|Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better
|News||Corporatism||Recommended books||Recommended Links||Moral degradation of the US elite||Epstein as the symbol of moral degradation of the US elite||Corporatist Corruption: Systemic Fraud under Clinton-Bush-Obama Regime|
|Harvard Mafia, Andrei Shleifer and the economic rape of Russia||William Browder, MI6, economic rape of Russia, and Magnitsky Act||Les Wexner and Mega group||Paul Singer and gangster capitalism influence of political process||Adelson factor in 2020 elections||Hillary the warmonger||Bill sexapades|
|Financial Crisis of 2008 as the Crisis of Neoliberalism||Globalization of Financial Flows||Gangster Capitalism||The Great Transformation||Two Party System as polyarchy||Psychological Warfare and the New World Order||Globalization of Corporatism|
|Elite Theory||Compradors||Fifth column||Color revolutions||Anti-globalization movement||Right to protect||If Corporations Are People, They Are Psychopaths|
|Super Capitalism as Imperialism||Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism||Americas Financial Oligarchy||Inverted Totalitarism||Disaster capitalism||Neoliberalism as a Cause of Structural Unemployment in the USA||Neoliberalism and inequality|
|Corporatist Corruption: Systemic Fraud under Clinton-Bush-Obama Regime||Casino Capitalism||"Fuck the EU": neocons show EU its real place||Epstein demise: suicide or murder?||Ghislaine Maxwell||Small government smoke screen||The Decline of the Middle Class|
|Libertarian Philosophy||Media domination strategy||Neoliberalism Bookshelf||John Kenneth Galbraith||Jeremy Grantham On The Fall Of Civilizations||Humor||Ayn Rand and Objectivism Cult|
Due to the size the introductory article was converted to a separate page: How neo-liberal elite maintains its hegemony
For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section
Aug 08, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Plunder, me hearties! Plunder! Yo Ho Ho and a barrel of oil!
"President Trump wants it known that -- despite his recent decision to pull back the U.S. militarily back from previously Kurdish-held territory in Syria -- he plans on " keeping the oil " in Syria and using American troops to do it.
If he follows through, he'll set a dangerous precedent -- and might commit a war crime.
Keeping Syria's oil could well constitute pillage -- theft during war -- which is banned in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the 1907 Hague Laws and Customs of War on Land, which states, "The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited." The prohibition has a solid grounding in the laws of war and international criminal justice , and the U.S. federal code , including as a sanction for the illegal exploitation of natural resources such as oil from war zones.' washpo
"Trump's more grave rationale is his conception of oil as remuneration for U.S. military investment in the Middle East. In a speech Oct. 29, he said: "We want to keep the oil. $45 million a month? Keep the oil." It mirrors a sentiment he expressed to ABC News in 2011 about Iraqi oil, saying , "You win the war and you take it. You're not stealing anything. We're taking back $1.5 trillion to reimburse ourselves. " That argument goes well beyond the notion of securing the oil -- it suggests trying to profit from it -- and therefore risks triggering responsibility for pillage. Contrary to Trump's characterization, pillage is a form of stealing.
None of this is a new line of thinking for Trump: As a private citizen in 2011, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, commenting on U.S. military involvement in Libya, he said : "I'm only interested in Libya if we take the oil. If we don't take the oil, I'm not interested." Regarding Iraq, he said : "I always heard that when we went into Iraq, we went in for the oil. I said, 'Ah, that sounds smart.' " Indeed, he sounded disappointed during his televised announcement last week of the killing of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, when he returned to the subject of oil and lamented : "I always used to say 'If they're going into Iraq, keep the oil.' They never did. They never did."" washpo "Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said during the committee hearing that SDF General Commander Mazloum Abdi informed him that a deal had been signed with an American company to "modernize the oil fields in northeastern Syria", and asked Pompeo whether the administration was supportive of it.
"We are," Pompeo responded during the hearing streamed live by PBS. "The deal took a little longer ... than we had hoped, and now we're in implementation."" Reuters -------------- Barry McCaffery has commented on Twitter that if we do this we are becoming pirates. As he says, the oil belongs to Syria. I agree. pl
PirateLaddie , 06 August 2020 at 01:37 PMnbsp; Fred , 06 August 2020 at 01:37 PM
I don't know - "OrangeBeard the Pirate" just don't seem to cut it.Mark Logan , 06 August 2020 at 04:18 PM
We're watching civil war unfold in the US and these pompous asses are busy trying to sponge up Syrian oil, the trivial amount of stuff that is land-locked hundreds of miles from any territory we control or is friendly to the US? God help us who is advising the tweeter in chief? Can't Trump read an oil price chart any better than Fauci can read a Covid infection rate? Did his son-in-law tell him what a great idea that would be? Are the warrior generals who wouldn't defend this nation's capital against antifa, with the tacit consent at sedition by Esper, in agreement with this line of strategic wisdom too? Maybe Senator Graham, who just yesterday finally cornered Sally Yates into admitting under oath that the FISA warrant on Carter Page was a fraud, is covering his bases in case the left's "resistance" to the November election results in antifa marching into D.C. to bring Biden's secret choice as V.P. into power? We have less reason to be in Syria than we do to still be defending Germany and the rest of Europe from the USSR.nbsp; turcopolier , 06 August 2020 at 05:53 PM
"Bonespurs"Mark K Logan , 06 August 2020 at 06:10 PM
You too had them?nbsp; turcopolier , 06 August 2020 at 06:42 PM
No, I've never felt a need to have them. What should Trump's pirate name be?nbsp; The Twisted Genius , 06 August 2020 at 07:34 PM
Manhattan Don.Yeah, Right , 06 August 2020 at 07:36 PM
Well, with avarice as the guiding principle of the Trump administration's foreign policy, at least there's no hypocrisy. Just pure, unadulterated greed. The honesty is almost admirable. But I don't know how our Iranian policy fits into the avarice doctrine.
As far as Trump's pirate name goes, I do like the sound of "Bonespurs." I can see the flag flying from the mainmast... a skeleton foot of or on a field of sable.nbsp; turcopolier , 06 August 2020 at 07:39 PM
As an army of occupation the US military could requisition the oil, but according to the Hague Regulations it can do so only for its own needs. It can not do so for the fun and profits of the foreign state that sent that army in.
If you really, really, really squint hard then perhaps there is wriggle room under Article 55 i.e. Trump can claim that he is the usufructuary of the territory, and therefore can benefit from the pumping.
But arguing that would be a hopeless brief.
So, yeah, Trump as a medieval warlord. Perhaps he'll also reintroduce the practice of prima nocta.
I would accept the idea of Trump's inability to distinguish between government and business, but people like Jeffries and the Pomp are neocon ideologues through and through. Nothing more.
Aug 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Peter AU1 , Aug 2 2020 14:35 utc | 2
I put these comments on the open thread about the same time b started this one
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil to US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White House."
Trump a few months back "We've kept the oil". Well, he hasn't had a problem hanging onto it and getting an American company involved.
Delta Crescent Energy. Formed beginning of 2019 and nothing else on it. I guess Trump and a few mates divvying up the spoils.
Laguerre , Aug 2 2020 15:00 utc | 6
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil to US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White House."
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 2 2020 14:35 utc | 2
Very likely the Kurds were under pressure from Trump, and the act wasn't voluntary. It's not even the Kurds' oil to sign a deal on (except one well). We'll see whether the operation actually succeeds. At the moment, everybody is waiting to see whether Trump is re-elected in November. Signing a piece of paper now is of no significance.
Aug 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Kay Fabe , Aug 1 2020 10:59 utc | 91
Trump is clean. Well, after laundering so much money for Russian/israeli mafia , yeah, maybe.
He has known and palled around with Epstein since Epstein was with Bear Stearns in 1978 , being hired after his stint at Dalton School where he taught Ace Greensbergs daughter.
Barrs father hired Epstein to teach at Dalton School in 1974 despite him only having a HS degree. Barr Jr. was working at CIA at the time.
Trumps mentor was a homosexual named Roy Cohn who also ran a sex ring to entrap people, prostitutes included young boys at parties held in his suite at the Plaza Hotel. After Roy died in 1986 of AIDS , Trump bought the Plaza Hotel in 1988 and held his own parties, the nature of which are unknown.
Clinton was attracted to girls like Monica , but who knows, maybe he found younger girls hot too. When Donald Trump was watching his 16-year-old daughter Ivanka host the 1997 Miss Teen USA pageant, he turned to the then-Miss Universe and asked: "Don't you think my daughter's hot? She's hot, right?"
Epstein had a falling out with Trump over a real estate deal in Palm Beach. From some accounts he tried to trap Trump but got caught. Trump knew what is MO was. Shortly after that he gets charged. Trump had his own plane and his own property. I doubt he ever needed to go to the island to sample Epstein's product, unlike Clinton. Besides he knew what Epstein was up too, knowing Robert and Ghislaine Maxwell like he did before Clinton even ran for President
Its curious , Trump, Kushners and Epstein all did their banking at Deutsche Bank, famous for laundering Russian money and playing fast and loose with banking regulations. Deutsche Banks largest shareholder is Chinese. Trump and Kushners personal wealth manager Rosemary worked for Epsteins wealth manager at Deutsche (he hired her) who committed suicide a couple month after Epstein. Deutsche Bank , being sued by shareholders for not being careful enough dealing with their wealthy clients. That trial may have lead to Trump/Kushner transactions.
So a guy who used to work for Kroll Moscow kills the judges son. Then suiciding himself. Kroll was in charge of security for WTC and was owned by AIG. Deutsche Bank incidentally was the bank that placed PUTS on AA and UA and was connected to Buzzy Krongard at the CIA , which was connected to Kroll. Deutsche Bank had bought Bankers Trust while Krongard was there , and it was this arm of Deutsche Bank that placed the PUTS.
Trumps AG Barr says he will investigate the murder. Its curious that Barr was counselor of the law firm that handled Epsteins case and negotiated the sweet heart deal in 2008. The guy signing off on the deal was Acosta who then joins the Trump team in 2017
Looking at Barr again. Barrs father hired Epstein in 1974 with his HS degree to teach at Dalton School while he is at CIA. One of his students was Bear Stearns CEO daughter. Ace Greenberg was the head of Bear Stearns, and friend of Trump, and hires Epstein in 1978.
Barr and the Clintons reportedly go way back to when Clinton was providing protection for Bushs Iran-Contra Operation run out of a AK .
Lets look closer at Trumps Barr. He was counsel for the law firm representing Epstein in 2008, not to mention working for law firms handling CIA's Southern Air Transport (Wexner and Epstein helped them move to Ohio to handle business out of HK in mid 90's) and the head of a BCCI connected US bank in the 80's (First General) that the Clinton/Bush backer Stevens attempted to buy on behalf of BCCI. Stevens ran Systematics and used and distributed the backdoored PROMIS and also hired Foster and Hillary's law firm, and no doubt was a key to laundering the drug money out of Mena using Clintons bond program set up for that purpose
Last time Barr was AG under Bush Sr. lots of guys were getting snuffed out and investigations slowed , stonewalled or stopped (BCCI, Inslaw. Iran-Contra).
The same year that Casolaro died for investigating the Octopus, there were several other suspicious deaths involving people directly connected to the Promis scandal or involved in Casolaro's investigation of "the Octopus" -- including Alan Standorf, one of Casolaro's sources; Robert Maxwell, father of Ghislaine Maxwell, Mossad operative, and salesman of the bugged Promis software; and John Tower -- the former Texas senator who assisted Maxwell in selling the bugged Promis software to the Los Alamos laboratories, and John Heinz, senator of PA
John Heinz chaired a three-man presidential review board that probed the Iran-Contra affair and had in his possession all the damning documents from that affair, while John Tower led the infamous Tower Commission that investigated a variety of different CIA criminal activities and dirty dealings and was working on a tell all book. John Heinz and John Tower died in plane wrecks on successive days in 1991 – Tower in Georgia, and Heinz in Montgomery County, Pa. John Kerry then marries Heinz widow, a reward perhaps for his role in the coverup of Bush crimes.
Craig Spence, after his trafficking and exploitation of minors was exposed, died under mysterious circumstances on 11/11/89. His death was quickly labeled a suicide, not unlike Jeffrey Epstein's. This was the first year of the Bush administration with Barr working at the Justice Department
Barr also advised Bush on stonewalling investigations of the CIA when Bush was CIA Director in the 70's following his stint in China. It was Bush who began the privatization of the CIA operations after Carter came in and pushed him out and then purged much of the CIA. He formalized this privatization as VP under Reagan when Barr mysteriously returns to his side and entities like the CIA front NED were created.
Maybe I am making Barr out to be more than he was but he was connected with so much stuff. He actually signed off on spying on Americans telephone calls (international) as Bush's AG before leaving and working for telecom industry before retiring from Verizon in 2009. So no doubt he was involved in the domestic surveillance that was ramped up after 9/11.
By 1993, after Billy Barr leaves as AG, prosecutors in Illinois and New York who had spent years investigating Hoffenberg's Towers Financial were able to proceed. In front of a grand jury in Chicago, federal prosecutor Edward Kohler walked Hoffenberg, who had just agreed to cooperate with the government, through the design of the scam. In the narrative Kohler laid out, Epstein was the technical wizard who kept the money moving around to support Hoffenberg's various schemes.
Epstein was never charged. Curiously Rudy Giuliani was the attorney for Towers Financial
Food for thought, yah think? Or maybe people cant think anymore,
Clean, yeah right. LOL
Bemildred , Aug 1 2020 11:35 utc | 93Mark2 , Aug 1 2020 11:55 utc | 94
@Kay Fabe | Aug 1 2020 10:59 utc | 961
I think you have Barr about right, but I don't see what you think we are supposed to do about it? I don't remember anybody here much defending him. It's true I don't read long rants much, so there might be some. We do have a few Trumpists here, I think, but given the low quality of the alternatives to Trump, I'm not willing to criticize them.
But your post brought Poppy back to mind, he just runs all through the political fecklessness in this country these last 70 years or so, he brings to mind LBJ too. But anyway, now that Poppy has gone to meet his reward, that got me thinking about the changes that must have take place in his wake. Who is running the governments criminal underground these days, now that Poppy is gone?migueljose , Aug 1 2020 13:31 utc | 98
Kay Fabe @ 96
Thank you for that excellent summary of the Epstein, Maxwell racket inc background.
That's MOA At it's best. This entire post is first rate. I in tend to just listen and learn.
It's on thing knowing about the curuption, another thing being able to do something about it !
This is why I beleave the only true politics now is street politics, wheather we like it or not.
There is more now that unites us than devides us. Left Right politics will include a lot of mistrust.
Media misinformation being the deliberate course of that. Along with media self-censorship. Until we resolve that. Civil war is enevitable!miguejose , Aug 1 2020 13:43 utc | 101
Totally agree with both on Barr. His name burned into my brain around 1999 when I picked up a bombshell book from my local library by Terry Reed: https://www.amazon.com/Compromised-Clinton-Bush-Terry-Reed/dp/1561712493
Reed was a Vietnam vet, Air Force pilot, then recruited into CIA, worked with private companies connected with CIA, then continued to tangle himself into training pilots in Mena AK in the early 80s. The book is an autobio which they always leave a ton of stuff out-- I will when I write mine (LOL)- but Reed tells the story of the Contra cocaine/arms ratline running through Bill Clinton's Arkansas, names names: Barr, HW Bush, Barry Seal, HW's friend Felix (he killed Che)Rodriguez,the drug addled--and involved-- Bush boys (W and Jeb). At one point in his story Barr appears in Arkansas and threatens Clinton.
If anyone can refute this story please do. I have not been able to in over 20 years. The book is hard to get now, very expensive, but might be in some libraries. disappeared from mine.
Here's a youtube clip on him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H01_dY6atfc
Bottom line, my guess is that Reed was like many, ambitious young up and comer who used his position and skills to climb until he found himself in a tangled web: a mafia cell that easily could have snuffed him. Barr, Clintons, Bush's,... they're all players and they play by mafia rules.pretzelattack , Aug 1 2020 14:35 utc | 103
He's in way deeper than Trump. I suspect that he is connected with the highest levels in the CIA which means the people who want Trump to go away along with the few remaining who think Trump is a useful idiot.
If you watch the mainstream media watch how they portray Barr. My prediction: he will not be harmed.
Bottom line... Trump's "friends" are squirming, moving and re-positioning.NemesisCalling , Aug 1 2020 14:38 utc | 104
when we talk about mena arkansas, don't forget that clinton was kissing reagan's butt on that drug smuggling/terrorist supply network, i don't think he was that addled at that point, so the buck stops with him, being president and making a career of supporting terrorists in central and south america.Jackrabbit , Aug 1 2020 14:48 utc | 106
@96 key fabe
Let me know when you actually get to any dirt. All I see is innuendo and tying together his acquaintances.
Seems like an awful lot of brain power spent on something unlikely to bear any good fruit. But maybe it just needs more time to ripen.
In the mean time, my comment stands. Trump was probably not engaged in any of that activity involving innocents. His dip into Stormy Daniels is proof enough to me that he has simple taste and worlds apart from the more refined and cultivated taste of whisking minors to secret islands to have your way. /sarc
IMO, he continually seats himself at a different table for elites. His breakup with Epstein probably also follows this logic: Epstein was trying harder and harder things, as elites do, and POTUS probably sought better ties or not to be acquainted with such scum.oldhippie , Aug 1 2020 17:50 utc | 127
Kay Fabe @Aug1 10:59 #96
Truly excellent rebuttal to NemesisCalling and everyone else that thinks that Trump is "looking clean" wrt Epstein.
Trump is not the "populist outsider" that his fans, sycophants, and apologists claim him to be. He's an insider that has been around a long, long time. I see him as more of an opportunist and social climber though. Qualities instilled in him by his over-bearing father. As such, he's an enabler.
Multiple posts about Bill Barr's insider status. Don't see one that mentions he was born CIA. His father Donald Barr was OSS and original 1947 CIA. His career move to be an "educator" only meant that he worked in recruitment.
The CIA has factions. We are not privileged to know much about them. Barr's loyalty is more likely with the company than withTrump.
Aug 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Mao , Aug 1 2020 4:15 utc | 66
In recently unsealed court documents involving dead child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his alleged accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, a woman named Virginia Giuffre, who publicly accused Epstein of sex trafficking, said that she once saw former Democratic President Bill Clinton on Epstein's island with "two young girls" from New York.
In the questioning by lawyer Jack Scarola, Guiffre was asked, "Do you have any recollection of Jeffrey Epstein's specifically telling you that 'Bill Clinton owes me favors?'"
"Yes, I do," Guiffre answered. "It was a laugh though. He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey what's Bill Clinton doing here [on Epstein's island] kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said well he owes me favors."
Hoarsewhisperer , Aug 1 2020 5:07 utc | 72NemesisCalling , Aug 1 2020 5:55 utc | 74
Interesting extract from Xymphora's July 31 blog entry...
"So they screwed up bigtime on the redactions for the Ghislaine Maxwell release today. You can literally copy and paste the redacted pages into notepad and read them. Check out document #143 for a great example. #Epstein #Maxwell"
The trick works (I'd like to think it is not a mistake but some direct action by a court employee who is tired of all the lies). From document #143 (a deposition of Maxwell where her lawyer instructs her not to answer most, but not all, questions:
I can wait for the Official Version but I'd be interested to hear if any of MoA's resident sleuths have found the copy/paste assertion to be true?
Not holding my breath but my ears are perked.
It looks like they highlighted what was to be redacted in adobe instead of scanning redacted documents manually.
Somebody screwed up? Intentionally? Mistrial for Maxwell?
Looks like Clinton "dicking (underage) blondes." I am shocked!
Trump is looking clean and I would have already guessed it with his foray into the porn industry w/ Stormy Daniels. Whereas with paedophiles, it is about power and domination, when you are into a chick like Daniels, you are staying simple and "keeping your cart wheel in worn ruts." (Tao Te Ching)
Aug 01, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
chubbar , 3 hours ago
DOJ posted in a format that can be unredacted. Many people have already downloaded over 2400 pages of Epstein files!
New info coming shortly!
Aug 01, 2020 | www.rt.com
Newly unsealed files tied to the Jeffrey Epstein sex-trafficking case imply that former US President Bill Clinton visited the investor's private island along with "young girls," and that the FBI knew well about the minors' abuse.
Comprising hundreds of pages of documents, the trove was released on Thursday night following a judge's order last week to have it unsealed, over the objections of Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend to Epstein who has recently been charged as an accomplice in his alleged sex-trafficking operation.ALSO ON RT.COM US judge authorizes release of previously-sealed documents in case of Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell
The records stem from a 2015 defamation suit filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, which was placed under lock and key after the case was settled in 2017, but was recently unsealed, as a result of a lawsuit brought last year by conservative blogger Mike Cernovich and the Miami Herald newspaper.
Among other revelations, the documents indicate that former US president Bill Clinton consorted with "young girls" during at least one visit to Epstein's private resort in the Virgin Islands, where the billionaire was said to host regular "sex orgies."
"When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" one witness presumably Giuffre was asked during an interview, to which she replied that Epstein, Maxwell, an unidentified woman named "Emmy" and "2 young girls" had been on the island with the former POTUS. The witness did not elaborate on Clinton's interactions with the girls, however.
The same witness also told her attorney in 2011 that she had overheard Epstein saying that Clinton owed him "favors," but noted she couldn't tell whether he was joking.
"He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said 'well he owes me a favor,'" she said. "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious."
He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets.
One of America's top law enforcement agencies was also apparently aware that underage girls were still being abused at Epstein's properties as far back as 2011 years after he was sentenced for similar crimes in his first criminal case. During her defamation suit, Giuffre said she had provided the FBI a now widely circulated photo of herself and the UK's Prince Andrew where he is pictured smiling with an arm around her bare waist.
In 2014, moreover, Giuffre contacted the FBI to request evidence they had previously seized from Epstein's residences to aid her civil case, suggesting the bureau had for long been informed of her allegations regarding Epstein and his continued involvement with minor girls.Home USA News Unsealed docs say Bill Clinton was on 'pedophile island' w/ 'young girls' & cite Epstein saying former president 'owed him favor' 31 Jul, 2020 06:18 Get short URL
Jul 31, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Dozens of exhibits related to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein were unsealed Thursday evening , providing insight into allegations against the financier and his purported 'madam,' as well as other high-profile individuals, including Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz and several other people whose names one can only guess (and the internet has).
The documents, related to a 2015 civil defamation lawsuit against Maxwell by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, were ordered to be released on July 23 by US District Judge Loretta Preska - which also included flight logs from Epstein's private jets , as well as police reports from the multiple locations where Epstein maintained residences.
Among the findings:
Here Are The Top Highlights From Ghislaine Maxwell's Unsealed Court Records - Zero Hedge
Bill Clinton was allegedly on pedo island with '2 young girls'
Sordid details from alleged sexual encounters
... ... ...
