it's
all very well talking and talking anf talking around the water cooler, but
until the charges are drawn up and a grand jury empowered, it is all
pissing into the wind.
the individuals range from obama through clinton,
through the loathsome slimebags in the alphabet soup, through foundations,
through DNC leaders/politicians, through Weiner, Abedin, Rice and the
witches cabal (Wasserstein Schulz etc), UK intel agencies, awan brothers,
pakistan intel supplying Iran with classified documents and so on.
there are charges (of treason, sedition, wilful mishandling of classifed
documents, bribery, corruption, murder, child trafficking, election
rigging, spying for/collusion with foreign powers, funding terrorism, child
abuse, election rigging/tampering, misappropriation of federal funds, theft
etc as well as general malfeasance, failure to perform duties and so on)
that are not being brought that are so obvious, only a snowflake would miss
them.
what charges can be brought against the MSM for propaganda,
misdirection, lying, fabrication and attempting to ovetthrow a legitimately
elected president using these techniques to further their own ends? there
is no freedom of the press to lie and further civil unrest.
a list of charges against individuals in the DNC/alphabet soup is what
is needed. if the DoJ is so incompetent or corrupt that it is unable to do
its job, private law suits need to be brought to get all the facts out in
the open.
someone needs to write the book and make it butt hole shaped to shove up
all those that try to make a living out of making up gossip in the NYT,
WaPo, CNN, BBC, Economist, Madcow, SNL, Oliver and so on.
these people are guilty of being assholes and need their assholes
(mouths) plugged with a very think fifteen inch book.
Trump might become a deep stater but he definitely wasn't one of
them. Google "offer to pay trump to drop out of election" and see
how many stories there were. Here is one of them.
I hope someone writes a book on this with all of the timing and all of the
"little" things that happened on the way to the coronation of Hillary.
Comey "interviews" Hillary on 4th of July weekend. Wraps up case by 9am
Tuesday after 4th of July. By noon, Hillary and Obama are on Air Force 1
to begin campaign. Within a few weeks Seth Rich is dead and DWS avoids
being "killed in an armed robbery gone bad" when she steps down as head of
DNC. Above article forgets to mention that GPS also hired the wife of
someone in the government as part of the "fact gathering" team.
"... On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in 14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton." ..."
"... On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview. ..."
"... And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel. ..."
"... Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years. ..."
As we reported on
Thursday , a long-awaited report by the Department of Justice's internal watchdog into the Hillary Clinton email investigation
has moved into its final phase, as the DOJ notified multiple subjects mentioned in the document that they can privately review it
by week's end, and will have a "few days" to craft any response to criticism contained within the report, according to the
Wall Street Journal .
Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it , people
familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which
will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks . -
WSJ
Now, journalist Paul Sperry reports that " IG Horowitz has found "reasonable grounds" for believing there has been a violation
of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal
misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution ."
Who is Huber?
As we
reported
in March , Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber - Utah's top federal prosecutor, to be paired with IG Horowitz
to investigate the multitude of accusations of FBI misconduct surrounding the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The announcement came
one day after Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed that he will also be investigating allegations of FBI FISA abuse .
While Huber's appointment fell short of the second special counsel demanded by Congressional investigators and concerned citizens
alike, his appointment and subsequent pairing with Horowitz is notable - as many have pointed out that the Inspector General is significantly
limited in his abilities to investigate. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) noted in March " the IG's office does not have authority to compel
witness interviews, including from past employees, so its investigation will be limited in scope in comparison to a Special Counsel
investigation ,"
Sessions' pairing of Horowitz with Huber keeps the investigation under the DOJ's roof and out of the hands of an independent investigator
.
***
Who is Horowitz?
In January, we profiled Michael Horowitz based on thorough research assembled by independent investigators. For those who think
the upcoming OIG report is just going to be "all part of the show" - take pause; there's a good chance this is an actual happening,
so you may want to read up on the man whose year-long investigation may lead to criminal charges against those involved.
Horowitz was appointed head of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in April, 2012 - after the Obama administration hobbled
the OIG's investigative powers in 2011 during the "Fast and Furious" scandal. The changes forced the various Inspectors General for
all government agencies to request information while conducting investigations, as opposed to the authority to demand it. This allowed
Holder (and other agency heads) to bog down OIG requests in bureaucratic red tape, and in some cases, deny them outright.
What did Horowitz do? As one twitter commentators puts it,
he went to war ...
In March of 2015, Horowitz's office
prepared
a report for Congress titled Open and Unimplemented IG Recommendations . It laid the Obama Admin bare before Congress - illustrating
among other things how the administration was wasting tens-of-billions of dollars by ignoring the recommendations made by the OIG.
After several attempts by congress to restore the OIG's investigative powers, Rep. Jason Chaffetz successfully introduced H.R.6450
- the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 - signed by a defeated lame duck President Obama into law on
December 16th, 2016 , cementing an alliance between Horrowitz and both houses of Congress .
1) Due to the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, the OIG has access to all of the information that the target agency
possesses. This not only includes their internal documentation and data, but also that which the agency externally collected and
documented.
See here for a complete overview of the
OIG's new and restored powers. And while the public won't get to see classified details of the OIG report, Mr. Horowitz is also big
on public disclosure:
Horowitz's efforts to roll back Eric Holder's restrictions on the OIG sealed the working relationship between Congress and the
Inspector General's ofice, and they most certainly appear to be on the same page. Moreover, FBI Director Christopher Wray seems to
be on the same page
Which brings us back to the OIG report
expected by Congress a week from Monday.
On January 12 of last year, Inspector Horowitz announced an OIG investigation based on " requests from numerous Chairmen and Ranking
Members of Congressional oversight committees, various organizations (such as Judicial Watch?), and members of the public ."
The initial focus ranged from the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation, to whether or not Deputy FBI Director Andrew
McCabe should have been recused from the investigation (ostensibly over
$700,000 his wife's campaign took from Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe around the time of the email investigation), to potential
collusion with the Clinton campaign and the timing of various FOIA releases. Which brings us back to the
OIG report expected by Congress a week from
Monday.
On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in
14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey,
and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."
The questions range from Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation,
Secretary Clinton's mishandling of classified information and the (mis)handling of her email investigation by the FBI, the DOJ's
failure to empanel a grand jury to investigate Clinton, and questions about the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and whether the
FBI relied on the "Trump-Russia" dossier created by Fusion GPS.
On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that
former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton
until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview.
And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also
satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel.
As illustrated below by TrumpSoldier , the report will go from the Office of the Inspector General to both investigative committees
of Congress, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and is expected within weeks .
Once congress has reviewed the OIG report, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will use it to supplement their investigations
, which will result in hearings with the end goal of requesting or demanding a Special Counsel investigation. The DOJ can appoint
a Special Counsel at any point, or wait for Congress to demand one. If a request for a Special Counsel is ignored, Congress can pass
legislation to force an the appointment.
And while the DOJ could act on the OIG report and investigate / prosecute themselves without a Special Counsel, it is highly unlikely
that Congress would stand for that given the subjects of the investigation.
After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis,
the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about
everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "
Meanwhile, recent events appear to correspond with bullet points in both the original OIG investigation letter and the 7/27/2017
letter forwarded to the Inspector General:
... ... ...
With the wheels set in motion last week seemingly align with Congressional requests and the OIG mandate, and the upcoming OIG
report likely to serve as a foundational opinion, the DOJ will finally be empowered to move forward with an impartially appointed
Special Counsel.
"To save his presidency, Trump must expose a host of criminally cunning Deep State political operatives as enemies to the Constitution,
including John Brennan, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and Robert Mueller - as well as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."
Killing the Deep State , Dr Jerome Corsi, PhD., p xi
I've been more than upfront about my philosophy. I have said on more than one occasion that progs will rue the day they drove
a New Yorker like Trump even further to the right.
Now you see it in his actions from the judiciary to bureaucracy destruction to (pick any) and...as I often cite... some old
dead white guy once said ..."First they came for the ___ and I did not speak out. Then they came for..."
Now I advocate for progs to swim in their own deadly juices, without a moment's hesitation on my part, without any furtive
look back, without remorse or any compassion whatsover.
Forward! ...I think is what they said, welcome to the Death Star ;-)
There have been (and are) plenty on "our side"...Boehner, Cantor, McCain, Romney and the thinly disguised "social democrat"
Bill Kristol just to name several off the top of my head but the thing is, they always have to hide what they really are from
us until rooted out.
That's what I try to point out to "our friends" on the left all the time, for example, there was never any doubt that Chris
Dodd, Bwaney Fwank and Chuck Schumer were (and are) in Wall Streets back pocket. But for any prog to openly admit that is to sign
some sort of personal death warrant, to be ostracized, blacklisted and harassed out of "the liberal community" so, they bite their
tongue & say nothing...knowing what the truth really is.
Hell, they even named a "financial reform bill" after Dodd & Frank...LMAO!!!
It's just the dripping hypocrisy that gets me.
For another example, they knew what was going on with Weinstein, Lauer, Spacey, Rose etal but as long as the cash flowed and
they towed-the-prog-BS-line outwardly, they gladly looked the other way and in the end...The Oprah...gives a speech in front of
them (as they bark & clap like trained seals) about...Jim Crow?
Jim Crow?!...lol...one has nothing to do with the other Oprah! The perps & enablers are sitting right there in front of you!
"After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis,
the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about
everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "
Rescind Immunity, absolutely damn right, put them ALL under oath and on the stand! This is huge! Indeed this goes all the way
to the top, would like to see Obama and the 'career criminal' testify under oath explaining how their tribe conspired to frame
Trump and the American people.
Hell, put them on trial in a military court for Treason, what's the punishment for Treason these days???
Also would like to see Kerry get fried under the 'Logan Act'!
As are half of their fellow travelers in the GOP. Neocon liars. Talk small constitutional govt then vote for war. Those two
are direct opposites, war and small govt. The liars must be exposed and removed. The Never Trumpers have outed themselves but
many are hiding in plain sight proclaiming they support the President. It appears they have manipulated Trump into an aggressive
stance against Russia with their anti Russia hysteria. Time will tell. The bank and armament industries must be removed from any
kind of influence within our govt. Most of these are run by big govt collectivists aka communists/globalists.
Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black
hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to
crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years.
"... "The main difficulty with choosing an investment adviser is that by the time you know enough to choose a good one, you probably know enough to do your financial planning and asset management on your own." ..."
There is no substitute to self-education. Those unwilling to learn are destined to repeat
these same mistakes. The financial-advice industry is too rife with conflicts of
interest for you to enter without equipping yourself with knowledge.
Maybe the best summation is by Dr. James M. Dahle in his book "
The White Coat Investor ." He says: "The main difficulty with choosing an investment
adviser is that by the time you know enough to choose a good one, you probably know enough to
do your financial planning and asset management on your own."
You can find
extensive information here to help you become a DIY investor. There are plenty of others
dedicated to demystifying the process of investing as well.
Take time and educate yourself. Then, if you still think you still need help with your
investments and financial planning, go out armed with knowledge and find a financial adviser
that fits your needs.
Chris Mamula used principles of traditional retirement planning, combined with
creative lifestyle design, to retire from a career as a physical therapist at age 41. This was
first published on the blog site Can I
Retire Yet?
"... Another defect of neoliberal economics is the doctrine's denial that resources are finite and their exhaustion a heavy cost not born by those who exploit the resources. Many local and regional civilizations have collapsed from exhaustion of the surrounding resources. Entire books have been written about this, but it is not part of neoliberal economics. Supplement study of Hudson with study of ecological economists such as Herman Daly. ..."
Readers ask me how they can learn economics, what books to read, what university economics
departments to trust. I receive so many requests that it is impossible to reply individually.
Here is my answer.
There is only one way to learn economics, and that is to read Michael Hudson's books. It is
not an easy task. You will need a glossary of terms. In some of Hudson's books, if memory
serves, he provides a glossary, and his recent book "J Is for Junk Economics" defines the
classical economic terms that he uses. You will also need patience, because Hudson sometimes
forgets in his explanations that the rest of us don't know what he knows.
The economics taught today is known as neoliberal. This economics differs fundamentally from
classical economics that Hudson represents. For example, classical economics stresses taxing
economic rent instead of labor and real investment, while neo-liberal economics does the
opposite.
An economic rent is unearned income that accrues to an owner from an increase in value that
he did nothing to produce. For example, a new road is built at public expense that opens land
to development and raises its value, or a transportation system is constructed in a city that
raises the value of nearby properties. These increases in values are economic rents. Classical
economists would tax away the increase in values in order to pay for the road or transportation
system.
Neoliberal economists redefined all income as earned. This enables the financial system to
capitalize economic rents into mortgages that pay interest. The higher property values created
by the road or transportation system boost the mortgage value of the properties. The
financialization of the economy is the process of drawing income away from the purchases of
goods and services into interest and fees to financial entities such as banks. Indebtedness and
debt accumulate, drawing more income into their service until there is no purchasing power left
to drive the economy.
For example, formerly in the US lenders would provide a home mortgage whose service required
up to 25% of the family's monthly income. That left 75% of the family's income for other
purchases. Today lenders will provide mortgages that eat up half of the monthly income in
mortgage service, leaving only 50% of family income for other purchases. In other words, a
financialized economy is one that diverts purchasing power away from productive enterprise into
debt service.
Hudson shows that international trade and foreign debt also comprise a financialization
process, only this time a country's entire resources are capitalized into a mortgage. The West
sells a country a development plan and a loan to pay for it. When the debt cannot be serviced,
the country is forced to impose austerity on the population by cutbacks in education, health
care, public support systems, and government employment and also to privatize public assets
such as mineral rights, land, water systems and ports in order to raise the capital with which
to pay off the loan. Effectively, the country passes into foreign ownership. This now happens
even to European Community members such as Greece and Portugal.
Another defect of neoliberal economics is the doctrine's denial that resources are
finite and their exhaustion a heavy cost not born by those who exploit the resources. Many
local and regional civilizations have collapsed from exhaustion of the surrounding resources.
Entire books have been written about this, but it is not part of neoliberal economics.
Supplement study of Hudson with study of ecological economists such as Herman Daly.
The neglect of external costs is a crippling failure of neoliberal economics. An external
cost is a cost imposed on a party that does not share in the income from the activity that
creates the cost. I recently wrote about the external costs of real estate speculators.
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/26/capitalism-works-capitalists/
Fracking, mining, oil and gas exploration, pipelines, industries, manufacturing, waste
disposal, and so on have heavy external costs associated with the activities.
Neoliberal economists treat external costs as a non-problem, because they theorize that the
costs can be compensated, but they seldom are. Oil spills result in companies having to pay
cleanup costs and compensation to those who suffered economically from the oil spill, but most
external costs go unaddressed. If external costs had to be compensated, in many cases the costs
would exceed the value of the projects. How, for example, do you compensate for a polluted
river? If you think that is hard, how would the short-sighted destroyers of the Amazon rain
forest go about compensating the rest of the world for the destruction of species and for the
destructive climate changes that they are setting in motion? Herman Daly has pointed out that
as Gross Domestic Product accounting does not take account of external costs and resource
exhaustion, we have no idea if the value of output is greater than all of the costs associated
with its production. The Soviet economy collapsed, because the value of outputs was less than
the value of inputs.
Supply-side economics, with which I am associated, is not an alternative theory to
neoliberal economics. Supply-side economics is a successful correction to neoliberal
macroeconomic management. Keynesian demand management resulted in stagflation and worsening
Phillips Curve trade-offs between employment and inflation. Supply-side economics cured
stagflation by reversing the economic policy mix. I have told this story many times. You can
find a concise explanation in my short book, "The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalsim." This
book also offers insights into other failures of neoliberal economics and for that reason would
serve as a background introduction to Hudson's books.
I can make some suggestions, but the order in which you read Michael Hudson is up to you. "J
is for Junk Economics" is a way to get information in short passages that will make you
familiar with the terms of classical economic analysis. "Killing the Host" and "The Bubble and
Beyond" will explain how an economy run to maximize debt is an economy that is
self-destructing. "Super Imperialism" and "Trade, Development and Foreign Debt" will show you
how dominant countries concentrate world economic power in their hands. "Debt and Economic
Renewal in the Ancient Near East" is the story of how ancient economies dying from excessive
debt renewed their lease on life via debt forgiveness.
Once you learn Hudson, you will know real economics, not the junk economics marketed by
Nobel prize winners in economics, university economic departments, and Wall Street economists.
Neoliberal economics is a shield for financialization, resource exhaustion, external costs, and
capitalist exploitation.
Neoliberal economics is the world's reigning economics. Russia is suffering much more from
neoliberal economics than from Washington's economic sanctions. China herself is overrun with
US trained neoliberal economists whose policy advice is almost certain to put China on the same
path to failure as all other neoliberal economies.
It is probably impossible to change anything for two main reasons. One is that so many
greed-driven private economic activities are protected by neoliberal economics. So many
exploitative institutions and laws are in place that to overturn them would require a more
thorough revolution than Lenin's. The other is that economists have their entire human capital
invested in neoliberal economics. There is scant chance that they are going to start over with
study of the classical economists.
Neoliberal economics is an essential part of The Matrix, the false reality in which
Americans and Europeans live. Neoliberal economics permits an endless number of economic lies.
For example, the US is said to be in a long economic recovery that began in June 2009, but the
labor force participation rate has fallen continuously throughout the period of alleged
recovery. In previous recoveries the participation rate has risen as people enter the work
force to take advantage of the new jobs.
In April the unemployment rate is claimed to have fallen to 3.9 percent, but the
participation rate fell also. Neoliberal economists explain away the contradiction by claiming
that the falling participation rate is due to the retirement of the baby boom generation, but
BLS jobs statistics indicate that those 55 and older account for a large percentage of the new
jobs during the alleged recovery. This is the age class of people forced into the part time
jobs available by the absence of interest income on their retirement savings. What is really
happening is that the unemployment rate does not include discouraged workers, who have given up
searching for jobs as there are none to be found. The true measure of the unemployment rate is
the decline in the labor force participation rate, not a 3.9 percent rate concocted by not
counting those millions of Americans who cannot find jobs. If the unemployment rate really was
3.9 percent, there would be labor shortages and rising wages, but wages are stagnant. These
anomalies pass without comment from neoliberal economists.
The long expansion since June 2009 might simply be a statistical artifact due to the
under-measurement of inflation, which inflates the GDP figure. Inflation is under-estimated,
because goods and services that rise in price are taken out of the index and less costly
substitutes are put in their place and because price increases are explained away as quality
improvements. In other words, statistical manipulation produces the favorable picture required
by The Matrix.
Since the financial collapse caused by the repeal of Glass-Steagall and by financial
deregulation, the Federal Reserve has robbed tens of millions of American savers by driving
real interest rates down to zero for the sole purpose of saving the "banks too big to fail"
that financial deregulation created. A handful of banks has been provided with free money -- in
addition to the money that the Federal Reserve created in order to take the banks' bad
derivative investments off their hands -- to put on deposit with the Fed from which to collect
interest payments and with which to speculate and to drive up stock prices.
In other words, for a decade the economic policy of the United States has been run for the
benefit of a few highly concentrated financial interests at the expense of the American people.
The economic policy of the United States has been used to create economic rents for the
mega-rich.
Neoliberal economists point out that during the 1950s the labor force participation rate was
much lower than today and, thereby, they imply that the higher rates prior to the current
"recovery" are an anomaly. Neoliberal economists have no historical knowledge as the past is of
no interest to them. They do not even know the history of economic thought. Whether from
ignorance or intentional deception, neoliberal economists ignore that the lower labor force
participation rates of the 1950s reflect a time when married women were at home, not in the
work force. In those halcyon days, one earner was all it took to sustain a family. I remember
the days when the function of a married woman was to provide household services for the
family.
But capitalists were not content to exploit only one member of a family. They wanted more,
and by using economic policy to suppress pay while fomenting inflation, they drove married
women into the work force, imposing huge external costs on the family, child-raising, relations
between spouses, and on the children themselves. The divorce rate has exploded to 50 percent
and single-parent households are common in America.
In effect, unleashed Capitalism has destroyed America. Privatization is now eating away
Europe. Russia is on the same track as a result of its neoliberal brainwashing by American
economists. China's love of success and money could doom this rising Asian giant as well if the
government opens China to foreign finance capital and privatizes public assets that end up in
foreign hands.
The economist John Maynard Keynes said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do
you do, sir?" But many students continue to be deceived by their professors who, even
after the great financial crisis, refuse to change their mind and continue to actively peddle
theories that are plain wrong. So on the show we ask if the academics are failing us, how do we
begin to reverse such a heavily entrenched education system? Host Ross Ashcroft is joined by
Professor Steve Keen and the author and economist Steven Payson.
Geologist Arthur Berman, who has been skeptical about the shale boom,
warned on Thursday that the Permian's best years are gone and that the most productive U.S.
shale play has just seven years of proven oil reserves left.
"The best years are behind us," Bloomberg quoted Berman as saying at the Texas Energy
Council's annual gathering in Dallas.
The Eagle Ford is not looking good, either, according to Berman, who is now working as an
industry consultant, and whose pessimistic outlook is based on analyses of data about reserves
and production from more than a dozen prominent U.S. shale companies.
"The growth is done," he said at the gathering.
Those who think that the U.S. shale production could add significant crude oil supply to the
global market are in for a disappointment, according to Berman.
"The reserves are respectable but they ain't great and ain't going to save the world,"
Bloomberg quoted Berman as saying.
Yet, Berman has not sold the EOG Resources stock that he has inherited from his father
"because they're a pretty good company."
The short-term drilling productivity outlook by the EIA estimates that the Permian's oil
production hit 3.110 million bpd in April, and will rise by 73,000 bpd to 3.183
million bpd in May.
Earlier this week, the EIA raised its forecast for total U.S. production
this year and next. In the latest Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), the EIA said that it
expects U.S. crude oil production to average 10.7 million bpd in 2018, up from 9.4 million bpd
in 2017, and to average 11.9 million bpd in 2019, which is 400,000 bpd higher than forecast in
the April STEO. In the current outlook, the EIA forecasts U.S. crude oil production will end
2019 at more than 12 million bpd.
Yet, production is starting to outpace takeaway capacity in the Permian, creating
bottlenecks that could slow down the growth pace.
Drillers may soon start to test the Permian region's geological limits, Wood Mackenzie has
warned. And if E&P companies can't overcome the geological constraints with tech
breakthroughs, WoodMac has warned that Permian production could
peak in 2021 , putting more than 1.5 million bpd of future production in question, and
potentially significantly influencing oil prices.
The takeaway bottlenecks have hit WTI crude oil priced in Midland, Texas, which declined
sharply compared with Brent in April, the EIA said in the May STEO.
" As production grows beyond the capacity of existing pipeline infrastructure, producers
must use more expensive forms of transportation, including rail and trucks. As a result, WTI
Midland price spreads widened to the largest discount to Brent since 2014. The WTI Midland
differential to Brent settled at -$17.69/b on May 3, which represents a widening of $9.76/b
since April 2," the EIA said.
Attention
Hookers : Special Counsel urgently needs your stories. We pay top dollar. Big tits, role-play,
and lying required. Television experience preferred. No drug screening. No background check.
Transportation included.
Call 1-800-George-Soros or contact the Law Offices of Wray, Mueller, and Rosenstein,
LLC.
"... Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing my daily articles is to get on the mailing list for my website , so you'll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . ..."
"... People are not turning to the MSM, they are heading straight to: MoA, ZH, PCR, RT... this is where people now turn to find the truth! The two most frequent, each appearing in six out of seven datasets? ZeroHedge and RT. ..."
"... I have never been a Trump supporter, but IMO the one positive I saw back in the elections is that his character would bring about exactly this loss of trust. Not "He's bad and we can't trust him," so much as the fact that he's polarizing, and will fight everyone, and has inadvertently caused a lot of bad people to expose themselves. ..."
I sometimes try to get
establishment loyalists to explain to me exactly why we're all meant to be terrified of this
"Russian propaganda" thing they keep carrying on about. What is the threat, specifically?
That it makes the public less willing to go to war with Russia and its allies? That it makes us
less trusting of lying, torturing, coup-staging intelligence agencies? Does accidentally catching a
glimpse of that green RT logo turn you to stone like Medusa, or melt your face like in
Raiders
of the Lost Ark
?
"Well, it makes us lose trust in our institutions,"
is the most common
reply.
Okay. So? Where's the threat there?
We know for a fact that we've been lied to
by those institutions. Iraq isn't just something we imagined
. We should be skeptical of
claims made by western governments, intelligence agencies and mass media. How specifically is that
skepticism dangerous?
When you try to get down to the brass tacks of the actual argument being made and demand
specific details about the specific threats we're meant to be worried about, there aren't any to be
found. Nobody's been able to tell me what specifically is so dangerous about westerners being
exposed to the Russian side of international debates, or of Russians giving a platform to one
or
both sides
of an American domestic debate. Even if every single one of the allegations about
Russian bots and disinformation are true (
and
they aren't
), where is the actual clear and present danger? No one can say.
In an absolutely jaw-dropping
article
that you should definitely read in its entirety
, Elizabeth Braw took it upon herself to finally
answer the question of why Russian propaganda is so dangerous, using the following hypothetical
scenario
:
What if Russia suddenly announced that its Baltic Fleet had dispatched an armada towards
Britain? Would most people greet the news with steely resolve in the knowledge that their
governments would know what to do, or would constant Kremlin-influenced reports about the
incompetence of British institutions make them conclude that any resistance was pointless?
I mean, wow. Wow! Just wow. Where to even begin with this?
Back to the aforementioned excerpt. Braw claims that if Russian propaganda isn't shut down or
counteracted, Russia could send a fleet of war ships to attack Britain, and the British people
would react unenthusiastically? Wouldn't cheer loudly enough as the British Navy fought the
Russians? Would have a defeatist emotional demeanor? What exactly is the argument here?
That's seriously her only attempt to directly address the question of where the actual
danger is. Even in the most cartoonishly dramatic hypothetical scenario this Atlantic Council
member can possibly imagine, there's
still
no tangible threat of any kind.
Even
if Russia was directly attacking the United Kingdom at home, and Russian propaganda had somehow
magically dominated all British airwaves and been believed by the entire country, that still
wouldn't have any impact on the British military's ability to fight a naval battle. There's
literally no extent to which you can inflate this "Russian propaganda" hysteria to turn it into a
possible threat to actual people in real life.
Such responses to disinformation are like swatting flies: time-consuming and ineffective. But
not addressing disinformation is ineffective, too. "Western media still have this thing where
they try to be completely balanced, so they'll say, 'the Russians say this, but on the other
hand the Americans say this is not true,' They end up giving a lie and the truth the same
value," noted Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the former president of Estonia.
I just have so many questions. Like, how desperate does a writer have to be for an
expert who can lend credibility to their argument that they have to reach all the way over to a
former president of Estonia?
And on what planet are these people living where Russian
narratives are given the same weight as western narratives by western mainstream media? How can I
get to this fantastical parallel dimension where western media "try to be completely balanced" and
give equal coverage to all perspectives?
Braw argues that,
because Russian propaganda is so dangerous (what with the
threat of British people having insufficient emotional exuberance during a possible naval battle
and all), what is required is a "NATO of infowar", an alliance of western state media that is
tasked with combatting Russian counter-narratives.