The DOJ let free Epstein's co-conspirator's in the FL case.
This included Maxwell and Sarah Kellen.
Here the victim describes the abuse during flights from Epstein, Maxwell, and Kellen. pic.twitter.com/1zF2MELFDw-- Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) July 31, 2020
Maxwell was in communication with Epstein in January of 2015 - contradicting her claim that she hadn't been in touch with him in more than a decade .
Alan Dershowitz is mentioned several times (and has gone to great lengths to defend himself - suggesting on multiple occasions that this very document release would in exonerate him).
This same document appears also to have been released publicly tonight in unredacted form and shows Jane Doe 3 accusing Alan Dershowitz. @CourthouseNews https://t.co/lgTDT2yq88 pic.twitter.com/AyehpGYVBY-- Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) July 31, 2020
Epstein accuser(s) allegedly had to have sex with this guy ...
And former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D)
Other speculative mentions (redacted): Prince Andrew, Jean Luc Brunel , and more .
Trump is in the clear ( which we've known for some time ) :
And some food for thought...
Check back for more...Ghost who Walks , 12 hours agoPatmos , 12 hours ago
Whatever happened to Anthony Weiner's Laptop? https://www.redstate.com/stu-in-sd/2020/03/29/about-that-anthony-weiner-laptop%E2%80%A6/
Seems to be a lot of magic happening in the US Justice system with things mysteriously disappearing.OldAmsterdam , 7 hours ago
Yeah, I've long felt they're just going to present a case of supposed "justice" which is in reality just partial justice if you could even call it justice at all.
All the Nazi occult Book of the Dead MK Ultra crap kept under wraps.
Maybe for a good reason, and maybe they're dealing with it behind the scenes, who knows. I'm kind of thinking no, though, that we're just going to get the illusion of justice.bigdumbnugly , 6 hours ago
Just imagine the amount on influence this pedovore - blackmail ring has had on the lives of each of us individually. It is hard to phantom if you add up everything. The selling of military secrets, the selling of IP, the setting of policies including wars and all that has been the result of those, the misappropriation of public funds and the following self-enrichment of them, the abuse of corrupt parts of the intelligence agencies to crush dissent and achieve their goals, the shaping of public opinion with twisted logic of what is supposed to be the right by corrupting and controlling MSM and pop-culture, the suffering of victims of the criminal networks used to procure their "merchandise", etc
The extent of this whole horrific saga has shaped global human life for at least 2 decades and most likely more. There is hardly a way to grasp the scope of what these power hungry self serving bunch of perverted degenerates have made each global citizen undergo. I agree there is no way we will ever get to know more than perhaps 20% of the story
Feel free to add more.Accurite , 6 hours ago
most importantly the blackmailing of lawmakers and supreme court (and lower court) justices.
Putty in their hands.JimmyJones , 5 hours ago
I agree, I think it it why Chief Justice Roberts flipped on Obama Care and why he continues to vote with the left. They have stuff on this guyQuestion_Mark , 5 hours ago
Looks like the MSM will need another high profile funeral, to distract from this story, their timing was off on this one with Lewis. Who's next?
Edit: so if you get your hands on the orginal PDF's released you can copy and paste the Text into note pad and see what was redacted.
Viewing the redactions
https://twitter.com/ShirtlessPundit/status/1289038498238877696?s=19Pro_sanity , 4 hours ago
Roberts needs to find a way to go away forever. he is shaming his family and his friends.
his life is forfeit, and he needs to have the sense to transcend his hell. he should resign and retire.Jean Gateau , 1 hour ago
Gorsuch too, certainly something going on there too.William Dorritt , 6 hours ago
My prediction: Roberts will decide the 2020 Election.Question_Mark , 41 minutes ago
The Compromising Epstein Association with Supreme Court Justice Roberts Is Gaining Momentum and Explains Many of Roberts Mystery Rulings
Submitted by Dave Hodges on Tuesday, July 28, 2020
The Forbes investigation also found that "Kennedy and Scalia wrote the bulk of the conservative dissent, and that dissent was not originally written as a majority opinion. It's that the conservative Justices held Roberts' opinion in such contempt that they did not want to dignify it with a response "
Forbes also mentioned the prominent role that Justice Scalia played in attempting to reign in Roberts on this obvious miscarriage of justice. And what happened to Scalia? He was lured to Texas and was subsequently murdered, or should I say Scalia's body found on a Texas farm known for its child-sex trafficking activities. What's not known was if Scalia was murdered elsewhere and then And let's not forget that Scalia was found with a pillow case over his face and then this devout Catholic was cremated with no autopsy performed in violation of Texas law. Subsequently, the Obama administration never ordered an investigation into the very suspicious death of a senior level official in the government. This behavior was inexcusable and wreaks of coverup.
https://thecommonsenseshow.com/activism-conspiracy-united-states/compromising-epstein-association-supreme-court-justice-roberts-gaining-momentum-and-explainsGreatUncle , 3 hours ago
Pedophiles are Predators
With the arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein is back in the news., Allegations that for decades, Maxwell obtained underage girls for Epstein and his high-profile guests to exploit -- for purposes including blackmail -- are widely known. Is blackmail why it took 24 years from the time the FBI knew of the allegations until the arrest?  But the problem runs much deeper.
It's a touchy subject. Adults using children and infants for sexual gratification is a repugnant topic. Let's not gloss over it: pedophiles are predators. No just society can excuse the predatory behavior of the sexual deviants who term themselves "child lovers" in a vain hope that society will overlook their cruel -- and sometimes deadly -- abuses. We will not.
The scope of the problem is uncertain, but according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, some 800,000 children are reported missing each year in the United States -- about 2,000 daily., Estimates vary domestically and internationally, and few reliable statistics are available. We do know that under the Trump administration, law enforcement task forces have increased prosecutions at the state and federal level. The Children's Bureau estimates that the United States had over 678,000 cases of child abuse -- 9 per 1,000 -- in 2018.
Many pedophiles even select careers giving access an endless stream of young victims. These include occupations most would never suspect -- clergy, coaches, counselors, teachers, scout leaders -- those we have trusted with our kids' safety.
But what happens to these babies and kids? Where are they now? What happens when they are "used up"–too physically damaged and psychologically traumatized to satisfy adult perverts?
Does there really exist a black market for child sex slaves? Is there any truth to the allegations that sometimes Child Protective Services, foster care, and Amber Alerts are accessories to these crimes?
Yet a shocking 2005 study showed that 79% of abusers were children's own parents, followed by the parent's unmarried partners. A whopping 40% of child victims (counting all forms of abuse) were abused by their mothers alone, and 17% by both parents. The study found that substance abuse accompanies 70% of child maltreatment cases. Should child abuse prevention efforts focus on solving substance abuse? What about broader social trends that cause dissolution of families?
Parents shouldn't be complacent. Turning a blind eye or downplaying the problem will not save our children. We all need to become more vigilant.
What is child *********** but depictions of abuse? Both those who create, and those who consume, digital depictions of child sex abuse should be severely punished. Demand for the "genre" has surged with the advent of broadband internet.
Sweeping the problem under the rug hasn't worked. We need accurate statistics, education, and public awareness. The solution isn't to normalize perversion, but to prosecute the deviants -- both producers and consumers.
We don't need new laws either. There are plenty of statutes which -- if robustly enforced -- could quickly end the menace of child sex abuse. We need adequate funding for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute the crimes, a commitment to equal justice, transparency, and harsh sentencing for those found guilty of violating the laws of God and mankind.
 Ghislaine Maxwell arrest: Armed agents, spy planes used to take down Epstein gal pal, https://nypost.com/2020/07/05/ghislaine-maxwell-arrest-spy-planes-armed-agents-used-in-takedown/
 DeutscheBank fined $150M for failure to monitor convicted sex offender Epstein's suspicious payments, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8498433/Deutsche-Bank-pay-150million-fine-failing-monitor-Jeffrey-Epsteins-suspicious-payments.html
 Missing Children in America: Unsolved Cases, ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-children-america-unsolved-cases/story?id=19126967 (2015)
 FBI, 2019 NCIC Missing Person and Unidentified Person Statistics, https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/2019-ncic-missing-person-and-unidentified-person-statistics.pdf/view
 International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, Missing Children's Statistics, https://globalmissingkids.org/awareness/missing-children-statistics/
 FBI's Op. Kick Boxer leads to arrest of distributors, makers of child sex abuse materials, https://fox6now.com/2020/07/06/fbis-op-kick-boxer-leads-to-arrest-of-distributors-makers-of-child-sex-abuse-materials/
 Child Abuse Statistics in the United States, https://www.verywellmind.com/child-abuse-statistics-2633350
 Who Are the Perpetrators of Child Abuse?, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/somatic-psychology/201105/who-are-the-perpetrators-child-abuse
 FBI Knew Of Allegations Against Ghislaine Maxwell As Early As 1996, Accuser Says; It Took 24 Years To Arrest Her, https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/02/fbi-ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein-maria-farmer/Pooper Popper , 10 hours ago
Not possible to flush the corruption from a 100% corrupt society.
Inevitable end is revolution for a 100% corrupt society (as in the political class) ... for ordinary people it is just going to get a whole lot worse.bigdumbnugly , 6 hours ago
The video is out there,,,,that shows hillary and huma torturing a young girl,,,,and cutting her face off to terrify her.The video i saw didnt show visual,,,but the girls screams will leave stains on your soul...This is what the seasoned detectives had to get therapy about......Andrenochrome!!!
Do the research,,but beware ,,,,its beyond messed up.....its flat out ,,,evil.
15:45 start.......18:00 ,,,,,,evil,,,,,Pedovore!Question_Mark , 4 hours ago
"Trump is in the clear."
"Donald Trump was aiso a good friend of Jeffreys. He didn't partake in sex with any of us but he flirted with me. He'd laugh and tell Jeffrey, 'You've got the life."
I'm not so sure. He didn't partake - OK..... but if he kind of knew what was going on and didn't report they'll jump all over him for that.BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 3 hours ago
dude he literally ran for and became president to stop it. earth to you, hello?Pfeffernusse , 3 hours ago
LOL - he ran on a lot of things that he didn't do. This was a Mossad political control operation, has their work inside the USA been shut down?
Is it a Cohen-cidence that one of Bibi's political enemies, Ehud Barak is mentioned frequently in the media as a regular visitor? They also have kompromat on Trump, I can guarantee it.
Do you really think he has done what he has for Israel because he believes in their cause?Smiddywesson , 4 hours ago
Yet he wishes her well- more like he wishes she would keep her mouth shutbigdumbnugly , 4 hours ago
The pedophiles are all left wingers.
Trump was never on the plane or on the island.
If she thought he was "flirting" with her, I'm not surprised, she was young and obviously had a hard life, and Donald Trump was very charismatic and was a big star back in the day.
They've been trying to pin this **** on Trump for years, and all they have is he attended a party at Epstein's once, and banned Epstein from his club for hitting on the girls. That doesn't sound like "good friends" to me.
Everything that went on in Epstein's NY house was video taped. If you think Trump did anything and they are suppressing the video, you are out of your mind. If they'd frame Trump for colluding with Russians, they'd use the tape to get rid of him.
Ask yourself, how did Donald Trump even come up in this interview? Epstein knew thousands and thousands of people. The answer is the very same people who eventually FRAMED him in an attempted coup, the FBI, were fishing for dirt and brought his name up with the victim.you_are_cleared_hot , 1 hour ago
Apparently neither of you two can interpret words or sentences properly.
I didn't say anything about his being involved. I thought that was pretty clear. Well, to most.
The statement was about how he might be attacked by not reporting what he may have known about.
Try again, after remedial reading.55 men , 56 minutes ago
George W didn't do anything about this...Obama didn't do anything about this nobody seems to be bringing this up in the MSM...just sayin.geo_synch , 58 minutes ago
Dont forget Boys town in Nebraska, George Sr was involved....i have a good friend whos cousin was one of the boys involved in that, pretty sad....bigdumbnugly , 14 minutes ago
Actually, you're wrong there. Court documents showed that Trump was the only person contacted by the DA who volunteered to step forward and cooperate with the investigation back when Epstein was charged back in the early 2000s.Arrow4Truth , 11 hours ago
I'm not wrong - and while the rest is true, geo, it doesn't change the narrative that'll come out.
"Why did Trump WAIT until an investigation was started and not whistleblow himself" they'll ask.
"Trump could've saved umpteen hundred young girls from their horrible fates if he did so" they'll say.
You have to think like the opposition. Again, my point is that he is not "cleared" as was stated because he will have to deal with this canard... i can almost guarantee it.
Personally, i do not believe for a minute he'd get himself involved in any kind of thing like Epstein/Maxwell/Mossad was running. Maybe egotistical, but smarter than falling into a widely-known in certain circles honey trap.fallst , 11 hours ago
Reckon it would be easy enough to connect the dots and determine that the "US Justice system" is the problem? DOJ in bed with the black robed cult? They are all in the same "union"... the same club.1777 , 3 hours ago
no laptop , no videos, no nothing but tawkWilliam Dorritt , 6 hours ago
The Clean-team®™ has been very busy!lwilland1012 , 12 hours ago
Epstein was a Mosad Operation run by the Mega Group. One of many. Both Epstein and the tapes are safe in Isreal
2 former CIA and 1 former Mosad have said it was a Mosad operation
The FBI, DOJ and Federal Courts have totally collapsed
They can't indict, arrest or prosecute Elite Pedos
The Courts openly run cover for the Pedos
And spend the rest of the time erasing the Bill of Rights
Feudalism is the Destination
Nuremberg Courts and Executions are the Answer
$21 Trillion Missing – U.S. Government a Criminal Enterprise –
Catherine Austin Fitts
By Greg Hunter On October 1, 2017
The Missing Money – $21 Trillion
in Undocumentable Adjustments and Counting with Dr. Mark Skidmore September 23, 2017
https://home.solari.com/the-missing-money-19-trillion-in-undocumentable-adjustments-and-counting-with-dr-mark-skidmore/Anthraxed , 12 hours ago
Comey deserves to ROT in Hell....NewDarwin , 12 hours ago
Understatement of the year.Max Cynical , 12 hours ago
He's just a pawn. The powers behind the scenes always have something worse than hell over their agents. That's why the Comey types obey so willingly. The money changers have their protocols of power, Comey has his obedience.
The only way to avoid enslavement is to be self sufficient outside their system of corrupt money.Itchy and Scratchy , 12 hours ago
My take...DOJ and FBI are utterly corrupt and need to be disbanded.Stan Smith , 9 hours ago
JFK tried!Fluff The Cat , 5 hours ago
It's what got him killed.Radioactive Ideas , 3 hours ago
The main things that got JFK killed were his attempts to end the Rothschilds' Fed money printing scam and his announcement just days prior to his assassination that he was going to reveal the secret plot to overthrow our country from within and enslave every man, woman and child. There's no way for them to have dismissed whatever President JFK said as being a mere "conspiracy theory".
Here's his speech on secret societies. Interesting how when you put in a search for "JFK speech secret societies" on YouTube that they bury it far down the results, because they don't want people to hear it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnkdfFAqsHABlue Snowflake , 2 hours ago
There is little doubt this was one of the great motivations for JFK's killing, but there are others that are equally as plausible. Including the 'shatter them to a million pieces' line. JFK took on THE most powerful and paid the unltimate price.sbin , 12 hours ago
JFK was not trying to dismantle the Fed. The 2 EOs he issued regarding silver certificates were temporary measures to allow the treasury to continue doing what they were already doing until the FED certificates were enacted. So in that sense JFK was helping the FED.
That is true, secret society speech notwithstanding.1777 , 3 hours ago
DEA NSA CIA all 17 intelligence agencies would be a good start.
Defund the Pentagon should be a thing.
Why such corruption and failure is rewarded is only explained by massive grifting of all involved.f society , 1 hour ago
Wouldn't the NSA have ALL of this evidence anyway???lester1 , 11 hours ago
Yes, they have it. The NSA could take down the Deep State if they wanted to.Fiscal.Enema , 9 hours ago
Republicans want to build a billion dollar new FBI building in the coronavirus stimulus bill. Lolamadeus40 , 5 hours ago
nobody in D.C. including Trump has the balls to Chop their heads off.2willies , 12 hours ago
As long as Tribe members connected to MOSAAD reside in the U.S., our nation' government, financial and judicial systems will remain compromised and will be controlled by Israel. Donald Trump is a compromised president and under the control of MOSAAD. His silence and casual comments on the characters of Epstink and Maxstink are damning.Max.Power , 11 hours ago
It all makes Nixon look pretty pretty good now.bobroonie , 10 hours ago
Yeah, all this put many other things in perspective. It may turn out that Trump is the most decent US president of last 30 years. Who would've thought...55 men , 51 minutes ago
At the very least Trump is the single most investigated and vetted president in American history...vova.2018 , 5 hours ago
And what sucks is, this actually things that should be talked about wiith and delt with but in an hour we will be back to 2nd greatest scam, (FED being the first), corona.theory , 12 hours ago
It may turn out that Trump is the most decent US president of last 30 years. Who
Nah - Trump should explain why his name was on Epstein's plane manifest. Trump is friends with Jeffrey Epstein & Ghislaine Maxwel and attended Epstein's kid-rape island 23 times, sometimes with Bill Clinton. Lawsuit Charged Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl in CA.
Trump and Epstein accused of raping 13-year-old girl in complaint filed with United States District Court for the Southern District
Trump's excuse, he didn't know that the girl(s) were underage & he claims that his encounter with the girls, in 2 occasions with his body Epstein in Lolita Island (1993), was a CIA/Dyncorp operation with 12 low-light cameras.
Trump also claims the Epstain put the girls in the room. This is the kind of dirt that Eptain & Ghislaine Maxwell have on Trump. Is these gossip, fabrication, expostulation or it should be investigated (:
DA Alexander Acosta was the lawyer for Jeffery Epstein for child rapist charges where Trump was on witness list (FL court records). Case dropped in deal. DA Alexander Acosta gave Epstien a sweat heart deal to avoid Trump having to take the stand and face charges.
Anyone with Google can look up Trump involvement with Jeffrey Epstein and his court cases and nomination of Alexander Acosta as Labor Secretary
Trump's ties to Mossad/CIA Pedophile Ring
Trump not only got skeleton in his closet, he owns the entire cemetery. Trump give the psychopath a bad nameEl Chapo Read , 11 hours ago
Who was running the FBI at the time........???????
Good old Bob Mueller.......!!!!!!!!!!!!OldAmsterdam , 9 hours ago
That was "out of his purview"sherlocky , 12 hours ago
It looks like what we know already is finally gonna come out, I would sayAnthraxed , 12 hours ago
Exact same operations were run by dome kopfs out of 1920 & 1930's Berlin. khazarian mafia. look up Institut für Sexualwissenschaft run by Magnus (((Hirschfeld))) and many many other such operationslwilland1012 , 12 hours ago
1980's Boys town.
See Franklin scandal.SassyPants , 6 hours ago
Thank you! Now this is something we can agree on!alexcojones , 12 hours ago
The old folks are just the ones they'll give up. And low level scum.badassassassin , 11 hours ago
I still don't know WHY she came back??
Makes NO sense at all...
And where is Raz Simone, former King of Chaz Chop?
And is he involved too?Muppet , 2 hours ago
back from where and what makes you think she was thereMongoStraight , 12 hours ago
In my opinion, she is the most powerful in the world right now. She certainly wasn't arrested. She agreed to such props. She's has been, or will be, extremely highly rewarded in exchange, she will follow the buyer wishes. I suspect it will end up being to destroy Trump. Its obvious, she has too many demorat friends, I don't think she'll turn on them, nor is it likely that a conservative bought her. It is most likely a liberal buyer and thus target Trump.sbin , 12 hours ago
It's hard to believe that Marvin Minsky would have to pay for it.libtears , 12 hours ago
Sarcasm tag is not needed on that one.
So ugly his mother wouldn't breast feed him.
His hand wants double price.
Only way to have sex was jewish black mail freak paid for by CIA and vile little apartheid government in Palestine.Things that go bump , 9 hours ago
He'd get laid in ThailandThePub'Lick_Hare , 1 hour ago
By an eleven-year-old virgin.Librarian , 12 hours ago
Thailand on NY's 7th Avenue!Sid Davis , 12 hours ago
These allegations are shocking, bombshell, ghastly, and just about any other adjective that could possibly describe a once-in-a-lifetime event of such wide-reaching and horrific proportions. Yet the mainstream media is completely silent at this time. This doesn't make any sense. Is this because the owners of the mainstream media are also complicit in a giant pedophilia conspiracy? I am struggling to come to terms with the deafening silence of the mainstream media. But, it's the only explanation that makes sense going forward.
Our major news sources seem to be compromised. Those in charge of our major media who decide what is "news" are also very likely the most depraved type of criminals imagineable.
There needs to be investigations. There needs to be trails.libtears , 12 hours ago
Let me guess how many inside the MSM made trips to Pedo Island? Yes, that would explain their silence as you suggest.
Another thing that would explain their silence is some big leftists names need protecting, and given this is election time, what big name Democrats are running.
I wonder if Pedo Island had a booth where little girls sat so that someone could lean over and sniff their freshly washed hair.SassyPants , 6 hours ago
We know why Bill And Hillary were there.Justapleb , 12 hours ago
And which Republicans are making a big deal about this? Same silence on both sides. Republicans are not pure as the snow, just because you want to believe.Fiscal Reality , 12 hours ago
The CIA runs American Media, ever since the ban on propaganda was lifted in 2012.sbin , 12 hours ago
Yawn. Wake me up when someone is in handcuffs. Like Pedo Slick Willy, Cankles, Dersh or Kevin Spacey. Until then, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.WaterWings , 4 hours ago
Will never happen.Iskiab , 12 hours ago
Probably the most important comment on this board. Elections really don't matter anymore. FBI corruption tells you we are at the point of Revolution again.cryptoligarch , 10 hours ago
It really makes you think. I'm starting to think most of the political elites are sociopaths.Stan Smith , 9 hours ago
What you and everyone reading this should know and prepare for is this... They will say and do anything even in the face of humiliation and zero credibility. But they will not leave until physical force is applied. Even with that, it will only be the beginning of a real struggle for us as honorable humans.Seasmoke , 11 hours ago
If you think about it remotely logically, you have to have a certain kind of mindset to be a career politician. And it'd be hard to argue that being a sociopath isn't part of that.OldAmsterdam , 9 hours ago
This country is an absolute cesspool. The People were lazy & allowed the Tribe to tear The Republic to shreds. And Comey and the FBI should hang first before all the degenerates. Absolutely Treasonous!!!!SassyPants , 6 hours ago
The US plays a big part but this is a global story, US prominence is to be expected because of its prominence on the world stage.Dr. Bonzo , 10 hours ago
Or maybe people from other countries just aren't as sick as American politicians.bobroonie , 10 hours ago
See? Pizzagate was just conspiracy fantasy. Nothing to see here, folks. Russiagate was real though!