Because, in the strange
Dungeons
& Dragons
fantasy fairy world in which Braw penned her article, this isn't already happening.
And of course, here in the real world, it
is
already happening. As
I
wrote recently
, mainstream media outlets have been going out of their minds churning out attack
editorials on anyone who questions the establishment narrative about what happened in Douma. A BBC
reporter
recently
admonished a retired British naval officer
for voicing skepticism of what we're being told
about Syria on the grounds that it might "muddy the waters" of the "information war" that is being
fought against Russia. All day, every day, western mass media are pummeling the public with stories
about how awful and scary Russians are and how everything they say is a lie.
This is because western mass media outlets are owned by western plutocrats, and those
plutocrats have built their empires upon a status quo that they have a vested interest in
preserving,
often to the point where they will
form
alliances with defense and intelligence agencies
to do so. They hire executives and editors who
subscribe to a pro-establishment worldview, who in turn hire journalists who subscribe to a
pro-establishment worldview, and in that way they ensure that all plutocrat-owned media outlets are
advancing pro-plutocrat agendas.
The western empire is ruled by a loose transnational alliance of plutocrats and
secretive government agencies. That loose alliance is your real government, and that government has
the largest state media network in the history of civilization. The mass media propaganda machine
of the western empire makes RT look like your grandmother's Facebook wall.
In that way, we are being propagandized constantly by the people who really rule us. All this
panic about Russian propaganda doesn't exist because our dear leaders have a problem with
propaganda, it exists because they believe only
they
should be allowed to propagandize us.
And, unlike Russian propaganda, western establishment propaganda actually
does
pose a
direct threat to us. By using mass media to manipulate the ways we think and vote, our true rulers
can persuade us to consent to
crushing
austerity measures and political impotence
while the oligarchs grow richer and medicine money
is spent on bombs. When we should all be revolting against an oppressive Orwellian oligarchy, we
are instead lulled to sleep by those same oligarchs and their hired talking heads lying to us about
freedom and democracy.
Russian propaganda is not dangerous. Having access to other ways of looking at
global geopolitics is not dangerous. What absolutely is dangerous is a vast empire concerning
itself with the information and ideas that its citizenry have access to.
Get your
rapey, manipulative fingers out of our minds, please.
If our dear leaders are so worried about our losing faith in our institutions, they
shouldn't be concerning themselves with manipulating us into trusting them, they should be making
those institutions more trustworthy.
Don't manipulate better,
be
better. The fact that an influential think
tank is now openly advocating the former over the latter should concern us all.
* * *
Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing my daily articles is
to get on the mailing list for my
website
,
so you'll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely
reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking
me on
Facebook
,
following my antics on
Twitter
, checking
out my
podcast
, throwing some
money into my hat on
Patreon
or
Paypal
,
or
buying my new book
Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers
.
People are not turning to the MSM, they are heading straight to: MoA, ZH, PCR, RT... this is where people now turn to find
the truth! The two most frequent, each appearing in six out of seven datasets? ZeroHedge and RT.
"Well, it makes us lose trust in our institutions," is the most
common reply.
I have never been a Trump supporter, but IMO the
one positive I saw back in the elections is that his character would
bring about exactly this loss of trust. Not "He's bad and we can't trust
him," so much as the fact that he's polarizing, and will fight everyone,
and has inadvertently caused a lot of bad people to expose themselves.
Why should you trust people who think they have the right to take
whatever amount of your money they want, use it for any purpose they
want, and also who believe they have the right to harass, torture,
stalk, or kill whoever they want, on any pretext they feel like thinking
up?
The Atlantic Council is just another tentacle of the Soros Squid. The man should
have been dealt with as a Nazi collaborator in the aftermath of World War 2.
Unfortunately for humanity, he evaded accountability for his crimes against
humanity during the war.
Judge Mulls Dismissal Of Manafort Charges, "Sharply Questioned" Mueller Overreach
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/04/2018 - 11:39 4.1K SHARES
Like most motions to dismiss, Paul Manafort's was initially viewed as a long-shot bid to win
the political operative his freedom and get out from under the thumb of Special Counsel Robert
Mueller.
But after today's hearing on a motion to dismiss filed by Manafort's lawyers, it's looking
increasingly likely that Manafort could escape his charges - and be free of his ankle bracelets
- because in a surprising rebuke of Mueller's "overreach", Eastern District of Virginia Judge
T.S. Ellis, a Reagan appointee, said Mueller shouldn't have "unfettered power" to prosecute
over charges that have nothing to do with collusion between the Trump campaign and the
Russians.
Ellis said he's concerned Mueller is only pursuing charges against Manafort (and presumably
other individuals) to pressure them into turning on Trump. The Judge added that the charges
brought against Manafort didn't appear to stem from Mueller's collusion probe. Instead, they
appeared to be the work of an older investigation into Manafort that was eventually
dropped.
"I don't see how this indictment has anything to do with anything the special prosecutor is
authorized to investigate," Ellis said at a hearing in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia,
concerning a motion by Manafort to dismiss the case.
It got better: Ellis also slammed prosecutors saying it appeared they were using the
indictment of Manafort to pressure him to cooperate against Trump. Manafort, 69, has pleaded
not guilty and disputes Mueller's assertion that he violated U.S. laws when he worked for a
decade as a political consultant for pro-Russian groups in Ukraine.
"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud," Ellis said. "You really care about
what information he might give you about Mr. Trump and what might lead to his impeachment or
prosecution. "
According to Bloomberg, Ellis is overseeing one of two indictments against Manafort.
Manafort is also charged in Washington with money laundering and failing to register as a
foreign agent of Ukraine.
* * *
Manafort's lawyers had asked the judge in the Virginia case to dismiss an indictment filed
against him in what was their third effort to beat back criminal charges by attacking Mueller's
authority. The judge also questioned why Manafort's case there could not be handled by the U.S.
attorney's office in Virginia, rather than the special counsel's office, as it is not
Russia-related . A question many others have asked, as well.
Ellis has given prosecutors two weeks to show what evidence they have that Manafort was
complicit in colluding with the Russians. If they can't come up with any, he may, presumably,
dismiss the case. Ellis also asked the special counsel's office to share privately with him a
copy of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein's August 2017 memo elaborating on the scope of
Mueller's Russia probe. He said the current version he has been heavily redacted.
At that point, should nothing change materially, Manafort may be a free man; needless to
say, a dismissal would set precedent and be nothing short of groundbreaking by potentially
making it much harder for Mueller to turn other witnesses against the president.
... hedging contracts could result in
US$7 billion in losses if WTI prices were to stabilize at $68 a barrel this year, Wood
Mackenzie analyst Andrew McConn told Bloomberg in an interview.
Just when during WW1 the British determined they were going to be backstabbed by their American cousins is unknown to me, but
hopefully my unfinished research into that era will provide an answer. Clearly, Keynes knew what would occur as he observed the
proceedings at Versailles, which prompted him to go to Marseilles to write Consequences. I greatly disagree with most of
Wikipedia's discussion of
Consequences except for this bit in the intro:
"In his book, he argued for a much more generous peace, not out of a desire for justice or fairness – these are aspects of
the peace that Keynes does not deal with – but for the sake of the economic well-being of all of Europe, including the Allied
Powers, which the Treaty of Versailles and its associated treaties would prevent. [My Emphasis]
Thanks to Wilson's stroke, we'll never know how he really felt about the last months of his administration; his wife becoming
the first de facto female president of the USA. One of the better indicators about the nascent Deep States's feeling about Versailles
is their behavior during the 1920s as it laid the ground work for the Great Depression's onslaught with Dollar Diplomacy and Teapot
Dome exemplifying its moral compass. Prohibition's gangsters and coppers provided the required distraction of the masses until
the money vanished. Then came radio, the beginnings of mass media and onset of media conglomeration.
i think what is missing in your analysis "how governments that print their own currency such as US, UK and China can print
as much as they want and use it as they like" is the key acknowledgement that the us$ has been used as world currency.
and Canada.
The US $ is the World Currency because the US is the only country in the World that exports it's currency more than $0.5 Trillion/year.
Like a virus really. It's that simple if the US didn't export $ it wouldn't be the reserve currency.
The other part about sovereigns being able to "print all they want" is a falsehood without context.
First of all, when people refer to "printing" it usually means "spending" although I'm not sure they think of it in those terms.
The actual printing of physical currency/coins moves money from checking accounts in the banking system to petty cash accounts.
No new money is created by that kind of "printing". About 2% of US $ is coins or currency, the rest exists only on balance sheets.
Secondly, a sovereign is able to buy anything for sale in it's own currency as long as the resource being bought exists and
is for sale. You can't buy something that doesn't exist. The constraint on money creation is resources not arithmetic, which is
the most widely misunderstood characteristic of fiat currencies.
Further, a sovereign that HAS NO DEBT IN A FOREIGN CURRENCY has zero risk of insolvency there is no liability (in it's own
currency) a sovereign cannot satisfy. The US holds no foreign debt. Nor does Canada, Australia, Japan, UK, etc. as far as I know.
Every member in the Eurozone is a de-facto holder of foreign debt (the Euro member countries cannot freely create Euro's. They
are more like private borrowers).
gov'ts were in a position to print their own money and not have to pay interest thru the private banking sector for it.
James, this is another myth unless you are talking about the Eurozone. The US Federal government does not pay interest to the
banking sector, it pays interest to holders of Treasury securities. To do so was a CHOICE not a requirement. Paying interest on
previously created monies was voluntary. Congress created the banking system (for the US) through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913,
which created and governs the banking system, and chose to pay interest later after WWI I believe (probably as a give-away to
bankers who didn't think they made enough money off of WWi). MRW knows a lot more about this history if he's around.
Interest paid on the "debt" (all money is debt, interest or not by definition) is a net transfer of funds to the private sector
(those who hold Treasury securities). Those funds increase the money supply. Anyone can hold Treasury securities, not just banks.
They are a risk-free investment vehicle (the only one).
Further, it is the Fed that sets interest rates, not the bond-holders ("bond vigilantes") as they are referred to. 10 years
of zero-interest rates post 2008 should be proof enough of that.
Treasury securities (bonds) move $ from a checking account at the Fed to a savings account at the FED. They are $ that earn
interest. This is all explained in the Mosler pdf I linked to.
In double-entry accounting a National Debt™ for the government is NATIONAL SAVINGS for the citizens, as are the interest payments.
All this worry about sovereign debt is silliness. Without sovereign debt the currency of issue wouldn't exist. Sovereign debt
is our money (although the elites won't let us acquire much of it).
Of course the Marxist critique of and challenge to Capitalism was central in all this ! The West was competing with the East (
simplifying)and when this situation changed with Anglo Hegemony 1990 , these balances that had seen overall development towards
the 'welfare state ' disintegrated .
Once the U S got its opportunistic run at this situation, crudely grasping for further power we rapidly reached the present
situation , with its repeat of World War scenarios , as competing economic / militarised blocs do exactly that !
Yes, Mosler not being an economist is a feature, not a bug. I agree, economists are idiots, but I suspect they're paid idiots.
What's the Upton Sinclair quote ?
From where I sit MMT savvy economists are not idiots. They are however outcasts. If your not an insider you're an outsider,
and outsiders don't get to make the big money, if they don't starve.
Here's a video excerpt regarding our pre-eminent economist Paul Krugman lest you think he isn't in on the con:
@176 paulmeli.. thanks.. i had to read your comment a few times, and it still isn't sinking in fully.. i am getting some of it,
but maybe it is my conspiracy run brain that wants to know how we've been screwed over by the banks.. that is what i believe has
happened...MRW.. haven't seen him in a good while.. every time he would come all my negative stereo types about the private banking
sector were put on hold, as i recall!
i think a lot of this has to do with exporting / importing between countries... especially the part about holding foreign debt..
how does another country pay for something? this is why we read today of how russia, china and iran are getting into financial
arrangements whereby they don't have to go thru the us$.. wasn't this a good part of the reason the usa went to war in iraq, or
libya? iraq and libya wanted to trade in euros, as opposed to us$.. well - hopefully MRW can come and bring me back to reality!
it seems the world financial markets are one big ponzi scheme... think of the derivative markets.. one is not trading in some
actual commodity.. it is increasingly opaque and shrouded in speculation, while run on computers...
i am sorry paul, but i can only go so far in my understanding here.. as i understand it, something is very wrong in the financial
system at present.. it is also the reason these financial sanction games are typically a lead up to war... one group has undue
power and influence over the worlds finances - the usa - and they exercise this clout via sanctions, and if that doesn't work
- war / regime change - etc. etc... obviously i am missing something here, but i will be damned if i buy the official hokum from
an economist! thanks for trying to educate me.. n
I despise Netanyahu but please change the headline from Netanyahoo as Yahoo was used as an antisemtic slur in the past. I'm sure
the author was not aware of this outdated meaning but it does the cause harm. Thank you.
something is very wrong in the financial system at present..
I think it's always been this way but now the corruption is so out in the open it seems like it's worse. I'm not sure it is.
The way finance corrupts is that obscene riches are offered to state leaders to sell out their own citizens for pennies on
the dollar. And they do it, because if they don't regime change will follow. It's similar to the way corporate raiders take over
businesses, sell off the assets and load the business up with debt, then sell what's left. With all of that debt said business
has no chance of success. A handful of financial guys (parasites of the worse kind) walk away with the cash.
Corporate strip-mining - the business plan is simple and it's always the same - no matter if it's a business or a country.
Something to keep in mind about all of this Iran business is that Trump can now move full speed ahead with Bolton and Pompeo in
place. I find it oddly comforting that, generally speaking, Trump and his administration make no attempt to cloak their psychopathy
in coded language. I thought these remarks from Pompeo yesterday as he addressed the lackeys at Foggy Bottom yesterday particularly
illuminating in this regard:
"I talked at my hearing about the fact that this nation is so exceptional, and so incredibly blessed and the facts that derive
from that are that it also creates a responsibility, a duty for America all across the world. And I know for certain that America
can't execute that duty, can't achieve its objectives absent you all. Absent executing America's foreign policy in every corner
of the world with incredible vigor and incredible energy. And I look forward to helping you all advance that."
Money supply increases with debt creation and decreases with debt payment. Wipe out all debt and money supply is zero. Taking
out a loan is an example of money creation. The money does not exist in the system till its deposited into your account. Paying
off the mortgage depletes the money supply.
Its true that the government does not pay interest on money the Fed loans them. Thats why so little is loaned directly to the
government until the last crash. Money is not created by interest. That money does not exist without new debt. The government
borrows the money to pay the interest.
A key reason the US is the reserve currency is OPEC. OPEC serves Big Oil interests which is interlocked with Big Banking and
requires purchases of Oil to be in USD. Hence the name Petro Dollar. OPEC may produce the oil but its The Big Oil (4 sisters)
that transports most of it to market, refines much of it and provides the equipment for OPEC members to get the oil out of the
ground.
We also export a tremendous amount of food that requires payment in USD, and US manufacturing is now in China and consumer
debt allows us to purchase a great amount of goods from China in USD. Manufacturers in China need to pay expenses in RMB so sell
USD to Chinese banks. Chinas Central Bank Prints up RMB at no interest to buy the USD and then loans it to the US at interest.
Its a perfect system and is basically why the USD will never fail unless those in control want it to.
Comey, who was FBI chief from 2013 to 2017, was quoting a line reputedly uttered by
Martin Luther in 1521, when he told Holy Roman Emperor Charles V that he would not recan t his sweeping criticisms of the Catholic
Church. Comey's quotation of himself quoting the father of the Reformation is par for the self-reverence of his new memoir, A Higher
Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership .
MSNBC host Chris Matthews recently declared,
"James Comey made his bones by standing up against torture. He was a made man before Trump came along."
Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria , in a column declaring that Americans should be "deeply grateful" to lawyers like Comey,
declared, "The Bush administration wanted to claim that its 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were lawful. Comey believed they
were not... So Comey pushed back as much as he could."
Martin Luther risked death to fight against what he considered the heresies of his time. Comey, a top Bush administration policymaker,
found a safer way to oppose the worldwide secret U.S. torture regime widely considered a heresy against American values. Comey
approved brutal practices and then wrote some memos and emails fretting about the optics.
Rather than ending the abuses, Comey repudiated the memo. Speaking to the media in a not-for-attribution session on June 22, 2004,
Comey declared that
the 2002 memo was "overbroad," "abstract academic theory," and "legally unnecessary ." Comey helped oversee crafting a new memo
with different legal footing to justify the same interrogation methods.
In 2014, the Senate Intelligence Committee finally released a massive report, Americans learned grisly details of the CIA torture
regime that Comey helped legally sanctify - including
death via hypothermia, rape-like rectal feeding of detainees, compelling detainees to stand long periods on broken legs, and dozens
of cases of innocent people pointlessly brutalized. Psychologists aided the torture regime, offering hints on how to destroy
the will and resistance of prisoners. The only CIA official to go to prison for the torture scandal was courageous whistleblower
John Kiriakou.
If Comey had resigned in 2004 or 2005 to protest the torture techniques he now claims to abhor, he would deserve some of the praise
he is now receiving. Instead, he remained in the Bush administration but wrote an email summarizing his objections, declaring that
"it was my job to protect the department
and the A.G. [Attorney General] and that I could not agree to this because it was wrong." A 2009 New York Times analysis noted
that Comey and two colleagues "have largely escaped criticism [for approving torture] because
they raised questions about interrogation
and the law." In Washington, writing emails is "close enough for government work" to convey sainthood.
Fl*ck Comey. OMG. I've been wanting to puke into a wastebasket over all of Comey's crap lately. Actually, wanting to puke is
one of my best bullshit barometers. He's a lying sack of shit, strutting his sanctimonious arrogance all over the tee-vee. Meanwhile
back home his family of women wear pink hats to protest Trump. Wonder if James the Great told his family members he approved torture?
Money quote: " neoliberalism is the fight of finance to subdue society at large, and to
make the bankers and creditors today in the position that the landlords were under
feudalism."
Notable quotes:
"... ... if you take the Bible literally, it's the fight in almost all of the early books of the Old Testament, the Jewish Bible, all about the fight over indebtedness and debt cancellation. ..."
"... neoliberalism is the fight of finance to subdue society at large,and to make the bankers and creditors today in the position that the landlords were under feudalism. ..."
"... They call themselves free marketers, but they realize that you cannot have neoliberalism unless you're willing to murder and assassinate everyone who promotes an alternative ..."
"... Just so long as you remember that most of the strongest and most moving condemnations of greed and money in the ancient and (today) western world are also Jewish--i.e. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, the Gospels, Letter of James, etc. ..."
"... The history of Jewish banking after the fall or Rome is inextricable from cultural anti-judaism of Christian west and east and de facto marginalization/ghettoization of Jews from most aspects of social life. The Jewish lending of money on interest to gentiles was both necessary for early mercantilist trade and yet usury was prohibited by the church. So Jewish money lenders were essential to and yet ostracized within European economies for centuries. ..."
"... Now Christianity has itself long given up on the tradition teaching against usury of course. ..."
"... In John, for instance most of the references to what in English is translated as "the Jews" are in Greek clearly references to "the Judaeans"--and especially to the ruling elite among the southern tribe in bed with the Romans. ..."
Just finished reading the fascinating
Michael Hudson interview I linked to on previous thread; but since we're discussing Jews
and their religion in a tangential manner, I think it appropriate to post here since the
history Hudson explains is 100% key to the ongoing pain us humans feel and inflict. My
apologies in advance, but it will take this long excerpt to explain what I mean:
"Tribes: When does the concept of a general debt cancellation disappear historically?
"Michael: I guess in about the second or third century AD it was downplayed in the Bible.
After Jesus died, you had, first of all, St Paul taking over, and basically Christianity was
created by one of the most evil men in history, the anti-Semite Cyril of Alexandria. He
gained power by murdering his rivals, the Nestorians, by convening a congress of bishops and
killing his enemies. Cyril was really the Stalin figure of Christianity, killing everybody
who was an enemy, organizing pogroms against the Jews in Alexandria where he ruled.
"It was Cyril that really introduced into Christianity the idea of the Trinity. That's
what the whole fight was about in the third and fourth centuries AD. Was Jesus a human, was
he a god? And essentially you had the Isis-Osiris figure from Egypt, put into Christianity.
The Christians were still trying to drive the Jews out of Christianity. And Cyril knew the
one thing the Jewish population was not going to accept would be the Isis figure and the
Mariolatry that the church became. And as soon as the Christian church became the
establishment rulership church, the last thing it wanted in the West was debt
cancellation.
"You had a continuation of the original Christianity in the Greek Orthodox Church, or the
Orthodox Church, all the way through Byzantium. And in my book And Forgive Them Their Debts,
the last two chapters are on the Byzantine echo of the original debt cancellations, where one
ruler after another would cancel the debts. And they gave very explicit reason for it: if we
don't cancel the debts, we're not going to be able to field an army, we're not going to be
able to collect taxes, because the oligarchy is going to take over. They were very explicit,
with references to the Bible, references to the jubilee year. So you had Christianity survive
in the Byzantine Empire. But in the West it ended in Margaret Thatcher. And Father
Coughlin.
"Tribes: He was the '30s figure here in the States.
"Michael: Yes: anti-Semite, right-wing, pro-war, anti-labor. So the irony is that you have
the people who call themselves fundamentalist Christians being against everything that Jesus
was fighting for, and everything that original Christianity was all about."
Hudson says debt forgiveness was one of the central tenets of Judaism: " ... if
you take the Bible literally, it's the fight in almost all of the early books of the Old
Testament, the Jewish Bible, all about the fight over indebtedness and debt
cancellation. "
Looks like I'll be purchasing Hudson's book as he's essentially unveiling a whole new,
potentially revolutionary, historical interpretation.
@ karlof1 with the Michale Hudson link....thanks!!
Here is the quote that I really like from that interview
"
Michael: No. You asked what is the fight about? The fight is whether the state will be taken
over, essentially to be an extension of Wall Street if you do not have government planning.
Every economy is planned. Ever since the Neolithic (era), you've had to have (a form of)
planning. If you don't have a public authority doing the planning, then the financial
authority becomes the planners. So globalism is in the financial interest –Wall Street
and the City of London, doing the planning, not governments. They will do the planning in
their own interest. So neoliberalism is the fight of finance to subdue society at
large,and to make the bankers and creditors today in the position that the landlords were
under feudalism.
"
karlof1, please email me as I would like to read the book as well and maybe we can share a
copy.
And yes, it is relevant to Netanyahoo and his ongoing passel of lies because humanity has
been told and been living these lives for centuries...it is time to stop this shit and grow
up/evolve
@13 / 78 karlof1... thanks very much for the links to michael hudson, alastair crooke and the
bruno maraces articles...
they were all good for different reasons, but although hudson is being criticized for
glossing over some of his talking points, i think the main thrust of his article is very
worthwhile for others to read! the quote to end his article is quite good "The question is,
who do you want to run the economy? The 1% and the financial sector, or the 99% through
politics? The fight has to be in the political sphere, because there's no other sphere that
the financial interests cannot crush you on."
it seems to me that the usa has worked hard to bad mouth or get rid of government and the
concept of government being involved in anything.. of course everything has to be run by a
'private corp' - ie corporations must run everything.. they call them oligarchs when talking
about russia, lol - but they are corporations when they are in the usa.. slight rant..
another quote i especially liked from hudson.. " They call themselves free marketers,
but they realize that you cannot have neoliberalism unless you're willing to murder and
assassinate everyone who promotes an alternative ." that sounds about right...
@ 84 juliania.. aside from your comments on hudsons characterization of st paul "the
anti-Semite Cyril of Alexandria" further down hudson basically does the same with father
coughlin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin..
he gets the anti-semite tag as well.. i don't know much about either characters, so it's
mostly greek to me, but i do find some of hudsons views especially appealing - debt
forgiveness being central to the whole article as i read it...
it is interesting my own view on how money is so central to the world and how often times
I am incapable of avoiding the observation of the disproportionate number of Jewish people in
banking.. I guess that makes me anti-semite too, but i don't think of myself that way.. I
think the obsession with money is killing the planet.. I don't care who is responsible for
keeping it going, it is killing us...
Just so long as you remember that most of the strongest and most moving condemnations
of greed and money in the ancient and (today) western world are also Jewish--i.e. Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Micah, the Gospels, Letter of James, etc.
The history of Jewish banking after the fall or Rome is inextricable from cultural
anti-judaism of Christian west and east and de facto marginalization/ghettoization of Jews from
most aspects of social life. The Jewish lending of money on interest to gentiles was both
necessary for early mercantilist trade and yet usury was prohibited by the church. So Jewish
money lenders were essential to and yet ostracized within European economies for
centuries.
Now Christianity has itself long given up on the tradition teaching against usury of
course.
I too greatly admire the work of Hudson but he consistently errs and oversimplifies
whenever discussing the beliefs of and the development of beliefs among preNicene followers
of the way (as Acts puts is) or Christians (as they came to be known in Antioch within
roughly eight or nine decades after Jesus' death.) Palestinian Judaism in the time of Jesus
was much more variegated than scholars even twenty years ago had recognized. The gradual
reception and interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls in tandem with renewed research into
Phili of Alexandria, the Essenes, the so-called Sons of Zadok, contemporary Galilean zealot
movements styles after the earlier Maccabean resistance, the apocalyptism of post exilic
texts like Daniel and (presumably) parts of Enoch--all paint a picture of a highly diverse
group of alternatives to the state-Church once known as Second Temple Judaism that has been
mistaken as undisputed Jewish "orthodoxy" since the advent of historical criticism.
The
Gospel of John, for example, which dates from betweeen 80-120 and is the record of a much
earlier oral tradition, is already explicitly binitarian, and possibly already trinitarian
depending on how one understands the relationship between the Spirit or Advocate and the Son.
(Most ante-Nicene Christians understood the Spirit to be *Christ's* own spirit in distributed
form, and they did so by appeal to a well-developed but still largely under recognized strand
in Jewish angelology.)
The "theological" development of Christianity occurred much sooner
that it has been thought because it emerged from an already highly theologized strand or
strands of Jewish teaching that, like Christianity itself, privileged the Abrahamic covenant
over the Mosaic Law, the testament of grace over that of works, and the universal scope of
revelation and salvation as opposed to any political or ethnic reading of the "Kingdom."
None
of these groups were part of the ruling class of Judaean priests and levites and their
hangers on the Pharisees.
In John, for instance most of the references to what in English is
translated as "the Jews" are in Greek clearly references to "the Judaeans"--and especially to
the ruling elite among the southern tribe in bed with the Romans.
So the anti-Judaism/Semiti
of John's Gispel largely rests on a mistranslation. In any event, everything is much more
complex than Hudson makes it out to be. Christian economic radicalism is alive and well in
the thought of Gregory of Nysa and Basil the Great, who also happened to be Cappadocian
fathers highly influential in the development of "orthodox" Trinitarianism in the fourth
century.
I still think that Hudson's big picture critique of the direction later Christianity
took is helpful and necessary, but this doesn't change the fact that he simplifies the
origins, development, and arguably devolution of this movement whenever he tries to get
specific. It is a worthwhile danger given the quality of his work in historical economics,
but still one has to be aware of.
After seven years of utter devastation and bloodletting, a consensus has emerged among all
the belligerents of the Syrian war to de-escalate the conflict, except Israel which wants to
further escalate the conflict because it has been the only beneficiary of the carnage in
Syria.
Over the years, Israel has not only provided medical aid and material support to the
militant groups battling the Syrian government – particularly to various factions of the
Free Syria Army (FSA) and al-Qaeda's Syrian affiliate al-Nusra Front in Daraa and Quneitra
bordering the Israel-occupied Golan Heights – but Israel's air force has virtually played
the role of the air force of the Syrian jihadists and has conducted more than 100 airstrikes in
Syria and Lebanon during the seven-year conflict.
Washington's interest in the Syrian proxy war is mainly about ensuring Israel's regional
security. The United States Defense Intelligence Agency's
declassified report of 2012 clearly spelled out the imminent rise of a Salafist
principality in northeastern Syria (Raqqa and Deir al-Zor) in the event of an outbreak of a
civil war in Syria.
Under pressure from the Zionist lobby in Washington, however, the Obama administration
deliberately suppressed the report and also overlooked the view in general that a proxy war in
Syria will give birth to radical Islamic jihadists.
The hawks in Washington were fully aware of the consequences of their actions in Syria, but
they kept pursuing the ill-fated policy of nurturing militants in the training camps located in
the border regions of Turkey and Jordan to weaken the anti-Zionist Syrian government.
The single biggest threat to Israel's regional security was posed by the Shi'a resistance
axis, which is comprised of Iran, the Assad administration in Syria and their Lebanon-based
surrogate, Hezbollah. During the course of 2006 Lebanon War, Hezbollah fired hundreds of
rockets into northern Israel and Israel's defense community realized for the first time the
nature of threat that Hezbollah and its patrons posed to Israel's regional security.
Those were only unguided rockets but it was a wakeup call for Israel's military strategists
that what will happen if Iran passed the guided missile technology to Hezbollah whose area of
operations lies very close to the northern borders of Israel.
In a momentous announcement at an event in Ohio on March 29, however, Donald Trump said,
"We're knocking the hell out of ISIS. We'll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon. Let the
other people take care of it now."
What lends credence to the statement that the Trump administration will soon be pulling
2,000 US troops out of Syria – mostly Special Forces assisting the Kurdish-led Syrian
Democratic Forces – is that President Trump has recently sacked the National Security
Advisor Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster.
McMaster represented the institutional logic of the deep state in the Trump administration
and was instrumental in advising Donald Trump to escalate the conflicts in Afghanistan and
Syria. He had advised President Trump to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan from
8,400 to 15,000. And in Syria, he was in favor of the Pentagon's policy of training and arming
30,000 Kurdish border guards to patrol Syria's northern border with Turkey.
Both the decisions have spectacularly backfired on the Trump administration. The decision to
train and arm 30,000 Kurdish border guards had infuriated the Erdogan administration to the
extent that Turkey mounted Operation Olive Branch in the Kurdish-held enclave of Afrin in
Syria's northwest on January 20.
After capturing Afrin on March 18, the Turkish armed forces and their Free Syria Army
proxies have now cast their eyes further east on Manbij, where the US Special Forces are
closely cooperating with the Kurdish YPG militia, in line with the long-held Turkish military
doctrine of denying the Kurds any Syrian territory west of River Euphrates.
It bears mentioning that unlike dyed-in-the-wool globalists and "liberal interventionists,"
like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who cannot look past beyond the tunnel vision of
political establishments, it appears that the protectionist Donald Trump not only follows news
from conservative mainstream outlets, like the Fox News, but he has also been familiar with
alternative news perspectives, such as Breitbart's, no matter how racist and xenophobic.
Thus, Donald Trump is fully aware that the conflict in Syria is a proxy war initiated by the
Western political establishments and their regional Middle Eastern allies against the Syrian
government. He is also mindful of the fact that militants have been funded, trained and armed
in the training camps located in Turkey's border regions to the north of Syria and in Jordan's
border regions to the south of Syria.
According to the last year's March 31
article for the New York Times by Michael Gordon, the US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley
and the recently sacked Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had stated on the record that
defeating the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq was the top priority of the Trump administration
and the fate of Bashar al-Assad was of least concern to the new administration.
Under the previous Obama administration, the evident policy in Syria was regime change. The
Trump administration, however, looks at the crisis in Syria from an entirely different
perspective because Donald Trump regards Islamic jihadists as a much bigger threat to the
security of the US than Barack Obama.
In order to allay the concerns of Washington's traditional allies in the Middle East, the
Trump administration conducted a cruise missile strike on al-Shayrat airfield in Homs
governorate on April 6 last year after the alleged chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun.
But that isolated incident was nothing more than a show of force to bring home the point that
the newly elected Donald Trump is an assertive and powerful president.
More significantly, Karen De Young and Liz Sly made another startling revelation in the last
year's
March 4 article for the Washington Post: "Trump has said repeatedly that the US and Russia
should cooperate against the Islamic State, and he has indicated that the future of
Russia-backed Assad is of less concern to him."
Mindful of the Trump administration's lack of commitment in the Syrian proxy war, Israel's
air force conducted an airstrike on Tiyas (T4) airbase in Homs on April 9 in which seven
Iranian military personnel were killed. The Israeli airstrike took place after the alleged
chemical weapons attack in Douma on April 7 in order to convince the reluctant Trump
administration that it can order another strike in Syria without the fear of reprisal from
Assad's backer Russia.
Despite scant evidence as to the use of chemical weapons or the party responsible for it,
Donald Trump, under pressure from Israel's lobby in Washington, eventually ordered another
cruise missiles strike in Syria on April 14 in collaboration with Theresa May's government in
the UK and Emmanuel Macron's administration in France.
What defies explanation for the April 14 strikes against a scientific research facility in
the Barzeh district of Damascus and two alleged chemical weapons storage facilities in Homs is
the fact that Donald Trump had already announced that the process of withdrawal of US troops
from Syria must begin before the midterm US elections slated for November. If the Trump
administration is to retain the Republican majority in the Congress, it will have to show
something tangible to its voters, particularly in Syria.
The fact that out of 105 total cruise missiles deployed in the April 14 strikes in Syria, 85
were launched by the US, 12 by France and 8 by the UK aircrafts shows that the strikes were
once again nothing more than a show of force by a "powerful and assertive" US president who
regards the interests of his European allies as his own, particularly when he has given a May
12 deadline to his European allies to "improve and strengthen" the Iran nuclear deal, otherwise
he has threatened to walk out of the pact in order to please Israel's lobby in Washington.
Finally, the Trump administration will eventually realize at its own risk that placating the
Zionist lobby is unlikely if not impossible because Israel has conducted another missile strike
in Aleppo and Hama on Sunday (April 29) in which 26 people, including many Iranians, have been
killed and 60 others wounded.
According to NBC , the blast at the Brigade 47 base in Hama which serves as a warehouse for
surface-to-air missiles was so severe that it caused 2.6 magnitude earthquake and shockwaves
were felt as far away as Lebanon and Turkey. This seems like a last-ditch attempt by Israel to
further escalate the conflict and to force the Trump administration to abandon its plans of
withdrawing US troops from Syria.
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused
on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism
.
With Russia neutralized by upcoming football World championship due to Putin's love for large
sport events, there are preparation of something similar to Sochi events (EuroMaydan color
revolution in Ukraine)
Notable quotes:
"... This can all be easily followed all the way back to before the Iranian nuclear deal and a policy paper out of Brookings on how to set up Iran for war. Basically, it states make a deal with Iran then prove that although the West did its best, Iran broke the deal in whatever manner. Appears they have all the actors lined up. Now it begins. The war of words then war. Like we haven't seen this before. ..."
"... I'd missed this: US-led jets bombed pro-Assad forces advancing on Deir Ezzor: Report http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-jets-bomb-pro-government-fighters-syria-operation-1276052674 International law anyone? Its dead in the west. ..."
"... doesn't make sense ...FUKUS does war on Iran, Iran closes the Gulf ...oil goes to 200/ barrel ....US does a superb imitation of a Dead Fly. ..."
"... Looks to me like Trump is groveling before the Saudis for keeping the petrodollar. ..."
"... Putin who sees only the reality that the US remains both enviably rich and powerful cannot understand how unstable and dangerous it has become. ..."
Netanyahoo To Again Cry Wolf - But Something Bigger Is Up
(Updated)
Updated below
---
U.S. President Trump wants to end the nuclear agreement (pdf) with Iran
and wants to eliminated Iranian forces in Syria which support the Syrian government. Something
is being prepared to make that happen.
Last week General Joseph Votel, commander of CENTCOM - the U.S. military command for the
Middle East, was in Israel. It was the first ever visit of a CENTCOM commander to Israel which
usually works with the European command EUCOM.
Yesterday former CIA director and now Secretary of State Pompeo visited Israel. A few hours
later Israel bombed two ammunition depots in Syria which are supposedly related to Iran. This
was a clear attempt to provoke Iran into some reaction.
The Israeli defense minister Lieberman just visited Washington DC and only today came back
to Israel.
Now the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahoo loudly announced that he will
hold a press conference to present a "huge amount of new
and dramatic information on the Iranian nuclear program". He will allege that Iran cheats on
the nuclear agreement (JCPOA).
Netanyahoo is a notorious liar and warmonger. In September 2002 he lied (vid)
to the U.S. congress:
There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing
towards the development of nuclear weapons – no question whatsoever"
Only yesterday he
promoted a false story that claimed Arabs in Israel had disrupted a minuted of silence for
some people killed in a flash flood.
The IAEA
says that Iran is in full compliance with the JCPOA. If there were any serious intelligence
about any Iranian deviation from the nuclear agreement it would be presented to the IAEA and
the six signature powers of the agreement. The IAEA would investigate and report back. If Iran
cheated it would be put back under serious international sanctions. That Netanyahoo wants to
present something publicly makes it very likely that he has nothing of relevance.
We
hear that the documents he is said to present were compiled
by one Christopher Steele and assembled with the help of one Sergej Skripal and his MI6 handler
[redacted]. They will show that Iran attempts to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger .
This new comedy stunt by Netanyahoo is tightly coordinated with the Trump administration.
Trump's national security advisor John Bolton
has worked with the Zionists since early 2000 to push for a war on Iran:
During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had unannounced meetings, including with the head of
Mossad, Meir Dagan, without the usual reporting cable to the secretary of state and other
relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit, those meetings clearly
dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual U.S.
strike against Iran.
Behind Trump, Netanyahoo and Bolton is one financier, the militant Zionist and casino
magnate Sheldon Adelson. He financed Trump's and Netanyahoo's election campaigns and the
various think tanks that create anti-Iranian propaganda and paid Bolton.
Trump wants to leave the nuclear agreement but the other signers, China, Russia, the UK,
France and Germany want to keep it up. Just leaving the JCPOA without cause will increase doubt
over any agreement the U.S. wants to make on other issues. The allegations Netanyahoo will put
forward, no matter how ridiculous they may be, could give Trump some excuse to put new
sanctions on Iran without actually leaving the agreement.
But even that does not explain all the recent meetings and visits by the various Israeli and
U.S. officials. French soldiers and mercenaries from the UAE have entered north-east-Syria. What
for? The Saudis are on board with any operation against Iran.
Something big is up and we do not know yet what it might be.
---
Update
That was lame. Netanyahoo just finished his show (vid). He claimed that Israel got
access to an Iranian archive of its former nuclear program dating from 1999 to 2003. In 2007 a
U.S. National Intelligence Estimate found
that Iran stopped all nuclear weapon research in 2003 after the U.S. had destroyed Iran's then
arch-enemy Iraq. In 2011 the IAEA reported
in detail of Iran's former "structured program". It agreed that it had stopped in 2003.
All that Netanyahoo now claims to have acquired is old and known stuff. He refers to an AMAD
plan Iran had as if that was some new intelligence. But the IAEA documented AMAD and its
development in 2011 (PDF, Annex, page 5). He uses the archive documents of known former
programs to declare that Iran has cheated and is not trustworthy. He says that gives Trump
reason to disavow the nuclear agreement the U.S. and others had signed with Iran. That is
bullshit.
I had expected better from him. Some well forged documents or something more dramatic. This
was just nonsense.
My feeling is that this was a diversion from an upcoming military(?) operation against Iran
or its assets in Lebanon, Syria or Iraq.
Absolutely correct b. Something's cooking and it won't take long for the world to find out
what it was.
Also, when responding to the Iranian threats to re-start their nuclear program, Mr Trump
appears to have an answer pretty resolute i.e "They won't be starting anything, you can bank
on that"
One more thing I like to add. If Mr Trump withdraws US from the deal which is also
endorsed by the UNSC, US will loose to IRAN in the war that follows-up.
OH no! not the yellow cake saga again. Well, if they can get away with the Syrian chemical
weapons attack that the white helmets can fix with a hose pipe, then anything goes. It looks
as though the Skripal affair has lots more secrets to reveal. This story just keeps on giving
and giving, although if you looked for it in MSM you wouldn't find anything on it. I don't
understand why the missile defense system doesn't appear to activate for the Iranian
contingent in Syria. Is it because this was a surprise attack and the Syrians?Russians were
caught off guard, or are the Iranians left to fend for themselves as far as air bombardment
is concerned? I get the feeling that the West is probing and poking the bear a bit at a time
with a stick to get a reaction. They may well be sorry what they wish for.
Doesn't look like fake anti-establishment, swamp-drainer, poseur Trump has given himself ANY
leeway...
with which he might counter or to move away from the numerous neocon nut cases hell-bent
for WW3 whom he has permanently invited to his war cabinet golden shower party.
Netanyahu is probably the most dangerous leader in this world, the raw lying and propaganda,
its heinous. Not to mention this sick lunatic in Israel have some 300 nukes already
themselves, IN SECRET!
Now he have come up with fake documents, trying to justify a war!
Same jewish state that whine about antisemitism, this people are not sane...
Hopefully west dont accept this blatant sicko, because as usual, its not Israel that want
to wage the war, no, the war must be fought by
goyim europeans and especially americans.
With ugly pack of morons as Trump, POmpeo, Bolton, it doesnt look good.
This war hysteria just come weeks after the illegal and dangerous bombing of Syria.
Netanyahu clarly is a psychopath.
What is going on with those s300s? Russia needs to give Syria/Iran the means to defend
themselves from these repeated acts of Israeli aggression. It should not be so easy for
Israel to take out Iranian forces.
The only way to kick the legs out of Iran in a manner that Israel cares about which would
also hurt Assad would be to destroy Hezbollah. The only chance of doing that would be to go
full war crime mode and use the most vicious thermobaric or possibly tactical nuclear
weapons.
If we did that or enabled the Israelis to do that then we will have reached total
depravity. At this point I believe the U.S. public is okay with bombing anyone as long as
U.S. lives are not lost. If the Israelis do it we cheer, if we do it then it shows the rest
of the world who is boss.
This can all be easily followed all the way back to before the Iranian nuclear deal and a
policy paper out of Brookings on how to set up Iran for war. Basically, it states make a deal
with Iran then prove that although the West did its best, Iran broke the deal in whatever
manner. Appears they have all the actors lined up. Now it begins. The war of words then war.
Like we haven't seen this before.
Nuttyyahoo is dangerous BECAUSE he is thoroughly enabled by the FUKUS, but especially the US
in EVERY way - politically, monetarily, morally, and and he is promoted on every television
network and mainstream media outlet.
Trump has become increasingly dangerous because he has surrounded himself with Pompeo,
Bolton, Nikki Haley, Nuttyyahoo...
US/UK/Israel are not even trying for convincing narratives now.
Sounds like F-35 was used to hit the ammo dumps in Syria. Maybe the zionists figure they have
F35 bugs ironed out and its time to put it to work against Iran.
Actually Iran has a long-time investment in uranium mines in Namibia, from the Shah's time,
and Ahmadinejad even visited Niger in Apr 2013 while that country was looking to diversify
its uranium sales away from the French Areva. There's nothing "secret" about any of this,
uranium is a fuel for reactors.
...
What I like about this story is that, even though smearing Iran doesn't make any sense,
narratives that don't make sense are 'normal' for that bloodthirsty experiment in social
engineering known as "Israel". One wonders whether, if the "Israelis" are serious about
attacking Iran, then shouldn't they be encouraged to give it a try, just to see what
happens?
If they're not worried about blowback from Iran and Hezbollah, why should anyone else lose
any sleep over it?
When Medvedev was President of Russia he said in an interview (with Zacharia) on a US network
that ab attack on Iran would create an "unimaginable refugee catastrophe". Ironically (or
Russian-ly), he didn't say for whom it would be catastrophic...
Also, there was actually never any evidence of a nuclear weapons research program prior to
2003 either. The IAEA has specifically gone on record stating in 2009 that it has "no
concrete proof that this is or has been a nuclear weapons program in Iran". Gareth Porter has
written more about the 2003 allegations and Israel's later attempts to undermine the NIE by
insisting that there was evidence of "continued" nuclear weapons work. The worst that the
IAEA could ever say it actually found in Iran, were "fragmented and incomplete feasibility
studies" that were "relevant to" nukes -- none of which is in any way a violation of the NPT
which actually ENCOURAGES the sharing of technology "relevant to" nuclear weapons including
data from nuclear test explosions.
Wow! The anti-corruption probe into Nuttyyahoo's activities must be coming close to arresting
him; so, to avoid arrest, he must start an actual war of aggression. Only problem is the
Zionists like their Outlaw allies are incapable of actually defeating anyone they might
attack.
What the Zionists are scared to death of is becoming irrelevant; their Airstrip 1
existence no longer of any value to the Imperialist Empires that created the Zionist state
for their own geopolitical machinations. Is there any real reason to militarily attack the
Zionists beyond reclaiming Golan? If Lebanon becomes strong enough--I'd argue it's
already--then a simple containment policy coupled with the international BDS movement will be
more than enough to facilitate internal political change within the Apartheid State over
time--containment will take several years to work as it did on South Africa. Zionist racism
has destabilized itself. Talk about a state ripe for being Color Revolutionized. Those are
the reasons for the easily seen and rebutted lies of a very desperate politico wanting very
much to avoid prison for crimes he committed against his own nation, not the many War Crimes
against others.
B.: I had expected better from him. Some well forged documents or something more dramatic.
This was just nonsense.
______________________________________________
This is another example of a trend I've been on about lately. You're quite right; the
quality of the Western/ME hegemony's Big Lies is deteriorating markedly before our eyes. But
only the minority who are willing and able to keep their eyes wide open seem to notice.
It's hard to tell if the proliferation of weak and incredible fabrications is based on the
Big Liars' belief that the public is, or has become, so benighted and bamboozled that they'll
swallow anything, or if it's an indication that they are running on empty. But, whether it's
due to hubris or degenerate incompetence, it indeed looks as if they aren't even
trying any more.
Then again, as you also point out, Bibi's anticlimactic histrionics are on a par with his
comical September, 2012 performance at the UN, where he produced that cartoon drawing of a
"bomb" in order to flog the typically mendacious and hysterical claim that the noble,
harmless State of Israel was in imminent danger of destruction from the "Iranian bomb".
It's one thing when zealous Hasbarists, amateur or professional, troll/spam Internet
comments boards with their rigidly fatuous, fantastic, Zionist Israel-serving talking points.
One expects unsophisticated, fully-indoctrinated True Believers to spew rote talking points
and dogma that insult the intelligence of anyone outside the Zionist Hive Mind.
But the fact that Israel's leaders and authorities shamelessly rely on such childish props
to sell their genocidal policies and actions suggests both hubris and abiding contempt for
the rest of the world.
It's hard to believe that Bibi and his allies and supporters don't know that they're
insulting the rest of the world's intelligence. I think there's a word for this. Chutzpah,
maybe?
This is an absolutely stunning breaking interview of the Syrian independent member of
parliament Fares Shehabi by the BBC hardtalk program. The MSM typically try to aggressively
browbeat non-western interviewees that they disagree with. Unfortunately, most of the
interviewees either get cowed or they get emotional and angry.
Fares Shehabi instead is factually and rationally aggressive, fact by fact,
counter-argument by counter-argument, not allowing the BBC interviewer to shut him up. It is
a model of how to deal with the MSM.
The MSM have already managed to get the interview wiped off youtube. but it is still
available here
@Peter AU 1 16 Sounds like F-35 was used to hit the ammo dumps in Syria
What's your reason for saying this. We established at the previous threat that GBU-39 glide
bombs were used. They are a stand-off weapon and I believe that the F-35 is incapable of
carrying them.
"unhinged" = arrogance turns into stupidity? The latest in the continuing Net-job
droning on and on "war with Iran" might not go as well as he expects, given resistance to
withdrawal from the JCPOA. A more easily applied application of "arrogance turns into
stupidity" is the White House Correspondents Dinner this weekend roasting Press Sec Sanders.
James Woods' response did it nicely at "low class trash." More of this sort of thing will
indeed be "a gift" to the Republicans in the upcoming elections.
Israel will not risk Jews so they will stick to launching air strikes from Lebanon. All of
the characters will be happy to use another mercenary army of goys to attack the Syrian gov
and it's allies. Especially attractive might be to use these to buttress the SDF to hold onto
eastern Syria or to attack Turk aligned forces.
unfortunately the majority only read headlines. In a world where evidence matters not,
details of Bibi Nuttuyahoo's claim 1999-2003 is a side show. Bibi is setting the stage for his managing director, D. J. Trump, to "honourably" withdraw
from the JCPOA on May 12 and to pressure the other signatories.
There are somethings larger - I do hope someone (Russia or China) will grant Iran their
nuclear umbrella. And Kim, do make a note to self. The Anglo-Zionists are deep in pretexts to coverup:
the black swan flying under heavy wings with $230 trillion global debt must be brought
down. Not nearly enough in the ESF.
Revelations on the recent 100 missiles hoax to retaliate for the 'chemical attack' that
was not. Can't disappear Robert Fisk's expose - he is widely read..
Christoper Steele's Case on the dock wherein he will be deposed. Oh wait, where is he
in hiding with the Skripals?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
@ 8, re Russia delivery of S-300s to Syria. Don't count on it as Israel's and Russia's
militaries "have an arrangement to avoid aerial conflict over Syria." Last week Russia's
Ambassador to Israel made that clear.
Looks to me like Trump is groveling before the Saudis for keeping the petrodollar. Hence he
is walking out of the Iran deal despite its geopolitical risk, and trying to show some
fireworks in Syria. What's the half life of this show? More, or less than Trump's average
ejaculation time?
I've no doubt that for a lot of people the question of F-35 usage anywhere near a combat zone
is a so-what issue, but for those of us who have struggled for years to bring some truth
about this fault-filled much-delayed program through the fog of corruption, it's important to
maintain that the current fleet of expensive pre-production F-35 prototypes is truly
worthless.
@ 8, re Russia delivery of S-300s to Syria. Don't count on it as Israel's and Russia's
militaries "have an arrangement to avoid aerial conflict over Syria." Last week Russia's
Ambassador to Israel made that clear.
Uh, that is the reason Russia should use S300. Then, there wouldnt be any "aerial
conflict" over Syrian sovereign airspace to begin with.
@ frances 48 US&Co . . will hit Iran before the football playoffs
And how might they "hit Iran?" Do you mean hit the country itself with a military attack?
I think the World Cup is playing a big role in the decision making as you have said. There
is a lot at stake: investments already made and international exposure also. I can't wait for
it to be finished so we can get back to war !! (sarc)
Israel could start its assassination program, carry out sabotage, airstrikes, there is no
limit to the sick regime and the sick western media acceptance of the same unhinged behavior
by Israel.
the hero of hebrew history above is a great man did obaama not give him 30 billion in war
arms.
did germany not give him 5 free dolphin class submarines for samson option.
does german public funds pay compensation cover amounting to a trillion euros by the year
2070.
the man is a god he can drop and fire depleted uraniun ,drop dialed down nuke bombs kill
president,primeminister sell usa top secret files to china and russia via operation talpiot
can he not listen and blackmail the world.
who else can kill gaza semites by the 10s of thousands and then call critic anti-semite
this man benji is a king maker bow down for you are not fit to lick his precious fingers
Russia began its Syria intervention with an S-400 deployed in Latakia and has introduced
several more since, one being in
Sept 2017 . Syria also has the BUK-M2E AA system and the Pantsir to go with its older and
upgraded S-200 systems along with who knows what else. Just what was off loaded from Russian
supply vessels under the cover of smoke last week (don't know if such veiling's continuing)?
My guess is more AA systems of the type causing Zionists on both sides of Atlantic to
freakout.
As for the Zionists attacking Iranian military bases, those Iran uses in Syria are
joint-use with Syria regardless of what's said by Zionists; so, any such attack will need to
be aimed at Iran proper. The consequences for the region would be horrible--particularly for
Zionists and Saudis: Dimona would be leveled as would Saudi oil infrastructure. The fallout
and other pollution would be appalling. If the Zionists want to keep their skin, they'll
arrest Nutty before he gets his get-out-of-jail war started.
Zionists know they've lost and are contained and constrained, so they're moving into
desperation mode. Too bad they lack the courage to put a pistol to their head and pull the
trigger.
I have trouble in believing that Trump will really attack Iran, just because of some new fake
evidence from Netanyahu. N's been trying this forever. The basic point is that Trump's electorate don't want real war, with American deaths. So
far, it's been like that, 102 missiles following 59 Tomahawks, and no effect.
Trump is dumb enough, Pompeo, Bolton, Trump, I mean you cant get worse, these are the most
sick hawks and Trump have already showed that he could attack states illegally Syria, with no
proof whatsoever. Stop hoping on Trump.
Israel is in a position to attack, but not to defend. Israel's problem is not Iran but the
Palestinians. John Helmer seems to think that
Russia has decided on electronic warfare , that would be reason for panic as Israel's
(and US) stuff is completely dependent on electronics.
There were a number of reasons for the Balfour Declaration, but one of the major ones was
defense of the Suez Canal, vital for communications to India. The Turks had already attacked
the canal twice by 1917. The Brits wanted a local group on the spot that would help to defend
the canal. A Jewish settlement filled the bill.
@Cyrus | Apr 30, 2018 2:20:01 PM | 20
As background knowledge that most overlook, Iran is one of the top sources for uranium ore,
unfortunately it is contaminated with molybdenum making it almost useless for high grading.
That is a primary reason for their investment in uranium in Africa.
There is nothing new about Netanyahu's nonsense-as everyone seems to realise: the only
justification for his party and his particular brand of fascism is the belief that there can
be no peace for Jewish people generally, and Israelis in particular until all potential
opponents have been wiped out or terrorised into slavery. And he has managed to convince most
Israelis of this-something which means that in moral and political, and probably clinical
terms too, they are insane- beyond the reach of reason.
What is new and makes the situation very dangerous is that the US is going along with this
for the ride. It has run out of ideas on how to deal with the gathering storm of consequences
from eighty years of arrogance and careless neglect of the inevitable fall out from its self
indulgent policies. And Trump, under constant pressure from the idiots running the Deep
State, has no conception of the implications of the little games that he is playing and
encouraging others (see Netanyahu above) to play. In his mind he is starring in an extempore
version of the Godfather.