Think about this... the entire apparatus of the mainstream media.... tens of THOUSANDS of folks... conspired to repress information about organized pedophilia among top politicians and key business leaders... and attempt to undermine and overthrow a sitting US president. Now they support a Marxist insurrection.
The Twilight Zone has NOTHING on reality. NOTHING....................... Surreal doesn't BEGIN to sum it up.cankles' server , 7 hours ago
From:* Trudy Vincent [ mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org ] >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 08, 2015 11:45 AM
CC: John Podesta (and others)
And I thought I'd share a couple more notes: >> We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be >> Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and >> almost 7) so you'll have some further entertainment, and they will be in >> that pool for sure. And with the forecast showing prospects of some sun, >> and a cooler temp of lower 60s, I suggest you bring sweaters of whatever >> attire will enable us to use our outdoor table with a pergola overhead so >> we dine al fresco (and ideally not al-CHILLo).
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/46736philipat , 8 hours ago
Does anyone think the firing last month of the SDNY prosecutor is a coincidence? A week later they arrest Maxwell.
That's the office that has the Weiner laptop, the holy grail of criminal evidence.Luc X. Ifer , 4 hours ago
Let the horse trading begin! Andrew will be OK after the UK agreed to cut off Huawei from its 5G network and some other concessions probably leading to a grossly (US) one-sided FTA.
The others? Depends who has what and who needs what in return, which is what Epstein was all about all along.
Nothing new here, just the same old depravity and corruption among the "Elites". Lovely people aren't they?neidermeyer , 3 hours ago
Ghislaine is still breathing ...thetruthhurts , 3 hours ago
Disagree with the UK assessment ,, the entire royal family is going down... but the trade agreements will be fair as we need England to be an example for the rest of the EU states to see that they can emerge in good shape.thetruthhurts , 3 hours ago
Well now we know what Hillary Clinton meant when she said if that SOB wins we'll all hang. And we also know why England the UK was so anxious to be part of the conspiracy against President Trump. To protect the prince. Brings new word to the vocabulary "Dalley Ho"Know thy enemy , 9 hours ago
Well now we know what Hillary Clinton meant when she said if that SOB wins we'll all hang. And we also know why England the UK was so anxious to be part of the conspiracy against President Trump. To protect the prince. Brings new word to the vocabulary "Dalley Ho"SassyPants , 6 hours ago
C'mon, Bill Clinton at Epstein Island is old hat, let's have the Vaccinator-in-Chief, Bill Gates explain what he was doing with Epstein, on his island, home in New York, etc.... Inquiring minds want to know more....Zionism_is_racism , 9 hours ago
There will be no new names. Those people can still be used.Zionism_is_racism , 9 hours ago
Where are all the feminazis? We have a war against men from the women who hate men. Shouldn't they rally since their minor sisters were raped by old white men and old chosenites?
... ... ...MadHatt , 5 hours ago
His wife helped GM find girls? I will have to look that one up because that would be a major point on CNN hate Trump network. Pander masters in Tel Aviv? there is tremendous chosenite political power here in the US, so it's like a mine field.
We didn't have a major war, with your Clinton II we would have had a major war for Israel. Looks like Orange man is slowly but surely decreasing exposure to the Middle East, NATO and Afghanistan, the political pressure from your congressman and senator is something he must deal with. So he has done real good if you ask me, again your choice would have been more war and Biden means More Wars for Israel.
Are you registered to vote?AlphaSnail , 8 hours ago
Clinton. Looks like the bible is upside down.
amp.usatoday.com/amp/5322448002MerLynn , 9 hours ago
theres an interview whitney webb conducted with another victim, besides guiffre, in which the victim describes the procurement. if you search well, you will find it. lets not be selective here, we should not cherry pick which witness be believe. there are probably hundreds of others whose testimony we have not heard since the fbi buried it or chose to ignore it. i say again, they are all compromised. vote for whichever pos you care to.AlphaSnail , 8 hours ago
It was actually on SDNY's Watch Epstein died and there's where you know nothing about Deep State to ignore this center of democrat corruptionSTP , 11 hours ago
democrat...republican. i cant tell the difference these days.Psadie , 11 hours ago
Timing is everything. Right before the DC recess, starting in August, we've got Barr not guaranteeing that some kind of 'report' is not going to come out before the election. And revealing that a second investigation into the unmasks is ongoing with US Attorney John Bash. Then Trump totally throws a troll bomb tweet about the elections and now this. Many of the most powerful men in the world having their names revealed in a US District Court today. The gloves are off. The other side did all sorts of pre-election hanky spanky and turn about is fair play. The indictments are coming. It would do no good for Trump to wait after the elections to take action. Why bother then? He may not be in office and all of this will be swept under the rug. It has to happen now. All these people will be at home in August. It makes sense to do a nation wide sweep and indict them at home. The indictments are spread far and wide across the country, so that makes sense that they'll be served in their home states and cities. I believe it's coming and coming soon.Itchy and Scratchy , 12 hours ago
Dershowitz should just off himself...he set up immunity from the govt. Trump's one Secretary resigned over giving Epstein a slap on the hand but it was Dersh who did it all.baghead , 12 hours ago
Clinton arranged for Epsteins aircraft to have a government tail number enabling all passengers to avoid standard customs & immigration procedures. The flight logs were strictly at the discretion of the pilots. Doubtful that the truth of who went to the poisonous island will ever be exposed!ThePub'Lick_Hare , 57 minutes ago
The pilot kept logs of the passengers. That's how we know what we know alreadyEquinox7 , 8 hours ago
The visual evidence is damning enough - photos, videos, vivid memories of terror.KJ8982 , 12 hours ago
And all of these crimes NOW come out under the Presidency of Donald J Trump. Its amazing how the Bushs, Clintons, and Obamas just buried the truth. ...Totally_Disillusioned , 11 hours ago
lmao I noticed this too today. They have some serious censorship going on. I wonder if it's due to advertising, or have they been taken over...AI Agent , 11 hours ago
Many of you are all thinking this Epstein thing - human trafficking - will be like watching/reading a bunch of juicy **** with underage girls.
This human trafficking also involves organ harvesting....bobroonie , 11 hours ago
We live in a sick and wicked world, and the wicked people are winning.Totally_Disillusioned , 11 hours ago
"It was the child sacrifices that got to me" Ronald Bernard money launderer and banker for the elite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UpDs4AB9FUTotally_Disillusioned , 11 hours ago
He gave the interview and then they killed him.OldAmsterdam , 9 hours ago
It appears they are winning. Half of the battle is learning who your enemy is and their behaviors. The other half of the battle is taking it to them...directly to them. they can no longer hide this away. Once the people know, it won't be safe for them to walk down the street.Give Me Some Truth , 3 hours ago
It's a bunch of them sure, but surely not all of them. Just like us most of them are mere cattle for those power hungry supremacist bastards and ignorant of what is going on. Specifying this more will make it easier to spread the story, otherwise you will just be dismissed as a anti-semite.
I reckon all on here know 1 or 2 at the least, are you really of the opinion that they are all part of that evil scheme or just people trying to get by and live their lives like most of us?
It's on par with BLM activists calling all whites racist.eatapeach , 2 hours ago
I must have made 200 posts on Epstein and Maxwell. I bet in 30 of these posts I mentioned the fact that Virginia Roberts gave the original photo of her and Prince Andrew to FBI agents ... years ago.
Not only did she give these agents the photo, she gave them details of what she actually did for Epstein and Maxwell.
This, to me, has always been a huge detail.
Basically: The FBI - and by extension DOJ - knew everything at least nine years ago (probably 20 years ago). This is not just a case involving seedy behavior of hundreds of VIP "johns," It's also a case where numerous agencies of our own government covered up these crimes and did nothing to stop this operation for who knows how many years or decades.
This scandal is so much larger than "Watergate" ... and the press won't even pursue these angles, which tells us that they must be complicit in concealing the full truth.
"Leave Epstein alone. He's intelligence."
Well, no duh. Obviously.
Why no charges yet against the public officials who spiked earlier investigations?USAllDay , 2 hours ago
Because they have power and these pawns are important to them. Can you imagine what possession of those tapes can do for someone? for a country?
"stand down (my buddy Jeff told me to tell you that)"
The US .gov was obviously well aware what was going on- they were in on it. Epstein was a known and protected Mossad agent operating within the USA with the knowledge and blessing of the CIA.
Jul 21, 2020 | www.msn.com(Bloomberg) -- A federal judge is considering making public a trove of previously sealed records from a 2015 lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell, who is now facing charges that she trafficked girls as young as 14 for her former boyfriend Jeffrey Epstein.
U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in New York scheduled a Thursday conference to discuss the possible unsealing of five different sets of documents relating to a defamation lawsuit against Maxwell by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, whom Maxwell had said was lying.
The possible release is coming as Maxwell's lawyer are trying to tamp down statements about her criminal case, in which she has pleaded not guilty. On Tuesday, they asked the judge in that case, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan, to issue a gag order on prosecutors, FBI agents and lawyers for Maxwell and Epstein's alleged victims.
The documents Preska is considering unsealing appear to be partly related to deposition testimony Maxwell, 58, gave in the case in April and July 2016. One of her lawyers said in a recent court filing that one of the documents included "intrusive questioning" about Maxwell's sex life that she had answered based on her expectation of confidentiality.
A federal appeals court in New York unsealed 40 of the 613 pages of Maxwell's testimony last August. Her sworn denials of knowledge about Epstein's abuse of underage girls are the basis for two perjury counts that accompanied the sex-trafficking charges in the indictment unsealed against her on July 2 by Manhattan federal prosecutors.
Read More: Ghislaine Maxwell's Sworn Testimony Is Coming Back to Haunt Her
The record of Giuffre's lawsuit was sealed in 2017 after the parties reached a confidential settlement. The partial unsealing last year followed Epstein's arrest on sex-trafficking charges. He was found dead of an apparent suicide in his Manhattan jail cell on Aug. 10, a day after parts of Maxwell's testimony first became public.
Maxwell's lawyer Laura Menninger didn't immediately return voicemail and email messages seeking comment about the conference.
Menninger in June argued against further unsealing, saying one document pertained to Giuffre's efforts "to compel Ms. Maxwell to answer intrusive questions about her sex life" during her deposition. Menninger said Maxwell answered the questions because she had "a strong expectation of continued confidentiality."
The lawyer also cited the then ongoing criminal investigation of Maxwell, saying any disclosures from the Giuffre lawsuit could "inappropriately influence potential witnesses or alleged victims."
Sigrid McCawley, a lawyer for Giuffre, couldn't be immediately reached for comment about Preska's planned conference.
In the testimony that has been made public, Maxwell acknowledged hiring Giuffre as a 17-year-old massage therapist for Epstein at his Palm Beach estate but denied knowledge of any sexual abuse.
"You can be a professional masseuse at 17 in Florida, so as far as I am aware, a professional masseuse showed up for a massage," Maxwell said. "There is nothing inappropriate or incorrect about that."
Jul 19, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Templar X , 3 hours agoTemplar X , 3 hours ago
The Family of Spies: Ghislaine Maxwell
•Premiered Jul 10, 2020
Robert Maxwell, Israel's Superspy: https://archive.org/details/robert-maxwell-israels-superspy-thomas-dillon-2002/page/n383/mode/2up
Jeffrey Epstein 'Friend' Ghislaine Maxwell Has More Skeletons in Her Family Closet Than a House of Horrors https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-friend-ghislaine-maxwell-has-more-skeletons-in-her-family-closet-than-a-house-of-horrors?ref=scroll
Sir Robert Maxwell's FBI file is getting more classified by the minute https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/jun/28/sir-robert-maxwells-fbi-PROMIS/
Chiliad Case Study FBI https://web.archive.org/web/20120524130022/http://www.chiliad.com:80/docs/ChiliadCaseStudy_FBI.pdf
FBI Shows off Counterterrorism database https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/08/30/fbi-shows-off-counterterrorism-database/8bec6026-4ac2-4d6c-bfc3-98b61b01de3f/
Chiliad, the Company That Solved the 9/11 'Connecting the Dots' Problem, Hires Dan Ferranti as CEO https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20080303005669/en/Chiliad-Company-Solved-911-Connecting-Dots-Problem
CIA's CIO retires; Intelligence agency names successor https://www.cio.com/article/2448368/cia-s-cio-retires--intelligence-agency-names-successor.html
Betty Maxwell Telegraph article http://archive.is/cgInY
Juval Aviv on Promis and the Octopus Conspiracy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB2U8yQRMN0
Promis software linked to several murders https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqxc-KzcOz4
Dirtier than Watergate https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/04/promis-government-inslaw
Seat of Satan Pergamon https://www1.cbn.com/700club/seat-satan-ancient-pergamum
Ghislaine Maxwell's Twin Sisters Have Their Own Wild Stories https://www.thecut.com/2019/08/ghislaine-maxwell-family-twin-sisters.html
The Maxwell dynasty: what happened to the disgraced mogul's family? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/maxwell-dynasty-happened-disgraced-moguls-family/
Everything you need to know about Scott Borgerson, the tech CEO tied to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged madam, Ghislaine Maxwell
Scott Borgerson, the CEO of a maritime analytics company, is back in the news for his ties to Jeffrey Epstein's inner circle.
The Daily Mail reported last summer that Borgerson was dating and housing Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend and alleged madam. Authorities arrested Maxwell on July 2 , and she remains behind bars without bail until she stands trial in 2021 to face allegations she recruited underaged girls for Epstein.
Borgerson denied the August 2019 report to Business Insider at the time, and said Maxwell was only a "former friend" who was not living at his home in Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts. Maxwell was then spotted at an In-N-Out Burger joint in Los Angeles the next day.
The relationship between Borgerson and Maxwell is still not clear, but the CEO's name has resurfaced after prosecutors recently alleged in court that Maxwell is secretly married . Maxwell has declined to provide the name of her spouse, but news outlets have suggested it could be Borgerson...
...Scott Borgerson, 44, is the CEO of CargoMetrics, a data-analytics company for maritime trade and shipping. He cofounded the Boston-based company in 2010, and it was most recently valued at $100 million in 2016.
Borgerson's company has raised nearly $23 million from investors, which include former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Schmidt led a $10 million funding round for CargoMetrics in August 2017, according to PitchBook.
Borgerson owns an oceanfront property, reportedly worth $3 million, in Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts. Manchester-by-the-Sea is a small town north of Boston with a population of just over 5,000 people.
The Daily Mail reported in August 2019 that Borgerson was dating and housing Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's alleged madam who had largely remained out of the public eye. Maxwell was close to Epstein, and reportedly recruited underage girls for Epstein and participated in their abuse.
The Daily Mail also reported Maxwell had become a "homebody" who was "hiding out" at Borgerson's home, and that the pair have been dating for around five years. However, Borgerson denied the report to Business Insider at the time, and said Maxwell was a "former friend."...
Anyone involved with Ghislaine Maxwell must automatically be suspected of being involved in underage prostitution, pedophilia, money laundering, and sex slavery.
Jul 19, 2020 | www.unz.com
Priss Factor , says: Website July 13, 2020 at 4:44 pm GMT
Is Ghislaine Maxwell a Foreign Operative?
Jul 19, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
youshallnotkill , 1 hour agoAubiekong , 1 hour ago
Contrary to popular belief not all rich folks know each other and hang out together.
This is highly noteworthy: https://twitter.com/donwinslow/status/1284296818315030528?s=20Lucius Quinctius , 1 hour ago
Didnt Bill Clinton go there 124 times while ordering his secret service protection not to accompany him?Distant_Star , 2 hours ago
Someone turned over a rock and exposed this nasty business. Epstein with his mysteriously sourced money, evidently controlled and facilitated by Ghislaine Maxwell. Her father, the Publisher, was the honored Israeli agent. Sorry, I am not anti Semitic but the finger points to Israel. Yes, they live in a tough neighborhood, and history has been harsh to them, but this move was a mistake, a moral failing.frontierland , 1 hour ago
I don't give a Fu** about Prince Andrew. This is more misdirection to protect Bill Clinton and some others from scrutiny. Billy is rarely even mentioned in any news report about Epstein but there are eye witnesses who have SEEN him on the island and other properties.
Are you going to point the finger at the J3wish nature of the operation?
What about Maxwell's parties hosted at your hotel Donald and your ex-wife's involvement of the recruitment of White women into the (((International))) blackmail operation?
What about Les Wexner?
While we're at it, let's talk of your friendship with your mentor, Roy Cohen.
Jul 15, 2020 | www.msn.com
Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite charged with aiding the late Jeffrey Epstein in the sex trafficking of minors, employed former British military personnel as security at the New Hampshire estate where she was arrested earlier this month, federal prosecutors said in a court filing Monday.
The office of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York said Maxwell, in addition to the security detail, wrapped her cell phone in aluminum foil to avoid detection. FBI agents had to break down the door of the facility and found her hiding inside a room in its interior, prosecutors said, according to The Washington Post.
The FBI added that Maxwell sent the security personnel out to make "purchases for the property" with a credit card, and that the guards worked in rotating shifts.
The U.S. attorney's office has argued Maxwell is a flight risk, citing her citizenship in three countries, including her birthplace of France, which does not extradite citizens.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Alison Moe cited these precautions as further evidence Maxwell, who has denied the charges, is a flight risk. "As these facts make plain, there should be no question that the defendant is skilled at living in hiding," Moe wrote, according to the Post.
Since Maxwell's indictment, Moe wrote, investigators "have been in touch with additional individuals who have expressed a willingness to provide information regarding the defendant," who have given the U.S. attorney's office further information that "has the potential to make the Government's case even stronger," according to the newspaper.
Federal prosecutors have charged Maxwell on six counts, including sex trafficking, perjury and enticement of minors. She is due to appear in court Tuesday.
Maxwell's lawyers have claimed she was estranged from Epstein at the time of his death and that her precautions were against the media rather than law enforcement.
Jul 15, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Ghislaine Maxwell Pedo Sex-Trafficking Investigation Launched In Virgin Islands by Tyler Durden Tue, 07/14/2020 - 10:44 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print
Ghislaine Maxwell - who's facing six charges in New York over her alleged role in Jeffrey Epstein's pedophile sex-trafficking ring, is also under investigation in the US Virgin Islands .
The revelation comes in a July 10 filing to intervene in a lawsuit Maxwell filed against Epstein's estate seeking reimbursement for legal fees, and claiming that Epstein had repeatedly promised to support her financially, according to The Sun .
The Island's Justice Department is "investigating Maxwell's participation in Epstein's criminal sex trafficking and sexual abuse conduct," read the court papers.
Epstein infamously owned Little St. James island, dubbed 'pedo island' over accusations that he would fly underage girls there to fulfill his sexual desires and those of his associates. Famous guests reportedly include Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Stephen Hawking, Les Wexner and others.
One accuser, Chaunte Davies, says she was raped by Epstein over the course of several years before finally parting ways with him in 2005.Accuser Chaunte Davies, Ghislaine Maxwell
Now 40, Chaunte says the ex-Wall Street banker performed a sex act on himself during their first massage session - and that she was "manipulated" into staying in their circle by Maxwell . "Within weeks she was jetting round the world on his private jet and on to his island of Little Saint James," according to the report.
"The government's need to intervene is further fueled by Maxwell's inappropriate use of the Virgin Islands courts to seek payment and reimbursement from the Epstein criminal enterprise, while she circumvents the service of process of government subpoenas related to her involvement in that criminal enterprise ," reads the filing.NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Island officials have also subpoenaed Maxwell to try and compel her to appear before a local court - a bid which may prove difficult considering her current status as an inmate awaiting trial at a New York detention center following her July 2 arrest in New Hampshire. Maxwell has evaded Virgin Islands officials since March.
Maxwell is set to appear for a virtual bail and arraignment hearing on Tuesday. Her legal team has requested that she be freed on $5 million bail, arguing that she's not a flight risk and may catch coronavirus in jail. Prosecutors for the US Justice Department strongly disagreed, pointing to Maxwell's opaque finances and global contacts that pose a significant flight risk.
"She has demonstrated her ability to evade detection, and the victims of the defendant's crimes seek her detention," said DOJ prosecutors in their filing. "Because there is no set of conditions short of incarceration that can reasonably assure the defendant's appearance, the government urges the Court to detain her ."
Jul 14, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
According to the filing, one of Maxwell's security guards told agents that that the British socialite's brother had hired former members of the British military to guard her 24-7. As Bloomberg reports, Maxwell gave one of the guards a credit card in the name of the same LLC which bought her luxury New Hampshire bugout last year. According to the guard, Maxwell hadn't left the property in the time he'd been working there, and had been ordered to buy things for the estate.
Federal prosecutors detailed the lengths Maxwell went to in order to evade US law enforcement in order to argue that she's a flight risk who has access to "extraordinary financial resources" and would flee the country if allowed free on bail. A federal judge will decide on Tuesday whether to grant Maxwell's request to post $5 million bond so she can live under house arrest until her trial.
"She has demonstrated her ability to evade detection, and the victims of the defendant's crimes seek her detention," said DOJ prosecutors in their filing. "Because there is no set of conditions short of incarceration that can reasonably assure the defendant's appearance, the government urges the Court to detain her."
Maxwell wouldn't be extradited if she fled to France where she has citizenship, argued the prosecution, as the country does not extradite its own citizens to the US for prosecution, according to the report.
The government also argued Maxwell has been hiding from authorities, living in a secluded 156-acre estate in Bradford, New Hampshire, since late last year.
Maxwell is accused of luring girls as young as 14 for sexual encounters with Epstein and engaging in some of the abus e. Prosecutors argued she could face as long as 35 years in prison if convicted. Epstein died in a Manhattan lockup last August of an apparent suicide while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges.
While Maxwell's lawyers said in a separate court filing that she has six people willing to co-sign her bond, prosecutors argued she hasn't identified these people, whether any are even in the U.S. or have the sufficient finances to pay if she does flee. - Bloomberg
Maxwell's defense team also cited her long ties to the US, where she has lived for decades. They're also arguing that Maxwell was covered by Epstein's controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement which allowed the convicted pedophile to avoid federal sex trafficking charges.
Federal prosecutors called that "absurd," arguing that the current case involved evidence from two new accusers who weren't involved in the prior prosecution - and that their case could become "even stronger" as additional witnesses have come forward to offer evidence against Maxwell.
See the court filing below:
Jul 14, 2020 | www.msn.com
ender Jeffrey Epstein, sought to evade FBI detection by using former British military personnel as personal security and wrapping her cellphone in tin foil in an apparent anti-tracing attempt, federal prosecutors alleged Monday.
When the FBI moved on Maxwell at her estate in New Hampshire about two weeks ago, agents had to break down the door and found Maxwell hiding in a room in the interior of the home, according to a new court filing from the government opposing her release on bail.
The details of her arrest were disclosed as Maxwell, 58, is expected to face a Manhattan judge for the first time on Tuesday for a ruling on the $5 million bail bond package -- with home confinement and GPS monitoring -- that her lawyers proposed last week.
The U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of New York has maintained that Maxwell, who has citizenship in three countries including the United States, is a flight risk. She was tracked down at the secluded estate in Bradford, N.H., and arrested July 2.
Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today's most popular stories on The Washington Post
She was born in France, which does not extradite its own citizens, raising fears among prosecutors that she could leave the country if released and never return to face charges. Authorities have accused her of recruiting underage girls for Epstein to abuse and occasionally participating in criminal sex acts alongside him, saying she "normalized" the idea of having sex with Epstein, her longtime companion, causing lasting psychological and emotional damage to the victims.
Maxwell has denied the allegations, and her attorneys recently said she was estranged from Epstein for a decade before his suicide in August while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. She faces up to 35 years in prison.
Maxwell, the wealthy daughter of a deceased British media mogul, was so intent on not being located that she never left her house, sending the security staff out "to make purchases for the property" using a credit card they were provided, a guard there allegedly told the FBI, according to Monday's court filing. The guards were hired by Maxwell's brother and worked in "rotations," prosecutors wrote.
"As these facts make plain, there should be no question that the defendant is skilled at living in hiding," Assistant U.S. Attorney Alison Moe wrote.
The U.S. attorney's office noted in its filing that since Maxwell's indictment, investigators "have been in touch with additional individuals who have expressed a willingness to provide information regarding the defendant." The evidence provided by those individuals, who were not identified in the filing, "has the potential to make the Government's case even stronger," it says.
Maxwell's bail proposal involves posting "a multi-million dollar property" in the United Kingdom as collateral -- which prosecutors have deemed essentially useless because the U.S. government could not seize it -- and she has refused to reveal the true extent of her assets to investigators, the filing says.
Maxwell's attorneys argued last week that she was hiding from the media, not the FBI, before her arrest and that she should not be subjected to the risk of contracting the novel coronavirus at the Brooklyn federal jail where she has been held since her transfer from New Hampshire.
Jul 11, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
An alleged former Jewel thief who says he had group sex with Ghislaine Maxwell but 'drew the line at under-age girls' claims he was forced to watch pedo videos involving 'two high-profile US politicians' and 'two high society figures having a threesome with an under-age girl.'
Whether one believes an anonymous ex-jewel thief's exclusive interview with The Sun is up to the reader. That said, Epstein accuser Maria Farmer claimed there was a ' secret media room ' in the dead pedophile's New York mansion which was full of recording equipment.
What's more, former Israeli spy Ari Ben-Menashe - alleged "handler" of Ghislaine's father, Robert Maxwell, told the authors of Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales , that the Epstein was operating a "complex intelligence operation" at the behest of Mossad, and 'filmed US politicians and power players having sex with underage girls to blackmail them.'
Jumping into the salacious claims by the jewel thief, who goes by the name William Steel, the story begins in the mid-1990s when Steel claims he met Epstein in the "upstairs room at a very high-end diamond dealer, the kind of place where only a few people are allowed in at a time."
"I was there doing what I do. I was meeting my fence.
" I saw Jeff with a young girl who looked only about 13 or 14 and he had his hand in the back of her shorts.
"That's what first got my attention.
"She was so young and he was much older. That's when I knew that he was dirty.
" I had about 200,000 dollars worth of jewellery that I was getting rid of and later I struck up a conversation with him .
"He later said the girl he was with was his niece but I called bulls**t on that, telling him I saw what he was doing with her. - The Sun
At some point later, Steel says he met Ghislaine Maxwell - who he says he had sex with on multiple occasions - and wanted to see how she could use him to help Epstein. Steel says he was trying to do the same thing:
"I wouldn't say it was a relationship -- it was all about what she could use me for to help them. Me being a cocky young guy from New York City, seeing their arrogance and their wealth -- I just looked at it as an opportunity to milk them for what I could.
I used to brag about what I was capable of to them."
Steele added that " When I wanted to impress or scare somebody, I'd get my briefcase out and it would have police scanners in it, gloves, lock picks, guns with silencers, " adding "I even owned an ultra-thermic torch which would burn a hole into anything in seconds."
" That impressed Ghislaine and Jeff. "
SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE:
Steel claims that he saw a parade of underage girls 'coming and going' from Epstein's Palm Beach oceanfront mansion, but that he never participated in pedophilic sex acts.
"I only ever had sex with Maxwell and threesomes with her and other adult females," he said. "I suspected what they were doing with the under-age girls, I knew their routine, so when they tried to get me involved, I said, 'No, I'm not into that -- you're not getting me on video doing any of that'."
Steel also says Ghislaine is a "nymphomaniac" who would try "everything and anything in bed."
...he was shown footage involving two high-profile US politicians having sex with minors and two high society figures having a threesome with an under-age girl.
Steel -- who is not being paid for this interview -- also branded Maxwell , 58, who was arrested last week in connection with trafficking young girls, a wild "nymphomaniac" who would try "everything and anything in bed".
He says: " I was forced to watch their videos because they were trying to impress me.
"They wanted to convince me of their power and who they held in their grip.
" They boasted about 'owning' powerful people.
" Ghislaine was more into showing me those than Jeff.
"When you're in a situation like that, you have to pretend to be non- judgmental. But it was shocking. - The Sun
"She said to me that she often thought she needed to do something about Epstein, telling me, 'He is going to be the death of me'" claimed Steel. " So while she protected him and helped him, she was simultaneously plotting against him and trying to distance herself. "
"She knew they could drag each other down," adding "I think she saw herself as the more respectable of the two. She wanted me to do something about Jeff. "
Ghislaine allegedly told Steel she had a "Polanski plan," named after disgraced pedophile and film director Roman Polanski, who fled the US after he was charged with the rape of a 13-year-old girl.
"She told me about her Polanski plan where she would flee to France because they couldn't extradite her," he said, adding "I was surprised to hear she'd been picked up in New Hampshire."
"I want the authorities to know about her plan before her bail hearing."
Steel claims he absconded with evidence - "discs and things they were trying to get rid of," and says he "sent them to the authorities, but I don't know if they did anything with them."
Why he wouldn't make copies is anyone's guess.
Steel said the pair also asked him to help them find girls -- but he refused.
He adds: "Ghislaine was always talking down to people.
"She tried to pull that on me but I told her straight, ' Don't speak to me like you speak to your f***ing staff. I'm doing favours for you guys. You're not talking down to me. I don't give a f how much money you have '.
"They knew I had connections in various places and they offered me money to bring in girls but I never took them up on any of that.
"They told me, 'Whatever the girls want, I can help them with their modelling career if they want that or pay for their education, and it's just massages'.
"And I said, 'Yeah, I'm pretty sure what your massages turn into'.
"And he would just smirk at me and say that I could have what I wanted.
"I said I didn't want that, it's not fair to take advantage of these young girls. It's not right.
" He wanted me to help him with a plan he had to kidnap or pay 100 young girls and take them to an island where he would have sex with them, orgies, use them for blackmail and have babies with them.
"I just told him to shut up. I didn't even realise he was serious until years later.
"For him, at that time, his focus was getting girls that were not from the United States.
" He wanted girls from abroad because he felt they wouldn't know how the criminal justice system in the US works and would be less likely to report him.
"He said he would help look after their families but I said, 'I'm not going to help you ruin a teenage girl's life'. - The Sun
And that, is the rest of the ex-jewel thief's sordid tale.
Jul 09, 2020 | www.unz.com
The Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad Timeline shows in detail how Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were working for the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad.
The timeline generated many comments at Unz.com but surprisingly most of them dealt whether Epstein was a pedophile or not. This despite the overwhelming evidence of pedophilia.
Many have also totally missed – or are afraid to notice – the big picture: Israeli intelligence agencies and especially Mossad seem to be running pedophile rings that blackmail Western political, business and scientific leaders.
Furthermore, it seems that Ghislaine Maxwell was and still is the master mind behind many of these pedophile rings.
One of the reasons Epstein and Ghislaine were able to continue sex trafficking with impunity for so long was the appearance that Epstein was a victim of jealous people and overzealous police. Many people thought that Epstein had only had sex with a 17-year old girl who had lied about her age.
This excuse worked well because in Florida the age of consent is 18 while in most other American states it is 16.
Epstein was able to play the martyr by not only claiming that unscrupulous girls had lied their age but also by implying that the age of consent is too high anyway in Florida.
This was also one reason why in New Mexico where Epstein had his Zorro Ranch the officials refused to register him as a sex offender. In New Mexico the age of consent was 16 until in 2018 it was raised to 18.
Furthermore, unlike in many other states, in New Mexico the courts recognize a mistake of age defense.
New Mexico courts recognize a mistake of age defense . The mistake of age defense is basically "I thought she was 17." However, this is no guarantee that this defense will work in court. Moreover, the mistake of age is the creation of judges in the absence of a direct statute addressing the defense. State lawmakers may pass a law overriding the courts on this issue at any time. ( LegalMatch )
In reality the Epstein-Ghislaine case is not whether it is wrong for an adult to have sex with a 17 year old. Instead it is about many other things such as prostitution, grooming, pedophilia and the exploitation of children.
This all is connected to global politics involving sex trafficking, drug and arms trade, money laundering, Ponzi schemes, spy networks and blackmailing for Mossad.
Epstein's victims were caught in a web of international spy network that used them as pawns for blackmail operations. The younger the girls were, the more leverage Israel would have over politicians, billionaires and scientists. Thus Epstein and Ghislaine tried to also recruit girls who were well under the age of 16.
What is more, they personally enjoyed having sex with these very young girls. Both Epstein and Ghislaine seem to have been pedophiles who were attracted to prepubescent girls and boys, i.e. small children.
Pedophilia is defined as:
Pedophilia ( alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.   ( Wikipedia )
Note that in order to be a pedophile it is enough to have merely occasional sexual attraction to prepubescent, i.e. sexually immature children who have not yet developed secondary sex characteristics, such as breasts.
Julie Brown from Miami Herald notes that Courtney Wild was only 14 when she was recruited into Epstein's sex ring.Link to Miami Herald
Wild still had braces on her teeth when she was introduced to him in 2002 at the age of 14.
She was fair, petite and slender, blonde and blue-eyed. (emphasis added. Miami Herald )
Julie Brown also notes that Epstein preferred girls who were not only white [and non-Jewish] but also appeared prepubescent.
Wild, who later helped recruit other girls, said Epstein preferred girls who were white, appeared prepubescent and those who were easy to manipulate into going further each time. (Emphasis added. Miami Herald )
For Epstein and Ghislaine it was important that the girls at the very least looked like small children. This is obviously why they preferred girls who were under 16.
Courtney Wild told the police that she brought Epstein over 70 girls and they were all under 16.
By the time I was 16, I had probably brought him 70 to 80 girls who were all 14 and 15 years old (Emphasis added. Miami Herald )
Some girls were even younger. According to the police many were 13 year old.
The girls -- mostly 13 to 16 -- were lured to his pink waterfront mansion by Wild and other girls, who went to malls, house parties and other places where girls congregated, and told recruits that they could earn $200 to $300 to give a man -- Epstein -- a massage, according to an unredacted copy of the Palm Beach police investigation obtained by the Herald. (Emphasis added. Miami Herald )
It is also important to note that even 13 was not the minimum age for Epstein and Ghislaine. In fact, there was no limit to how young the girls could be. Both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell emphasized that the younger the better.Link to The Daily Beast
Eventually, she said Maxwell trained her to recruit new girls for Epstein.
"Jeffrey was very particular in the kind of girls he wanted. First off, the younger the better ."
Epstein said that to her, Giuffre claimed, and " Maxwell said that too . During the training and telling me how to do it, she said 'You always have to go for the youngest-looking ones .'" (Emphasis added. The Daily Beast )
It seems the primary purpose was not even blackmail since especially Epstein was having sex with these young girls all the time. On some days Epstein was having sex several times a day.
Sex games were more important for Epstein than work. Obviously, he was extremely attracted to these young girls.
Palm Beach multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein, 54, was accused of assembling a large, cult-like network of underage girls -- with the help of young female recruiters -- to coerce into having sex acts behind the walls of his opulent waterfront mansion as often as three times a day , the Town of Palm Beach police found. (Emphasis added. Miami Herald )Link to Business Insider
In six months, I never saw him do a day's work," Ransome told The Telegraph. "I never saw him work. He was literally sexually abusing us all day long . (Emphasis added. Business Insider )
Ghislaine also seemed to be obsessed with sex. Just like her father, Robert Maxwell she was rumored to be interested in unconventional sex which includes also sex with young children.Link to PageSix
As she [Ghislaine] posed for the pics, which ran in a publication meant to promote Sotheby's vintage fashion collection, she allegedly let slip comments that hinted at a twisted double life.
"She didn't talk about Epstein, but during the shoot she did tell a story about how she just hosted a dinner party for a number of young girls, and she put dildos at each place setting," the source said. "Ghislaine then described how during the dinner two guests, who were a couple, began demonstrating how to do the perfect fellatio on a man for all at the table. She was laughing about it."
"A friend of mine has a whole theory about her, that Epstein was like her father Robert Maxwell, who himself is believed to have had some strange sexual practices." ( Page Six )
The Epstein Mossad-Timeline shows how Ghislaine was most probably trained by Mossad to use sex to gather information. That training would not have been too difficult for her since she was hypersexual. Many even considered her a nymphomaniac.
In fact, even many Israeli Jews – who usually have much fewer sexual taboos than puritan English and Americans – were shocked by her raunchy sexuality.
Flirtatious indeed: I understand from a mutual friend that after school she travelled to Israel and visited a kibbutz; she was immediately ostracised by the other girls for making a rather-too-obvious beeline for the Adonis-like lifeguard at the kibbutz pool. Very quickly she got her way, as she would with much in her life. ( Tatler . Emphasis added.)
Even Ghislaine's friend were sometimes shocked by her open sexuality that so often contrasted with her otherwise lady-like behavior and position in high society.
Ghislaine was, added Mason, 'fantastically entertaining' and 'saucy' – the paper said that she talked openly about sex .
In fact, said another acquaintance who saw her often at parties, she was 'obsessed by sex . She's Sphinx-like, mysterious. The last time I saw her, five, 10 years ago, I said what are you up to? And she said "I'm selling this product – stainless-steel mini dumb-bells – that you put up your fanny. For exercising your vaginal muscles, exercise your pelvic floor, learn the Singapore Grip. I'm giving seminars in LA and they all turn up and I tell them, this is how you keep your man."' ( Tatler . Emphasis added.)
Epstein and Ghislaine were both hypersexual. All kind of sex interested them. Little girls were just part of the menu. Or more specifically, the best – and most profitable – part.
Epstein and Ghislaine were so attracted to young girls that nothing seemed to satisfy them. Perhaps this is why Epstein and Ghislaine created the highly risky sexual pyramid scheme. The girls were offered two alternatives: Either satisfy Epstein and Ghislaine sexually or get more girls to satisfy them.
In this way Epstein and Ghislaine were able to recruit literally hundreds of young girls. However, some of these girls went to the police and the sexual pyramid scheme collapsed.
When Epstein got out of jail in 2009 he had half-learned his lesson: American girls are too risky.
Now Epstein and Ghislaine would only concentrate on East European girls with the help of their Jewish-Ukrainian friend Peter Listerman.Link to the Citizen Truth.org
One of the lesser-known shadowy figures linked to Jeffrey Epstein and his sex ring of teenage girls and young women is Ukrainian-born Peter Listerman, who has worked as a businessman and television presenter but is most known for his "match-making" abilities.
What match-making really means is that Listerman procures women, often underage, for the jet-set society to use for sexual purposes. His "clients" include Russian oligarchs and American businessmen and seems to have also included Jeffrey Epstein. ( Citizen Truth )
Listerman has such a bad reputation that he is shunned even in Ukraine!Peter Listerman is the usual suspect. Link to Fishki.net Do you think I am kidding? I am Peter Listerman! Link to Fishki.net
Tatiana Savchenko, who founded the first modeling school in Odessa, Ukraine explained to the Daily Beast the lengths she had to go to keep Listerman from getting his hands on young women and trafficking them for sex work.
She claimed that he would frequently approach her students and attempt to lure them with promises of a luxurious lifestyle, and that "It took a lot of work to keep him from tricking our teen models in his traps." ( Citizen Truth )
Both Epstein and Listerman were attracted to very young girls. Neither even tried to hide it much. In fact, Epstein was quite open about his attraction to tweens.
Just three months ago, as federal prosecutors were closing in with new charges, Mr. Epstein had a conversation with R. Couri Hay, a publicist, about continuing to improve his reputation. Mr. Epstein asserted that what he was convicted of did not constitute pedophilia, said Mr. Hay, who declined to represent him.
The girls he had sex with were "tweens and teens," Mr. Epstein told him. ( The New York Times )
But what is a tween?
Preadolescent is generally defined as those ranging from age 10 to 13 years.   While known as preadolescent in psychology, the terms preteen, preteenager or tween are common in everyday use. ( Wikipedia )
Epstein was right, of course. What he was convicted of in 2007 did not constitute pedophilia. However, that is precisely one reason why people are so outraged!
Epstein and Ghislaine did not see any problem of recruiting, grooming and having sex also with tweens. And apparently neither did the Justice Department and the FBI led by Robert Mueller !
But it gets even worse. As pointed out in the Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad Timeline , it seems that Epstein and Ghislaine were after even younger girls.
In 2003 Epstein financed Jean-Luc Brunell's(?) and Jeff Fuller's(J) new modelling agency MC2 that seemed to have worked with Peter Listerman.
MC2 obviously refers to the famous Einstein equation E = MC2 , the energy-mass equivalence. Equally obviously, E equals Epstein, the energy, whereas the girls equal MC2, the mass energized by Epstein.Jean-Luc Brunell
Brunell is generally known as the sleaziest man in model business who has long faced accusations that girls were drugged and raped in his employ . Already in the 80s he was the subject of a famous 60 Minutes expose on sexual abuse in the modeling industry
Despite all this – or for the very reason – Epstein invested in MC2 and became particularly close to its founders Brunel and Fuller.
The agency operates in New York, Miami and Tel Aviv. It's in practice half-Israeli.
Many call Israel the capital of human trafficking and organ harvesting .Link to Ynet.com
MC2 concentrates on importing East European girls to Israel and America. The younger the better.Marina Lynchuk of MC2 Lolita Lvola from MC2 Linta Lapinda from MC2
Brunel seems to have given 12-year old triplets to Epstein as a birthday present.Link to Daily Mail
'Jeffrey bragged after he met them that they were 12-year-olds and flown over from France because they're really poor over there, and their parents needed the money or whatever the case is and they were absolutely free to stay and flew out,' Giuffre said.
She said she saw the three girls with her own eyes and that Epstein had repeatedly described to her how the girls had massaged him and performed oral sex on him. They were flown back to France the next day.
It seems that even tweens were not young enough for Epstein.
According to court papers in 2005 Brunel called Epstein and left a message that "he is sending him a 16-year-old Russian girl for purposes of sex". However, the written message says something even worse.
The message, filed as an exhibit in the case, was written on an office message pad, partly in code, and read: "He [Brunel] has a teacher for you to teach you how to speak Russian. She is 2×8 years old not blonde. Lessons are free and you can have your 1st today if you call." ( New York Post )
Does it mean that two eight year olds are involved? Or does 2 x 8 mean to sex 8 year old? (2=to, x=sex)
Why would the lessons be free and why is it relevant that the "teacher" is not a blond?
There is no denying that Epstein and Ghislaine sexualised even small children. This became clear in 2005 when police raided Epstein's Palm Peach mansion.
In one photo that was hanging on the wall a small six or seven year old girl was bending over in a tiny dress. Police blurred out the photo in the video taken during the raid.Link to The Daily Mail
Despite all this only the Russian Television was actively trying to expose Epstein and Ghislaine.
RT aired this video already nine years ago!
The description on the video is even more revealing. It even mentions the 12-year old triplets.
The American TV networks were actively suppressing the story for years.
The American media has also been trying to cover up the fact that Jeffrey Epstein was most probably murdered in his cell. He had to be silenced.
But it gets even worse.
This hung on Ghislaine's home wall.NEW YORK CITY, NY – MARCH 13: Atmosphere at Hamish Bowles, Ghislaine Maxwell and Lillian von Stauffenberg dinner for ALLEGRA HICKS at Home of Ghislaine Maxwell on March 13, 2007 in New York City. (Photo by Patrick McMullan/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images). Link to Getty Images.
The so called artwork seems to be full of pedophile symbols.Link to Wikileaks.org
The quality of the photos taken at Ghislaine's home are so good that even more symbols have been found in her artwork.
For some reason the mainstream media has not picked up on this pedophilia angle. No mainstream media journalist has even tried to ask why would Ghislaine have such art and symbols on her home wall.
This despite the fact that Ghislaine is most probably an Israeli superspy just like was her father, Robert Maxwell. She probably has been trained to use sex – including pedophilia – as a tool for blackmail and manipulation.
At the time in Israel females molesting little boys was not even considered rape.Link to Haaretz.com
Nor have mainstream journalists asked where was Ghislaine when Madeline McCann was abducted.
That would not be an unreasonable question since one of the E-Fit images looks a lot like Ghislaine.Link to Enchanted Life Path.com
Furthermore, two of the E-Fit images (1A, 1B) look like the Podesta brothers. John Podesta was White House Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton and the Chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
Ghislaine and Epstein were close to the Clintons and the Podesta brothers have been directly linked also to Pizzagate.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/l5AxV1SrTkE?feature=oembedLink to Pizzagate Map created by Tuukka Pensala
Was Ghislaine helping to run also Pizzagate and other pedophile rings for Mossad?
At least she seems to be perfectly trained to do just that. First, her own hypersexuality, family background and possible training by Mossad made it easy for her to master mind the pedophilia ring she run with Epstein.
Second, Ghislaine and Epstein had all the apparel to help run also other pedophile rings: Lolita express airplanes and helicopters, Zorro Ranch in New Mexico and luxury mansions in New York, Palm Peach and Paris.
Even more importantly they had their own island in the Virgin Islands.
In the 90s Epstein bought Little St. James island from the Virgin islands. It had a mansion which Epstein expanded.
Soon locals started to call it the Pedophile Island.Little St. James island. Link to Wall Street Journal article
The island seems to have tunnels with several underground entrances.Underground entrance Link to Twitter
The island also has a strange temple.