Way down at the bottom of things worth mentioning is the fact that the UK government is in an
even bigger crisis. It is clearly doomed unless the world ends first, which is something it
is happy to consider. May and her allies (who include the Blairite Labour party and almost
all the political class including the SNP and the Liberals) will (as the recent attacks in
Syria showed) go along with Trump whatever happens, which means that the other 'eyes' the
White Commonwealth of Canada, Australia etc will do the same.
This is the problem with empires in decline, they become suicidal. And having reconciled
themselves with death they lose any inhibitions.
Poor old Putin just doesn't understand that: for years it has been clearer and clearer that
Russia and China were rational, legalistic and diplomatic while the 'west' reverted to its
barbaric ways, defying rules, breaking treaties, laughing at international law, drunken
berserkers running amok employing the weapons that they have been accumulating for decades
because fearing that the end is near they fear nothing else. The future holds no hope for
them.
Putin who sees only the reality that the US remains both enviably rich and powerful cannot
understand how unstable and dangerous it has become.
As to China, nothing surprises its leadership any more which is why it spends all day lifting
weights and eating high protein foods, ready to defend itself and studiously avoiding
involvement.
I'm still in shook Putin didn't place 300s in Syria long, long ago. He really can be behind
the curve at times. How could have thought the Empire would not grow more brazen in
aggression?
Here is a well thought out thread that analyses Bibi's claims. Including that Israel probably
hacked into the IAEA systems to get some of the data, in particular a photo of the 'new'
storage site.
Here is former Sweden foreign minister Carl Bildt, in a tweet immediately after
Netanyahu's remarks: "Nothing really new in @netanyahu Iran speech. Confirms that Iran closed
down nuclear weapons program in 2003. Continued technology efforts. In principle all of this
well known. No allegation that Iran cheats on 2015 nuclear deal."
No, for the money. The simple fact is that AIPAC and Israel have an iron grip on each and
every member of the US Congress. It's been established that Israel rules, and Congressmembers
get "contributions" and trips to Israel and other perks. On the other hand, if any Congress
member who gives a slight little anti-Israel (i.e. anti-Semitic) peep will become an
ex-Congressmember. It's happened, with highly-financed opposition to a deviant's
transgression at the next biannual election. One example is Cynthia McKinney (links broken.
@52 I don't understand that argument, Don.
The Russians can unload any S-300 delivery at Tartus. There is zero chance that the
Israelis will bomb them while they remain inside a Russian military base.
And those missiles can stay there while the Russians train up the Syrians in their use.
Again, attacking while they remain inside Tartus is a no-go. And the S-300's are road-mobile. They can be driven out of Tartus to their eventual
operational deployment, which means that they leave the protection of Tartus only when they
are capable of defending themselves.
Or, in short: Israeli plans are predicated on taking out those missiles before they can be
made operational. But they can be made operational while they are still inside a Russian
military base protected by S-400 defences, and by the time they leave that protection the
Syrians are already able to shoot down any attackers.
It is hard to lose money on a bet that the US and its Anglosphere and EU vassals will double
down on stupid. The US heaps one disaster on top of another, it causes the suffering and death of
millions, and Americans don't shed a tear.
Stormy Daniels' legal team - led by lawyer Michael Avenatti - must be getting bored since a federal judge in Los Angeles
ordered a 90-day delay of her lawsuit against President Trump and his former personal attorney Mike Cohen (who has promised to
plead the fifth during the proceedings). Because Stormy has filed another defamation lawsuit, this time exclusively against
President Trump, as
Reuters
reports.
The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in New York on Monday, seeks damages from Trump for a
tweet he sent earlier this month where he criticized a composite sketch that, Daniels said,
depicted a man who had threatened her in 2011. He reportedly demanded that she stay quiet about her
sexual encounter with Trump. That would've been around the time she gave an interview about her
affair with Trump to In Touch magazine which wasn't published until recently.
Her previous lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles, sought to have her released from an NDA she signed
shortly before the 2016 vote where she also accepted a $130,000 "hush money" payment from Cohen.
"A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job,
playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!," Trump
said.
According to the filing, cited by the
Associate Press
and Reuters, the tweet was "false and defamatory"
arguing that Trump knew what he was saying out Daniels' claim was
false and also disparaging.
The lawsuit also claims Daniels has been exposed to death threats
and other threats of "physical violence."
Daniels, whose given name is Stephanie Clifford, is seeking a jury
trial and unspecified damages.
"We intend on teaching Mr. Trump that you cannot simply make
things up about someone and disseminate them without serious
consequences," Avenatti said.
As the
Associated Press
points out, Daniels, aided by Avenatti, has
sought to keep her case in the public eye. She revealed the sketch
that Trump mocked during an appearance on the View earlier this
month. Trump is facing another defamation lawsuit in New York, this
one filed by Summer Zervos, a former "The Apprentice" contestant who
says Trump made unwanted sexual contact with her in 2007. She sued
him after Trump dismissed her claims.
0
" Now, that your tastes at this time should incline
towards the juvenile is understandable; but for you to marry
that boy would be a disaster. Because there's two kinds of
women. There are two kinds of women and you, as we well
know, are not the first kind. You, my dear, are a slut. "
"We intend on teaching Mr. Trump that you cannot simply make things up about
someone and disseminate them without serious consequences," Avenatti said.
"We intend on teaching
THE PRESS
that you cannot simply make
things up about someone and disseminate them without serious consequences,"
Avenatti said.
With just days left until the May 1 deadline when a temporary trade waiver expires and the
US steel and aluminum tariffs kick in, and after last-ditch attempts first by Emmanuel Macron
and then Angela Merkel to win exemptions for Europe fell on deaf ears, the European Union is
warning about the costs of an imminent trade war with the US while bracing for one to erupt in
just three days after the White House signaled it will reject the bloc's demand for an
unconditional waiver from metals-import tariffs .
"A trade war is a losing game for everybody," Belgian Finance Minister Johan Van Overtveldt
told reporters in Sofia where Europe's finance ministers have gathered. " We should stay cool
when we're thinking about reactions but the basic point is that nobody wins in a trade war so
we try to avoid it at all costs. "
Well, Trump disagrees which is why his administration has given Europe, Canada and other
allies an option: accept quotas in exchange for an exemption from the steel and aluminum
tariffs that kick on Tuesday, when the temporary waiver expires. "We are asking of everyone:
quotas if not tariffs," Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said on Friday. This, as
Bloomberg points out , puts the EU in the difficult position of either succumbing to U.S.
demands that could breach international commerce rules, or face punitive tariffs.
Forcing governments to limit shipments of goods violates World Trade Organization rules,
which prohibit so-called voluntary export restraints. The demand is also contrary to the
entire trade philosophy of the 28-nation bloc, which is founded on the principle of the free
movement of goods.
Adding to the confusion, while WTO rules foresee the possibility of countries taking
emergency "safeguard" measures involving import quotas for specific goods, such steps are rare,
must be temporary and can be legally challenged. The EU is demanding a permanent, unconditional
waiver from the U.S. tariffs.
Meanwhile, amid the impotent EU bluster, so far only South Korea has been formally spared
from the duties, after reaching a deal last month to revise its bilateral free-trade agreement
with the U.S.
Europe, on the other hand, refuses to reach a compromise, and according to a EU official,
"Trump's demands to curb steel and aluminum exports to 90 percent of the level of the previous
two years are unacceptable." The question then is whether Europe's retaliatory move would be
painful enough to deter Trump and lift the sanctions: the official said the EU's response would
depend on the level of the quotas after which the punitive tariffs would kick in; meanwhile the
European Commission continues to "stress the bloc's consistent call for an unconditional,
permanent exclusion from the American metal levies."
"In the short run it might help them solve their trade balance but in the long run it will
worsen trade conditions," Bulgarian Finance Minister Vladislav Goranov said in Sofia. "The
tools they're using to make America great again might result in certain mistakes because free
world trade has proven to be the best solution for the development of the world so far."
Around the time of his meeting, French President Emmanuel Macron made it clear that the EU
is not afraid of an escalating trade war and will not be intimidated, saying " we won't talk
about anything while there's a gun pointed at our head. "
He may change his opinion once Trump fires the first bullet.
Adding to Europe's disappointment, during her visit to the White House on Friday, Angela
Merkel said she discussed trade disputes with Trump and that she failed to win a public
commitment to halt the tariffs.
Meanwhile, Merkel's new bffs over in France are also hunkering down in preparation for a
lengthy conflict. French economy minister Bruone Le Maire told his fellow European bureaucrats
Sofia during a discussion on taxation: "One thing I learned from my week in the U.S. with
President Macron: The Americans will only respect a show of strength."
Coming from the French, that observation is as accurate as it is delightfully ironic.
And now the real question is who has the most to lose from the imminent Transatlantic trade
war, and will surrender first.
With the still largely ignored Saudi slaughter in Yemen now in its fourth year, RT's
In The Now
has resurrected a
forgotten clip from a 2016 CNN interview with Senator Rand Paul, which is currently going
viral.
In a piece of cable news history that rivals Madeleine Albright's infamous words during a
1996
60 Minutes
appearance
where she calmly and coldly proclaimed of 500,000 dead Iraqi children that
"the price is
worth it,"
CNN's Wolf Blitzer railed against Senator Paul's opposition to a proposed $1.1
billion US arms sale to Saudi Arabia by arguing that slaughter of Yemeni civilians was worth it
so long as it benefits US jobs and defense contractors.
At the time of the
2016 CNN interview
, Saudi
Arabia with the help of its regional and Western allies -- notably the U.S. and Britain -- had
been bombing Yemen for a year-and-a-half, and as
the
United Nations noted
, the Saudi coalition had been responsible for the majority of the
war's (at that point) 10,000 mostly civilian deaths.
At that time the war was still in its early phases, but now multiple years into the
Saudi-led bombing campaign which began in March 2015,
the
U.N. reports at least
"5,000 children dead or hurt and 400,000 malnourished."
... ... ...
Senator Paul began the interview by outlining the rising civilian death toll
and massive refugee crisis that the U.S. continued facilitating
due to deep military assistance
to the Saudis
:
There are now millions of displaced people in Yemen. They're refugees. So we supply the
Saudis with arms, they create havoc and refugees in Yemen. Then what's the answer? Then we're
going to take the Yemeni refugees in the United States? Maybe we ought to quit arming both
sides of this war.
Paul then narrowed in on the Pentagon's role in the crisis: "We are refueling the Saudi
bombers that are dropping the bombs. It is said that thousands of civilians have died in Yemen
because of this."
CNN's Blitzer responded, "So for you this is a moral issue. Because you know, there's a lot
of jobs at stake. Certainly if a lot of these defense contractors stop selling war planes,
other sophisticated equipment to Saudi Arabia, there's going to be a significant loss of jobs,
of revenue here in the United States. That's secondary from your standpoint?"
Paul countered, "Well not only is it a moral question, its a constitutional question." And
noted that Obama had partnered with the Saudi attack on Yemen without Congressional approval:
"Our founding fathers very directly and specifically did not give the president the power to go
to war. They gave it to Congress. So Congress needs to step up and this is what I'm doing."
* * *
For further context of what the world knew at the time the CNN interview took place, we can
look no further than the United Nations and other international monitoring groups.
A year after Blitzer's statements,
Foreign Policy published a bombshell report
based on possession of a leaked 41-page draft
UN document, which found Saudi Arabia and its partner coalition allies in Yemen (among them the
United States) of being guilty of horrific war crimes, including the bombing of dozens of
schools, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure.
The U.N. study focused on child and civilian deaths during the first two years of the Saudi
coalition bombing campaign - precisely the time frame during which the CNN Wolf Blitzer and
Rand Paul interview took place.
"The killing and maiming of children remained the most prevalent violation" of children's
rights in Yemen , according to the 41-page draft report obtained by Foreign Policy.
The chief author of the confidential draft report, Virginia Gamba, the U.N. chief's
special representative for children abused in war time, informed top U.N. officials Monday,
that she intends to recommend the Saudi-led coalition be added to a list a countries and
entities that kill and maim children , according to a well-placed source.
The UN report further identified that air attacks "were the cause of over half of all child
casualties, with at least 349 children killed and 333 children injured" during the designated
period of time studied, and documented that, "the U.N. verified a total of 1,953 youngsters
killed and injured in Yemen in 2015 -- a six-fold increase compared with 2014" - with the
majority of these deaths being the result of Saudi and coalition air power.
Also according
AP reporting at the time
: "It said nearly three-quarters of attacks on schools and
hospitals -- 38 of 52 -- were also carried out by the coalition."
But again, Wolf Blitzer's first thought was those poor defense contractors:
...Because you know, there's a lot of jobs at stake. Certainly if a lot of these defense
contractors stop selling war planes, other sophisticated equipment to Saudi Arabia, there's
going to be a significant loss of jobs, of revenue here in the United States.
* * *
This trip down memory lane elicited suitable responses on Twitter:
Honestly, with all these drug addicts, pedos, government dependents,
and fraudulent finance and advertising pieces of shit at home, I'd
really like to see some infighting here. No need to sell abroad.
With the release of the House Intelligence Committee's
report finding no evidence of collusion
between the Trump campaign, Congressional
Republicans have seemingly dealt a death blow to the "Russian collusion" narrative which was
already hurtling toward irrelevance. Indeed, the special counsel himself has publicly stated
that he has "pivoted" toward investigating financial crimes and allegations of obstruction of
justice.
But with President Trump threatening to take a more "hands on" role at the Department of
Justice, Mueller has found himself in a bind. How can he continue to justify the probe if the
original premise has been found to be completely invalid?
Fortunately, Mueller received some badly needed assistance on Friday from a major Russian
opposition figure: former
oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky
. Somehow, an organization called Dossier, which was
established and financed by Khodorkovsky - a former oil tycoon and longtime nemesis of Russian
President Vladimir Putin who turned into one of Russia's most vocal dissidents - managed to get
its hands on emails stolen from the inbox of Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, the same
lawyer who arranged the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. after
promising through an intermediary to supply the Trump campaign with "dirt" on Trump's erstwhile
rival, Hillary Clinton.
The emails reveal that Veselnitskaya worked closely with the Russian Ministry of Justice to
help thwart a US Department of Justice probe into allegedly ill-gotten money being invested by
corrupt Russian oligarchs in New York City real estate. And according to the
New York Times
, which was obtained the emails from Dossier, the communications undercut
Veselnitskaya's claims of impartiality.
That said, the communications revealed in the emails took place years before Veselnitskaya
set foot in Trump Tower. What's more alarming than the emails claims is the notion that Russian
opposition figures are stepping up to independently assist Mueller and the Democrats in keeping
the "Russia collusion" narrative alive is certainly...interesting.
Veselnitskaya acknowledged her work for the Russian government in an interview with NBC News
set to air Friday.
Shown copies of the emails by Richard Engel of NBC News, Ms. Veselnitskaya acknowledged
that "many things included here are from my documents, my personal documents." She told the
Russian news agency Interfax on Wednesday that her email accounts were hacked this year by
people determined to discredit her, and that she would report the hack to Russian
authorities.
[...]
The exchanges document Mr. Chaika's response to a Justice Department request in 2014 for
help with its civil fraud case against a real estate firm, Prevezon Holdings Ltd., and its
owner, Denis P. Katsyv, a well-connected Russian businessman.
Federal prosecutors say Ms. Veselnitskaya was the driving force on Mr. Katsyv's defense
team, a description she has echoed in court filings. In a declaration to the court, she
identified herself as a lawyer in private practice, representing Mr. Katsyv and his firm.
The Justice Department prosecutors charged Mr. Katsyv's firm in 2013 with using real
estate purchases in New York to launder a portion of the profits from a tax scheme in Russia.
They were seeking Russian bank, tax and court records, the type of documents that typically
form the crux of civil money-laundering cases. The Justice Department asked the Russian
government to keep the matter confidential, "except as is necessary to execute this request,"
according to court documents. Russia and the United States have a mutual legal assistance
treaty governing law-enforcement requests.
According to the
Times
, the leaked documents refute Veselnitskaya's claim that she was acting in a "private
capacity" when she initiated contact with the Trump campaign, even though the activities
detailed in the documents took place years earlier.
Ms. Veselnitskaya had long insisted that she met the president's son, son-in-law and
campaign chairman in a private capacity, not as a representative of the Russian
government.
"I operate independently of any governmental bodies," she wrote in a November statement to
the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I have no relationship with Mr. Chaika, his representatives
and his institutions other than those related to my professional functions as a lawyer."
But while the
Times
details the contents of the documents in detail, it failed to highlight an obvious
irony: that in exposing alleged machinations by the Russian government to interfere in the US
election, it used the same alleged strategy pursued by shadowy Russian hackers and Wikileaks,
the two biggest boogeymen in the ongoing Russian collusion saga.
This isn't the first time a Russian opposition figure has sought to aid Mueller. Earlier
this year, Aleksei Navalny released videos that he said included evidence that Oleg Deripaska -
who has since been targeted by US sanctions - attempted to meddle in the US political
process.
And despite President Trump's insistence that everybody should "get over" the collusion
narrative now that the Intel Committee report has been released, it appears his foreign enemies
have other plans.
The question now is: Will Trump respond to the leaked emails, or is Trump convinced that his
latest bombing raid on Syria plus the sanctions targeting "Putin ally" Oleg Deripaska will be
sufficient to demonstrate to Mueller that he is not in bed with the Kremlin. A parallel
question is whether this is the start of a coordinated campaign by Russian dissidents to weaken
President Vladimir Putin using anti-Trump US intermediaries, and what will Putin's reaction
be.
Foreigners money laundering ill-gotten gains in New York City real estate? Incredible and
unbelievable according to the US Department of Justice. As long as these foreigners buy from
approved sellers of real estate.
The meeting with Veselnitskaya looks like it was part of the
Brennan/Clapper/Clinton set up to try to create 'collusion' where there
was none.
But lest we forget, there was also no Russian 'hack.'
Shouldn't the real scandal be
1. efforts by obama, clinton, fbi, doj, and cia to overturn the
election via fraud and perjury and leaks to a select few establishment
agitprop rags, and
2. the US/UK/Saudi/Qatari/Turk/Israeli support for Al Qaeda and IS?
I think so, which is yet more reason why I think Mueller needs to be
made to narrow his focus, and be given some date by which to finish -
at least a month before November.
That's what our banker dominated government wants. Sure, real estate
becomes too expensive for for the non parasitic working poor, but it
keeps their dollar high for more pointless war spending.
"... This effort was originally revealed in February and reported on by The Federalist , after a series of leaked text messages between Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) and lobbyist Adam Waldman suggested that Daniel J. Jones - an ex-FBI investigator and former Feinstein staffer, was "intimately involved with ongoing efforts to retroactively validate a series of salacious and unverified memos published by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, and Fusion GPS." ..."
"... In short, Jones is working with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to continue their investigation into Donald Trump, using a $50 million war chest just revealed by the House Intel Committee report. ..."
"... In a bizarre twist Waldman, the lobbyist, notably represents Kremlin-linked Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, head of Russian aluminum giant Rusal and who was the target of Trump's recent sanctions, as well as Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. He met with Jones on March 16, 2017 according to the Daily Caller. ..."
"... Jones, meanwhile, runs the Penn Quarter Group - a "research and investigative advisory" firm whose website was registered in April of 2016, days before Steele delivered his first in a series of Trump-Russia memos to Fusion GPS. Jones also began tweeting out articles suggesting illicit ties between the Trump campaign and Russia as early as 2017. ..."
"... The recently released House Intel Report notes that in March 2017, Jones told the FBI that he was working with Steele and Fusion GPS, with funding to the tune of $50 million. ..."
"... "[Redacted] further stated that PQG had secured the services of Steele, his associate [redacted], and Fusion GPS to continue exposing Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election," reads the report, which adds that Jones " planned to share the information he obtained with policymakers and with the press ." ..."
"... And now Jones has a $50 million war chest - from a group of mysterious "7 to 10" donors - to continue the grande Trump-Russia witch hunt with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS - coordinated in part by a guy (Waldman) who represents Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. Seems somewhat collusive, no? ..."
by Tyler Durden
Sat, 04/28/2018 - 13:50 193 SHARES
The House Intelligence Committee's just-released report on Russian interference in the 2016
presidential election reveals in a footnote that an ongoing,
private investigation into Trump-Russia claims is being funded with $50 million supplied by
George Soros and a group of 7-10 wealthy donors from California and New York.
This effort was originally revealed in February and reported on by
The Federalist , after a series of
leaked text messages between Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) and lobbyist Adam Waldman suggested
that Daniel J. Jones - an ex-FBI investigator and former Feinstein staffer, was "intimately
involved with ongoing efforts to retroactively validate a series of salacious and unverified
memos published by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, and Fusion
GPS."
In short, Jones is working with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to continue their
investigation into Donald Trump, using a $50 million war chest just revealed by the House Intel
Committee report.
In a bizarre twist Waldman, the lobbyist, notably represents Kremlin-linked Russian oligarch
Oleg Deripaska, head of Russian aluminum giant Rusal and who was the target of Trump's recent
sanctions, as well as Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. He met with Jones on March 16,
2017 according to the Daily Caller.
Jones, meanwhile, runs the Penn Quarter Group - a "research and investigative advisory" firm
whose website was registered in April of 2016, days before Steele delivered his first in a
series of Trump-Russia memos to Fusion GPS. Jones also began tweeting out articles suggesting
illicit ties between the Trump campaign and Russia as early as 2017.
Steele's work during the 2016 election culminated in the salacious and unverified 35-page
"Steele dossier" used to obtain a FISA warrant against then-President Trump (which, as we
reported on Friday, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
leaked the details to CNN 's Jake Tapper prior to the seemingly coordinated publication by
BuzzFeed ).
The recently released House Intel Report notes that in March 2017, Jones told the FBI that
he was working with Steele and Fusion GPS, with funding to the tune of $50 million.
"In late March 2017, Jones met with FBI regarding PQG, which he described as 'exposing
foreign influence in Western election,'" reads the House Intel report. "[Redacted] told FBI
that PQG was being funded by 7 to 10 wealthy donors located primarily in New York and
California, who provided approximately $50 million ."
"[Redacted] further stated that PQG had secured the services of Steele, his associate
[redacted], and Fusion GPS to continue exposing Russian interference in the 2016 U.S.
Presidential election," reads the report, which adds that Jones " planned to share the
information he obtained with policymakers and with the press ."
As the Daily Caller 's
Chuck Ross notes, Jones "also offered to provide PQG's entire holdings to the FBI" according to
the report, citing a "FD-302" transcript of the interview he gave to the FBI.
Of note, during Congressional testimony last year when Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) asked Glenn
Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS, if he was still being paid for work related to the dossier ,
Simpson refused
to answer . And while the dossier came under fire for "
salacious and unverified " claims, a January 8 New York
Times profile of Glenn Simpson confirmed that dossier-related work continues.
Sean Davis of The Federalist
reported in February that Jones' name was mentioned in a list of individuals from a
January 25 Congressional letter from Senators Grassley and Graham to various Democratic
party leaders who were likely involved in Fusion GPS's 2016 efforts. The letter sought all
communications between the Democrats and a list of 40 individuals or entities, of which Jones
is one.
Some of those communications - at least according to the encrypted text messages between
Warner and Waldman, (and leaked to Fox News) , discuss efforts by Warner to secure a testimony
from Steele.
"I spoke w Steele," Waldman wrote on April 25, 2017. "He repeated the same position which
is that he wants to be helpful but is fearful of the triumvirate of cost, time suck and
reputation."
"He asked me what your concern was about a letter first and I explained it but he would
still like as a first protective step from you and [Sen. Richard] Burr asking him and his
partner to assist w the investigation by answering questions," Waldman added . "He [Steele]
said he will also speak w Dan Jones whom he says is talking to you ."
"I pointed out there is no privilege in that discussion although Dan [Jones] is a good guy
and very trustworthy guy. I encouraged him again to engage with you for the sake of the truth
and of vindication of the dossier," he wrote. - Adam Waldman to Mark Warner
Meanwhile, Federal disclosures required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act show that
Waldman collected nearly $1.1 million from Deripaska in2016an d 2017
. Some questions:
Why would Waldman, a Russian oligarch's foreign agent, be the official cutout for both a U.S. senator
and Christopher Steele?
Why would he recommend Daniel Jones - a former top Feinstein aide who worked for the FBI
- as a point of contact and an information broker?
And now Jones has a $50 million war chest - from a group of mysterious "7 to 10" donors - to
continue the grande Trump-Russia witch hunt with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS -
coordinated in part by a guy (Waldman) who represents Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and
Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. Seems somewhat collusive, no?
"... How about a poll that really matters. Let's see how popular this war mongering scag is with her peers at the U.N.(and Kool-aid drinking nations don't count) ..."
"... Lack of a fully functional brain, for starters. Smart dresser though. ..."
"... She is dire, but looking on the bright side, it could have been a Clinton appointee instead. Who would have been automatically crooked, and paid to play (for the high level jobs in every department, of course). ..."
US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley is America's most popular politician according to a
study by Quinnipiac University, CNN reported yesterday.
Haley is viewed positively by some 63 per cent of US voters, while only 39 per cent gave
their approval of US President Donald Trump. Haley's popularity also stretched to both sides of
the political spectrum, with 75 per cent of Republicans, 55 per cent of Democrats and 63 per
cent of Independents supporting the former South Carolina governor. She was only exceeded by
former president Barack Obama, who was still held in high regard by some 66 per cent of
voters.
The UN envoy has taken strong stands in favour of Israel, particularly in the aftermath of
the US' recognition
of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital in December. When the UN General Assembly
voted to condemn the Trump administration's decision, Haley slammed the global forum as
ungrateful for US contributions to the organisation.
"No vote in the UN will make any difference to that [the decision]. But this vote will make
a difference to how the Americans see the UN. This vote will be remembered," she concluded,
echoing her previous
comments that the delegation would be taking names of those who voted against the
recognition.
Last month, Haley gave another unrestrained speech at the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference, where she again condemned the UN for its alleged
anti-Israel bias.
"In the real world, Israel is a strong country with a strong military," she said. "But at
the UN, it's a different story. Israel does get bullied there."
Haley was met with thunderous applause as she argued that the UN had "long undermined peace
by encouraging an illusion that Israel will simply go away." But Israel, she stressed, "is not
going away. When the world recognises that, then peace becomes possible."
She also responded to the criticism that the US shows favouritism for Israel: "There's
nothing wrong with showing favouritism towards an ally, that's what being an ally is all
about."
The UN envoy's speech was noted as the most enthusiastically received by the thousands of
attendees at the event, as she received multiple standing ovations during her speech and shouts
of "we love you" from the crowd.
Haley has also taken a strong stance over the conflict in Syria,
threatening to strike the Assad regime during the bombardment of Eastern Ghouta last month.
The Russian delegation
condemned her comments, stating that "such thunderous and irresponsible statements by the
American envoy cause resentment and great anxiety."
How about a poll that really matters. Let's see how popular this war mongering scag is
with her peers at the U.N.(and Kool-aid drinking nations don't count)
There is likely a correlation between the percentage of the polled who gave her the nod,
and this woman herself.
Lack of a fully functional brain, for starters. Smart dresser though. That rig the French granny was wearing the other day? Eek.