We Are Change's Luke Rudkowski and the Dollar Vigilante's Jeff Berwick secretly visited the island but were soon chased out.
Ghislaine has a Helicopter Pilot License and often transported quests to the island.
On the weekends in the 1990s, Maxwell would have her Rollerblades FedExed to Epstein's island in the Caribbean, and said she got her helicopter's license so she could transport anyone she liked without pilots knowing who they were .
Maxwell also said the island had been completely wired for video; the friend thought that she and Epstein were videotaping everyone on the island as an insurance policy, as blackmail.
A source close to Maxwell says she spoke glibly and confidently about getting girls to sexually service Epstein, saying this was simply what he wanted, and describing the way she'd drive around to spas and trailer parks in Florida to recruit them. She would claim she had a phone job for them, "and you'll make lots of money, meet everyone, and I'll change your life."
Maxwell had one other thing to tell this woman: "When I asked what she thought of the underage girls, she looked at me and said, 'they're nothing, these girls. They are trash .'" (Emphasis added. Vanity Fair )
Ghislaine was naturally using Epstein's helicopters. Some of them shared their FAA tail number with a US contractor, Dyncorp . That would have helped Ghislaine and Epstein to fly drugs and children.
FAA records and Epstein's pilot's flight manifest indicate that Epstein's Bell helicopter used the same tail number of N474AW . This was the same tail number used until 2006 by State Department contractor Dyncorp for counter-insurgency operations in Latin America.
The congruence of Epstein's Bell N474AW and Dincorp's Bronco N474AW is noteworthy. In 2002, the year Epstein's aircraft fleet stands accused of flying underage teen girls, some between the ages of 12 and 15 , coincided with Dyncorp's trafficking in underage females between the ages of 12 and 15 from Kosovo and Bosnia in the Balkans.
One Dyncorp whistleblower reported to The Washington Times's Insight magazine's Kelly O'Meara in 2002 the following on one Dyncorp employee in Bosnia:
[he] owned a girl who couldn't have been more than 14 years old. It's a sick sight anyway to see any grown man [having sex] with a child, but to see some 45-year-old man who weights 400 pounds with a little girl, it just makes you sick."
Tail number N474AW has been shared between Epstein's Bell helicopter like the one in this photo. (Emphasis added. Political Bull Pen )
DynCorp's pedophilia ring became internationally infamous with the release of the movie Whistleblower.Link to Wikipedia
Helicopters can always be seen. However, Ghislaine also has a license to operate submarines!
In 2012 – three years after Epstein got out of jail – Maxwell founded The TerraMar Project ,  a nonprofit organization that advocated protecting ocean waters.
She gave a lecture for TerraMar at the University of Texas at Dallas and a TED talk, at TEDx Charlottesville in 2014.  Maxwell accompanied Stuart Beck (J), a 2013 TerraMar board member, to two United Nations meetings to discuss the project.  ( Wikipedia )
In 2014, a United Nations event featured Maxwell as a speaker. According to her bio in the program, Maxwell's "web-based non-profit" aimed "to protect the Oceans by empowering a global community of ocean citizens ." It further described Maxwell as "a private helicopter pilot and an Emergency Medical Technician and a qualified ROV and Deepworker submarine pilot ."
A former Coast Guard officer, Borgerson was also a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations , which featured Borgerson and Maxwell as speakers during one 2014 talk titled "Governing the Ocean Commons: Growing Challenges, New Approaches." Friends of Maxwell, according to The New York Times , said Borgerson became her boyfriend. Maxwell had allegedly described Borgerson as a " Navy SEAL " to her pals.
Maxwell's dubious charity also roped in the Clinton Global Initiative , the now-defunct networking platform for the Clinton Foundation. In the fall of 2013, CGI named TerraMar as one of the "commitments to action" at their annual meeting. (Emphasis added. Daily Beast )
Did the Pedophile Island have an underground submarine base? Was it a part of global pedophile network?
And was the Ocean Citizens project an attempt to escape national jurisdictions and thus gain at least a partial immunity from police investigations and prosecutions?Link to TerraMar Project
Interestingly, as late as 2016 Epstein bought also the nearby Great St. James Island. He started to build on the island without permits.
There were rumors that he was building underground. For some reason the mainstream media has had no interest in this second island.
Why is the mainstream media not interested in Ghislaine's many links to pedophilia?
Perhaps because Ghislaine has so many powerful friends. The photo of the pedophile artwork on Ghislaine's wall was taken 13 March 2007 during a party at Ghislaine's New York townhouse. The guest list included a curious combination of elite Jews, aristocratic Brits and American WASPs.Atmosphere==
Hamish Bowles, Ghislaine Maxwell and Lillian von Stauffenberg dinner for ALLEGRA HICKS. Home of Ghislaine Maxwell. March 13, 2007©Patrick McMullan. Photo-Patrick McMullan/Patrick McMullan.com. Link to Quick N Dirty
The party was in Ghislaine's huge 7000-square-foot townhouse. It is located in the most opulent and prestigious neighborhood of America, the Upper East Side , New York on East 65th Street just off Park Avenue. Epstein's townhouse was only 10 blocks away.Ghislaine's five story townhouse. Link to Street Easy Ghislaine's townhouse floor plan. Link to Street Easy Ghislaine's townhouse 2nd floor gallery. Link to Street Easy
There are reports from reliable sources that the townhouse was sold in 2000 to Ghislaine by Lynn Forester de Rothschild . The very same woman who had introduced Epstein and Ghislaine to Alan Dershowits and the Clintons in the 90s.
The Manhattan property, which is close to Epstein's mansion, is owned by Lynn Forester de Rothschild, wife of British financier Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. (See The Times and the original article .)
According to Business Insider Forester sold the townhouse to Ghislaine for less than half the price.
Forester sold the mansion for about $8.5 million less than its assessed market value, which was more than $13.4 million.
Was this a pay-off to Ghislaine from the King of Jews, the Rothschilds for services rendered?Hillary Clinton, Evelyn de Rothschild, Bill Clinton and Lynn Forester de Rothschild. Link to Mint Press
It probably is also relevant that at the time of the sale of the townhouse the Prime Minister of Israel was Ehud Barak. In the 80s he had been the head of Aman, the Israeli Military Intelligence Agency. As the Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad Timeline revealed, both Epstein and Ghislaine worked for the Israeli intelligence agencies already in the 80s during the Iran-Contra operation.
Note that it was around year 2000 that Epstein and Ghislaine started the pedophile operation in earnest. In the 80s and 90s blackmail operations were a side show but now it became the main show involving hundreds of young girls.
Sexual blackmail – especially involving little children – can be an extremely efficient way to influence key politicians and even military officials. A successful blackmail operation can achieve more than several army divisions. No wonder Barak was so close to Epstein and Ghislaine.
Furthermore, in 2000 the president of Israel was Moshe Katsev who was sexually harassing and even raping his female subordinates. Later Katsev would be convicted of rape.
It was also in 2000 when the Israeli Vice-Consul of Rio de Janeiro, Arie Scher and Hebrew language Professor George Schteinberg were running a pedophile ring for Israeli tourists. When the Brasilian police started to investigate the Israeli consulate Scher managed to flee back to Israel.Link to Rodoh.info
In Israel Scher was not prosecuted. Instead in 2005 he was promoted to Consul of Canberra, the capital of Australia. A spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, Mark Regev explained:
He [Arie Scher] was a young and single man at the time [in Brazil]. Now he is married and he's six years older and there is no reason why he shouldn't make an excellent diplomatic appointment in Australia.
Australia refused to let Scher enter the country.Link to William Bowles Info
The most shocking part of the Arie/Aryeh Scher story is that the mainstream media was not interested. Either the stories have been scrubbed from the internet or no stories were ever written by mainstream journalists except one short story by BBC in 2000 and one even smaller story by The Sydney Morning Herald in 2005. Even more surprisingly Youtube does not seem to have any videos about the Scher case.
No wonder Barak was absolutely convinced that the Western mainstream media would never dare to criticize Israel and its intelligence agencies. Not even when Mossad was running pedophile rings.
It was probably the Israeli leaders Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and Moshe Katsev together with the ultra-Zionist Mega Group who made sure Epstein and especially the Maxwell family had not only immunity from prosecution but also all the blackmail apparel necessary including luxury townhouses, airplanes, yachts, submarines, ranch and a private island. All, of course, bugged to the hilt.Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak (R) talks to Shimon Peres, Minister of Regional Planning, after Barak's speech at the opening session of parliament in Jerusalem 30 October 2000. AFP PHOTO / SVEN NACKSTRAND (Photo credit should read SVEN NACKSTRAND/AFP/Getty Images) Link to Getty Images
Here the pedophile artwork at Ghislaine's New York townhouse can be seen behind Lillian von Staufenberg who in March 2007 together with Ghislaine and Hamish Bowles organized a dinner party in honor of Allegra Hicks. This at a time when Epstein had already been charged with abusing young girls.Karen Groos, Allegra Hicks, Lillian von Stauffenberg==
Hamish Bowles, Ghislaine Maxwell and Lillian von Stauffenberg dinner for ALLEGRA HICKS. Home of Ghislaine Maxwell, NYC. March 13, 2007 ©Patrick McMullan/Patrick McMullan.com. Link to QuickNDirty
Why would Ghislaine have such a suspicious artwork on her wall knowing that it would probably be photographed during the parties?
Why would Ghislaine and her quests take such a huge risk? Or was it a sign meant to be seen? Was Ghislaine flaunting her power?
Ghislaine and her quests seemed to be absolutely sure that the mainstream media would not dare to ask embarrassing questions.
They were right, of course. The mainstream media knows its place.
However, occasionally some courageous mainstream journalist or editor does try to give hints. Some have even reported on Ghislaine's hyper-sexual reputation and her orgies. It is just that the stories have mostly been scrubbed from the internet.
Fortunately, Whitney Webb from Mintpress has found many of the scrubbed stories. Some of them mention the Mossad connection and others note the orgies. For example, in 2003 a British newspaper, The Evening Standard reported a revealing rumor.
Salacious reports have crossed the Atlantic about Ghislaine hosting bizarre parties at her house to which she invites a dozen or so young girls, then brandishes a whip and teaches them how to improve their sexual techniques.
It seems that Ghislaine was not only a madame to Epstein but also to the ruling elite. This would both explain her popularity and the fact that the media – and especially the American media – dares not to criticize her too much. Not even after her boyfriend Epstein was charged with sex trafficking minors!
Ghislaine's friends are just too powerful. After the March 2007 party the British Daily Mail newspaper was amazed how Ghislaine could still have attracted such creme de la creme of the highest elite. Even more amazingly, the elite was practically swooning over her.Link to Daily Mail
The night before the party, the hostess [Ghislaine] had been inundated with calls from disgruntled socialites, irked that they hadn't received an invitation.
The hostess greeted their objections with her customary charm, but remained unmoved. As always, her list had been carefully edited, and she intended it to stay that way.
Among the select few were Hollywood star Matthew Modine, Kennedy family member Mrs Anthony Radziwill, Peggy Siegel, PR consultant to the stars, and Julie Janklow, heir to a literary dynasty.
There was a Rockefeller on the list, as well as the inevitable countesses, billionaires and New York luminaries.
The guests at the party included also Renee Rockefeller who is married to Mark Rockefeller , the son of ex-Vice President Nelson Rockefeller and nephew of David Rockefeller.Allegra Hicks, Renee Rockefeller==
Hamish Bowles, Ghislaine Maxwell and Lillian von Stauffenberg dinner for ALLEGRA HICKS. Home of Ghislaine Maxwell, NYC. March 13, 2007 ©Patrick McMullan/Patrick McMullan.com. Link to QuickNDirty
David Rockefeller lived at 146 East on the same 65th Street in the Upper East Side as Ghislaine. They were practically neighbors. Ghislaine would have to walk only two minutes to visit David.
David liked to pose for photos in his Beetle Room next to his favorite Picasso painting depicting a nude child "prostitute".David Rockefeller. Link to Jeffrey Harris Desing.com
David was often visited by his close friend Jacob Rothschild, the patriarch of the Rothschild family.
The very same family that got Ghislaine her luxury townhouse next door.The patriarchs, Jacob Rothschild and David Rockefeller. Link to Jeffrey Harris Design.com
As shown by the Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad Timeline both Epstein and Ghislaine continued to move in the highest circles long after Epstein got out of jail. In fact, only last year Ghislaine was invited to a secret writers' retreat hosted by the richest man in the world, Jeff Bezos.Link to The Daily Mail
Not only billionaires but also royalty kept in close contact with Ghislaine.
Prince Andrew was recently interviewed by the BBC about his relationship with Epstein, Ghislaine and their sex slave Virginia Roberts.
Amazingly, Andrew claimed she has no recollection of Epstein's and Ghislaine's sex slave, Virginia Roberts. This despite the fact that they were photographed together!Prince Andrew, Virginia Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell. Link to Daily Mail Link to The Sun.com
Hardly anybody believes Andrew. The queen had no choice but to sack his own son.Link to Daily Mail
Andrew got sacked because he was caught in a lie.
Andrew claimed he could not have had sex with the 17-year old Virginia in 2001 because he had stayed with the British consul general.
The problem is the consul general does not recall Andrew staying with him.Link to Daily Mail
Curiously, most of the mainstream media has forgotten that it was Ghislaine who recruited and manipulated Virginia Roberts to become a sex slave.
Even the BBC forgot this crucial fact despite Andrew mentioning Ghislaine many times during the interview.
Time and again, the Prince invoked his friendship with Maxwell, 57, daughter of disgraced media tycoon Robert Maxwell, as the reason he came into paedophile Epstein's orbit.
Asked when he last saw Maxwell, Andrew said his last contact was 'earlier this year, funnily enough', when she 'was here doing some rally'. ( Daily Mail )
Andrew claimed to have met Ghislaine last spring. In fact, they met in June just after US prosecutors reopened the case against Epstein.
The Duke of York held a meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell in London two weeks after US prosecutors announced they wanted to reopen their investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.
The meeting took place on or about June 5, the day before Ms Maxwell took part in a four-day charity motoring rally from London to Monte Carlo.
Did Ghislaine demand that Andrew help make sure that the her own parallel case would not be reopened?
After meeting Andrew she literally disappeared from the face of the earth.Link to Daily Mail
The ex-socialite has not been seen since although rumours have placed her in Brazil, France, the American mid-West and even the UK.
'No one knows where she is,' a lawyer for one of Epstein's victims said last night. 'She's done the greatest disappearing act known to man – or woman.' ( Daily Mail )
Shockingly, during the BBC interview Prince Andrew mentioned Ghislaine many times and seemed to be proud of their friendship. Despite this the interviewer did not dare to ask questions about their relationship.
Was this a message to all: Leave Ghislaine alone.
Ghislaine is obviously protected not only by the royal family but also by the whole ruling elite. No wonder that she has the Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card .
Ghislaine also tries to protect other Epstein associates.Link to Daily Mail
Prince Andrew is now afraid to go to the US.Link to BBC story and video
Five women who accuse Jeffrey Epstein of abusing them say Prince Andrew witnessed how people were given massages at the sex offender's homes.
The lawyer for the women has told BBC Panorama he plans to serve subpoenas to force the Duke of York to testify as a witness in all five cases.
He says the prince could have important information about sex trafficking. ( BBC )
The BBC has now finally zoomed in on Ghislaine.
Another Epstein victim, Sarah Ransome told Panorama Ghislaine Maxwell, one of Prince Andrew's oldest friends, worked hand in hand with Epstein.
"Ghislaine controlled the girls. She was like the Madam," she said.
"She was like the nuts and bolts of the sex trafficking operation and she would always visit Jeffrey on the island to make sure the girls were doing what they were supposed to be doing.
"She knew what Jeffrey liked. She worked and helped maintain Jeffrey's standard by intimidation, by intimidating the girls, so this was very much a joint effort."
Ms Maxwell could not be reached for comment but has previously denied any involvement in or knowledge of Epstein's abuse. ( BBC )
But the American media is still not interested in Ghislaine.
What the American mainstream media always willfully forgets is that Ghislaine Maxwell is the key person and mastermind behind the whole pedo sex trafficking operation.
The key role of Ghislaine is not surprising. After all, her father was an Israeli super spy, Robert Maxwell.
But perhaps this is the very reason why the American media is not interested.
For years Ghislaine has been at the center of a vast pedophile sex trafficking network. But still to this day the American police has never dared to even interview her.
She simply knows too much.
Jul 09, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com
In the wake of - and in spite of - his death, France began a preliminary investigation of Epstein for rape, etc., last year. He had an apartment in Paris and was returning to the US from there when he was arrested in New Jersey in July, 2019.
Could this answer speculation as to why Ghislaine Maxwell chose to settle here in the US instead of France?
FakeBot , 08 July 2020 at 07:03 PMLeith , 08 July 2020 at 07:10 PM
I can't make heads from tails here until I see more done. Clayton still has to get confirmed and Ghislaine has to be made to talk. That's just a start.
Part of me thinks they could all be scoundrels, one no better than the next. Knowing what I know about Jared Kushner's father has made me believe the worst. I'd like to think. We'll see.
She has hired Christian Everdell for her defense. "He was named one of New York's 2019 Super Lawyers for white collar criminal defense." He used to be an Assistant US Attorney for SDNY where he helped convict El Chapo of the Sinaloa drug cartel.
A former colleague says he will do what is in the best interests of the client, but no doubt he will be talking to her about the benefits of becoming a cooperating witness.
turcopolier , 08 July 2020 at 07:26 PM
...She will sing to avoid dying in prison (she would make a splendid laundress).
turcopolier , 08 July 2020 at 07:31 PM
She personally molested a lot of these girls. She used sex toys and her fingers on their genitals to "train" them. That's all right by you?
Jul 09, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,
An acquaintance of Ghislaine Maxwell has told reporters that the socialite has secret video footage of Prince Andrew that was filmed during her time as Jeffrey Epstein's so called 'madam'.
Christina Oxenberg told The Sun that Andrew, the British Queen's son, "is one of many johns, all of whom were videotaped by Ghislaine."
"He is not a victim here, but Ghislaine was never his friend, she was taping him," Oxenberg added, noting that "Friends don't tape friends."
Oxenberg is the daughter of Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia, making her Prince Andrew's cousin.
She told reporters that she believes Maxwell is seeking to trade information with the FBI, and possibly the videos to save herself.
"I think she thinks she can get out, obviously she's planning on trading [information]," Oxenberg said.
Oxenberg says she was interviewed by the FBI last year in regards to the case, and that she is willing to testify against Maxwell.
The report claims that the royal said Maxwell previously bragged to her about obtaining underage girls under Epstein's influence.
"I will definitely be there to remind her that in '97, she told me copious amounts," Oxenberg said.
It is not clear if Oxenberg is the same person who was cited anonymously in another report this week claiming that Maxwell has secret sex tapes that "could implicate some twisted movers and shakers."
"If Ghislaine goes down, she's going to take the whole damn lot of them with her," the source told the Daily Mail .
As we highlighted last week, a lawyer for one of Epstein's accusers thinks that Ghislaine Maxwell could reveal a "bigger name" involved in Epstein's pedophile network in order to secure a plea deal following her arrest.
"I'm sure that Ghislaine's attorneys will try to make a deal where she speaks out about a bigger name to get reduced charges for herself," said Lisa Bloom
Jul 08, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com
- " they also noted that she had been hiding out on a 156-acre property in Bradford. She lived in an estate with "a fabulous barn for hoedowns, square dances, and hay rides," according to the property site Zillow ." BG
- " Maxwell, a citizen of three countries, apparently bought the home in an all-cash purchase at the end of December through an anonymous LLC, a prosecutor's memo said. The LLC has a Boston-based mailing address, according to public records.
- " We had been discreetly keeping tabs on Maxwell's whereabouts ," said William F. Sweeney Jr., the assistant director in charge of the FBI's New York office, at a press conference. "More recently we learned she had slithered away to a gorgeous property in New Hampshire, continuing to live a life of privilege while her victims live with the trauma inflicted upon them years ago." The memo said she had been "hiding out in locations in New England" for the past year ." BG
When I was a kid I used to drive my father back and forth from Sanford, Maine to Grenier, AFB at Manchester, NH. He had a retirement job at the base (long closed) as the budget analyst for the facility. He never learned to drive. Central New Hampshire is a forested and somewhat gloomy land both east and west of Manchester. Bradford looks to be 40 miles NW of Manchester. I never had any reason to go west of Manchester into the center of the state. All of central NH is a land of coniferous forest and tiny villages like Bradford. South of Manchester the scene is dominated by immigrants from Massachusetts centered around a big town, Nashua. The actual locals in greater NH refer to them as Massholes. They moved to NH to escape MA taxes.
A million bucks for 156 acres of pine and fir with a nice house and the wondrous barn mentioned above? Sounds like a great deal to me, even in an all cash deal. A million dollars wouldn't get you anything like that where I live at Alexandria in Occupied, Virginia now ruled by the Quisling Northam. So, who set up the dummy LLC through which the property was acquired? A law firm, right? And who found the place? Were they steered to this property by the FBI?
The FBI in NY gave a presser and handed out a memo on the "score." Why the NY City office of the FBI? My WAG would be that they have had one or more sources on the books in NY City telling them where she has been since her "disappearance," and keeping them up to date on her activities and location. Who? There must be at least one lawyer in the mix. A lot of lawyers would "rat out" a client in a heartbeat if approached by the FBI. They know the cost of refusing to cooperate.
The FBI brought the NYPD as well as the local flics to make this arrest? Why did they do that? I just checked in Wikipedia and Bradford has not been ceded to NY City.
My uber WAG would now be that she probably never left the US. In an age of digital passport controls at frontiers it is not easy to move around internationally without being reported electronically. I suppose she could have sneaked across the Canada/US border in northern New England, but she doesn't look the type for spooking around in some little border town or hiking through the Maine woods. And, the Canadians would have noticed her when she arrived at one of their airports even by private jet.
No, on balance I would bet that all the stuff about her residence in Israel or France is probably hot air, but I could be wrong. pl
FakeBot , 08 July 2020 at 11:08 AMOilman2 , 08 July 2020 at 12:06 PM
She could have escaped the country. Carlos Ghosn had escaped prosecution in Japan by hiding in a box taken aboard a private plane, eventually finding his way to Lebanon.
Perhaps she felt she was untouchable. Or maybe Israel, where she would have been protected against extradition to the US, wasn't safe for her.
What I still can't grasp is the whole Berman/Clayton situation. There's no question she could have been arrested sooner. It seems Berman was blocking her arrest. Also there is a lot of resistance to Clayton's nomination. Even Senator Lindsay Graham, who has become something of an ally to Trump, has come out in opposition to it. It's very strange.walrus , 08 July 2020 at 04:28 PM
You aren't the only person thinking this strongly enough to write about it:
It has enough irregularity in it to remind me of JFKjr plane crash. If she truly has the same goods as JE, then it would require days of testimony and corroboration, months even, along with locating and reviewing said actual physical evidence. It would not take a few days post-arrest; legal matters simply take forever at this level, and the more lawyers the longer it takes whether civil or criminal.
This reeks to me of a cover story for someone who had their ears pinned back months or years ago by one team or the other.
I don't know but I suspect she calculated that she was safer in America than elsewhere. I think she was probably concerned about the British more than anyone else. Prince Andrew is a chump, but a Royal one.
I would expect that the FBI and perhaps her lawyers also lulled her into a false sense of security. - designed to keep her "within range" and perhaps over time she becomes careless enough to reveal the location of hidden evidence.
In my darkest moods I suspect she now needs to be "dealt with", perhaps to remove spoiling opportunities with one or more Democratic party candidates.
I am concerned for her safety. I am especially concerned that she be kept totally isolated from the rest of the prison population. We had a "super grass" crook - Carl Williams in jail here. He was singing about judicial corruption. He was inexplicably transferred to a unit shared with two homicidal inmates who murdered him. I say "inexplicable" since the prison governor responsible then went deer hunting near here and has not been seen since.
turcopolier , 08 July 2020 at 04:32 PM
"What I still can't grasp is the whole Berman/Clayton situation. There's no question she could have been arrested sooner." Of course you "grasp it." Democrat big-wigs will be implicated if she talks. It is amusing how much this affair resembles the TeeVee Series "Billions."
NY is a caricature of the show.
Posted by: turcopolier , 08 July 2020 at 04:32 PM
Jul 07, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
For the first time in her privileged life, ex-socialite Ghislaine Maxwell is living in conditions described by one judge in 2016 as similar to a 'prison on Turkey or a Third World Country.'
The 58-year-old Maxwell was arrested after hiding out in a lavish four-bedroom, four-bathroom mansion in New Hampshire, which Bloomberg notes sports views of the Mount Sunapee foothills from every room.
After being initially booked in New Hampshire on multiple charges related to trafficking underage girls for the sexual gratification of dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, Maxwell was transferred on Monday to New York's Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) - home to over 1,600 male and female detainees which was built at the turn of the 20th century and used during both world wars, according to Bloomberg .
No one wants to go to jail, but the conditions described at the MDC have been the subject of numerous complaints and scrutiny that rival the rat-infested federal lockup in Lower Manhattan where Epstein was held.
In early 2019, hundreds of inmates at the MDC were locked shivering in their cells for at least a week after an electrical fire knocked out power in the building. The inmates spent some of the coldest days of that winter in darkness, largely without heat and hot water. - Bloomberg
One inmate, Derrilyn Needham, has been incarcerated at MDC since last November along with 30 other women who slept in bunk beds. Needham said social distancing was difficult, and that for three days starting April 23, the women were on "lockdown on our bunk beds, not able to leave our bunks except to use the bathroom or shower.
She added that they hadn't been given gloves, hand sanitizer or disinfectant wipes - and that despite symptoms of COVID-19, the assistant warden said she couldn't receive a test for the virus.
According to The Intercept , " The number of reported coronavirus symptoms far exceeds the number of tests MDC has performed ." In May, the facility came under fire for allegedly destroying medical records "as part of a deliberate effort to obscure the number of incarcerated people infected with the coronavirus."
The report , filed Thursday as part of a putative class-action lawsuit by people held in custody at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, casts doubt on assertions by the Bureau of Prisons , which runs the jail, and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District, which serves as counsel for the bureau. The Bureau of Prisons and federal prosecutors have insisted in court that the situation at the jail is under control. But the medical examiner's report -- which contradicted prison assertions that Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines were being followed -- suggests that the six people in custody who have tested positive for the disease likely represent the tip of the iceberg . - The Intercept
After the pandemic began, the detention center was deemed "ill-equipped" to deal with the spread of COVID-19 by former chief medical officer for the city's jails, Homer Venters, who says he's "concerned about the ongoing health and safety of the population," and slammed administrators for failing to adequately deal with the pandemic.
That said, MDC has been on the receiving end of criticism over its conditions long before coronavirus was an issue.
Cheryl Pollak, the federal magistrate in Brooklyn, has repeatedly voiced concerns about the MDC after reviewing a report by the National Association of Women Judges, who visited the facility and found that 161 female inmates were housed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in two large rooms that lacked windows, fresh air or sunlight and weren't allowed out to exercise. - Bloomberg
"Some of these conditions wouldn't surprise me if we were dealing with a prison in Turkey or a Third World Country," Pollak said during a 2016 hearing. "It's hard for me to believe it's going on in a federal prison."
White Nat , 30 minutes agoJamesJOMeara , 4 hours ago
Multiple charges related to trafficking underage girls for the sexual gratification of dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. These charges barely scratch the surface of what Maxwell and Epstein were guilty of.
- Special Episode 11 Yuri interviews Whitney Webb on the Epstein scandal & partners in crime 1 of 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNBQx8w73m0
- Special Episode 12 Yuri interviews Whitney Webb on the forces behind the Epstein scandal 2 of 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15484KBGFrQ
- Special Episode 13 Yuri interviews Whitney Webb on the Epstein scandal & partners in crime 3 of 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0JgCJN5N8kOCnStiggs , 4 hours ago
Anyone who thinks "Barr finally let the hammer down!" needs to ask themselves, if Maxwell is Public Enemy #1, why would they casually, matter of factly, ho-humly, stick her in the same lousy facility where 1. her partner Epstein mysterious croaked, and which 2. just happens to be filled with Corvid-19 cases. Why not stick her in an army base a la Frankie Five Angels? (Oops, that didn't work out either). Or some cell in Oklahoma? It's an obvious set up for her demise (though only a real crank would think the whole Corvid-19 was a set-up for this from the start.....) Oh, and by the way, that obviously isn't Ghislaine Maxwell.MsCreant , 4 hours ago
Think outside the box:
If you wanted TOTAL and complete cooperation from Epstein's close associate, why not threaten her with the same fate as her boss? In fact, perhaps Epstein was sacrificed simply to put pressure on Maxwell.
She is the literal walking-talking black book who knows everything and everyone. She knows more than Epstein. She set everything up. Ever wonder why she stayed in the states? My guess, the Feds got to her 12 months ago and have been monitoring her calls since then. They have already worked out a plea bargain with her. And the woman seen going into a lock up? A double or Maxwell before they walk her out the front door and into a cab.
NOTHING can stop what is coming. NOTHING.SubjectivObject , 4 hours ago
"The Latest Flu Hoo Hoo" posted a document below that is supposed to be the indictment. If true, it does not go into near enough detail.
Copy paste from below:
2020-095.pdf Ghislaine Maxwell Indictment, July 2, 2020 (7.1MB)
No other people, blackmail, intercourse, narrow number of years, there's nothing honey.Roger Casement , 3 hours ago
- potemkin prisons
- potemkin fedgov
- potemkin countrySubjectivObject , 10 minutes ago
It takes a village ...the latest flu hoo hoo , 5 hours ago
it takes a pillageMsCreant , 4 hours ago
..G.M. sealed indictment:
2020-095.pdf Ghislaine Maxwell Indictment, July 2, 2020 (7.1MB)Justapleb , 5 hours ago
If accurate, this is outrageous and NOT NEARLY ENOUGH on so many dimensions.
- No one "intercoursed" anyone?
- No one "oral sexed" anyone?
- They only "touched" breasts and genitals?
- Only Ghisalaine and Jeff? No one else was involved at all?
- Only the years 94-97?
- No blackmail?
Is Acosta still on the case here? What the Intercourse Batman!
Someone needs to go down HARD for this bull ****.
Where is the ******* press? This should not be allowed to stand.Cigarshopper , 5 hours ago
Clever deceptive wording. She's been arrested on charges "related to" sex trafficking underage kids. Not charges FOR sex trafficking of underage kids. If she got a parking ticket while kidnapping, raping, and killing a child, that parking ticket would be "related to" the murder.
Look how she is not charged for the sex trafficking itself! This is obviously a limited hangout. The documentary got the general public asking why she was living high on the hog, scot free.
So this is to placate the public more than tighten any screws.JLM , 6 hours ago
After a life of luxury and then a night in the New York's Metropolitan Detention Center, you know she's told her lawyer to start wheeling and dealing to get her out of that hellhole. She'll be giving everybody up and handing over everything she has on the people who came through all of Epstein's properties. Maxwell couldn't make it through a year at this place or any federal penitentiary. With the entire world knowing what her proclivities are she'll be licking the pussies of every inmate locked up where ever she's sent.joep3joep3 , 7 hours ago
Imagine putting a person of her status in a third world hole after engaging in crimes that could not in her wildest dreams ever be held accountable for. It was her right to do it "her way". How dare the world interfere... . This is not right.Roger Casement , 7 hours ago
I spent a weekend in Manhattan detention. I was one of the worst experiences in my life, all from a dui. Cockroaches, smells like piss, nowhere to lay down, metal benches, people screaming on drugs, gang members and very cold.
On the bright side, I got free representation lawyer, because everyone gets a free lawyer. That's the way they make money. Free lawyers that charge the state.Fireman , 7 hours ago
******** Produced by Ewen Cameron Directed by Tavistock,
Who was the spy Robert Maxwell ? What treachery did he commit? Who did he work for? The Magic Circle. Who did he work for, really?Crime Ideas Always , 7 hours ago
Jizzlaid does Midnight Excess....
You're not taking me to the sanatorium!
"Some of these conditions wouldn't surprise me if we were dealing with a prison in Turkey or a Third World Country," Pollak said during a 2016 hearing. "It's hard for me to believe it's going on in a federal prison."
translation: It's not good for "expensive" juice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncbaQiK_NGwfersur , 8 hours ago
This is all complete BS. Unless she is retarded, she never would have been in the US.BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 7 hours ago
Racheal Chandler Is The Centerpiece *PizzaGate
Racheal Chandler is a centerpiece for the entire deep state elite. She connects the Clintons and their Foundation, Jeffrey Epstein, The Royal Family , Hollywood & Government Leaders around the world. She references Spirit Cooking.
Trying her to Marina Abramovic and PizzaGate. She was photographed with Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell. Hollywood connects her to James Rothschild. Through Paris Hilton's sister Nicky marrying him. Her family owning the Los Angeles Times for over 100 Years, and getting her start at the Standard Hotel Chain.
So not only should Prince Andrew be worryed the list of names run long. The sick ties with Epstein & Ghislaine should open eyes. The best is yet to come the elite time is up.cleg , 9 hours ago
Predator Lives Matterthe latest flu hoo hoo , 9 hours ago
They will throw Prince Andrew to the wolves....maybe a mid level banker or two. That 's it. Move along....nothing o see hereAble Ape , 9 hours ago
..it's a thin line...
We immediately noticed a peculiarity about the indictment document provided by Strauss. It covered only a brief 4-year period, running from 1994 through 1997. One of the main accusers of Maxwell, Virginia (Roberts) Giuffre, has credibly indicated in previous court filings that Epstein and Maxwell sexually abused her "between 1999 and 2002." That should lengthen the scope of the indictment by five additional years.
The Southern District of New York, home to some of the biggest and most powerful Wall Street banks and their attorneys, who cycle in and out of jobs in that office, might have a strong reason to want to keep Giuffre's claims out of this case. Giuffre has stated the following in a previous court filing against Epstein:
"In addition to being continually exploited to satisfy Defendant's every sexual whim, Plaintiff was also required to be sexually exploited by Defendant's adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances most of these acts of abuse occurred during a time when Defendant knew that Plaintiff was approximately 15, 16 and 17 years old "
Indicative of how things work in the Southern District of New York, Maxwell's lawyer in the case is Christian Everdell of Cohen & Gresser. Everdell spent almost a decade as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in that office before arriving at Cohen & Gresser in 2017.
There is an abundance of evidence to be suspicious of how the U.S. Attorney's office is handling this case. It is 14 years that the Justice Department has been sitting on the case against Maxwell.
The Palm Beach, Florida Police Chief, Michael Reiter, handed a deeply investigated case against Epstein and Maxwell over to the FBI in July of 2006 according to the intrepid reporting of Julie K. Brown in the Miami Herald in November of 2018. Brown indicated that it took just eight months of FBI interviews for the U.S. Attorney's office in Florida to have a 53-page Federal indictment ready to file against Epstein involving sexual assaults against dozens of underage girls.
But the indictment was never filed. A "deal" was worked out by then U.S. Attorney, Alex Acosta, and Epstein's well-connected lawyers. Federal charges were dropped against Epstein and he was allowed to plead guilty to only Florida state charges: one count of soliciting sex from a minor and one count of soliciting sex from an adult woman. Epstein was able to serve just 13 months in jail while also given a work release program to sit in his well-appointed office 12 hours a day, and driven around by his chauffeured limo. The deal was so outrageously constructed that it even denied his victims knowledge of the terms of the deal.
It was only because of the public outrage that was unleashed by Brown's reporting in the Miami Herald and her emotional personal video interviews with Epstein's victims, that the Justice Department was forced to bring new charges in 2019. Those charges were brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, the same office that just indicted Maxwell.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article221404845.htmlMurph , 10 hours ago
This whole thing smells... Why wasn't she taken out when Jeffy exited the stage in some form or another... You can't tell me that nobody knew where she was... Nothing makes sense about this...fersur , 10 hours ago
What I genuinely don't understand is that, given Maxwell's power and connections, given the total corruption of the alphabet agencies, how was she not spirited away to Israel and given a new identity? Instead she's arrested without trouble on American soil. I truly don't get it.fersur , 10 hours ago
Unedited - WTF made into f-li-ck !
Ghislaine Maxwell seems to be going through hell right now, only she doesn't want you to know it danielgbates Jul 4
'What the flick is going on seriously, what the flick', said the English woman's voice. It was minutes before the first appearance for Ghislaine Maxwell at federal court in New Hampshire was due to start and the voice unexpectedly came on the dial-in line for journalists. The voice appeared extremely upset and said: 'I don't understand'. She repeated it again but broke down in tears and couldn't finish the word. I heard her say 'I'm trying' but all you could hear was sobbing. A court officer came on and said: 'Please mute your lines, people' and she was gone. By the time the hearing began she was a different person, calm and composed, her working class accent replaced by the familiar cut glass English voice telling the world: I'm in control.
But what we heard moments before appeared to be Ghislaine Maxwell caught on a hot mic, unaware that dozens of journalists, including me, were listening in to her. She sounded confused and in complete disbelief.
For somebody who has lived in privilege her whole life, you can imagine that this did not compute. Plucked from her $1m, 156-acre New Hampshire estate at 8.30am by FBI agents, she was now appearing in a federal court via video link from the Merrimack county jail. How could this happen to me. This isn't right. I don't understand, or as she apparently put it: 'Seriously, what the flick?'
You can't help but feel that Maxwell is having a taste of what her alleged victims have been going through for years. A feeling that you are no longer in control of your own life, a feeling that your sense of power has been stripped away from you. Both sound horrible and like nothing anyone should ever go through but, as her alleged victims no doubt see it, they couldn't happen to a nicer person.
I really hope that the federal authorities ensure that Maxwell lives to face a trial. After such a long wait her victims deserve that much, and she deserves due process (an unpopular view among some, perhaps, but everyone deserves it, even terrorists). Maxwell denies all the allegations that she was Epstein's 'madam' who arranged underage girls for him to have sex with, and sometimes took part in the abuse. But the evidence against her is compelling and you just have to look at the flight logs from Epstein's planes to raise serious questions. How will she answer this? 'Tell me Miss Maxwell, what were you doing flying 815 times between 1995 and 2007 on a private jet called the Lolita Express with a man who in 2009 became a registered sex offender who had admitted having raped underage girls?'
I suspect that the timing of Maxwell's arrest has to do with the compensation scheme for Epstein's victims starting taking applications a week before, on June 25. Under the programme, victims of Epstein can submit their cases for money from his estate with all $650m apparently up for grabs and no upper cap. But there is one catch: the victims have to stay any civil action against Epstein's estate in order to get the money. Until Maxwell was charged it meant they had to make the awful choice between compensation and chasing justice through the civil courts. That was essentially a re-run of Epstein's 2008 sweetheart plea deal only this time they had to give their approval to it (which in some ways is worse). But now Maxwell has been indicted there is no conflict: they can stay their civil cases and watch as Maxwell's case works its way through the courts. It must be a huge relief for them all.
The two perjury charges against Maxwell show that her arrogance has been one of the things that brought her down. Epstein invoked his Fifth Amendment during every deposition and walked out when asked about the shape of penis (egg shaped, if you're curious -- you have attorney Spencer Kuvin to thank for that gem). Maxwell wasn't as crafty and at one point banged a table in frustration at the 'lies' being told about her. She lost her head and lost her cool and said 'I don't know what you're talking about' when asked if Epstein had a scheme to recruit underage girls. Asked if she knew Epstein used sex toys in sexual activities, she said 'no'. According to federal prosecutors, these were both lies, and she was talking under oath. Why didn't she just keep her mouth shut and plead the Fifth? To me it's baffling.
1 of 2 !Stravaig , 10 hours ago
2 of 2 !
One of the really sweet ironies about Epstein killing himself (at least, that's what the autopsy said) is that it almost certainly made Maxwell's arrest more likely. Much has been written about how Epstein did his best to shaft his victims by setting up a trust to manage his financial affairs in the USVI two days before he died. That didn't work out because was we now know they could get all his (declared) money in compensation. But the real kicker is that with his death the no.1 target of the FBI's investigation became Maxwell. Would she have been arrested if he was still alive? Maybe, but it was far less likely.
With his final act Epstein stuck a knife in the back of the person who was one his girlfriend and right hand woman. That's loyalty for you.
Bearing that in mind why wouldn't Maxwell talk to the prosecutors to save herself? It's not like Epstein is still around for her to protect, and even if he was, do you think she'd care? And if Maxwell is talking then, oh boy, that makes this case even more interesting. In a mafia investigation you'd get the guys lower down the ladder first and them to build a case against the boss. But if you've already got the boss, who do you use her to get?Bastiat , 10 hours ago
But why is she in the US anyway? Was she kept here? Who has what plans for her and her knowledge?Felix da Kat , 10 hours ago
Maybe she's be "laundered" through the US "justice" system.progro , 10 hours ago
Ghislaine (S is silent) Maxwell is the youngest of ten siblings (two of whom have passed away.)
Father was Jewish (non-observant,) her mother, Anglican. All children were raised Anglican by their not-so-strict mother. The children enjoyed a wildly privileged upbringing akin to that of the Royals.
Ghislaine's father, the 6'4" Robert Maxwell, led a colorful life but over-reached and his publishing empire began to crack. He died in 1991 after falling overboard from his 180' motor yacht, "Lady Ghislaine," (named for his favorite child.) He suffered a heart attack (probably while struggling to climb back aboard) and drowned.
Ghislaine was said to be the apple of his eye.
The fate of Ghislaine is sad, really. It didn't have to be that way. She fell under the spell of Epstein. Epstein was the wealthy father figure coveted by Ghislaine to fill in the void left by her father's death.
Growing up, she was "Daddy's precious girl." After the death of her father in '91 when she was 29, she longed for that bond of closeness and security which she saw in surrogate Epstein. But Epstein used her and abused her for his own gratification and surely coerced her into fulfilling the "pimp" role that Epstein required to live the prurient life he demanded.
Ghislaine is not without significant guilt but she was not the ringleader; that was Epstein. I predict she won't be sentenced as severely as many would like. And rightly so because Epstein prodded her into doing much of, if not all of what she did that was criminal. She needed Epstein; he was her oxygen.
That said, the crime of pedophilia and corruption of minors is a reprehensible crime for which she must pay.
"Mercy to the criminal is violence to the victim"
NH property location: 43.217254, -71.997862 Google maps for birds eye viewStanley Kubrick , 10 hours ago
Don't be an apologist. Many people have bad upbringings and turn out to be outstanding members of our community.
Because she was a spoiled brat and was the daughter of an embezzler gives her a break with the lack of judgement she had?f society , 10 hours ago
"Ghislaine's father, the 6'4" Robert Maxwell, led a colorful life but over-reached and his publishing empire began to crack."
You mean, Robert Maxwell aka "the bouncing Czech"? The man behind the $500 million dollar pension-fraud scandal?
Revisionist history.FreeMoney , 7 hours ago
I get the pessimism, but this time feels different...
REPORT: Epstein Associate Ghislane Maxwell Possesses "Stash of Pedophile Sex Tapes"
She will absolutely sell everyone out for a plea deal.
I think both Epstein and his Mossad handler Gislane, will have multiple backups of incriminating evidence on hundreds of politicians, judges, academics, celebrities, and business leaders ( not the shareholders, but the hired guns ), for exactly this set of circumstances.
Jul 07, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com
The first New York City court appearance for Ghislaine Maxwell may be Friday, July 10
By Robert Willmann
(Update, Tuesday, 7 July: The hearing is now set for Tuesday morning, 14 July)--
After being arrested in Bradford, New Hampshire last Thursday, before the Fourth of July weekend, Ghislaine Maxwell, charged with helping Jeffrey Epstein abuse underage girls, may have her arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing in Manhattan, New York City on Friday afternoon, 10 July.
In a letter dated and filed in the federal court on Sunday, 5 July, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) said that when in New Hampshire Maxwell had what would have been a brief appearance before a judge. This is required after an arrest, and is to occur "without unnecessary delay" .--
The government asked that Maxwell be detained in custody until a trial, in a paper filed the day of the arrest. The motion for detention contains a few items of interest. She was born in France and is a citizen of and appears to have passports for at least France, Britain, and the U.S. The request for detention says: " Based on the Government's investigation to date, the Government has identified more than 15 different bank accounts held by or associated with the defendant from 2016 to the present, and during that same period, the total balances of those accounts have ranged from a total of hundreds of thousands of dollars to more than $20 million"--
The criminal indictment of Maxwell, which was unsealed the day of the arrest on 2 July, charges a curious time period of only "at least in or about 1994, up to and including at least in or about 1997", and refers to only three victims--
The very limited written criminal charge can of course be seen as an opening gambit by the prosecution, since it can be expanded in a superseding indictment.
The letter filed with the court clerk identifies Christian Everdell as the current attorney for Maxwell; he had been a federal prosecutor in the SDNY for nearly 10 years . In court documents a familiar surname appears as one of the SDNY co-prosecutors for the federal government -- Maurene Comey -- who was in the same role in the aborted prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. The legal communities in New York City and Washington D.C. are two little clubs that sometimes tend to overlap.
If a court hearing takes place Friday, it will probably duplicate some of what happened in New Hampshire on 2 July. The big issue at this time is whether Ghislaine Maxwell will remain in custody or be released on bail under some specific conditions. Her arrest was described in an article in the British Daily Mail newspaper .