She is dire, but looking on the bright side, it could have been a Clinton appointee
instead. Who would have been automatically crooked, and paid to play (for the high level
jobs in every department, of course).
serotonindumptruck -> The First Rule • Sat, 04/28/2018 - 16:38 Permalink
For all those who thought the anorexic Samantha (Skeletor) Power was a horrific warmonger, the Deep State hereby doubles
down and offers up the neocon dot-head Nikki Haley.
"... Clapper and Brennan are perjurers, so it seems is Comey. Lynch tanked the prosecution by not reminding FBI that its up to the DOJ, not FBI, to decide to prosecute or not ((how has that gotten lost in all this))... its crooks all the way down to the dark corners of the Shadow State, where drug sales, murder, and terror are the red blood cells of the beast. ..."
"... Strzok and Page are sacrificial pigs who have apparently only convicted themselves of gross stupidity. There is no evidence of crimes being committed in emails. That is why both are still employed. No evidence either one was having an affair, either. Going to lunch is not a crime. ..."
Jim Comey DOES get to arbitrarily judge
what is and what is not classified! As
the head of the FBI, he clearly has the
role of 'Originating Authority' on
determining classification of ANY
document. What it says is, that if
there's ANY doubt, whether it is
classified or not, it shall be
SAFEGUARDED at the higher level of
classification. And the ultimate
authority, is the President of the
United States, if the Originator is
Comey. So Comey took it upon himself
to declassify, classified documents
without the permission of the President
of the United States, who happens to be
his boss.
(c)
If there is
reasonable doubt about the need to
classify information, it shall be
safeguarded as if it were classified
pending a determination by an original
classification authority, who shall
make this determination within thirty
(30) days. If there is
reasonable doubt about the appropriate
level of classification, it shall be
safeguarded at the higher level of
classification pending a determination
by an original classification authority
,
who shall make this determination
within thirty (30) days.
Executive Order
12356--National security information
Source:
The
provisions of Executive Order 12356
of Apr. 2, 1982, appear at 47 FR
14874 and 15557, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp.,
p. 166, unless otherwise noted.
10) other categories of
information that are related to the
national security and that require
protection against unauthorized
disclosure as determined by the
President or by agency heads or
other officials who have been
delegated original classification
authority
by the President
.
Any
determination made under
this subsection shall be reported
promptly to the Director of the
Information Security Oversight
Office
.
(b) Information that is
determined to concern one or more
of the categories in Section
1.3(a
) shall be
classified when an original
classification authority also
determines that its unauthorized
disclosure, either by itself or
in the context of other
information, reasonably could be
expected to cause damage to the
national security.
(c) Unauthorized disclosure
of foreign government
information, the identity of a
confidential foreign source, or
intelligence sources or methods
is presumed to cause damage to
the national security.
(d)
Information classified
in accordance with Section 1.3
shall not be declassified
automatically as a result of any
unofficial publication or
inadvertent or unauthorized
disclosure in the United States
or abroad of identical or similar
information.
[!!!!!!]
Comey is no different than any of those low lifes
you used to see get busted on Cops. He's a
confidence man. A crack head, high on his own
power. He's worse in fact because he betrayed his
fellow Americans en masse.
What nails him is over
confidence. Obama has it, Clinton has it. They all
think that they they're winners at the table and
that it's gonna go on forever. They are the worse
type because they think they deserve it. There is
not a gram of humility in the lot. Prisons are full
of these guys.
Interestingly enough, all these these players
use the same excuses those addicts with smack in
the center console use as they were getting cuffed.
"What? We were just talkin"
"I had no idea that was there"
"I don't remember"
"Some guy told me it was okay"
"I don't know"
"The other guy started it"
"That's my personal stuff. You got no right"
"Those aren't mine"
"Wasn't me"
"I'm not me I'm my younger brother" (nod to Ike
Turner for that one)
It's the sheer weight of these tired old answers
that makes it so obvious that Comey is scum. He has
an answer for everything. Put them all together and
you get a figure eight. He's a punk in the first
order and a henchman of a crime family. I'm hoping
he ends up somebody's punk when this is over.
Hey Cornholius, When you say "these pigs are as dirty as
they get" are you talking about Jeff "Reefer Madness"
Sessions? Because, if you are, I will agree with you.
I'm talking about all the fucknuts who steal the
fruits of your labor and claim to be "serving the
public". Sessions is definitely one of those pigs.
Taxpayers enable and support his behaviour.
This is a constitutional republic. They like
"democracy" because they can claim their crimes
legitimate as "mandates". Their actions are
unconstitutional. That is the law. Be nice if the
next time the military conducts exercises in a
domestic population center the local militia takes
them all prisoner. Train for this.
Maybe ideologically it is a constitutional
republic, but since March 9, 1933 when FDR
signed the Emergency Banking Act the United
States has been a private institution managed by
foreign investors.
"Since March 9, 1933 The
United States has been in a state of Declared
National Emergency ... Under the powers
delegated by these statutes the President may:
seize property, organize and control the means
of production, seize commodities, order military
forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and
control all transportation and communication,
regulate the operation of private enterprise,
restrict travel, and in a plethora of ways
control the lives of American citizens. ... A
majority of the people in the United States have
lived all of their lives under emergency rule.
For forty years, freedoms and governmental
procedure guaranteed by the Constitution have in
varying degrees been abridged by laws brought
into force by national emergency." In Reg. US
Senate report No. 93-549 dated 11/19/73
Why Trump allows this, I can't figure out...either it's
part of a bigger plan, he's a dumb-ass, or he's being
forced to allow this shit-show to go into it's second
season.
Clapper and Brennan are perjurers, so it seems is Comey. Lynch tanked the
prosecution by not reminding FBI that its up to the DOJ, not FBI, to decide to
prosecute or not ((how has that gotten lost in all this))... its crooks all
the way down to the dark corners of the Shadow State, where drug sales,
murder, and terror are the red blood cells of the beast.
And of course Hillary... decades of lies, murders, theft, and the
deliberate arming of terrorists in Syria, per her emails, to 'help Israel.'
These people aren't merely criminals, but domestic terrorists and traitors.
Trump and Sessions' failure to indict these people merits your attention
regardless of what you think of Trump these days.
The lack of prosecutions means a DOJ afraid of what dark secrets may be
revealed in the harsh light of investigation and prosecution.
We would likely, even as cynics, absolutely marvel at the thoroughness of
Washington's corruption if we saw it.
Maybe we'd think about treating DC as a zio/globalist occupied territory
that presents a clear and present danger to the several States.
Strzok
and Page are sacrificial
pigs who have apparently
only convicted
themselves of gross
stupidity. There is no
evidence of crimes being
committed in emails.
That is why both are
still employed. No
evidence either one was
having an affair,
either. Going to lunch
is not a crime.
The real action is
who and what else is
being concealed from the
world.......
FBI are all a bunch
of depraved FUCKS.
If FBI secrets were
to come out for everyone
to see, every criminal
prosecution in which FBI
Fucks were involved
could be dismissed,
overturned, reversed, or
withdrawn from Fed
Court. Gov does not have
enough $$$$$$ to pay the
damages.
So we all get fucked
and FBI cunts stay
employed.
Sso corrupt it is
UNIMAGINABLE !!!!
Close down the FBI
!!!! End the fucking
contest. Do it NOW !!!
Did his crack legal team tell him to shut the fuck up? He's basically cross
examining himself in a public forum.
The Clinton email thing is still
amazing. It's de jure illegal to handle the information the way they did
regardless of intent. No interview was necessary. No immunity to an
unnecessary interview needed to happen either. This is a miscarriage at its
most benign.
Only a boob would believe this "aw schucks" nonesense.
It is amazing he ran the FBI. He is completely delusional. Has no sense of the
rule of law or how to apply it. Has no sense of how the law applies to him. He
cannot see the consequences of his actions on people or how they would
interpret it. Complete narcissist that lacks any empathy. Truly a psychopath.
The level of absurdity of the former head of the nation's purportedly premiere
law enforcement agency giving unlimited interviews to promote a tell-all book
on still active investigations in which he was involved is so high that it
would it wouldn't even be fodder for satire. Sanctimonious "Cardinal" Comey
has become a caricature of himself. He is either bringing shame and disgrace
to the FBI that he purportedly loves, or conclusively demonstrating that it is
more politically corrupt than under Hoover; but without the competency it
displayed under Hooveresque directors. People like Comey, McCabe, Strzok and
Page sent scores of people to prison, ruining untold lives. How many of these
people would have been found guilty if even a fraction of this information had
been available to defense attorneys as exculpatory evidence? Manafort's
lawyers are going to have a field day with all of this (at least in the DC
case where Judge Berman Jackson - a former defense lawyer and ostensibly fair
jurist - is presiding; I pity Manafort's lawyers in front of Judge Ellis in
Alexandria). Every time that Comey opens his mouth, he is making multiple
inconsistent statements of varying degrees. His narcissism and greed are so
monumental that he doesn't even see the damage that he did, is and will
continue to do to his credibility. I do, however, have to end by commending
him for appearing on Fox, though I think that it was more his inability to
turn down a forum for self-promotion than out of any particular
bravery.
Comey said, "it was unlikely to end in a case that the prosecutors at DOJ
would bring."
That doesn't mean the hundred-plus FBI agents who actually
worked the case didn't believe Clinton should be prosecuted. Comey betrayed
FBI agents by not supporting them. Instead, he sided with politicize
prosecutors, including Attorney General Lynch, who weren't going to indict
Clinton no matter what the evidence showed. Comey is a limpid coward and a
disgrace to law enforcement officers throughout the land.
Does Bezos have Comey's book "Riding My High Horse" at number one on
Amazon, like he did with Clinton's book "What The Fuck Happened?" even
though it had only sold 62 copies?
Classified is classified, unless you work for a Clinton.
SO if you put classified information in your book, it is no longer
classified??????
Shit, a whole lot of ex CIA guys need to write books. How about, "Well
we knew that the most murderous and despicable Nazi was in Argentina all
along and lived there for 30 years after WWII but we never went and got
him, because he really didn't do most of the things we claimed he did."
forget the dossier. forget that she destroyed evidence. forget that she
fleeced world leaders for her little foundation. forget the outrageous
speaking fees of her disgraced ex president husband. forget the meeting on
the tarmac with the AG. forget that her campaign was laundering
contributions.
SHE SET UP A FUCKING ILLEGAL EMAIL SERVER IN HER HOME AND
REDIRECTED GOVERNMENT TOP SECRET EMAIL TO THAT SERVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE
ALL HER CRIMES.
God these people are dirtier than a small time local politician. Jail
em all.
I have learned that there is a gaping deep and wide crevasse between a
'fact' and a 'truth'.
A 'truth' is, e.g., That tall oak out there is a
tree.
A 'fact' is, that depending on where you are standing, you can attest to
seeing less than a half of a tree, (unless you have developed the ability
to see around bends).
So when someone like the weasel Comey is says something is a fact, you
have every reason to doubt that he is telling you a truth.
I have a larcenous heart. I regret that I did not get into government,
seeing how much money can be made and how risk free the jobs are. Few----
compared to the many millions who have literally gotten away with murder,
gathered immense fortunes, and awesome behind the scenes power that is
invisible----have ever been arrested let alone accused, prosecuted and sent
to jail. You can count them on your fingers and toes.
So I have no objections to people buying his pack of lies and him making
some serious money on the advances, the book, and the eventual movie,
starring George Clooney as the hero, Comey.
The Department of "Justice", lost its way long ago. To persist in
calling it the DOJ when it is nothing of the sort, just another
disreputable, bureaucratic fuckup of a government agency, is a total lie.
Comey lies in the interview exposed plus the new Peter Strzok and Lisa
Page emails. Even what must be a very tiny percentage of their emails
during the covered time span have some very revealing contents which the
censors missed:
Interestingly, Comey said Republicans financed the Steele dossier before
Democrats. What if he's telling the truth? Trump is an Independent with an
"R" next to his name-Trump isn't their "Boy". Many Lifer Republicans in
fact are leaving office including House Speaker Ryan. If a Republican is
responsible for financing the dossier, my guess for one is Senator John
McCain.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-mccain-associate-subpoena
I could not watch more than 25% of the first video without projectile
vomiting. This fucker should be shot for treason, as all the rest of the
swamp leaders. The one sailor went to jail for accidentally releasing a
pic in an engine room, and Petras went to prison for so much less.
It's time to water the tree of Liberty with the blood of traitors to the
Republic...
"... The revelation that Clapper was responsible for leaking details of both the dossier and briefings to two presidents on the matter is significant, because former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director James Comey wrote in one of four memos that he leaked that the briefing of Trump on salacious and unverified allegations from the dossier was necessary because "CNN had them and were looking for a news hook." - The Federalist ..."
"... Comey's account of Trump's briefing on the dossier suggested that it was a setup from the beginning - and that it was only done in order to legitimize the story and justify leaking the unverified and salacious details to journalists. ..."
"... This briefing, and the leaking of it, legitimized the dossier, which touched off the Russia hysteria. That hysteria led to a full-fledged media freakout. During the freakout, Comey deliberately refused to say in public what he acknowledged repeatedly in private -- that the President of the United States was not under investigation. He even noted in his memos that he told the president at least three times that he was not under investigation. Comey's refusal to admit publicly what he kept telling people privately led to his firing. - The Federalist ..."
Former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) turned CNN commentator James Clapper not only
leaked information related to the infamous "Steele dossier" to CNN's Jake Tapper while Clapper
was in office - it appears he also lied about it to Congress, under oath.
Clapper was one of the "two national security officials" cited in CNN's
repor t -published minutes after Buzzfeed released the
full Steele dossier .
The revelation that Clapper was responsible for leaking details of both the dossier and
briefings to two presidents on the matter is significant, because former Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) director James Comey wrote in one of four memos that he leaked that the
briefing of Trump on salacious and unverified allegations from the dossier was necessary
because "CNN had them and were looking for a news hook." -
The Federalist
So Comey said that Trump needed to be briefed on the Dossier's allegations since CNN "had
them" - because James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence at the time, provided that
information to the same network he now works for .
And who's idea was it to brief Trump on the dossier? JAMES CLAPPER - according to former FBI
Director James Comey's memos:
"I said there was something that Clapper wanted me to speak to the [president-elect] about
alone or in a very small group ," Comey wrote.
The revelations detailing Clapper's leak to CNN can be found in a 253-page report by
the House Intelligence Committee majority released on Friday - which also found "
no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded, coordinated, or conspired with the Russian
government."
As Sean Davis of The
Federalist bluntly states: " Clapper leaked details of a dossier briefing given to
then-President-elect Donald Trump to CNN's Jake Tapper, lied to Congress about the leak, and
was rewarded with a CNN contract a few months later ."
From Clapper's Congressional testimony:
MR. ROONEY: Did you discuss the dossier or any other intelligence related to Russia
hacking of the 2016 election with journalists?
MR. CLAPPER: No.
Clapper later changed his tune after he was confronted about his communications with
Tapper:
"Clapper subsequently acknowledged discussing the 'dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper,'
and admitted that he might have spoken with other journalists about the same topic," the report
reads. "Clapper's discussion with Tapper took place in early January 2017, around the time IC
leaders briefed President Obama and President-elect Trump, on 'the Christopher Steele
information,' a two-page summary of which was 'enclosed in' the highly-classified version of
the ICA," or intelligence community assessment.
As Jack Posobiec
adds , " To be clear: CNN's Jake Tapper participated in a leak of highly classified
information from James Clapper and knowingly participated in a cover-up of it that has gone on
for months, during which time CNN hired Clapper as a paid contributor ."
The Daily Caller' s Chuck Ross notes that Clapper also denied speaking to the media in a
March conversation with CNN's Don Lemon.
And let's not forget, Jake Tapper has been participating in the lie .
Indeed it is Don - as The Federalist' s Mollie Hemmingway
wrote in January - Comey's account of Trump's briefing on the dossier suggested that it was
a setup from the beginning - and that it was only done in order to legitimize the story and
justify leaking the unverified and salacious details to journalists.
Let's bring it home with Mollie Hemmingway's summary from January which hits the nail on the
head:
So Comey, at Clapper's expressed behest, told Trump that CNN was "looking for a news hook"
to publish dossier allegations. He said this in the briefing of Trump that almost immediately
leaked to CNN, which provided them the very news hook they sought and needed.
This briefing, and the leaking of it, legitimized the dossier, which touched off the
Russia hysteria. That hysteria led to a full-fledged media freakout. During the freakout,
Comey deliberately refused to say in public what he acknowledged repeatedly in private --
that the President of the United States was not under investigation. He even noted in his
memos that he told the president at least three times that he was not under investigation.
Comey's refusal to admit publicly what he kept telling people privately led to his firing. -
The Federalist
We look forward to James Clapper talking his way out of this on CNN during carefully
scripted conversations with fellow talking heads. Tags
"... The ultimate goal of the new world order as an ideology is total centralization of economic and governmental power into the hands of a select and unaccountable bureaucracy made up of international financiers. This is governance according the the dictates of Plato's Republic; a delusional fantasy world in which benevolent philosopher kings, supposedly smarter and more objective than the rest of us, rule from on high with scientific precision and wisdom. It is a world where administrators become gods. ..."
"... Large corporations receive unfair legal protection under limited liability as well as outright legislative protection from civil consequences (Monsanto is a perfect example of this). They also receive immense taxpayer funded welfare through bailouts and other sources when they fail to manage their business responsibly. All this while small businesses and entrepreneurs are impeded at every turn by taxation and legal obstacles. ..."
"... Only massive corporations supported by governments are able to exploit the advantages of international manufacturing and labor sources in a way that ensures long term success. Meanwhile economic models that promote true decentralization and localism become impractical because real competition is never allowed. The world has not enjoyed free markets in at least a century. What we have today is something entirely different. ..."
"... The fact is, globalist institutions and central banks permeate almost every corner of the world. Nations like Russia and China are just as heavily tied to the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements and international financial centers like Goldman Sachs as any western government. ..."
"... The first inclination of human beings is to discriminate against ideas and people they see as destructive and counter to their prosperity. Globalists therefore have to convince a majority of people that the very tribalism that has fueled our social evolution and some of the greatest ideas in history is actually the source of our eventual doom. ..."
"... As mentioned earlier, globalists cannot have their "new world order" unless they can convince the masses to ask for it. Trying to implement such a system by force alone would end in failure, because revolution is the natural end result of tyranny. Therefore, the new world order has to be introduced as if it had been formed by coincidence or by providence. Any hint that the public is being conned into accepting global centralization would trigger widespread resistance. ..."
"... This is why globalism is always presented in the mainstream media as a natural extension of civilization's higher achievement. Even though it was the dangerous interdependency of globalism that helped fuel the economic crisis of 2008 and continues to escalate that crisis to this day, more globalism is continually promoted as the solution to the problem. It is spoken of with reverence in mainstream economic publications and political discussions. It receives almost religious praise in the halls of academia. Globalism is socioeconomic ambrosia -- the food of deities. It is the fountain of youth. It is a new Eden. ..."
"... Obviously, this adoration for globalism is nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that globalism is a positive force for humanity, let alone a natural one. There is far more evidence that globalism is a poisonous ideology that can only ever gain a foothold through trickery and through false flags. ..."
When globalists speak publicly about a "new world order" they are speaking about something
very specific and rather sacred in their little cult of elitism. It is not simply the notion
that civilization shifts or changes abruptly on its own; rather, it is their name for a
directed and engineered vision - a world built according to their rules, not a world that
evolved naturally according to necessity.
There are other names for this engineered vision, including the "global economic reset," or
the more general and innocuous term "globalism," but the intention is the same.
The ultimate goal of the new world order as an ideology is total centralization of economic
and governmental power into the hands of a select and unaccountable bureaucracy made up of
international financiers. This is governance according the the dictates of Plato's Republic; a
delusional fantasy world in which benevolent philosopher kings, supposedly smarter and more
objective than the rest of us, rule from on high with scientific precision and wisdom. It is a
world where administrators become gods.
Such precision and objectivity within human systems is not possible, of course . Human
beings are far too susceptible to their own biases and personal desires to be given
totalitarian power over others. The results will always be destruction and disaster. Then, add
to this the fact that the kinds of people who often pursue such power are predominantly
narcissistic sociopaths and psychopaths. If a governmental structure of high level
centralization is allowed to form, it opens a door for these mentally and spiritually broken
people to play out their twisted motives on a global stage.
It is important to remember that sociopaths are prone to fabricating all kinds of high
minded ideals to provide cover for their actions. That is to say, they will adopt a host of
seemingly noble causes to rationalize their scramble for power, but in the end these
"humanitarians" only care about imposing their will on as many people as possible while feeding
off them for as long as time allows.
There are many false promises, misrepresentations and fraudulent conceptions surrounding the
narrative of globalism. Some of them are rather clever and subversive and are difficult to pick
out in the deliberately created fog. The schemes involved in implementing globalism are
designed to confuse the masses with crisis until they end up ASKING for more centralization and
less freedom.
Let's examine some of the most common propaganda methods and arguments behind the push for
globalization and a "new world order"
Con #1: Globalism Is About "Free Markets"
A common pro-globalism meme is the idea that globalization is not really centralization, but
decentralization. This plays primarily to the economic side of global governance, which in my
view is the most important because without economic centralization political centralization is
not possible.
Free markets according to Adam Smith, a pioneer of the philosophy, are supposed to provide
open paths for anyone with superior ideas and ingenuity to pursue those ideas without
interference from government or government aided institutions. What we have today under
globalism are NOT free markets. Instead, globalism has supplied unfettered power to
international corporations which cannot exist without government charter and government
financial aid.
The corporate model is completely counter to Adam Smith's original premise of free market
trade. Large corporations receive unfair legal protection under limited liability as well as
outright legislative protection from civil consequences (Monsanto is a perfect example of
this). They also receive immense taxpayer funded welfare through bailouts and other sources
when they fail to manage their business responsibly. All this while small businesses and
entrepreneurs are impeded at every turn by taxation and legal obstacles.
In terms of international trade being "free trade," this is not really the case either. Only
massive corporations supported by governments are able to exploit the advantages of
international manufacturing and labor sources in a way that ensures long term success.
Meanwhile economic models that promote true decentralization and localism become impractical
because real competition is never allowed. The world has not enjoyed free markets in at least a
century. What we have today is something entirely different.
Con #2: Globalism Is About A "Multipolar World"
This is a relatively new disinformation tactic that I attribute directly to the success of
the liberty movement and alternative economists. As the public becomes more educated on the
dangers of economic centralization and more specifically the dangers of central banks, the
globalists are attempting to shift the narrative to muddy the waters.
For example, the liberty movement has railed against the existence of the Federal Reserve
and fiat dollar hegemony to the point that our information campaign has been breaking into
mainstream thought. The problem is that globalism is not about the dollar, U.S. hegemony or the
so-called "deep state," which in my view is a distraction from the bigger issue at hand.
The fact is, globalist institutions and central banks permeate almost every corner of the
world. Nations like Russia and China are just as heavily tied to the IMF and the Bank for
International Settlements and international financial centers like Goldman Sachs as any western
government.
Part of the plan for the new world order, as has been openly admitted by globalists and
globalist publications, is the decline of the U.S. and the dollar system to make way for one
world financial governance through the IMF as well as the Special Drawing Rights basket as a
mechanism for the world reserve currency. The globalists WANT a less dominant U.S. and a more
involved East, while the East continues to call for more control of the global economy by the
IMF. This concept unfortunately flies over the heads of most economists, even in the liberty
movement.
So, the great lie being promoted now is that the fall of the U.S. and the dollar is a "good
thing" because it will result in "decentralization," a "multi-polar" world order and the
"death" of globalism. However, what is really happening is that as the U.S. falls globalist
edifices like the IMF and the BIS rise. We are moving from centralization to
super-centralization. Globalists have pulled a bait and switch in order to trick the liberty
movement into supporting the success of the East (which is actually also globalist controlled)
and a philosophy which basically amounts to a re-branding of the new world order as some kind
of decentralized paradise.
Con #3: Nationalism Is The Source Of War, And Globalism Will End It
If there's one thing globalists have a love/hate relationship with, it's humanity's natural
tribal instincts. On the one hand, they like tribalism because in some cases tribalism can be
turned into zealotry, and zealots are easy to exploit and manipulate. Wars between nations
(tribes) can be instigated if the tribal instinct is weighted with artificial fears and
threats.
On the other hand, tribalism lends itself to natural decentralization of societies because
tribalism in its best form is the development of many groups organized around a variety of
ideas and principles and projects. This makes the establishment of a "one world ideology" very
difficult, if not impossible. The first inclination of human beings is to discriminate against
ideas and people they see as destructive and counter to their prosperity. Globalists therefore
have to convince a majority of people that the very tribalism that has fueled our social
evolution and some of the greatest ideas in history is actually the source of our eventual
doom.
Nationalism served the globalists to a point, but now they need to get rid of it entirely.
This requires considerable crisis blamed on nationalism and "populist" ideals. Engineered war,
whether kinetic or economic, is the best method to scapegoat tribalism. Every tragedy from now
on must eventually be attributed to ideas of separation and logical discrimination against
negative ideologies. The solution of globalism will then be offered; a one world system in
which all separation is deemed "evil."
Con #4: Globalism Is Natural And Inevitable
As mentioned earlier, globalists cannot have their "new world order" unless they can
convince the masses to ask for it. Trying to implement such a system by force alone would end
in failure, because revolution is the natural end result of tyranny. Therefore, the new world
order has to be introduced as if it had been formed by coincidence or by providence. Any hint
that the public is being conned into accepting global centralization would trigger widespread
resistance.
This is why globalism is always presented in the mainstream media as a natural extension of
civilization's higher achievement. Even though it was the dangerous interdependency of
globalism that helped fuel the economic crisis of 2008 and continues to escalate that crisis to
this day, more globalism is continually promoted as the solution to the problem. It is spoken
of with reverence in mainstream economic publications and political discussions. It receives
almost religious praise in the halls of academia. Globalism is socioeconomic ambrosia -- the
food of deities. It is the fountain of youth. It is a new Eden.
Obviously, this adoration for globalism is nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that
globalism is a positive force for humanity, let alone a natural one. There is far more evidence
that globalism is a poisonous ideology that can only ever gain a foothold through trickery and
through false flags.
We live in an era that represents an ultimate crossroads for civilization; a time of great
uncertainty. Will we seek truth in the trials we face, and thus the ability to create our own
solutions? Or, will we take a seemingly easier road by embracing whatever solutions are handed
to us by the establishment? Make no mistake -- the globalists already have a solution
prepackaged for us. They have been acclimating and conditioning the public to accept it for
decades now. That solution will not bring what it promises. It will not bring peace, but
eternal war. It will not bring togetherness, but isolation. It will not bring understanding,
but ignorance.
When globalists eventually try to sell us on a full-blown new world order, they will pull
out every conceivable image of heaven on Earth, but they will do this only after creating a
tangible and ever present hell.
* * *
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read,
visit our donations page here . We
greatly appreciate your patronage.
Several of the parties being sued by the DNC have expressed their excitement over the
discovery process , by which they may get their hands on even more evidence which might
incriminate or exonerate various actors. President Trump, Roger Stone, and Wikileaks (which is
countersuing the DNC) have all noted that they're looking forward to checking out the
controversial "DNC Servers" which were allegedly hacked by Russia .