Documents from the 2 July court proceeding in New Hampshire have now been filed in the SDNY. Here are three of the 33 pages: the court clerk's docket sheet from Concord, New Hampshire, and the arrest warrant, which was authorized at the courthouse in White Plains, New York, and not in Manhattan! The pages that are excluded are the indictment, the order allowing a hearing by video and telephone conference, the commitment order to send Maxwell to the SDNY, and three pages that basically duplicate the clerk's docket sheet--
The case is multi-sided. Ghislaine's father, Robert Maxwell, was a publisher who also was caught up in financial machinations. He died under mysterious circumstances in 1991 when he was found in the water outside of his large boat in the area of the Canary Islands. There were rumors he had relationships with government intelligence agencies. He was given a large funeral in Israel attended by Israeli politicians and was buried in a cemetery there. Ghislaine's close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is part of the factual foundation of the pending case. Epstein had been protected from criminal liability by the U.S. government through the Department of Justice which became evident in state and federal criminal cases developed against him in Florida that resulted in a disgraceful plea deal in Florida state court and in an equally disgraceful and concealed non-prosecution agreement with the federal government. Only through the determination of Florida attorney Bradley Edwards and Utah lawyer Paul Cassell, a former federal judge, was the perfidy of the federal government and Justice Department revealed through their lawsuit against the government under the Crime Victims' Rights Act--
Jeffery Epstein made some court appearances in his criminal case in the SDNY before he was said to have been found dead in the Manhattan federal Metropolitan Corrections Center from an "apparent suicide", when cameras were not working, blah blah blah. That explanation was rightfully laughed out of town. In terms of probability, Epstein was either murdered in the jail or was helped to escape.
And now here comes Ghislaine Maxwell.
 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5. Initial Appearance.
Posted by: turcopolier , 06 July 2020 at 01:57 PMblue peacock , 06 July 2020 at 04:37 PM
I read that one of the victims listened to the arraignment on the telephone and a woman with a British accent could be heard sobbing and wailing in background and saying "How could this happen? How can this be?" Sounds like she thought she had her stay in NH "wired up."Master Slacker , 06 July 2020 at 04:51 PM
IMO, anyone expecting that the plutocrat pedo ring will be busted will be sorely disappointed and is not paying attention to justice in contemporary America!
Sir Epstein was reportedly at the epicenter of a pedo ring for decades. He clearly engaged in all this with impunity for a long while. Including getting a sweetheart deal from the US attorney in Miami who landed up as Trump's Labor Secretary. This indictment is for the period 1994-97 so far. It would imply that Prince Andrew and Dershowitz are off the hook. Also, Virginia Roberts Guiffre's sex trafficking claims are not part of this indictment, while a judge has ordered her to destroy evidence. She also has a defamation case against Ghislaine Maxwell.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8483209/Attorneys-representing-Virginia-Giuffre-ordered-destroy-evidence.htmlBarbara Ann , 06 July 2020 at 05:53 PM
Given the American take on jail permeability, I wonder how long she will survive.TV , 06 July 2020 at 06:24 PM
Robert, thanks for keeping us up to speed with the legal details.
Do you have an opinion on whether count three's mention of co-conspirators may be significant, or the fact that the Public Corruption Unit are handling the case?
Colonel, my first thought when I heard the story of the sobbing woman with a British accent was that it could easily have be staged, so as to give the impression of justice being done. Cynicism is hard to escape in this case, though I try to keep an open mind.English Outsider , 06 July 2020 at 07:19 PM
We'll find out if Bill Barr is for real or just another swamp creature in sheep's clothing. Still waiting on the Durham "investigation" and the election is only 4 months away.JP Billen , 06 July 2020 at 08:05 PM
Fred - You mention the Duke of York. I don't think he's all there - https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/12/01/wikileaks-reveals-the-mixed-blessings-of-royal-diplomacy/
"I can't judge Prince Andrew; we've all been young once," Jordan's Prince Hassan told an English interviewer. I'm not sure whether that's a barbed comment or not given that the Duke is scarcely in his first youth.
"Andrew is naive and unworldly, a product of the royal bubble." says another scandal sheet. I suspect he may well be innocent of everything except naivety.
Naivety in the Epstein circle could lead to a lot of trouble. I'm surprised the Palace establishment let one of their charges out without a minder. Bit late now.TV , 06 July 2020 at 09:52 PM
Let's hope the Federal Detention Center in Brooklyn is more secure than the one in Manhattan where Epstein was held. What about Epstein's other accomplices that helped to recruit underage girls? Maxwell was just one of several.
Wiki entry on Maxwell says that she also associated with Kevin Spacey a self-confessed a$$ bandit. So the question arises, was she also pimping out underage poolboys?Dan , 06 July 2020 at 09:59 PM
This is a very good read on Ghislaine's options:
https://medium.com/@dylanhoward/ghislaines-last-stand-if-epstein-s-accomplice-tells-all-will-the-fallout-be-too-much-even-for-u-s-8fc87089damcohen , 06 July 2020 at 10:25 PM
I read an interesting point I can't really evaluate on my own, which is that the prosecution is coming out of the FBI's Public Corruption Unit, which is a department specifically designed to deal with issues arising from prosecution of politicians. Reportedly they suss out subtle quid-pro-quos, rarely settle, and indicates there could be more interesting layers to this case.FakeBot , 06 July 2020 at 10:40 PM
Looks like they were in good companyVegetius , 06 July 2020 at 11:29 PM
Senator Graham won't nominate Clayton:
The fact Graham won't approve Trump's nominee to oversee the case against Ghislaine is very odd.johnf , 07 July 2020 at 02:12 AM
Anyone who ever appeared in a picture partying with Epstein needs to be questioned up to, and including, POTUS.
But let's start with Cindy McCain.Charlie Wilson , 07 July 2020 at 09:13 AM
More on the Steele story here:
Does she have an Izzy passport or not? Other passports are worthless.
Jul 03, 2020 | www.unz.com
Epstein brought CIA drug smugglers Southern Air Transport to Columbus. Epstein at Bear Stearns ran brokerage errands for the CIA money launderers and pimps of BCCI. Epstein bragged about being CIA and Ohio state VIPs believed him.
Epstein skated for the Tower Financial ponzi scheme that topped up CIA's covert-crime slush fund after CIA proprietary BCCI stole everybody's money and blew up. Epstein got bankrolled by CIA's famous secret agent Adnan Kashoggi. Epstein smuggled an enormously illegal NYPD shotgun in through British customs, using CIA agent Ed Wilson's old trick for impressing foreign VIPs. Federal prosecutors convict 99.8% of their perps, but one let Epstein off the hook for his giant pedo whorehouse because he was told Epstein belonged to intelligence.
You would not have thought it was possible, but Epstein with his hilariously fake hedge fund is more blatantly CIA than Imran Awan. So clearly we need six thousand more internet bullshitters screaming about pervy Mossad blackmailers – CIA is hopelessly busted for everybody with a 3-digit IQ.
Jul 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.orguncle tungsten , Jul 3 2020 7:08 utc | 107
Mina #101Maxwell's arrest makes me wonder if it is not about Trump throwing down the gauntlet?
Thank you Mina, yes that or the deep state throwing down the gauntlet. I don't think we can assume that Trump actually has control of the FBI. If he did he would likely have deep sixed the Democrazis through the Awan family spy and blackmail scam. But he didn't. They and Debbie Wasserman Shultz were protected/had dirt on DT.
If the kiddy fiddlers get outed following Ghislaine dropping some of her likely thousands of hours of home movies then that includes Trump and Biden.
In the fetid atmosphere of accusations against pussy grabbers and finger f#ckers and hair sniffers neither could survive. The pack will run rabid.
Is there a woman in the house? Yes, they cried AND she has experience!! Plus the campaign will be televised and it would be a virtual campaign because Covid. No need to rig audience, the polls or the balllot.
Jul 03, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Mike Pompeo delivered an embarrassing, clownish performance at the U.N. on Tuesday, and his attempt to gain support for an open-ended conventional arms embargo on Iran was rejected the rest of the old P5+1:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Tuesday for an arms embargo on Iran to be extended indefinitely, but his appeal fell flat at the United Nations Security Council, where Russia and China rejected it outright and close allies of the United States were ambivalent.
The Trump administration is more isolated than ever in its Iran obsession. The ridiculous effort to invoke the so-called "snapback" provision of the JCPOA more than two years after reneging on the agreement met with failure, just as most observers predicted months ago when it was first floated as a possibility. As I said at the time, "The administration's latest destructive ploy won't find any support on the Security Council. There is nothing "intricate" about this idea. It is a crude, heavy-handed attempt to employ the JCPOA's own provisions to destroy it." It was never going to work because all of the other parties to the agreement want nothing to do with the administration's punitive approach, and U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA meant that it forfeited any rights it had when it was still part of the deal.
Opposition from Russia and China was a given, but the striking thing about the scene at the U.N. this week was that major U.S. allies joined them in rebuking the administration's obvious bad faith maneuver:
The pointedly critical tone of the debate saw Germany accusing Washington of violating international law by withdrawing from the nuclear pact, while Berlin aligned itself with China's claim that the United States has no right to reimpose U.N. sanctions on Iran.
The Trump administration has abused our major European allies for years in its push to destroy the nuclear deal, and their governments have no patience with any more unilateral U.S. stunts. This is the result of two years of a destructive policy aimed solely at punishing Iran and its people. The administration's open contempt for international law and the interests of its allies has cost the U.S. their cooperation.
Underscoring the absurdity of the Trump administration's arms embargo appeal were Pompeo's alarmist warnings that an end to the arms embargo would allow Iran to purchase advanced fighters that it would use to threaten Europe and India:
If you fail to act, Iran will be free to purchase Russian-made fighter jets that can strike up to a 3,000 kilometer radius, putting cities like Riyadh, New Delhi, Rome, and Warsaw in Iranian crosshairs.
This is a laughably unrealistic scenario. Even if Iran purchased advanced fighters, the last thing it would do is send them off on a suicide mission to bomb Italy or India. This shows how deeply irrational the Iran hawks' fearmongering is. Iran has already demonstrated an ability to launch precise attacks with drones and missiles in its immediate neighborhood, and it developed these capabilities while under the current embargo.
It has no need for expensive fighters, and it is not at all certain that their government would even be interested in acquiring them. Pompeo's presentation was a weak attempt to exaggerate the potential threat from a state that has very limited power projection, and he found no support because his serial fabrications about Iran have rendered everything he says to be worthless.
The same administration that wants to keep an arms embargo on Iran forever has no problem flooding the region with U.S.-made weapons and providing them to some of the worst governments in the world. It is these client states that are doing the most to destabilize other countries in the region right now. If the U.N. should be putting arms embargoes on any country, it should consider imposing them on Saudi Arabia and the UAE to limit their ability to wreak havoc on Yemen and Libya.
The Secretary of State called on the U.N. to reject "extortion diplomacy." The best way to reject extortion diplomacy would be for them to reject the administration's desperate attempt to use America's position at the U.N. to attack international law.
Jul 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
uncle tungsten , Jul 3 2020 8:46 utc | 118
Richard Steven Hack #115The question now is: How do they stop Ghislaine from testifying? Having her "commit suicide" in her cell with all the cell block cameras off starts to look a little, I don't know, "blatant", wouldn't one think?
Well, blatant is not a concept that the oligarch class actually feel any problem with.
Jul 02, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Update (1215ET): Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss said that "this case against Ghislaine Maxwell is a prequel to the earlier case that we brought against Jeffrey Epstein,"
" Maxwell lied because the truth, as alleged, was almost unspeakable. Maxwell enticed minor girls, got them to trust her, then delivered them into the trap that she and Epstein had set for them. She pretended to be a woman they could trust..."
" We were working hard on this investigation this past year. It's not easy to put together a case that goes back that far. There's nothing other than we did the investigation, and we were ready at this time to proceed."
Strauss said that the firing of Former US Attorney Geoffrey Berman did not affect timing of this arrest "at all". We will likely never know one way or another but the timing is definitely interesting.
Finally, asked about a royal connection, Strauss declines to update on the status of anyone in an investigation but says that she "would welcome Prince Andrew coming in to talk with us."
"We would like to have the benefit of his statement," Strauss said, adding their doors remain open.
We will not be holding our breath.
Additionally, FBI New York Assistant Director in Charge William Sweeney, Jr. said investigators have been discreetly keeping tabs on Maxwell's location and found that she had "slithered away" to a "gorgeous" home in Bradford, New Hampshire, where she was arrested Thursday without incident.
* * *
Having been decidedly off-the-radar for months since the controversial 'suicide' of Jeffrey Epstein, NBC New York reports that Ghislaine Maxwell, has been arrested by the FBI and charged by federal prosecutors.
Multiple senior law enforcement officials reportedly said the British socialite and heiress was arrested in New Hampshire on Epstein-related charges and is expected to appear in a federal court later today .
The long-time friend and confidante of Jeffrey Epstein was alleged to have helped Epstein groom teen girls for sex with the rich and powerful.
As Adam Klasfeld reports, the indictment reads that:
"[Ghislaine] Maxwell assisted, facilitated and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims ...
"The victims were as young as 14."
"In particular, between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, MAXWELL was in an intimate relationship with Epstein and also was paid by Epstein to manage his various properties."
Ghislaine has been accused by three women of procuring and training young girls to perform massage and sexual acts on Epstein and his associates.
Virginia Giuffre (previously named Virginia Roberts), one of Epstein's alleged victims, claimed in a civil lawsuit that Maxwell "recruited" her into Epstein's orbit, where she was forced to have sex with Epstein and his powerful friends, including Prince Andrew.Maxwell's Her new luxury abode is only a short five-minute drive from Epstein's £7million pad on Avenue Foch (pictured)
Giuffre asserts in her complaint that Maxwell, the sole defendant in the suit and the daughter of late publishing magnate Robert Maxwell, routinely recruited underaged girls for Epstein and was doing so when she approached the $9-an-hour locker room attendant at Mar-a-Lago in 1999 about giving massages to the wealthy investment banker.
Giuffre alleges that Maxwell ultimately trained her in how to give "massages" to Epstein that involved sex acts and, essentially, prostitution . When Maxwell publicly denied the allegations and called Giuffre a liar in 2015, that gave her the opening to head to federal court and file the defamation suit now headed for trial. - Politico
In May we noted that the accused 'madam' was reportedly holed up in a luxury apartment on Paris's Avenue Matignon - just a five minute drive from the dead pedophile's $8.6 million flat.
Maxwell "is moving locations every month to keep private investigators off her tail and is staying at the residences of trusted colleagues and contacts," according to a source.
"She wants to remain in France for as long as she can to take advantage of extradition laws and has a huge network of contacts willing to keep her hidden," they added. " Under French law anyone born on French soil is safe from extradition to another country, regardless of the alleged crime. "
As Esquire's Gabrielle Bruney explained in May, Maxwell is the youngest of Elisabeth and Robert Maxwell's nine children, and was born in France in 1961 . The family lived in an English mansion, and her father was the founder of a media empire and served in Parliament . Maxwell attended one of the UK's most exclusive boarding schools and then Oxford University. As members of British high society, Maxwell mingled with some of the nation's most celebrated families, and became friends with Prince Andrew .
Her father died in 1991, after falling off his yacht and drowning. It's been speculated that his death may have been a suicide , as on the day he died he was due to meet with the Bank of England over the matter of his being in default on millions in loans. After his death, the British media dubbed him the " crook of the century ," when it was revealed that he'd taken hundreds of millions of pounds from his employees pension funds. Maxwell told one news outlet after her father's death that she felt he was murdered .
She moved to the United States the year of her father's death, and soon met Jeffrey Epstein. The relationship marked a second reversal of fortunes for Maxwell, whose family lost much of its wealth after her father's death. In 2000, she moved into a $4.95 million Manhattan townhouse purchased "by an anonymous limited liability company, with an address that matches the office of J. Epstein & Co. Representing the buyer was Darren Indyke, Mr. Epstein's longtime lawyer." She was his companion for years, managing his households and introducing him to her society friends
Maxwell and her father in 1984.
According to a lawsuit she filed this year in hopes of winning funds from the late financier's estate, "While under Epstein's employ, Maxwell was responsible for managing Epstein's properties located in New York, Paris, Florida, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands."
"During the course of their relationship, including while Maxwell was in Epstein's employ," the lawsuit reads , "Epstein promised Maxwell that he would support her financially. Epstein made these promises to Maxwell repeatedly, both in writing and in conversation."
However, a 2003 Vanity Fair profile of Epstein denied that Maxwell was an employee.
After Epstein's 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from an underage girl, the two appeared to end their public association. In 2009, accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre filed a civil suit against Epstein accusing him and Maxwell of grooming her into their alleged sex trafficking ring. However, Maxwell remained a fixture in New York society until around 2015. In 2012, she founded an environmental nonprofit called The TerraMar project, which folded in late 2019.
Epstein with Maxwell in 1995
Though multiple survivors have alleged that Maxwell participated in Epstein's alleged crimes, she's never been criminally charged. One thing that could stymie potential efforts to level charges against Maxwell is the infamous 2008 plea deal that Epstein struck with the US Attorney for Miami, Alexander Acosta , which found him serving just 13 months in prison after initially facing charges that could have garnered him a life sentence. Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich producer Joe Berlinger described the deal to Esquire as "unprecedented, unheard of sweetheart deal" that "included a non-prosecution agreement for named and unnamed co-conspirators."
In April, an appeals court upheld the 2007 deal, writing in its opinion that the decision was "not a result we like, but it's the result we think the law requires."
Maxwell at a 2016 event.
Maxwell is currently suing Epstein's estate for money for her legal fees, and for the price of private security, alleging that her " prior employment relationship " with Epstein has caused to her be subjected to death threats.
As Jonathan Turley notes , frankly, as a criminal defense lawyer, I am surprised that Maxwell risked returning to the United States. She was believed to be living in Paris. It was well-known that the Justice Department was pursuing the case, including demands to interview Prince Andrew.
Her arrest may be unnerving for figures like Prince Andrew. She would be the ultimate cooperating witness if she decided to cooperate on broader criminal inquiries. Giuffre and others have alleged that she was the primary procurer of young girls for Epstein to abuse.
Such prosecutions are not easy given the passage of time. However, the government clearly has live witnesses like Giuffre who might have a significant impact on a jury. The government would have to show more than her mere presence at these homes or parties.
Interestingly, Turley notes that the improper role played by the Justice Department in the original Epstein case deal may actually help it now with any prosecution of Maxwell.
Jul 02, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com02 July 2020 at 11:11 PM
Ghislaine Maxwell, arrested, in jail.
Southern District of New York US Attorney Audrey Strauss says crimes they are prosecuting are for years
1994 to 1997
Bill Clinton was president.
There is little information on how long the feds knew where she was, that they say was Bedford, NH.
According to NYMAG.com: [["An eye was being kept" on Maxwell was about all that Audrey Strauss]] said.
That is past tense, was being kept, assuming this is accurate information.
For how long, months, days, years, decades, all the way back to the 1970s?
CNN framed it this way:
[[FBI New York Assistant Director in Charge William Sweeney said that bureau officials "have been discreetly keeping tabs" on Maxwell who had "slithered away to a gorgeous property" in New Hampshire.
"We learned she had slithered away to a gorgeous property in New Hampshire, continuing to live a live a life of privilege while her victims continue to live with the trauma inflicted upon them years ago. We moved when we were ready and Ms. Maxwell was arrested without incident," he said.
Sweeney said that the FBI, along with the NYPD, arrested Maxwell in Bradford, New Hampshire, this morning without incident.
Audrey Strauss, acting US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, explained the process that led to Maxwell's arrest: "an eye was being kept, and information was being collected and then the indicted was just recently voted and filed and that is when we were able and prepared to move to arrest her."
Sweeney said that indictment alleges that from 1994 until 1997, Maxwell assisted Epstein in committing crimes against minors.]]
Strauss said and the indictment of Maxwell says, numerous times: 1994 to 1997 alleged crimes, aiding and abetting Epstein.
What is interesting, at least to me, in a news report by The Guardian – this report say that the DOJ said that Maxwell had the ability to get out of the US.
Which begs the questions: Then why the hell didn't she? The feds don't explain that part.
The sprawling property in Bradford where she was arrested was purchased "through a carefully anonymized LLC", federal prosecutors said. Maxwell also has the money to flee if let out on bail, they maintained
Will we go from Epstein-gate, to Ukraine-gate, to Impeachment-gate, to Corona911-gate, to BLM-gate and now to Maxwell-gate – with perhaps a not so subtle attempt to piss all over Bill Clinton, since these alleged crimes were when he was commander in chief?
One other thing that may be related to the timing of this apprehension of her.
One of the alleged victims of Maxwell, who, according to a civil lawsuit filed against her in federal court in January. . . well, there was a "tiny problem."
The lawyer for the plaintiff, a Jane Doe, who claims to have been a young teen – when: "It all started in 1994 when 13-year-old Jane Doe met Epstein and Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell at a summer camp in Michigan. . . ."
This civil complaint says: "In 1997, while at Epstein's townhouse on 9 East 71st Street in the city of New York, Epstein asked the 17-year old Doe if she had a boyfriend. Doe replied that she did not. Epstein responded that when she did have a boyfriend she would want the sex to be 'good' and that she should 'get it over with already' meaning lose her virginity. Despite Doe's resistance, Epstein then pushed Doe down onto her stomach and raped her. From that point forward for several years in New York, Epstein raped Doe on multiple occasions. During Doe's time in New York, Maxwell also regularly facilitated Epstein's abuse of Doe and was frequently present when it occurred."
Any ways, the little problem was that: despite numerous times the Jane Doe lawyer tried to serve Maxwell, many times, this lawyer always came up empty.
But on June 15, the presiding federal judge ruled that. . . that because of certain judicial rules and because of the numerous attempts, the judge deemed that Maxwell had been served.
Doe's lawyer, the judge ruled, had done enough to demonstrate service; and thus the service attempts were deemed to have been "reasonably calculated to place Maxwell on notice of this suit and to constitute sufficient service under the circumstances presented here."
Thus Maxwell must respond, in a federal civil lawsuit brought by an alleged rape victim, that this plaintiff claims the pair [her and Epstein] betook against her.
This mean Maxwell can be jailed for contempt of court, should she continue to run and hide; that is: ignore court orders in this civil lawsuit.
With today's jailing of her by the DOJ, on what looks like the same facts as in the civil case, [though it may not be; even if the 1994 to 1997 time period is the same] --- Maxwell's concerns about the civil case now pale in comparison with the new, criminal case against her. That is, assuming DOJ gets conviction.
The judge's June 15 order deeming her served in the civil case, however, meant that Maxwell would have been facing jail if she failed to appear according to any court orders requiring her to.
So one question I don't know answer to is: why did she remain in the US? [Or did she actually flee, and we just ain't being told that? I D K]
Would no other country take her, did she attempt to leave and was rebuffed [by who?] or did she want to stay here and take her chances, knowing that she could run, assuming she tried to, that is; but could not hide forever?
We'll see if Maxwell-gate can trump BLM-gate, and all manner of other sorts of Hang Outs happening before our eyes.
Lastly, I'm not saying it's a weak case; but, why her and why now, since they obviously had no trouble locating her, assuming they did not always have tabs on Maxwell.
If anyone actually has an actual photo of her being taken out of her New Hampshire house, I'd like to see them. For Roger Stone, we don't have to ask this question. Perhaps Judge Amy Berman should handle this case and/or share it with Judge Gilbert and Sullivan.
Eric Newhill , 03 July 2020 at 12:04 AMBarbara Ann , 03 July 2020 at 08:22 AM
The FBI already has all kinds of evidence on a lot of people from their raids on Epstein residences. Now they just need Maxwell so they can squeeze her a little to tie up any loose ends. She will then die and the loose ends will be taken care of and the democrat/globalists will be safe from prosecution. FBI destroys some of the evidence they obtained and uses other evidence against their enemies (e.g. Trump associates, democrats gone off the reservation, like Dershowitz)Yeah, Right , 03 July 2020 at 08:51 AM
It seems likely to me that she was Epstein's Mossad controller. Walrus is right. It will be difficult to keep her alive. Why she fled to NH escapes me so far.
Posted by: turcopolier | 03 July 2020 at 12:39 AM
noone really sees into Israeli inner politics, but probably has to with the new grand coalition there.
Just my guessing.
Posted by: Balint Somkuti, PhD | 03 July 2020 at 04:21 AM
Count Three in the indictment interests me, as it is the only one mentioning third party defendants. If it wasn't for this I'd assume the whole thing was scoped so as to limit any fallout beyond Ghislaine herself.
"GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown , willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, transportation of minors, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423 (a)." (emphasis mine)
I'd like to hear Robert Willmann's view on the significance of this, combined with the pertinence of the fact that the SDNY's Public Corruption Unit is handling the case.
This, combined with the fact that she was arrested in the US, is (as of the time of writing) still alive and Barr's urgency in sacking Berman, gives me some hope that there is a real intention to go after someone else, perhaps higher up the food chain (Wexner?). Have Trump and Barr got a big surprise in store? I do hope so.turcopolier , 03 July 2020 at 11:58 AM
I had read somewhere that she believed that Mossad had killed her father, so she may not have thought that Israel was a safer location.
Not sure. I don't think that she ever came out and openly accused Mossad of his death, but I do believe she is on record as claiming that her father was assassinated.
As for "why now", it may simply be that it has taken this long to track down and seize all the "insurance" documents that she had.
I certainly thought at the time that Epstein's days were numbered the moment the FBI raided his Manhattan mansion, in the sense that that the raid was undertaken to seize that all the videos and photos that he was relying on to keep himself safe.
Take those away from him = he is a goner. The same may be true of this woman.
I do not know how reliable Ari Ben-Menashe is as a source, but, for what it is worth, he claims that Mossad was not the Israeli agency for which Epstein and the Maxwells worked.
From an article last month by Elizabeth Vos in 'Consortium News':
'In an interview with Consortium News, former Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe said Epstein did not work with Mossad. "Military intelligence was who he was working with," said Ben-Menashe. "Big difference," he said. "He never worked with Mossad, and Robert Maxwell never did, either. It was military intelligence."'
(See https://consortiumnews.com/2020/06/18/epstein-case-documentaries-wont-touch-tales-of-intel-ties/ .)
Be that as it may, it is not clear to me that Ghislaine Maxwell would have been any safer in Israel than in the U.S. If she is prudent, she will have followed the example of the former NKVD 'Resident' in Spain, Alexander Orlov. From his 'Wikipedia' entry:
'Meanwhile, the Great Purge continued as Stalin and his inner circle sought to exterminate all suspected enemies of the people. Orlov was alerted as close associates and friends were arrested, tortured and shot, one by one. In 1938, Orlov realised that he would soon be next. When he received orders from Moscow to report to a Soviet ship in Antwerp, Orlov was certain that he was about to be arrested. Instead of obeying, Orlov fled with his wife and daughter to Canada.
'Before leaving Paris, Orlov left two letters for the Soviet Ambassador, one for Stalin and one for NKVD chief Yezhov. He told them that he would reveal everything he knew about NKVD operations if any action was taken against him or his family. In a two-page attachment, Orlov listed the codenames of numerous illegals and moles operating in the West.'
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Orlov_(Soviet_defector) .)
He kept his side of the bargain, and 'The Secret History of Stalin's Crimes' was only published after its subject's death in March 1953.
Posted by: David Habakkuk | 03 July 2020 at 09:02 AM
I am reminded of Don Corleone's speech:I'm a superstitious man, and if some unlucky accident should befall Michael - if he is to be shot in the head by a police officer, or be found hung dead in a jail cell... or if he should be struck by a bolt of lightning - then I'm going to blame some of the people in this room; and then I do not forgive. But with said, I pledge - on the souls of my grandchildren - that I will not be the one to break the peace that we have made today.Epstein may well have died thanks to his being insufficiently suspicious. If Ghislaine Maxwell ever suffered from the same weakness, she must surely have been cured of it by now.
Posted by: Barbara Ann | 03 July 2020 at 09:38 AM
It could well have been Israeli IDF intelligence that she, Epstein and her father worked for. I knew these fellows well and the whole thing would have appealed to their sense of humor.
Jul 03, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com
J , 02 July 2020 at 05:40 PM
The real story is how long Epstein's Mossad partner Maxwell lives before the contract on her demise is fulfilled. Look how long Epstein lived in Federal custody. The clock is ticking.
Jul 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Richard Steven Hack , Jul 3 2020 6:51 utc | 102
Another example of what hackers *might* able to do... (PSA: I have *no* idea whether *any* of this information is correct - but wouldn't it be great if it was?)
Anonymous and OpDeathEaters begin massive expose of powerful child rape ring, big names set to be dropped
"Hollywood, Disney, Goldman Sachs, Bitcoin, Epstein child trafficking networks exposed," Anonymous tweeted
This is a thread about Marc Collins-Rector and the powerful child rape ring which extends from the BBS era to the cryptocurrency era with ties throughout entertainment and silicon valley, from Disney executives to crypto circles and social media. #opDeathEatersFeaturing: Bryan Singer, Gary Goddard, Jeffrey Sachs, Mitchell Blutt, David Neuman, David Geffen, Sandy Gallin, Terry Semel, Michael Huffington, Garth Ancier, Gary Gersh, John Silva, Marc Nathanson, Steve Bannon, Jeffrey Epstein, Al Seckel and more.
Peter AU1 , Jul 3 2020 7:19 utc | 110uncle tungsten , Jul 3 2020 8:46 utc | 118
Both Epstein and his spotter were nothing more than consumables that thought they were were players. I'm not sure what the tabloid interest in this pair of clowns is all about.Mark2 , Jul 3 2020 9:23 utc | 122
Richard Steven Hack #115The question now is: How do they stop Ghislaine from testifying? Having her "commit suicide" in her cell with all the cell block cameras off starts to look a little, I don't know, "blatant", wouldn't one think?
Well, blatant is not a concept that the oligarch class actually feel any problem with.uncle tungsten , Jul 3 2020 8:55 utc | 120
Peter AU1 #110
The Maxwell trial will be a carefully choreographed nothing burger ! The delay in bringing her to justice, was so as to plan and negotiate the details. To the satisfaction of all concerned.
Letting the likes of prince Andrew and Clinton's and Trump off the hook regarding any incriminating evedence. So who is running the show (answer) Israel and their lobby groups.
Q. What's on the table ? Power, money and territory! As always. This is harvest time for Israel I'm afraid !
(Oh and) -- -- -- In my opinion.Mina , Jul 3 2020 9:37 utc | 123Both Epstein and his spotter were nothing more than consumables that thought they were were players. I'm not sure what the tabloid interest in this pair of clowns is all about.
Ghislaine Maxwell and Les Wexner are the boss and Epstein was the CEO at their bidding. Wexner GAVE Epstein the Manhatten apartment. That is a five story large building and it was already fully fitted out with recording gear from the handover day. They don't come cheap. This was one of the biggest, deliberate global entrapment rackets the world has seen. Ghislaine was the handler and Wexner the financier and front man.
But I am just an observer and if you want the gritty stuff then tune in to Whitney Webb and listen to her take on this. She has been revealing an immense amount of evidence and links since Epstein was first arrested 3? years ago. I am about to do that myself.
I don't give a flat rock what the MSM thinks or does in this case.450.org , Jul 3 2020 16:05 utc | 160
The Maxwell trial for the show and the annexation in the background? With no cash allowed to flow to the axis of resistance (no banks, no planes, no Gulf expats enabled to bring in cash without the virus risk?).
The BBC article had an interesting snippet about Andrew, at the very end of the article: "Asked about the prince on Thursday, acting Attorney Strauss said: "I am not going to comment on anyone's status in this investigation but I will say that we would welcome Prince Andrew coming in to talk with us, we would like to have the benefit of his statement."
A source close to Prince Andrew's lawyers told BBC News: "The Duke's team is bewildered by the DoJ's [Department of Justice's] comments earlier today as we have twice reached out to them in the last month and have received no reply.""450.org , Jul 3 2020 16:11 utc | 161
Note how the operatives avoid my inquiry as to who owned the safe house and/or how Maxwell came to own it and who aided her in that endeavor? Now why would they avoid that most important question and change the subject and surround the inquiry with distracting nonsense? I'll let the few honest ones amongst you answer that question. It's an easy answer, fyi. Hey Gruff, I see you.
Accused Jeffrey Epstein Sex Crimes Accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested At $1 Million New Hampshire HomeAuthorities said Thursday that Maxwell was caught at a 156-acre property in that town, where land records list just one lot of that size, on East Washington Road.
"The defendant appears to have been hiding on a 156-acre property acquired in an all-cash purchase in December 2019 (through a carefully anonymized LLC) in Bradford, New Hampshire, an area to which she has no other known connections," said a court filing by Manhattan federal prosecutors. An LLC is a limited liability corporation.
Other records show the buyer was Granite Reality LLC, whose listed manager is a Boston lawyer named Jeffrey Roberts.
Roberts did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The web site of his firm, Nutter McClennen & Fish, says that Roberts "chairs Nutter's Private Client Department and serves as a member of the firm's Executive Committee."
"His broad-based practice consists of estate planning for high net worth individuals," among other areas, according to the web site. Nutter, whose spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment, is located at the same Boston address as the mailing address of the LLC that bought the property.
More on the Nutter Butter law firm that helped Maxwell purchase the New Hampshire safe house. It has strong ties to Harvard. Epstein was in deep with the Harvard folks and the Harvard folks, all Ivy League in fact, are in deep with the intelligence services. It's important in the clandestine services to keep changing your name. Chinese Princelings, fyi, prize a Harvard education. Gee, imagine that.
Lawyers are the most evil beings to ever exist.
About Nutter McClennen & Fish LLPNutter has deep roots in the Boston community. In 1879, a young Louis D. Brandeis founded the firm with fellow Harvard alumnus Samuel D. Warren.
Although Brandeis would leave private practice for the judiciary -- he was appointed to the United States Supreme Court after 35 years at the firm -- Nutter has maintained its prestigious reputation through multiple name changes.
Jul 02, 2020 | www.unz.com
Pft , says: Show Comment July 3, 2020 at 12:02 am GMTBrowder connection timeline
Interesting history Browder has. I suspect he has a history with Putin before Putin became President , but its hard to find anything on a connection. Anyways lots of interesting connections, meaningful or not, I cant say.[Hide MORE]
1985 - bugged version of PROMIS was sold for Soviet government use, with the media mogul Robert Maxwell as a conduit.
1990 - just after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Browder found himself on assignment in Poland for Boston Consulting Group. The government had begun privatizing state-owned companies and selling their shares at ridiculously low valuations.
1991 - Anatoly Sobchak, a former law professor of Putin's at Leningrad State, became mayor of Leningrad.* Sobchak hired Vladimir Putin, whom he had known when Putin worked at Leningrad State. Putin was still on active reserve with the KGB.
Putin's tenure in Sobchak's office was so rife with scandal that it led to a host of investigations into illegal assignment of licenses and contracts . Putin was head of the Committee for Foreign Liaison; collaborated with criminal gangs in regulating gambling; a money-laundering operation by the St. Petersburg Real Estate Holding Company, where Kumarin was involved and Putin served on the advisory board; Putin's role in providing a monopoly for the Petersburg Fuel Company, then controlled by the Tambov criminal organization; and much, much more -- virtually all of which was whitewashed. While he was in St. Petersburg in the nineties, Putin signed many hundreds of contracts doling out funds to his cronies.
1991 - November 5, Robert Maxwell, allegedly drowned after falling off his yacht in the Canary Islands near the northwest coast of Africa. Billions were missing from his pension funds
Maxwell's investment bankers included Salomon Brothers. Eventually, the pension funds were replenished with monies from investment banks Shearson Lehman and Goldman Sachs, as well as the British government.
It was March 1991 when William Browder went to work for British billionaire Robert Maxwell as his "investment manager". Just how deep into the investment decisions of Maxwell did Browder participate as an investment manager?
1991 November 10, Maxwell's funeral took place on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, the resting place for the nation's most revered heroes. Prime Minister Shamir eulogized: "He has done more Israel than can today be said."
1992 - Interestingly, after Maxwell died, Bill Browder went to work for the Salomon Brothers in the middle of their own scandal. Browder was put in charge of the Russian proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers. He was given 25 million to invest and used it by paying cash for vouchers in Russian companies the government had issued to citizens , and used them to buy shared at public auction. In a short period he turned that into 125 million
The scandal at Salomon Brothers was the manipulation of the US Treasury auctions back then.After that scandal where the government was threatening to shut down Salomon Brothers who was the biggest bond dealer in the USA for manipulating markets, all of a sudden, people from Goldman Sachs started taking posts in government.
1996-Browder left Salomon Brothers and with Edmond Safra founded Hermitage Capital Management for the purpose of investing initial seed capital of $25 million in Russia during the period of the mass privatization after the fall of the Soviet Union. Beny Steinmetz was another of the original investors in Hermitage, the Israeli diamond billionaire.
Cyprus is a favorite place for Russian to launder money. Thats probably why Browder and his accounting advisor Jamison Firestone chose it to launder Browder's Russian profits.
Browder from about 1997 to the mid-2000s used Cyprus shell companies to move money out of Russia to cheat the country of multi-millions of dollars in taxes. He used the Russian shells to invest in shares, including Gazprom shares that were illegal for foreigners to buy in Russia, then moved the shares to Cyprus shells
1996 article entitled, "The Money Plane," published by New York Magazine detailed how the "Russian mob gets a shipment of up to a billion dollars in fresh $100 bills," Edmond Safra's bank, Republic National, was directly implicated.
Guess we know where Browder got the cash money to pay for the vouchers
1998 - If Salomon had not been merged with Travelers Group in 1997 (which owned retail brokerage, Smith Barney), no doubt Salomon Brothers would have collapsed in the 1998 Long-Term Capital Management debacle created by one of their own – Salomons John Meriwether.
Safra lost $1 billion in Russia during the 1998 Long-Term Capital Management crisis over Russian bonds and investments which was why he put his bank, Republic National Bank, up for sale to HSBC in 1999.
1999 - Following the Russian financial crisis of 1998, despite significant outflows from the fund, Hermitage became a prominent shareholder in the Russian oil and gas. It was in 1999 when VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation (Russian: ВСМПО-АВИСМА) – the world's largest titanium producer - filed a RICO lawsuit against Browder and other Avisma investors including Kenneth Dart, alleging they illegally siphoned company assets into offshore accounts and then transferred the funds to U.S. accounts at Barclays.
Browder and his co-defendants settled with Avisma in 2000; they sold their Avisma shares as part of the confidential settlement agreement.
1999 - Republican National Bank was owned by Safra . On May 11, HSBC, announced a $10.3 billion deal to purchase Edmond Safra's holdings including the Republic National Bank of New York and Safra's shares in Bill Browder's firm, Hermitage Capital. The announcement came only nine months after Russia's economy collapsed and Browder's clients, lost over $900 million. It was also nine months after $4.8 billion in IMF funds was deposited in an undisclosed account at Safra's bank and well before the public became aware that that same money was dispersed and stolen through the Bank of New York, off-shore companies, and foreign financial institutions.
HSBC then became Browders partner of the Heritage Fund . Browder's shell companies were registered in Cyprus but owned by HSBC (Guernsey) as the trustee for his Hermitage Capital Management.
Cypriot shells Glendora and Kone were part of his offshore network "owned" by an HSBC Private Bank Guernsey Ltd trust. The real owner was Browder's Hermitage Fund. Assets (stocks and money) went from Russia to Cyprus and then to parts unknown.
Republic International Trust, registered by Mossack Fonseca of Panama Papers fame and listed on the Glendora document, was in the offshore network of Republic National Bank owner Edmond Safra, an early investor who then held 51% of Hermitage Fund shares.
1999 December 3 - Safra was killed in suspicious fire that broke out in his Monte Carlo home. Although some believe that Safra was killed by the Russian mafia, Lurie reported that a Swiss prosecutor investigating the missing IMF money believed that Safra was killed "because of his revelations to the FBI and the Swiss Prosecutor's Office investigating the disappearance and laundering of $4.8 billion of the IMF stablilization loan." One of the more interesting things to note here is that the prosecutor implied that Safra not only spoke with the FBI about the missing IMF funds but with Swiss authorities as well.
Funny how Browders bosses/partners get killed
1999 - the bombings that killed nearly three hundred innocent Russians were likely the product of a "false flag" operation that enabled Putin to consolidate power.
Putin promised to stop the plundering of the Russian state by rich oligarchs. But very few Russians knew that Putin had been a primary actor in the same kind of activity in St. Petersburg. And as for cleaning up corruption, one of Putin's first acts as president was to pardon Boris Yeltsin, thereby guaranteeing immunity from prosecution to the outgoing president.-
Putin recruited two oligarchs who were among his closest confidants, Roman Abramovich and Lev Leviev, to undertake the highly unlikely mission of creating a new religious organization called the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia under the leadership of Rabbi Berel Lazar, a leader in the Hasidic movement called Chabad-Lubavitch.
Founded in the late eighteenth century, the tiny, Brooklyn-based Chabad-Lubavitcher movement is a fundamentalist Hasidic sect centered on the teaching of the late Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, who is sometimes referred to as a messiah -- moshiach -- a savior and liberator of the Jewish people. It is antiabortion, views homosexuality as a perversion, and often aligns itself politically with other fundamentalist groups on the right.
Its biggest donors included Leviev, an Israeli billionaire who was an Uzbek native and was known as the "King of Diamonds" thanks to his success in the diamond trade, and Charles Kushner, an American real estate developer who was later jailed for illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering. Kushner is also the father of Jared Kushner, who married Donald Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and later became a senior adviser to President Trump. Leviev's friendship with Lazar dates back to 1992 and, according to Haaretz, made Leviev "the most influential, most active and most connected person in the Jewish community of Russia and made Lazar the country's chief rabbi."
Roman Abramovich, controlled the trading arm of one of Russia's largest oil companies through an Isle of Man company that had figured in the Bank of New York affair. Mr. Abramovich ran the Siberian oil giant Sibneft, which sold its oil through a company called Runicom.
His name emerged after speculation that Swiss investigators were looking into the role of Runicom as part of the widening investigation into the laundering of up to $15 billion of Russian money through American banks. Runicom is owned by at least two offshore companies set up by the Valmet Group, a financial services concern partly owned by Menatep, a failed Russian bank that used the Bank of New York."
2001- Salomon Brothers Building (WTC 7) collapses. Tenants include the Department of Defense, the Secret Service, the IRS, and the Securities and Exchange Commission
2005 - Steinmetz of Browders Heritage Fund teamed up with another diamond magnate, Putins buddy Lev Leviev, to purchase the top ten floors of Israel's Diamond Tower which also houses the Israeli Diamond Exchange. Haaretz.com reported that "the buyers intend to build a connector from the 10 floors – the top 10 floors of the building – to the diamond exchange itself in order to benefit from the security regime of the other offices within the exchange." And benefit they did.
According to one website reporting on a Channel 10 (Israel) news story, from 2005 – 2011, an "underground" bank was set up to provide "loans to firms using money taken from other companies while pretending it was legally buying and selling diamonds." The bank apparently washed over $100 million in illicit funds over the course of six years and both Steinmetz and Leviev were directly implicated as "customers" of the bank but Neither of them were charged in the case.
Then there's HSBC's involvement in the diamond industry and Leviev's ties not only to arms dealer Arcadi Gaydamak via Africa-Israeli Investments but Roman Abramovich and Kushner
2007 - Browders Hermitage Capital Management, was raided by Russian interior ministry officers, who confiscated stamps and documents. These were then used to file bogus tax returns to the Russian Treasury, which were paid out to bank accounts controlled by Klyuev and his associates, according to the U.S. government.
Browder claimed Organized crime carried out the tax refund fraud against the Russian Treasury under which criminals used collusive lawsuits to fake damages and get refunds of company taxes. The tax refund fraud using Browder's companies netted $230 million.
2008 - HSBC (Guersey) director Paul Wrench filed a complaint about the tax refund fraud in July on behalf of Hermitage (after Starova's complaints) .
Maginitsky was arrested for being the accountant (not a lawyer) of Browder's tax evasion schemes.
2008 - A lawsuit alleged Bayrock's projected profits were "to be laundered, untaxed through a sham Delaware entity" to the FL Group, Iceland's largest private investment fund, the first major firm to collapse in 2008 when Iceland's financial bubble burst, and a favored financial instrument for loans to Russia-connected oligarchs who were, court papers claim, in favor with Vladimir Putin. According to Bloomberg, Eva Joly, who assisted Iceland's special prosecutor in the investigation of the financial collapse, said, "There was a huge amount of money that came into these banks that wasn't entirely explained by central bank lending. Only Mafia-like groups fill a gap like that."
Another significant Bayrock partner, the Sapir Organization, had, through its principal, Tamir Sapir, a long business relationship with Semyon Kislin, the commodities trader who was tied to the Chernoy brothers and, according to the FBI, to Vyacheslav Ivankov's gang in Brighton Beach.
In addition to being wired into the Kremlin, Sapir's son-in-law, Rotem Rosen, was a supporter of Chabad along with Sater, Sapir, and others at Bayrock, and, as a result, was part of an extraordinarily powerful channel between Trump and Putin. After all, the ascent of Chabad in Russia had been part of