In response to the DNC
lawsuit, Trump tweeted that it could be good news that " we will now counter for the DNC Server
that they refused to give to the FBI," along with the "Debbie Wasserman Schultz Servers and
Documents ."
Just heard the Campaign was sued by the Obstructionist Democrats. This can be good news in
that we will now counter for the DNC Server that they refused to give to the FBI, the Debbie
Wasserman Schultz Servers and Documents held by the Pakistani mystery man and Clinton
Emails.
The Trump campaign also says the lawsuit will provide an opportunity to " explore the DNC's
now-secret records ."
And as we reported on Monday, WikiLeaks is
counter-suing the DNC - setting up a donation fund and noting "We've never lost a
publishing case and discovery is going to be amazing fun."
The Democrats are suing @WikiLeaks and @JulianAssange for revealing
how the DNC rigged the Democratic primaries. Help us counter-sue. We've never lost a
publishing case and discovery is going to be amazing fun: https://t.co/E1QbYJL4bB
DNC chair Tom Perez defended the lawsuit as "necessary," telling Meet the Press that they
had to file before the statue of limitations ran out, and that "it's hard to put a price tag on
preserving democracy."
David Pepper, chair of the Ohio Democratic Party is totally cool with the DNC lawsuit. "I
don't think it hurts," said Pepper. "If you have credible claims, you have a responsibility to
pursue legal action. I think you have a day or two where [the suit] is the story, but that's
different from your overall message."
" I wouldn't have our candidates spending the fall talking about Russia or the suit or
anything like that ," Pepper said.
"They should be focused on health care, education, student debt. We shouldn't divert the
message from those topics to talk about Russia. "
And yet, that's exactly what's going to happen as the DNC lawsuit plays out in the six
months and change before midterms.
In February, 16 of 20 major cities experienced home price growth of 5.4% or higher: double
the average wage growth.
And then there was San Francisco
...
"Brennan/CIA democrats" can't talk about about anything else because they sold themselves under Bill Clinton to Financial oligarchy.
And stay sold since then.
Notable quotes:
"... do they honestly think that people that were just laid off another shift at the car plant in my home county give a shit about Russia when they don't have a frickin' job? ..."
Democrats in midwestern battleground states want the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to back off the Trump-Russia rhetoric,
as state-level leaders worry it's turning off voters.
"The DNC is doing a good job of winning New York and California," said Mahoning, OH Democratic county party chair David Betras.
"I'm not saying it's not important -- of course it's important -- but do they honestly think that people that were just
laid off another shift at the car plant in my home county give a shit about Russia when they don't have a frickin' job? "
Betras says that Trump and Russia is the "only piece they've been doing since 2016. [ Trump ] keeps talking about jobs and the
economy, and we talk about Russia. "
The Democratic infighting comes on the heels of a multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed by the DNC against the Trump campaign, Wikileaks
and several other parties including the Russian government, alleging an illegal conspiracy to disrupt the 2016 election in a "brazen
attack on American Democracy."
Many midwestern Democrats, however, are rolling their eyes.
"I'm going to be honest; I don't understand why they're doing it," one Midwestern campaign strategist told BuzzFeed. "My sense
was it was a move meant to gin up the donor base, not our voters. But it was the biggest news they've made in a while."
The strategist added "I wouldn't want to see something like this coming out of the DNC in October."
Another Midwest strategist said that the suit was "politically unhelpful" and that they havent seen "a single piece of data that
says voters want Democrats to relitigate 2016. ... The only ones who want to do this are Democratic activists who are already voting
Democratic."
Perhaps Midwestern Democrats aren't idiots, and realize that a two-year counterintelligence operation against Donald Trump which
appears to have been a coordinated "insurance policy" against a Trump win, might not be so great for optics, considering that criminal
referrals have been submitted to the DOJ for individuals involved in the alleged scheme to rig the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.
The gloves are off in the multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed by the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) against the Trump campaign, Wikileaks and several other parties including the
Russian government, alleging an illegal conspiracy to disrupt the 2016 election in a "brazen
attack on American Democracy."
Many have suggested the lawsuit is a tactical error by the DNC, as it may expose or confirm
claims against the organization - such as whether they rigged the primary against Bernie
Sanders , the level of coordination between the DNC and the Clinton Campaign, and the details
surrounding the funding of the "Steele dossier," paid for in part by both the Clinton campaign
and the DNC .
The defendants - from President Trump, to Wikileaks - and now Roger Stone - are excited at
the prospect of examining the DNC servers which cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike determined were
victims of Russian hacking in advance of the 2016 elections. Notably, the DNC would not allow
the FBI or anyone else to inspect said servers .
To that end, Stone's attorneys have slapped the DNC with a notification to preserve evidence
related to the case with a "standard pre-discovery notice." Discovery is a pre-trial process by
which one party can obtain evidence from the opposing party relevant to the case.
My lawyers and I will demand to examine the DNC's servers and expose them to real forensic
analysis, not merely accepting the claims of the DNC's paid contractor , to finally
extinguish this bogus Russian hacking claim, once and for all . My lawyers have served the
DNC with standard pre-discovery notice directing the DNC of their obligation under law to
preserve all possible evidence, including their servers, for ultimate inspection and exposure
to critical review . As Julian Assange wrote on Twitter, via the WikiLeaks feed, " Discovery
is going to be fun ." - Roger Stone
Stone notes that "Former CIA experts like Bill Binney and Ray McGovern examined the basic
data available about the copying of DNC data and concluded that there is more forensic evidence
that the material was downloaded to a portable drive , meaning it had to be someone with
physical access to DNC computers ."
"Having made their computer systems the subject matter of multi-million dollar demands for
judicial relief, the DNC has now exposed them to the discovery process ," writes Stone.
In February, New Zealand entrepreneur Kim Dotcom responded to a tweet by President Trump,
claiming that "the DNC hack wasn't even a hack. It was an insider with a memory stick." Dotcom
says he knows "who did it and why," adding "Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in my
evidence. My lawyers wrote to him twice. He never replied."
Stumbling and Mumbling has a good riff on this topic:
". Economics, for me, is not about armchair theorizing. It should begin with the facts, and
especially the big ones. The facts are that share buy-backs do usually matter, so thought
experiments that say otherwise are wrong from the off. Similarly, the fact that wage
inflation has been low for years (pdf) is much more significant than any theorizing about
Phillips curves."
The comments are good as well:
"That's a category error: you don't define "Economics", tenure committees define it, and they
award tenure to people who have a long record of publishing "internally consistent"
("armchair theorizing") papers."
"I found myself sitting next to a very likable young middle-aged academic tenured at an elite
British university, whom henceforth I will refer to as Doctor X and whose field is closely
associated with this blog. Every year I publish papers in the top journals and they're pure
shit." Doctor X, who by now had had a glass or two, felt bad about this, not least because
"students these days are so idealistic and eager to learn; they're really wonderful."
Furthermore Doctor X could and would like "to write serious papers but what would be the
point?" "
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2018/04/facts-vs-hand-waving-in-economics.html#comments
Yeah. I'm inclined to think the author needs to curb his enthusiasms and take up dejected
drinking.
The nub of his presentation was a model in which consumers, due to cognitive
limitations, were unable to fully examine every single product they purchased. The result
was that regulations guaranteeing a certain standard of safety, quality and the like could
improve competition by giving people more time to shop around instead of having to devote
so much time to investigate specific products. Thus, regulation would improve markets and
competition
This is Nobel-level work? It amounts to finding a way to pitch a product to
anti-regulation dogmatists. I'm sure that you could find similar arguments being made during
the Progressive era regulatory push. Only they would have been framed more as "people will
have more time to shop around if they're not killed by previous ingestion of the
product."
What I mean by 'mathemagics' is the misuse of mathematics –even simple
mathematics -- to create the illusion that 'utility' or 'indifference curves' actually
pertain to real concepts. In reality, they 'mathematize' gobbledygook passed off as coherent
concepts. There is nothing so conceptually barren as 'utility' or 'indifference curve'
analytics. The notion that one can derive any coherent 'demand' analysis for any one consumer
that is individual human being (or life form of any kind) for any product, or that one can
aggregate these up is mathematical junk.
The Classical Economists used the broader political economy rather than today's narrow
economics.
The Washington Consensus dreamed of a world run by the laws of economics.
The laws of economics worked in China's favour and the Western economies got hollowed
out.
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Maximising profit required minimising wages.
The minimum wage is set when disposable income equals zero.
The minimum wage = taxes + the cost of living
China had it made and the West had tilted the playing field against itself.
The US eventually woke up the geopolitical consequences of a world governed by the laws of
economics that had worked in China's favour.
Trump has just made things worse with his tax cuts.
Theory:
If we reduce taxes on the wealthy they will create more jobs and wages.
Reality:
If we reduce taxes on the wealthy they will create more jobs and wages in Asia where they can
make more profit. They can then ship the stuff back here increasing Western trade
deficits.
"... First, we need to accept that there is no such thing as "value-free" analysis of the economy. As I've explained, neoclassical economics pretends to be ethically neutral while smuggling in an individualistic, anti-social ethos " – Howard Reed ..."
"... Fundamentally, economics is a religion, with priests, high priests, creed, dogma, punishment for heretics, and all the other trappings of a religion. But the pay is good, so Clive's rule for middle class jobs applies. ..."
Economics conducted
a curriculum review of 174 modules at 7 Russell Group universities -- rightly or wrongly
considered the 'top' universities in the UK -- and we found that the uncritical acceptance of
one type of economics begins with education. Under 10% of modules even mentioned anything other
than mainstream or 'neoclassical' economics; in econometrics, over 90% of modules devoted more
than two-thirds of their lectures to linear regression. Only 24% of exam questions required
critical or independent thinking (i.e. were open-ended); this dropped to 8% if you only counted
the compulsory macro and micro modules that form the core of economics education.
We have
previously called this 'indoctrination', and while this may seem dramatic the dictionary
definition of indoctrination is to "teach a person or set of people to accept a set of beliefs
uncritically", which we think adequately characterises the results of the review, as well as
our own experience and many widely used economics textbooks. Given this education, it is no
wonder that economists remain wedded to the fundamental precepts of choice models and linear
regression no matter where they turn their attention. By putting the method first, the implicit
assumption becomes that answering a question using this framework is prima facie
interesting, and critical evaluation of these tools against others is made unthinkable.
For nearly thirty years after the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) became received gospel
in the mid-1960s, the claim that stock prices exhibited momentum (which shouldn't be true in
a perfectly efficient market) was roundly mocked by mainstream economists.
Then in 1993, Jegadeesh and Titman published a paper titled "Returns to Buying Winners and
Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency" in the Journal of Finance .
Its evidence for a momentum effect was impossible to refute.
So economists bolted en masse to the opposite side of the boat. Today there are
thousands of papers on momentum, often presenting some fairly trivial arithmetic that
home-based amateurs have long used. But it's formulated into equations with Greek letters,
and a [totally boring] statistical panel appears in the Appendix to prove some statistical
significance.
A few professors actually exploited their discoveries to get rich. Cliff Asness, a U of
Chicago PhD (but a practitioner, not a professor) offers some light-hearted commentary on his
mentor Eugene Fama:
Of course the book The Fama Portfolio also contains contributions by other
authors (or how the heck did I get in there?) that reflect, directly or indirectly, on
Gene's work.
Being able to read Gene's originals and some of the major papers by others that explore
his work in one volume is both a treat and incredibly useful (these contributors, unlike
John Liew and myself, are themselves serious academic luminaries!).
OK, enough shilling. If you love finance and don't immediately pine for this book, I
can't help you any further☺
Where the police were call off their pursuit, when within a finger nail of – helping
– their subject. Because the economic perimeters their models produced, with the help of
computational machines, gave a ridged defined view of the operation. Seems the subject was
operating outside the econometric perimeters due to mental illness – was a patient whom
escaped at the time.
Alas we never get to see what he saw when he popped out on the surface, save a blinding
orb.
In retrospect did they do the underground thingy to better control, could nature itself be a
threat to the model, hence the need to control every aspect of environment for behavioral
reasons.
Anywho I'll just leave this on my way to work:
"If we accept that we need fundamental reform, what should the new economics --
"de-conomics" as I'm calling it -- look like?
First, we need to accept that there is no such thing as "value-free" analysis of the
economy. As I've explained, neoclassical economics pretends to be ethically neutral while
smuggling in an individualistic, anti-social ethos " – Howard Reed
Linear regression is economists' preferred empirical technique
That's really a powerful tool in a world which is chaotic.
The trouble with embracing chaos and catastrophe theory is the "chaos" part of predicting
the future. But economists, being human and liking their paychecks, are not interested in any
predictions which do not cater, or pander, to the needs of their bosses or paymasters.
Why, that might suggest the boss is wrong! Such heresy leads to a quick execution!
Fundamentally, economics is a religion, with priests, high priests, creed, dogma,
punishment for heretics, and all the other trappings of a religion. But the pay is good, so
Clive's rule for middle class jobs applies.
Disclaimer: My view of Religion is similar: Why?
1. You'll get your reward in the afterlife, after you are dead!
2. We know this is true, because we've never had a complaint.
Linear regression certainly is a powerful tool for examining linear distributions, but it
essential to first confirm that the distribution is linear, and to remember that on occasion,
samples drawn from random (unrelated) distributions can show a spurious correlation.
but it essential to first confirm that the distribution is linear
Very true, but how is this proven? In nature and economics are there any linear
distributions? If so over what range?
I notice a preponderance of using straight lines instead of growth curves. I also notice
chaos, or noise, in behaviors, coupled with a complete non-understanding of entropy.
In nature linear behavior is unlikely. If it were linear we'd see straight branches on
trees, rainfall evenly distributed and the wind would always blow at constant speed, with
predictable eddies.
I suppose a rock dropped would exhibit linear behaviors until it hits the ground, and at
that point in time the "dropping rock" system become decidedly chaotic, from stuck in the mud,
to bouncing in a random direction, to bursting into pieces, pieces who's destiny is completely
uncertain.
― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder
I've debated many economists who claim to specialize in risk and probability: when one
takes them slightly outside their narrow focus, but within the discipline of probability,
they fall apart, with the disconsolate face of a gym rat in front of a gangster hit man."
Nassim, I think covers all this better than anyone else. Would love to hear of
similarly comprehensive works.
Lyapanov's work on the inherent instability of complex systems which was used as a basis
of Chaos Theory, is enough in itself to relegate predictions based on a linear model when
applied to the complex to be thrown into the dustbin of history.
LTCM L.P. Was I believe wiped out due to a combination of the 90's Asian & Russian
crisis' ( karma in the case of the latter ? ). It would be impossible to discover which tiny
flap of the butterfly's wings initiated the tipping point or to predict it beforehand.
Nudge was the title of a book by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein on how to manipulate
people in their supposed best interest, like in cafeteria lines, to put whole fruit before
desserts made with sugar.
If you liked Nudge , you'll love " cognitive infiltration ":
Conspiracy Theories
Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03
Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled
epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best
response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas,
such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to
ignore them, are explored in this light.
Keywords: conspiracy theories, social networks, informational cascades, group
polarization https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585
Is not this what discerning MIC's all do these days, via FBI FB?
And of course we mopes have been "nudged" into pretty much that blind serfdom alluded to.
Back in the Cave, with not much chance of dispelling the belief in and subjection to the
shadows projected on the wall we are forced to face
I rather detest the notion of someone or entity 'nudging' me in the direction of some
behavior, especially in a paternalistic mode where the assumption is that they know better
than I what I 'should' be doing or thinking.
On one level, isn't that a working definition of advertising? On another, it smacks of
authoritarianism. Don't we have enough of this kind of thing already? Worse, what's the first
reaction one naturally has when they realize they're being manipulated? Seems to be a
strategy fraught with risk of getting exactly the wrong response.
If I'm to be encouraged to behave in a given way, show me the respect of offering a
conscious, intelligent argument to do so on the merits, or kindly go (family blog)
yourself!
In economics, the single most important thing to understand is debt.
If you understand debt; you won't have any debt.
Debt and freedom are the antithisis of each other.
Without debt; nudges have no influence.
While it is
undeniable that neoliberals routinely disparage the state, both back then and now, it does not
follow that they are politically libertarian or, as David Harvey would have it, that they are
implacably opposed to state interventions in the economy and society. Harvey's error is
distressing, since even Antonio Gramsci understood this: "Moreover, laissez-faire liberalism,
too, must be introduced by law, through the intervention of political power: it is an act of
will, not the spontaneous, automatic expression of economic facts." 6
From the 1940s onward, the distinguishing characteristic of neoliberal doctrines and practice
is that they embrace this prospect of repurposing the strong state to impose their vision of a
society properly open to the dominance of the market as they conceive it. Neoliberals from
Friedrich Hayek to James Buchanan to Richard Posner to Alexander Rüstow (who invented the
term Vitalpolitik , which became Foucault's "biopolitics") to Jacques Rueff, not to
mention a plethora of figures after 1970, all explicitly proposed policies to strengthen the
state. 7
Friedman's own trademark proposals, like putting the money supply on autopilot, or replacing
public schools with vouchers, required an extremely strong state to enforce them. While
neoliberal think tanks rile up the base with debt clocks and boogeyman statistics of ratios of
government expenditure to GDP, neoliberal politicians organize a host of new state activities
to fortify their markets. They extravagantly increase incarceration and policing of those whom
they deem unfit for the marketplace. They expand both state and corporate power to exercise
surveillance and manipulation of subject populations while dismantling judicial recourse to
resist such encroachments. Neoliberals introduce new property rights (like intellectual
property) to cement into place their extensions of market valuations to situations where they
were absent. They strengthen international sanctions such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and
investor-state dispute settlement schemes to circumvent and neutralize national social
legislation they dislike. They bail out and subsidize private banking systems at the cost of
many multiples of existing national income. And they define corporations as legal persons in
order to facilitate the buying of elections.
The blue-sky writings of neoliberals with regard to the state are, if anything, even more
daunting. In the imaginary constitution proposed in Hayek's Law, Legislation and Liberty
, he suggests that politicians be rendered more powerful : in the imagined upper
legislative house, Hayek stipulates, only men of substantial property over age forty-five would
be eligible to vote or be elected; no political parties would be allowed; and each member would
stand for a hefty fifteen-year term. 8
This illustrates the larger neoliberal predisposition to be very leery of democracy, and thus
to stymie public participation through the concentration of political power in fewer hands.
James Buchanan proposed something very similar. 9
This is just about as far from libertarianism as one could get, short of brute
dictatorship.
So here is the answer to my first question: people think the label "neoliberalism" is an
awful neologism because the neoliberals have been so good at covering their tracks, obscuring
what they stand for, and denying the level of coherence which they have achieved in their long
march to legitimacy. Back when some of these proposals were just a gleam in Hayek's eye, they
did explicitly use the term "neoliberalism" to describe the project that, back then, did not
yet exist -- even Milton Friedman used it in print! 10
But once their program looked like it would start to jell, and subsequently start reshaping
both the state and the market more to their liking, they abruptly abjured any reference to that
label, and sometime in the later 1950s, following the lead of Hayek, they began to call
themselves "classical liberals." This attempt at rebranding was an utter travesty because, as
they moved from reconceptualization of one area of human experience to another, the resulting
doctrines contradicted classical liberalism point by point, and term by term. It might be
worthwhile for us who come after to insist upon the relevance of things that put the
neo- in neoliberalism.
What's New about Neoliberalism?
In a nutshell, classical liberalism imagined a night watchman state that would set the
boundaries for the natural growth of the market, like a shepherd tending his flock. Markets
were born, not made. The principles of good governance and liberty would be dictated by natural
rights of individual humans, or perhaps by the prudent accretion of tradition. People needed to
be nurtured first to find themselves, in order to act as legitimate citizens in liberal
society. Society would be protected from the disruptive character of the market by something
like John Stuart Mill's "harm principle": colloquially, the freedom of my fist stops at the
freedom of your face. The neoliberals were having none of that, and explicitly said so.
Far from trying to preserve society against the unintended consequences of the operations of
markets, as democratic liberalism sought to do, neoliberal doctrine instead set out actively to
dismantle those aspects of society which might resist the purportedly inexorable logic of
"catallactics," and to reshape it in the market's image. For neoliberals, freedom and the
market would be treated as identical. Their rallying cry was to remove the foundation of
liberty from natural rights or tradition, and reposition it upon an entirely novel theory
concerning what a market was, or should be. They could not acknowledge individual natural
rights, because they sought to tutor the masses to become the agent the market would be most
likely to deem successful. The market no longer gave you what you wanted; you had to capitulate
to what the market wanted. All areas of life could be better configured to behave as if they
were more market-like. Gary Becker, for example, a member of the Mont Pèlerin Society,
proposed a market-based approach to allow for a socially optimal level of crime, and advocated
a revolutionary extension of marginal calculus to include the "shadow costs" and benefits
associated with "children, prestige or esteem, health, altruism, envy, and pleasure of the
senses." Becker even proposed an economic model of the "dating market," one consequence of
which was the proposition that polygamy for successful, wealthy men could be politically
rationalized. And voilà! The Sunday New York Times produced an article saying
just that, as if it were real news. Classical liberals like Mill or Michael Oakeshott would be
spinning in their graves. 11
The intellectual content of neoliberalism is something that warrants sustained discussion,
but this can only happen once critical historians can admit they are no longer basing their
evaluations on the isolated writings of a single author. There is no convenient crib sheet
describing what the modern neoliberal thought collective (for brevity, NTC) actually believes.
Nevertheless, neoliberalism does have certain themes that are regularly sounded in emanations
from the NTC:
(1) "Free" markets do not occur naturally. They must be actively constructed through
political organizing.
(2) "The market" is an information processor, and the most efficient one possible -- more
efficient than any government or any single human ever could be. Truth can only be validated by
the market.
(3) Market society is, and therefore should be, the natural and inexorable state of
humankind.
(4) The political goal of neoliberals is not to destroy the state, but to take control of
it, and to redefine its structure and function, in order to create and maintain the
market-friendly culture.
(5) There is no contradiction between public/politics/citizen and
private/market/entrepreneur-consumer -- because the lat ter does and should
eclipse the former.
(6) The most important virtue -- more important than justice, or anything else -- is
freedom, defined "negatively" as "freedom to choose," and most importantly, defined as the
freedom to acquiesce to the imperatives of the market.
(7) Capital has a natural right to flow freely across national boundaries.
(8) Inequality -- of resources, income, wealth, and even political rights -- is a good
thing ; it prompts productivity, because people envy the rich and emulate them; people who
complain about inequality are either sore losers or old fogies, who need to get hip to the way
things work nowadays.
(9) Corporations can do no wrong -- by definition. Competition will take care of all
problems, including any tendency to monopoly.
(10) The market, engineered and promoted by neoliberal experts, can always provide solutions
to problems seemingly caused by the market in the first place: there's always "an app for
that."
(11) There is no difference between is and should be : "free" markets both
should be (normatively) and are (positively) the most efficient economic system,
and the most just way of doing politics, and the most empirically true
description of human behavior, and the most ethical and moral way to live -- which in
turn explains, and justifies, why their versions of "free" markets should be and, as
neoliberals build more and more power, increasingly are universal. 12
No wonder outsiders are dazed and confused. The neoliberal revolutionaries, contemptuous of
tradition, conjured a fake tradition to mask their true intentions. They did this while
explicitly abjuring the label of "conservative." But there is one more reason that outsiders
tend to think it a mistake to posit an effective intellectual formation called "neoliberalism."
Nowadays we doubt that ideas, and particularly political ideas, are the product of the
concerted efforts of some thought collective stretching over generations, engaging in critique
and reconstruction, fine-tuning and elaborating doctrine, while keeping focused upon problems
of implementation and feasibility. Indeed, that doubt is evidence of neoliberal preconceptions
having seeped into all of our thought processes. Yet that is an exact description of how
neoliberalism developed, in the manner (as I insist on calling it) of a thought collective:
sanctioned members are encouraged to innovate and embellish in small ways, but an excess of
doctrinal heresy gets one expelled from participation. Central dogmas are not codified or
dictated by any single prophet; no one delivers the Tablets down from the "Mont"; and you
cannot adequately understand neoliberalism solely by reading Hayek or Milton Friedman, for that
matter. While we can locate its origins in 1947, it has undergone much revision since then, and
is still a hydra-headed Gorgon to this very day.
"... The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers. ..."
"... Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues," in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history with fake history. ..."
PCR's latest is really good. I love it when he gets to ripping, and doesn't stop for 2000+ words or so. It reads a lot better
than Toynbee, fersher.
The working class, designated by Hillary Clinton as "the Trump deplorables," is now the victimizer, not the victim. Marxism
has been stood on its head.
The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups
and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming
at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers.
The ruling elite favors a "conversation on race," because the ruling elite know it can only result in accusations that will
further divide society. Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues,"
in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history
with fake history.
All of America, indeed of the entire West, lives in The Matrix, a concocted [and false] reality. Western peoples are so
propagandized, so brainwashed, that they have no understanding that their disunity was created in order to make them impotent
in the face of a rapacious ruling class, a class whose arrogance and hubris has the world on the brink of nuclear Armageddon.
History as it actually happened is disappearing as those who tell the truth are dismissed as misogynists, racists, homophobes,
Putin agents, terrorist sympathizers, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theorists. Liberals who complained mightily of McCarthyism
now practice it ten-fold.
The United States with its brainwashed and incompetent population -- indeed, the entirety of the Western populations are
incompetent -- and with its absence of intelligent leadership has no chance against Russia and China, two massive countries
arising from their overthrow of police states as the West descends into a gestapo state. The West is over and done with. Nothing
remains of the West but the lies used to control the people. All hope is elsewhere.
After waiting eight months for the DOJ to turn over the "electronic communication" (EC) -
the document which the FBI used to launch the original counterintelligence investigation
against the Trump campaign, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) told Fox
News that upon review - the EC reveals that no intelligence was used to launch the probe .
Nunes also touched on the fact that Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal pushed
anti-Trump memos to the
Obama State Department , written by Clinton "hatchet man" Cody Shearer and passed to
Jonathan Winer, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State.
" We now know that there was no official intelligence that was used to start this
investigation. We know that Sidney Blumenthal and others were pushing information into the
State Department . So we're trying to piece all that together and that's why we continue to
look at the State Department ," Nunes told Maria Bartiromo on "Sunday Morning
Futures."
Nunes noted that no intelligence was shared with the U.S. from any of the members
of the "Five Eyes" agreement - that being Canada, the UK, Australia , New Zealand and the USA.
" We are not supposed to spy on each other's citizens, and it's worked well ," he said. "And
it continues to work well. And we know it's working well because there was no intelligence that
passed through the Five Eyes channels to our government . And that's why we had to see that
original communication ."
This is relevant because the FBI says that the Trump investigation was kicked off after
Australian diplomat Alexander Downer told the FBI that Trump campaign associate George
Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted in a London pub that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary
Clinton. The New York Times reported last
December that " Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their
American counterparts , according to four current and former American and foreign officials
with direct knowledge of the Australians' role."
This was clearly not true according to the EC, which states that no intelligence passed
through Five Eyes official channels.
Many have also raised questions over the fact that Alexander Downer, the source of the
intelligence which launched the Trump investigation (and not through official channels) is
absolutely a friend of the Clintons .
According to information provided by Australian policeman-turned investigative journalist,
Michael Smith - the Clinton Foundation received some $88
million from Australian taxpayers between 2006 and 2014, reaching its peak in 2012-2013 -
which was coincidentally (we're sure) Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's last year in
office. Smith names several key figures in his complaints of malfeasance, including Bill and
Hillary Clinton and Alexander Downer .
The materials Smith gave to the FBI concern the MOU between the Clinton Foundation's
HIV/AIDs Initiative (CHAI) and the Australian government.
Smith claims the foundation received a " $25M financial advantage dishonestly obtained by
deception " as a result of actions by Bill Clinton and Downer, who was then Australia's
minister of foreign affairs.
Also included in the Smith materials are evidence he believes shows " corrupt October 2006
backdating of false tender advertisements purporting to advertise the availability of a $15
million contract to provide HIV/AIDS services in Papua New Guinea on behalf of the Australian
government after an agreement was already in place to pay the Clinton Foundation and/or
associates."- Lifezette
And during the various Russia probes, Congressional investigators weren't told about
Downer's connection to the Clinton Foundation .
"Republicans say they are concerned the new information means nearly all of the early
evidence the FBI used to justify its election-year probe of Trump came from sources supportive
of the Clintons, including the controversial Steele dossier," reports
The Hill .
"The Clintons' tentacles go everywhere. So, that's why it's important," said Rep. Jim Jordan
(R-Ohio) chairman of a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee. " We continue to get
new information every week it seems that sort of underscores the fact that the FBI hasn't been
square with us. "
State Department in the Crosshairs
Nunes then told Fox' s Maria Bartiromo that the House Intel Committee is now honing in on
the State Department due to signs of "major irregularities " in how the alleged Papadopoulos
comments reached U.S. intelligence agencies.
"We know a little bit about that because of what some of the State Department officials
themselves have said about that," Nunes said, adding that "We have to make sure that our
agencies talk and they work out problems. We have to make sure that they don't spy on either
Americans citizens or that we're not spying on British citizens."
Still, Nunes doesn't know whether former secretary of state, and then-Democratic challenger
to Trump in the election, was pulling the strings of the investigation launched against her
political opponent. However, he said it is known that two long-time Clinton associates –
including Sidney Blumenthal – were "actively" giving information to the State Department,
which "was somehow making its way to the FBI." -
Fox Business
Meanwhile, as we reported in
February , a former official in President Obama's State Department has confirmed a claim by
the Senate Judiciary Committee, that former British spy Christopher Steele and Hillary Clinton
confidant Sidney Blumenthal gave him intelligence reports claiming that President Trump had
been compromised by the Russians.
Jonathan Winer, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, confirmed the Judiciary
Committee's claims in an op-ed for the
Washington Post titled "Devin Nunes is investigating me: Here's the Truth."
"While talking about that hacking, Blumenthal and I discussed Steele's reports. He showed me
notes gathered by a journalist I did not know, Cody Shearer, that alleged the Russians had
compromising information on Trump of a sexual and financial nature," writes Winer.
In September 2016, Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known
as the "dossier." Steele's sources suggested that the Kremlin not only had been behind the
hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign but also had
compromised Trump and developed ties with his associates and campaign.
Winer's op-ed corroborates the series of events outlined in a criminal referral for Steele
issued by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC),
which asks the DOJ to investigate Steele for allegedly lying to the FBI about his contacts with
the media.
Winer then gave Steele various anti-Trump memos from Clinton operative Sidney Blumenthal,
which originated with Clinton "hatchet man" Cody Shearer . Winer claims he didn't think Steele
would share the Clinton-sourced information with anyone else in the government.
" But I learned later that Steele did share them -- with the FBI, after the FBI asked him to
provide everything he had on allegations relating to Trump, his campaign and Russian
interference in U.S. elections ," Winer writes.
Comey Memos
Nunes then said that the release of the Comey memos was significant in that they would seem
to exonerate President Trump of collusion.
The mainstream media and the dems have been running around talking about collusion,
collusion, collusion. when they realized there was no collusion, they moved on to obstruction
of justice, obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice.
" Once you read all of the Comey memos, it becomes Exhibit A in the defense that there was
no obstruction of justice ."
The Chairman also noted that the Comey memos reveal Trump actually wanted his campaign
investigated, telling Bartiromo " when you have the President of the US saying "Look,
investigate all of my people. If anyone in my campaign was colluding with the Russians, I wanna
know and they need to be brought to justice, " Adding "Something of that nature is in the Comey
memos."
Nunes also pointed out that Comey and Andrew McCabe are probably both in quite a bit of
trouble:
Nunes: When you match up Mr. Comey's memos with what's in his book, with the interviews
that he's giving I think he's got a lot of problems coming in the future as it relates to
what the IG is looking at into his behavior during the Clinton email investigation.
Bartiromo: What kind of problems? We know that the IG has recommended criminal charges
against his former deputy Andrew McCabe.
Nunes: " His lawyer has said no, Mr. Comey is lying - is essentially what Mr. McCabe is
saying , that Comey did give him the right to go to the press... Clearly the IG believed Mr.
Comey that he did not give Mr. McCabe the ability to go to the press .
Nunes then went into Comey's conduct - positing that the former FBI Director "laundered"
classified memos to a friend, who leaked them to the New York Times - and that others may have
received them as well .
The memos that he wrote - the seven memos that he wrote on President Trump, noting that
Comey hadn't written memos on anyone else - four of them were classified. He decided to then
launder them to a friend, who leaked them to the New York Times . If those memos contained
classified information, he purposely did that, he purposely leaked them to get a Special
Counsel started after he was fired. He leaked pieces of these, so we need to figure out
exactly what is it he leaked. Who did he give these memos to? Was it just the friend that
leaked them to the New York Times, or were there others? I believe there were others , I
believe these Comey memos were actually given to several people - that contained classified
information. The irony is - the very thing that Mr. Comey cleared Mrs. Clinton of .
All of that said - whether or not the noose is actually tightening around anyone's neck is
up to the DOJ, as they can simply ignore the various criminal referrals made against McCabe and
others. What can't be denied, at this point, is that both the Mueller investigation and the
original counterintelligence investigation launched against Donald Trump and his campaign - and
the complicit narrative-shaping performed by the MSM - appear to have been a highly coordinated
effort to prevent Hillary Clinton from losing the White House.
Trump advisors Joe diGenova and Alan Dershowitz discussed just Hannity Saturday - with
Dershowitz somehow coming to the conclusion that the entirety of the ongoing against Trump are
nothing more than coincidence.
A wonderful example of how strong the programming is within us is the fact we must
constantly tell ourselves the matrix is an illusion.
The primary purpose of 'official' propaganda is to compel those who oppose it to
constantly assert that the propaganda is false.
The secondary purpose is to let everyone know if you want employment within the matrix
you're going to need to sing the same tune, regardless how ridiculous it might be.
This is the official tune. Now sing you motherfuckers....sing for your supper.
"... RT's Arabic service also tracked down an 11-year old boy filmed in the "attack," and found him in completely good health and able to answer questions of the RT reporter. He told her he was with his mother when they were urged to enter the clinic. "We were outside," the boy said, and they told all of us to go into the hospital. I was immediately taken upstairs, and they started pouring water on me." ..."
"... US still paying White Helmets despite $200mn-aid freeze for Syria recovery, State Dept. confirms | 20 April 2018 ..."
"... This shit just keeps getting deeper, and so many questions to ask, but the main question is why would Trump ever believe any intelligence agency was telling him the truth? The last time I looked, it was the intelligence agencies that lied, leaked, and this time set Trump up. ..."
The celebrated White Helmets of Oscar
fame appeared to have made their own feature film in Duma on the night of the alleged chemical
attack...
At the center of the controversy over an alleged chemical attack in the Damascus suburb
of Duma on April 7 are the White Helmets, a self-described rescue operation about whom an
Oscar-winning documentary was made.
Reporter and author Max Blumenthal has
tracked
the
role of the White Helmets in the Syrian conflict. He reported that the White Helmets were created
in Turkey by James Le Mesurier, a former British MI5 agent. The group has received at least $55
million from the British Foreign Office and $23 million from the U.S. Agency for International
Development as well as millions from the Kingdom of Qatar, which has backed a variety of extremist
groups in Syria including Al Qaeda.
Blumenthal writes,
"When Defense Secretary James Mattis
cited
'social
media' in place of scientific evidence of a chemical attack in Duma, he was referring to video shot
by members of the White Helmets.
Similarly, when State Department spokesperson Heather
Nauert sought to explain why the US bombed Syria before inspectors from the OPCW could produce a
report from the ground, she
claimed
,
'We have our own intelligence.' With little else to offer, she was likely referring to social media
material published by members of the White Helmets.
"
The reference to social media as evidence in the most serious decision a leader can make -- to
engage in an act of war -- is part of a disturbing trend. Then Secretary of State John Kerry pointed
to "social media" as evidence of the Syrian government's guilt in a 2013 chemical attack in the
same Damascus suburb. But as Robert Parry, the late founder and editor of this site,
pointed
out
in numerous reports, Syrian government guilt was far from a sure thing.
Rather than wait for the arrival of a team of experts from the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to assess whether chemicals had even used in this latest incident,
Trump gave the order to bomb.
Gas!
The possible role of the White Helmets in the latest alleged chemical attack was first
revealed by veteran Middle East reporter Robert Fisk,
writing for
The Independent
.
In "The Search for Truth in the Rubble of Douma-And One Doctor's Doubts Over the Chemical
Attacks," Fisk
reported
that
he tracked down 58-year-old Syrian doctor Assim Rahaibani.
A White Helmet (Photo: whitehelmets.org)l
The doctor told Fisk that he learned from fellow physicians who were on duty at the clinic the
night of the attack. Rahaibani said patients were brought in by "jihadi gunmen of Jaish el-Islam
[the Army of Islam]" in Duma and that
the patients appeared to be "overcome not by gas
but by oxygen starvation in the rubbish-filled tunnels and basements in which they lived, on a
night of wind and heavy shelling that stirred up a dust storm."
Rahaibani told Fisk,
"I was with my family in the basement of my home three hundred metres
from here on the night but all the doctors know what happened. There was a lot of shelling [by
government forces] and aircraft were always over Duma at night – but on this night, there was wind
and huge dust clouds began to come into the basements and cellars where people lived.
People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss."
Rahaibani continued:
"Then someone at the door, a 'White Helmet,' shouted 'Gas!', and a panic began.
People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine,
but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia – not gas poisoning."
Fisk writes that,
"
There are the many people I talked to amid the ruins of the town
who said they had 'never believed in' gas stories – which were usually put about, they claimed, by
the armed Islamist groups.
These particular jihadis survived under a blizzard of shellfire
by living in other's people's homes and in vast, wide tunnels with underground roads carved through
the living rock by prisoners with pick-axes on three levels beneath the town. I walked through
three of them yesterday, vast corridors of living rock which still contained Russian – yes, Russian
– rockets and burned-out cars."
Significantly,
Fisk reported that locals told him that White Helmets left with jihadists
bused out of Duma in a deal made with the Syrian government and Russia, which provided security for
the transfer.
Other Reports
Other reporters have corroborated what Fisk found. Reporter Pearson Sharp of One America News, a
conservative Christian TV network and supporter of President Trump,
interviewed
doctors
and witnesses at the clinic.
They also said there was no chemical attack and that strangers
came into the clinic and shouted "Gas!" and filmed the reaction.
RT's Arabic service also tracked down an 11-year old boy filmed in the "attack," and found him
in completely good health and able to
answer
questions
of the RT reporter. He told her he was with his mother when they were urged to enter
the clinic.
"We were outside," the boy said, and they told all of us to go into the
hospital. I was immediately taken upstairs, and they started pouring water on me."
* * *
Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army/Army Reserves and retired as a Colonel. She was
also a US diplomat and was in US Embassies in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan,
Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. She resigned from the US government in March
2003 in opposition to the lies the Bush administration was stating as the rationale for the
invasion, occupation and destruction of Iraq. She is the co-author of "Dissent: Voices of
Conscience."
Tags
Politics
The director of the OPCW, Ahmet Uzumcu, a former career
diplomat with the Turk foreign ministry – a former Turk
ambassador to the Zionist Apartheid State (7-28-1999 to
6-30-2002). He was also, amazingly, Turkey's former
representative to NATO. Being a Turk with qualifications like
this would make anyone suspect that his credibility was fragile
to nil.
This shit just keeps getting deeper, and so many questions to ask, but the
main question is why would Trump ever believe any intelligence agency was
telling him the truth? The last time I looked, it was the intelligence
agencies that lied, leaked, and this time set Trump up.
Since his son in law enjoys parties out on the Hampton with George
Soros, perhaps ol' George can fill him in and carry the "facts" back to
Trump....first hand. CNN waits.
Trump is a huckster, and is all in for anything related to scamming
Americans and anyone else who would believe what he says or does. It
has nothing to do with 'Intelligence'.
I noticed on the previous alleged gas attack the oppo seemed to look
for the whitest kids possible. I guess they couldn't find enough this
time, but dress them up nice for the cameras lol.
Ha! That's what I was saying before the tomahawk strike... is there a way to
target the white helmets first? Save us from their lies in the future.... I guess
we'll be forced to leave that heavy lifting to Assad and Putin.
"jihadi gunmen of Jaish el-Islam [the Army of Islam]" Galloway posed a question to the British Government and people that
deserves an answer from the likes of their PM.
'Why are we supporting a group that calls itself the Army of Islam?'
Well maybe because they stink on ice and everyone thats pulled their head
out of their ass noticed. Even taken at face values both of these stories
and many others defy basic logic.
That's especially embarrassing since, if this was a staged fake event, the
official experts fell for it or more likely pretending they fell for it.
I'm not sure but MSM might still be pretending to fall for it*.
A good
journalist would be there finding out about the "White Helmets" for
example, who is in charge and by what authority they have being there.
* long list of pretenders includes congress and the dotard.
The possible role of the White Helmets in the latest alleged chemical
attack was first revealed by veteran Middle East reporter Robert Fisk,
writing
for
The Independent
. Actually, Vanessa Beely reported it almost a week
before the honorable Mr. Fisk
"Rogers did not respond to either email, according to journalist Max
Blumenthal, who obtained the messages. Instead of giving the stage to the White
Helmets during his Barcelona concert, Waters denounced the organization.
"The White Helmets is a fake organization that exists only to create
propaganda for jihadists and terrorists.""
RW, despite his Jewish Heritage, has loooooong been outspoken against
Israeli fuckery in Syria, Palestine, Lebanon etc etc
Not to the same
scale/degree as Norm Finkelstein, but he's an intellectual and does it for
a living; not that RW's isn't real smart.
Fact is, due to his music he can reach so many more ordinary people.
Shows you how fucking dumb Clooney & his White Helmets are approaching
Waters, oblivious to the fact he's been calling out Zionists/Others for
decades.
We need more great people like him in the struggle.
An unusual triple alliance is emerging from the Syrian war, one that could alter the balance
of power in the Middle East, unhinge the NATO alliance, and complicate the Trump
administration's designs on Iran. It might also lead to yet another double cross of one of the
region's largest ethnic groups, the Kurds.
However, the "troika alliance" -- Turkey, Russia and Iran -- consists of three countries
that don't much like one another, have different goals, and whose policies are driven by a
combination of geo-global goals and internal politics. In short, "fragile and complicated"
doesn't even begin to describe it.
How the triad might be affected by the joint U.S., French and British attack on Syria is
unclear, but in the long run the alliance will likely survive the uptick of hostilities.
But common ground was what came out of the April 4 meeting between Turkish President Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Meeting
in Ankara, the parties pledged to support the "territorial integrity" of Syria, find a
diplomatic end to the war, and to begin a reconstruction of a Syria devastated by seven years
of war. While Russia and Turkey explicitly backed the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, Iran was
quiet on that issue, preferring a regional solution without
"foreign plans."
"Common ground," however, doesn't mean the members of the "troika" are on the same page.
Turkey's interests are both internal and external. The Turkish Army is currently conducting
two military operations in northern Syria, Olive Branch and Euphrates Shield, aimed at driving
the mainly Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) out of land that borders Turkey. But those
operations are also deeply entwined with Turkish politics.
Erdogan's internal support has been eroded by a number of factors: exhaustion with the
ongoing state of emergency imposed following the 2016 attempted coup, a
shaky economy , and a precipitous fall in the value of the Turkish pound. Rather than
waiting for 2019, Erdogan called for snap elections this past week and beating up on the Kurds
is always popular with right-wing Turkish nationalists. Erdogan needs all the votes he can get
to imlement his newly minted executive presidency that will give him virtually one-man
rule.
To be part of the alliance, however, Erdogan has had to modify his goal of getting rid of
Syrian President Bashar Assad and to agree -- at this point, anyhow -- to eventually withdraw
from areas in northern Syria seized by the Turkish Army.
Russia and Iran have called for turning over the regions conquered by the Turks to the
Syrian Army.
Moscow's goals are to keep a foothold in the Middle East with its only base, Tartus, and to
aid its long-time ally, Syria. The Russians are not deeply committed to Assad personally, but
they want a friendly government in Damascus. They also want to destroy al-Qaeda and the Islamic
State, which have caused Moscow considerable trouble in the Caucasus.
Russia also wouldn't mind driving a wedge between Ankara and NATO. After the U.S., Turkey
has NATO's second largest army. NATO broke a 1989 agreement not to recruit former members of
the Russian-dominated Warsaw Pact into NATO as a quid pro quo for the Soviets withdrawing from
Eastern Europe. But since the Yugoslav War in 1999 the alliance has marched right up to the
borders of Russia. The 2008 war with Georgia and 2014 seizure of the Crimea were largely a
reaction to what Moscow sees as an encirclement strategy by its adversaries.
Turkey has been at
odds with its NATO allies around a dispute between Greece and Cyprus over sea-based
oil and gas resources , and it recently charged two
Greek soldiers who violated the Turkish border with espionage. Erdogan is also angry that
European Union countries refuse to extradite Turkish soldiers and civilians who he claims
helped engineer the 2016 coup against him. While most NATO countries condemned Moscow for the
recent attack on two Russians in Britain, the
Turks pointedly did not .
Turkish relations with Russia have an
economic side as well. Ankara want a natural gas pipeline from Russia, has broken ground on
a $20 billion Russian nuclear reactor, and just shelled out $2.5 billion for Russia's S-400
anti-aircraft system.
The Russians do not support Erdogan's war on the Kurds and have lobbied for
the inclusion of Kurdish delegations in negotiations over the future of Syria. But Moscow
clearly gave the Turks a green light to attack the Kurdish city of Afrin last month, driving
out the YPG that had liberated it from the Islamic State and Turkish-backed al-Qaeda groups. A
number of Kurds charge that Moscow has betrayed
them .
The question now is, will the Russians stand aside if the Turkish forces move further into
Syria and attack the city of Manbij, where the Kurds are allied with U.S. and French forces?
And will Erdogan's hostility to the Kurds lead to an
armed clash among three NATO members?
Such a clash seems unlikely, although the Turks have been giving flamethrower speeches over
the past several weeks. "Those who cooperate with terrorists organizations [the YPG] will be
targeted by Turkey," says Turkish Deputy Prime Minister
Bekir Bozdag said in a pointed reference to France's support for the Kurds. Threatening the
French is one thing, picking a fight with the U.S. military quite another.
Of course, if President Trump pulls U.S. forces out of Syria, it will be tempting for Turkey
to move in. While the "troika alliance" has agreed to Syrian "sovereignty," that won't stop
Ankara from meddling in Kurdish affairs. The Turks are already appointing governors and mayors
for the areas in Syria they have occupied.
Iran's major concern in Syria is maintaining a buffer between itself and a very aggressive
alliance of the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia, which seems to be in the preliminary stages of
planning a war against the second-largest country in the Middle East.
Iran is not at all the threat it has been pumped up to be. Its military is miniscule and
talk of a so-called "Shiite crescent" -- Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon -- is pretty much a
western invention (although the term was dreamed up by the King of Jordan).
Tehran has been weakened by crippling sanctions and faces the possibility that Washington
will withdraw from the nuclear accord and re-impose yet more sanctions. The appointment of
National Security Advisor John Bolton, who openly calls for regime change in Iran, has to have
sent a chill down the spines of the Iranians. What Tehran needs most of all is allies who will
shield it from the enmity of the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia. In this regard, Turkey and
Russia could be helpful.
Iran has modified its original goals in Syria of a Shiite-dominated regime by agreeing to a
"non-sectarian character" for a post-war Syria. Erdogan has also given up on his desire for a
Sunni-dominated government in Damascus.
War with Iran would be catastrophic, an unwinnable conflict that could destabilize the
Middle East even more than it is now. It would, however, drive up the price of oil, currently
running at around $66 a barrel. Saudi Arabia needs to sell its oil for at least $100 a barrel,
or it will very quickly run of money. The on-going quagmire of the Yemen war, the need to
diversify the economy, and the growing clamor by young Saudis -- 70 percent of the population
-- for jobs requires lots of money, and the current trends in oil pricing are not going to
cover the bills.
War and oil make for
odd bedfellows . While the Saudis are doing their best to overthrow the Assad regime and
fuel the extremists fighting the Russians, Riyadh is wooing Moscow to sign onto to a long-term
OPEC agreement to control oil supplies. That probably won't happen -- the Russians are fine
with oil at $50 to $60 a barrel -- and are wary of agreements that would restrict their right
to develop new oil and gas resources. The Saudi's jihad on the Iranians has a desperate edge to
it, as well it might. The greatest threat to the Kingdom has always come from within.
The rocks and shoals that can wreck alliances in the Middle East are too numerous to count,
and the "troika" is riven with contradictions and conflicting interests. But the war in Syria
looks as if it is coming to some kind of resolution, and at this point Iran, Russia and Turkey
seem to be the only actors who have a script that goes beyond lobbing cruise missiles at
people.
The father of Imran Awan - a longtime IT aide from Pakistan who made "unauthorized access" to the
House computer network -
reportedly transferred a USB drive to the former head of a
Pakistani intelligence agency
, alleges the father's ex-business partner, Rashid Minhas.
Imran Awan and wife Hina Alvi
Minhas told the
Daily Caller News Foundation
(DCNF) - which traveled to Pakistan to
interview those involved - that Haji Ashraf Awan, Imran Awan's father, had been giving information
to Rehman Malik - former head of Pakistan's Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and current senator.
Malik was appointed to Interior Minister in early 2008, only to step down in 2013 after he lost a
Supreme Court hearing over holding dual UK citizenship.
Minhas told The Daily Caller News Foundation that Imran Awan's father, Haji Ashraf Awan, was
giving data to Pakistani official Rehman Malik, and that Imran bragged he had the power to "
change
the U.S. president.
"
Asked for how he knew this, he said that on one occasion in 2008 when a
"USB [was]
given to Rehman Malik by Imran's father, my brother Abdul Razzaq was with his father
."
-
DCNF
"After Imran's father deliver (sic) USB to Rehman Malik, four Pakistani [government
intelligence] agents were with his father 24-hour on duty to protect him," he said - however Minhas
did not say what was on the USB.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague (left), Rehman Malik
The House watchdog, Inspector General Michael Ptasienski, charged in September 30, 2016 that
data was being
siphoned off
of the House Network by the Awans as recently as two months before the US
presidential election.
The Awan family had virtually unlimited access to Democratic House members' computers, including
classified information.
Nearly Imran's entire immediate family was on the House payroll working as IT aides
to one-fifth of House Democrats
, and he began working for the House in 2004. The
inspector general, Michael Ptasienski, testified this month that "
system administrators
hold the 'keys to the kingdom' meaning they can create accounts, grant access, view, download,
update, or delete almost any electronic information within an office. Because of this high-level
access, a rogue system administrator could inflict considerable damage
." -
DCNF
According to Minhas - "Imran Awan said to me directly these words: '
See how I control
White House on my fingertip
' He say he can fire the prime minister or change the U.S.
president," Minhas said. "
Why the claiming big stuff, I [didn't] understand 'till now
."
"
I was Imran father's partner in Pakistan,
" Minhas said, in two land deals
in Pakistan so big that they are often referred to as "towns."
In 2009, both men were
accused of fraud
, and
Haji was arrested but then released after Imran flew to
Pakistan
, "allegedly exerting pressure on the local police through the ministry as
well as the department concerned," according to local news. Minhas and multiple alleged victims
in Pakistan also told TheDCNF
Imran exerted political influence in Pakistan to extricate
his father from the case
. -
DCNF
Minhas is currently sitting in US federal prison for fraud, and the
Daily Caller
says
they can not confirm whether Minhas' claims about the USB is true. That said,
Minhas says
that neither the DOJ nor the FBI ever interviewed him about the Awans
, which is odd
considering that he's available and connected to Imran Awan.
He is also one of many people with past relationships with the Awans who have said
they believe they are aggressive opportunists who will do
anything for money
.
And parts of Minhas's story correlate with observations
elsewhere. Haji's wife, Samina Gilani -- Imran's stepmother -- said in
court documents
that Imran used his IT skills to wiretap her as a means of exerting pressure
on her.
Haji would frequently boast that Imran's position gave him political leverage, numerous
Pakistani residents told TheDCNF. "
My son own White House in D.C.
," he would
say, according to Minhas. "
I am kingmaker
."
Senator Malik has denied any relationship with the parties reportedly involved, saying "I am
hearing their names for the first time. I am in public and people always do name-dropping."
Imran Awan's attorney Chris Gowen says Minhas's claims are
"completely and totally
false."
The Awans were banned from the congressional network on Feb 2, 2017 by House Seargant-At-Arms,
Paul Irving - after the IG report concluded that the Awans had been making "unauthorized access" to
House servers. The Awans
were logging in using Congressional members' personal usernames
,
as well as breaching servers for members they did not work for.
After several members fired
them, the Awans continued to access their data
, says the IG.
The behavior mirrored a "classic method for insiders to exfiltrate data from an
organization,"
and "steps are being taken [by the Awans] to conceal their activity," reads
the report.
Shortly before the 2016 election, the House Democratic Caucus server was breached by Awan - who
authorities believe secretly moved
all the data
of over 12 House members' offices onto the caucus server.
The server may have been "
used for nefarious purposes and elevated the risk that
individuals could be reading and/or removing information,
" an IG presentation said.
The Awans logged into it 27 times a day, far more than any other computer they
administered
.
Imran's most forceful advocate and longtime employer is Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie
Wasserman Schultz, who led the DNC until she resigned following a hack that exposed committee
emails. Wikileaks published those emails, and they show that
DNC staff summoned Imran
when they needed her password
. -
DCNF
Shortly after the IG report came out,
the House Democratic Caucus server - which the
Awans were funneling data onto,
was physically stolen
according to three
government officials. During the same period of time, the Awans were shedding assets at a rapid
pace.
In January 2017 they took out a loan intended for home improvement, falsely claimed a medical
emergency in order to cash out their House retirement account, and
wired $300,000
overseas
, according to an FBI affidavit. -
DCNF
The FBI arrested Imran Awan at Dulles Airport in July 2017 while trying to flee to Pakistan with
a wiped cell phone and a resume that listed a Queens, NY address. Imran and his wife, Hina Alvi,
were indicted last August on charges of bank fraud - which prosecutors contend was hastened
after the Awans had likely learned that authorities were closing in on them for various other
activities
.
That said, neither Imran nor Hina have been charged over the unauthorized access
concluded
by the House's own Inspector General,
after reviewing server logs. Three other suspects,
Jamal and Abid Awan, and Rao Abbas, have faced no charges whatsoever.
Eleven GOP members of Congress led by Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) have written a letter to Attorney
General Jeff Sessions, Attorney John Huber, and FBI Director Christopher Wray -
asking
them to investigate former FBI Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton and others - including FBI
lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page
, for a laundry list of potential crimes surrounding
the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Recall that Sessions paired special prosecutor John Huber with DOJ Inspector General Michael
Horowitz - falling short of a second Special Counsel, but empowering Horowitz to fully investigate
allegations of FBI FISA abuse with subpoena power and other methods he was formerly unable to
utilize.
The GOP letter's primary focus appears to be James Comey, while the charges for all include
obstruction, perjury, corruption, unauthorized removal of classified documents, contributions and
donations by foreign nationals and other allegations.
The letter also demands that Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein "be recused from any
examination of FISA abuse
," and recommends that "
neither U.S. Attorney John Huber
nor a special counsel (if appointed) should report to Rosenstein.
"
The letter refers the following individuals for the following conduct:
"Comey's decision not to seek charges against Clinton's misconduct s
uggests improper
investigative conduct
, potentially motivated by a political agenda."
The letter calls Comey out for leaking his confidential memos to the press. "
In
light of the fact that four of the seven memos were classified, it would appear that former
Director Comey leaked classified information when sharing these memos...
"
Comey "circulated a draft statement" of the FBI's decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton for
mishandling classified information - a conclusion reached before the agency had interviewed key
witnesses. "At that point, 17 interviews with potential witnesses had not taken place, including
with Clinton and her chief of staff..."
The letter also seeks clarification on "material inconsistencies between the description of
the FBI's relationship with
Mr. Steele
that you [then FBI Director Comey] did
provide in your briefing and information contained in Justice Department documents made
available to the Committee only after the briefing."
Hillary Clinton - contributions and donations by foreign nationals
"A lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid
Washington firm Fusion GPS to conduct research that led to the Steele dossier..."
"Accordingly, for disguising payments to Fusion GPS on mandatory disclosures to the
Federal Election Commission, we refer Hillary Clinton to DOJ for potential violation(s) of 52
USC 30121 and 52 USC 30101"
Loretta Lynch - obstruction, corruption
"We raise concerns regarding her decision
to threaten with reprisal the former FBI
informant who tried to come forward in 2016 with insight into the Uranium One deal
."
Of note, this refers to longtime CIA and FBI undercover informant
William D. Campbell
, who came forward with evidence of bribery schemes
involving Russian nuclear officials, an American trucking company,
and efforts to route
money to the Clinton Global Initiative
(CGI).
Andrew McCabe - false statements, perjury, obstruction
"During the internal Hillary Clinton investigation, Mr. McCabe "lacked candor -- including
under oath -- on multiple occasions," the letter reads. "That is a fireable offense, and Mr.
Sessions said that career, apolotical employees at the F.B.I. and Justice Department agreed that
Mr. McCabe should be fired."
"The DOJ Office of the Inspector General recently released a February 2018 misconduct
report... confirming four instances of McCabe's lack of candor, including three instances under
oath, as well as the conclusion that McCabe's decision to confirm the existence of the Clinton
Foundation Investigation through an anonymously sourced quite violated the FBI's and DOJ's media
policy and constituted misconduct."
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page - obstruction, corruption,
"We raise concerns regarding their interference in the Hillary Clinton investigation
regarding her use of a personal email server."
Referring to a
Wall Street Journal
article from January 22, 2018 - "The report
provides the following alarming specifics, among others: "
Mr. Strzok texts Ms. Page to
tell her that, in fact, senior officials had decided to water down the reference to President
Obama to 'another senior government official
." By the time Mr. Comey gave his public
statement on July 5, both references - to Mr. Obama and to "another senior government official"
had disappeared."
"Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI personnel connected to the compilation of documents
on alleged links between Russia and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump known as the "Steele
dossier."
This section of the letter calls out Comey, McCabe, former acting AG Sally Yates, and former
acting Deputy AG Dana Boente regarding the Steele dossier.
"
we raise concerns regarding the presentation of false and/or unverified information
to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in connection with the former Trump aide Carter
Page"
"Former and current DOJ and FBI leadership have confirmed to the Committee that
unverified information from the Steele dossier comprised an essential part of the FISA
applications related to Carter Page"
"Accordingly
we refer to DOJ all DOJ and FBI personnel responsible for signing the
Carter Page warrant application that contained unverified and/or false information"
The criminal referrals for the group allegedly responsible for FISA abuse include:
obstruction,
deprivation of rights
under color of law, corruption.
Count on an inverted yield curve and Treasury Department derivative losses in the trillions
on interest rate swaps sold to Wall Street banks.
Wall Street banks have been buying surplus US government debt that the world doesn't want
to finance huge budget deficits over the last 10 years and the Treasury Department sold them
insurance protection against capital loses on that debt.
A lot of malinvestment in fracking and share buybacks with borrowed money has
overleveraged corporations. Personal debt, corporate debt and government debt compared to GDP
are at 1929 levels and a lot of that debt will be uncollectible.
The USA has kicked the financial can down the road for 10 years. It created a huge asset
inflation bubble with borrowed money ie all malinvestment via interest rate suppression by
the Fed that will blow up when the yield curve goes inverted signifying a financial panic is
underway. That is the demand for short-term money(to borrow) is greater than the supply of
money to short-term borrow.(to lend)
All I have to do is look at the SPX chart of the SP500 to know the US is FUKUS. The bull
market that started in 2008 has started a head&shoulders topping pattern. In 2019 I
expect 52-week lows to be hit and a bear market worse the 2008 financial crisis to be
underway.
People keep tossing out "The US economy is tanking, it is going to implode/explode/crumble
sooner or later" etc., etc. Such beliefs may be soothing to hold but they do not rest on
knowledge or economic literacy. Briefly, here is why.
Economies do not tank because of massive credit. Money Supply = M1 + M2 + M3, where M3 is
the outstanding credit in the economy. The US M3 is huge because the economy itself is huge.
Modern economies have moved away from paper notes and in future all money supply will
essentially be M2 + M3. M2 (total outstanding bank deposits) and M3 are in turn fusing into
one as credit card payments replace the practice of mailing out cheques.
Nor is high foreign indebtedness in itself a sign of future imminent collapse. Yes, it is
worryingly high presently, but no it is not imminent that some sort of disaster will befall
the US Treasury. No one forces the rest-of-the world to buy US treasuries, bonds, and stocks.
Yet governments, corporations, and individuals from all over the world line-up to buy these.
Ask yourselves why. The answer is: Money and Capital flows to low risk and high return zones.
This is how it always has been, and this is how it always will be. Why do Alibaba and the
other Chinese majors seek listing on American stock exchanges?
Yes, there are plenty of things wrong with the USA, and yes it may end up paying a dear
price for its arrogance, aggression, and cruelty all over the world (not to talk of its
collapsing morality, ethics and social cohesion at home) but there is nothing the matter with
its economy. Those who wait for its supposedly "Ponzi scheme" to collapse will wait to
eternity, I am afraid.
@guest. I think your conclusion that the US economy is not tanking is blinkered. The US
economy tanked in 2008 and would had crashed into a worse depression had not the Chinese held
up the US economy (the Chinese also held up Europe by holding up the German economy). Alibaba
is not the biggest Chinese company to list in the US. The biggest which is twice as
profitable, twice the market capitalisation of Alibaba(more than USD500 billion) and listed
on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, is Tencent.
The US economy and the US dollar was viewed as safe haven becuase there was no
alternative. The US dollar and the US economy became a bubble because of the global demand
for the US dollar resulting from there being no alternative. Besides the use of the USD is
enforced by the US military.
But, if you have been following the latest economic development, that had changed. The US
economy is no longer the biggest, certainly not the strongest. The US dollar is no longer
indispensable. It's value is now perched on the edge of a sharp slippery slope due to US
financial mismanagement and profligacy ala the late great USSR!
Its stupendous, useless, egoistic and hubristic military spending and other factors will
push the US economy down that very slippery slope to oblivion.
But China will be waiting at the bottom of that slope to cushion the fall!
No, it's not over Saker, but compared to 2007 victory is in sight.
First, my opinion is that the Russia/China asymmetric attack on US dollar hegemony will
create a second financial crisis next year, worse than the one in 2008.
Second, in my opinion, Russia and China are winning on the most important Grand
Strategic/Moral level of warfare for global public opinion. The UN votes are illustrative of
that moral victory. Also, Qatar, Turkey and the Philippines switching sides are examples of
moral victory.
"Facts simply don't matter. And neither does logic. All that matters are perceptions!"
That's the perfect strategy to defeat yourself.
"Those who defeat others are strong, those who defeat themselves are mighty." Lao Tzu
Napolean marched into Russia in 1812 with lot's of allies but left several months later
with none.
I agree with MK Bhadrakumar assessment of the strike on Syria over your assessment. It's a
moral defeat for the F#$%ing stupidest, exceptional nation on the face of the earth.
Well, I'm not sure what old Lao was smoking on that day but if we replace the word
"mighty" with "exceptional" then perhaps Trump fits the bill in a modern context.
Putin the Great vs Trump the Mighty (and Exceptional) who managed to defeat
himself.
Russia and China have stopped buying US Treasuries, in fact are selling down for gold. The
deficit if 1.3T will be more costly to fund, and the debt impossible to service. And China
with the petro-yuan has tolled the death knell. Added to that is the dysfunction of the US
political system. The mid-terms will be very interesting. I doubt Trump will see out 1 term,
never mind 2.
And yes, the so-called US allies are fair weather friend.
Rob is right: the coming economic crisis will be nothing like 2007, or like any depression
that occurred over the past century for that matter. It is the first time a cycle is ending
with interest rates so low, so the trick of lowering them further cannot be used this
time.
Even though hyperinflation is not happening because of globalised and cheap offer (Richard
Duncan), Western economies are slowly collapsing under the burden of debt (Prof Steve Keen,
Prof Michael Hudson).
The global Ponzi scheme will soon end, with major geopolitical consequence. The US, being
given their history, will probably go to full blown war where this can bring most economic
gains. The Chinese are fully aware of that, and are preparing for it All of their plans ( the
OBOR initiative, the petro-yuan) depend on a strong Russia, The Chinese will not let Russia
go down, their own survival depend on Russia.
All the best.
"... Prior to becoming the DNC's most wanted, Comey and his team notoriously let Hillary Clinton off the hook for her private server and mishandling of classified information - having begun drafting Clinton's exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been "forgotten" in his book. ..."
"... You left out the fact that he was instrumental in the formation of the Clinton Foundation. ..."
Current and former FBI agents are furious after former Director James Comey gave his first interview
since President Trump fired him last year to ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday night, reports the
Daily Beast
- which was privy to a play-by-play flurry of text messages and other
communications detailing their reactions.
Seven current or former FBI agents and officials spoke throughout and immediately after the
broadcast.
There was a lot of anger, frustration, and even more emojis -- featuring the
thumbs-down, frowny face, middle finger, and a whole lot of green vomit faces
.
One former FBI official sent a bourbon emoji as it began; another sent the beers cheers-ing
emoji.
The responses became increasingly angry and despondent as the hourlong interview
played out.
-
Daily
Beast
"
Hoover is spinning in his grave
," said a former FBI official. "
Making
money from total failure
," in reference to Comey plugging his book,
A Higher Loyalty
.
Jana Winter of
The Beast
adds that when a promo aired between segments advertising Comey's
upcoming appearance with
The View
, the official "grew angrier." "
Good lord, what a self-serving self-centered jackass
," the official said. "
True
to form he thinks he's the smartest guy around
."
... ... ...
Comey was fired by President Trump on May 9, 2017, after which he
leaked memos he claims
document conversations with Trump
to the
New York Times,
kicking off the special
counsel investigation headed by Robert Mueller - whose team started out looking at Russian influence
in the 2016 election, and is now investigating the President's alleged decade-old extramarital affairs
with at least two women. Truly looking out for national security there Bob...
... ... ...
Prior to becoming the DNC's most wanted, Comey and his team notoriously let Hillary Clinton off the
hook for her private server and mishandling of classified information - having begun
drafting Clinton's exoneration
before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been
"forgotten" in his book.
I would rather have RP if he had the
charisma/gusto and also tactical genius of
DT. However, I worry that Ron, as a guy that
delivered babies and educated people on
nonagression, as opposed to running a
something-billion dollar cutthroat RE empire,
might be more at risk of A) being unable to
overcome political roadblocks and
destabilization, and B) something bad
happening to him.
Comey was always the most enigmatic figure to me in this
sad, troubling series of events involving the FBI.
THE
GOOD NEWS: Everyone hates him now. The Rs hate him, the Ds
hate him. Who's Christmas party did he get invited to last
year? I'm guessing the invitations were few. His own ego
has turned him into plutonium. And he deserves even worse
than that.
Every agency has a Jim Comey in it... you know the guy.
Their CV just has an implied "team skills and natural
ability to get a deep brown nose" at the very top of it.
Comey was the FBI Director when warrants
were issued to spy on Trump and his associates. Warrants
gained in part or in whole by, false evidence (the Steele
dossier) presented to a FISA court judge(s), gathered by,
a foreign national former spy (Steele) who was in contact
with his old Kremlin pals, who (Steele) was then paid by
the DNC, Fusion GPS via Perkins Coie to give Hillary
Rodham Clinton (affectionately known here as The Bitch of
Benghazi) some distance from the fake "evidence".
Now besides Comey knowing the source of "the dossier"
one of his deputies (McCabe) was at the same time
"colluding" with a couple FBI agents (Strzok & Page) in a
"counter-intel operation" (on the taxpayers dime) to
gather dirt on candidate Trump. McCabe's wife (we might
recall) got a sizable "donation" from Terry McAuliffe
(another Klinton sleezebag) for her political run in
Virginia.
And we haven't even touched on Comey's theft of
government documents or his turning over those documents
to his friend so the friend could turn them over to the
Alinsky NYT's for the purposes of...getting his mentor
Grand Inquisitor Mueller a gig as "special prosecutor"
(as he admitted to under oath).
Mueller's investigation is tainted with fruit of the
poisonous tree and the entirety of seized evidence
will be unceremoniously thrown out by a 5-4 US Supreme
Court.
There is only one thing keeping Comey out of Prison:
Jeff Sessions.
If we someday get a real AG, who is willing to man
up and appoint a second special prosecutor, Comey is
finished. But for the moment, Mr. Magoo is saving his ass.
Don't hold your breath. The clock on the statute of
limitations is ticking away. I wish someone could
provide me with an honest rational as to why Trump
hasn't fired Jeff Sessions.
Problem is that a sizable portion of the US population
view Comey's actions in the 'if you could go back in
time and kill baby Hitler...' perspective. Yes it's
illegal, yes it's unconstitutional...but was trying to
save the 'World' so it's justified.
I think you
framed it similar...this is the same as injecting
bleach into our veins in the hope in clears up a
pimple on our nose.
The Russian envoy to the chemical weapons watchdog group, OPCW, said that non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) funded by the UK and US carried out the April 7 chemical attack in the
Damascus, Syria suburb of Douma.
Russia's permanent representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW), Alexander Shulgin, said Russia has irrefutable evidence that there was no
chemical weapons incident in Douma .
"Therefore, we have not just a "high degree of confidence ," as our Western partners
claim, but we have incontrovertible evidence that there was no incident on April 7 in Douma
and that all this was a planned provocation by the British intelligence services, probably,
with the participation of their senior allies from Washington with the aim of misleading the
international community and justifying aggression against Syria," he stated. -
Sputnik
Shulgin added that the US, UK and France are not interested in conducting an objective
investigation of the attack site. " They put the blame on the Syrian authorities in advance,
without even waiting for the OPCW mission to begin to establish the possible facts of the use
of chemical weapons in Syria ," he said.
The nine-member OPCW mission people has yet to deploy to the city of Douma according to the
organization's Chief, citing pending security issues.
"The Team has not yet deployed to Douma. The Syrian and the Russian officials who
participated in the preparatory meetings in Damascus have informed the FFM Team that there
were still pending security issues to be worked out before any deployment could take place .
In the meantime the Team was offered by the Syrian authorities that they could interview 22
witnesses who could be brought to Damascus ," OPCW Director-General Ahmet Uzumcu said as
quoted by the organization.
The Russian Envoy says that the controversial "
White Helmets " were one of the anti-Assad "pseudo-humanitarian NGOs" which staged the
event. As Disobedient Media and others have reported, the White Helmets are funded in large
part by the United States.
"The Syrian Civil Defense Force (aka the White Helmets) is funded in part by United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) . Included here are two links showing contracts
awarded by USAID to Chemonics International Inc. (DBA Chemonics). The first award was in the sum of $111.2 million and has a Period of
Performance (POP) from January 2013 to June 2017. It states that the purpose of the award will
be to use the funds for managing a " quick-response mechanism supporting activities that pursue
a peaceful transition to a democratic and stable Syria ." The second was in the sum of $57.4 million and has a POP from
August 2015 to August 2020. This award was designated to be used in the " Syria Regional
Program II " which is a part of the Support Which Implements Fast Transitions IV (SWIFT IV)
program."
Via Disobedient Media
Moscow says they have confirmed that " these structures [NGOs] on a fee-based basis
cooperate with the governments of the United States, the UK and some other countries ."
Russian experts who conducted the verification of reports on the use of chemical weapons
in the Syrian city of the Douma, found participants of video filming, presented as evidence
of the supposedly occurring chemotherapy, according to the Russian Envoy to OPCW . -
Sputnik
"Everything has been developing according to the script that was prepared in Washington.
There is no doubt that Americans are playing the 'first violin' in all of this . The United
States, the United Kingdom, France and some other countries after the "fake" addition from the
White Helmets and their ilk in Douma, immediately pounced upon the Syrian authorities with
accusations," Shulgin said.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has alerted the OPCW that Russia "may have tampered" with the chemical
attack site in Douma ...
"It is our understanding the Russians may have visited the attack site," U.S. Ambassador
Kenneth Ward said at a meeting of the OPCW in The Hague on Monday.
" It is our concern that they may have tampered with it with the intent of thwarting the
efforts of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission to conduct an effective investigation ," he said. His
comments at the closed-door meeting were
obtained by Reuters .
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov shot back in a BBC interview, saying " I can
guarantee that Russia has not tampered with the site ."
Earlier, Britain's delegation to the OPCW accused Russia and the Syrian government of
preventing the international watchdog's inspectors from reaching Douma.
The inspectors aim to collect samples, interview witnesses and document evidence to
determine whether banned toxic munitions were used, although they are not permitted to assign
blame for the attack. -
Reuters
"Unfettered access is essential," the British delegation said in a statement. "Russia and
Syria must cooperate."
Moscow says the OPCW delay is due to the Western air strikes. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry
Peskov said the British accusation that Russia was to blame for holding up the inspections was
"groundless".
"We called for an objective investigation. This was at the very beginning after this
information [of the attack] appeared. Therefore allegations of this towards Russia are
groundless ," Peskov said.
***
On Friday we reported that Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow has
"irrefutable evidence" that the attack - which allegedly killed over 40 people, was staged with
the help of a foreign secret service.
" We have irrefutable evidence that this was another staged event, and that the secret
services of a certain state that is now at the forefront of a Russophobic campaign was involved
in this staged event ," he said during a press conference according to AFP.
According to defense ministry spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov, the Kremlin has
evidence that Britain was behind the attack.
Quoted by
Reuters , he said: " We have... evidence that proves Britain was directly involved in
organising this provocation ."
As RT
further adds , the Russian Defense Ministry presented what it says is " proof that the
reported chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged." It also accused the British government
of pressuring the perpetrators to speed up the "provocation." During a briefing on Friday, the
ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said, are medical professionals working in
the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the Syrian capital, Damascus.
During a briefing on Friday, the ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said,
are medical professionals working in the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the
Syrian capital, Damascus.
During a briefing on Friday, the ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said,
are medical professionals working in the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the
Syrian capital, Damascus.
In the interviews released to the media, the two men reported how footage was shot of
people dousing each other with water and treating children, which was claimed to show the
aftermath of the April 7 chemical weapons attack. The patients shown in the video suffered
from smoke poisoning and the water was poured on them by their relatives after a false claim
that chemical weapons were used, the ministry said.
"Please, notice. These people do not hide their names. These are not some faceless claims on
the social media by anonymous activists. They took part in taking that footage," said
Konashenkov.
"The Russian Defense Ministry also has evidence that Britain had a direct involvement in
arranging this provocation in Eastern Ghouta," the general added, referring to the neighborhood
of which Douma is part. " We know for certain that between April 3 and April 6 the so-called
White Helmets were seriously pressured from London to speed up the provocation that they were
preparing ."
According to Konashenkov, the group, which was a primary source of photos and footage of the
purported chemical attack, was informed of a large-scale artillery attack on Damascus planned
by the Islamist group Army of Islam, which controlled Douma at the time. The White Helmets were
ordered to arrange the provocation after retaliatory strikes by the Syrian government forces,
which the shelling was certain to lead to, he said.
The UK rejected the accusations, with British UN Ambassador Karen Pierce calling them
"grotesque," "a blatant lie" and "the worst piece of fake news we've yet seen from the Russian
propaganda machine."
So when will Moscow release their evidence for the whole world to see? Or is it maybe
waiting for the US to first release its own proof that Assad launched the attack?
The blast area of just ONE cruise missile is 150ft/2 = 7000m/2
How many hit this target allegedly? You can even see the matrix caused by the layering of
the photo shopping software when you zoom right in (its not present on the first photo)
Fucking amateur hour LMAO
There really is not even a conspiracy theorist out there who would suggest it was a Syrian
government operation any way. Only batshit crazy raving lunatics have suggested it was the
Syrian government. This is clearly the stupidest thing Trump has done. It makes the USA look
like a bunch of circus freak losers. Very sad and shockingly insane. This is the stupidest
piece of propaganda in modern history. The USA looks very, very bad. It looks like, from any
reasonable perspective, that they are actively aiding terrorists on purpose. Wow. Interesting
cosmetics. Interesting optics.
Its almost as if the USA government hates itself and actually wants a nuclear war where
everyone dies. I think the only thing that should be considered is whether the nutty freaks
in charge are actually humans. Humans are a great disappointment, so likely, yes, human
beings really can be that mentally deficient. Trump really is such a level of mental retard
that he hates himself and wants to be nuked, so he bombs Syria knowing full well they have
nothing to do with it. He hates his career now and wants out.
chlorine gas is no big deal. Sarin is destroyed by fire.... There is a reason everyone
stores these away from People. Not saying Orange is right, by any means in fact the opposite,
but this story is a bit of a reach.
Not necessarily. There is no magic way to make this stuff go away. Incineration doesn't
solve the problems of the metal containers. All of this stuff would be making its way into
their environment, causing illness and death in the coming years. It takes decades to
properly neutralize this stuff. Lighting it up with Tomahawks definitely isn't the best way,
and without a doubt some of it would be immediately released into the surrounding area.
However small or not so small that amount is:
I used to manage a small apartment complex swimming pool. Dry Chlorine was mixed into a
40gal concentrated tank and a small squirt was pumped into the filter circulation all day
long. A newbee once lifted the top off the tank to have a look inside. Lucky I was there
(telling him, don't do thattttttt) I about had to carry him out of the room. There would be
reports all over that area if a few hundred gallons or more of Chlorine had been blasted into
the air.
I emailed the OPCW yesterday. I asked for the location of the Douma inspection
team at precisely the time the research center was attacked. I heard that they
were at the airport and only hours away from the site. I thought this would
give credence to the theory that the site was attacked just so it would
interfere with a proper inspection. They declined to release any info for the
protection of their workers and the integrity of their work. I guess we will
have to wait for the report.
US officials and the presstitutes tell us that the illegal US missile attack on Syria
destroyed chemical weapons sites where chlorine and sarin are stored/manufactured.
This
satellite image, taken Monday morning, shows the Barzah Research and Development Center in
Damascus after it was struck by coalition forces.
If this were true, would not a lethal cloud have been released that would have taken the
lives of far more people than claimed in the alleged Syrian chemical attack on Douma?
Would not the US missile attack be identical to a chemical weapons attack and thus place
the US and its vassals in the same category as Washington is attempting to place Assad and
Putin?
What about it, you chemical weapons experts?
Do chemical weapons only release their elements when they explode from intended use but not
when they explode from being militarily attacked?
There is no evidence in Syria of chemical residue from the chemical weapons facilities
allegedly destroyed by US missiles.
No dead victims.
No reports of hospitals treating Syrian casualties of the American chemical attack.
The OPCW said there was no chlorine and sarin there.
Remember when....March 31, 2005 - The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction reports that the intelligence community
was "dead wrong" in its assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities before
the US invasion.
the lendman article suggests that missiles deliberately targeted and destroyed
non-chem-weapons sites that were being used to develop anti-cancer drugs.
that information is completely mistaken because otherwise the official reports would be
incorrect.
And on the left here you'll see our chemistry lab cleverly disguised as an office
building. We have no need for any of the essential components such as reasonable delivery
methods, power supply, storage tanks, pipes, etc. We're cutting edge, unlike all those
American plants:
I suggest that Russia act as "marginal producer" and refuse to sell oil,
gas or raw petroleum products for less than double the price of other
suppliers.
All of a sudden... thing will change.
After the treatment Russia has gotten for the past year or more, they
are more than justified to adopt this policy.
What's going on?
Read this:
"In late March, the U.S. State Department warned European corporations that
they will likely face penalties if they participate in the construction of
Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, on the grounds that "the project
undermines energy security in Europe"
The Nord Stream 2 project and the
denial of pipelines through Syria territory is what's eating at the zio-cons.
This is power politics and Russia / China are too much of a threat.
The Russian central bank opened its first overseas office in Beijing
on March 14, marking a step forward in forging a Beijing-Moscow alliance
to bypass the US dollar in the global monetary system, and to phase-in a
gold-backed standard of trade.
Apr 3 2017 - Europe approves Nordstream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to
Germany
April 6 2017 - need to attack Syria.
Coincidentally, with a new government a gas pipelin can be run from
Qatar to Europe and cut-off Russian gas revenue.
*Three Mediterranean EU countries and Israel agreed on Monday to
continue pursuing the development of a gas pipeline ... EU countries and
Israel ... April 3, 2017 ...*
EU, Israel agree to develop Eastern Mediterranean gas pipeline
The Optics of the Inter National Geo Political Crises would suggest
that The Criminal Oligarch Cabal Bankster Intelligence Deep State Crime
Syndicate are going "All In."
The petroyuan project is the key. It will smash the petrodollar zio-world.
Saddam Hussien thought of doing that in the 80's by consolidating
Arab oil into a basket of currencies backed by gold. The problem for
him was he was a disposable puppet and not able to defend that
project. China and Russia are a different matter. It's driving the
zios batty.
And, the Yuan is now in the IMF basket of SDR's. Ultimately, the
Petro Dollar will meet its demise & it will be decided by which is
the cleanest, dirtiest shirt to put on among the SDR's.
Softpanorama
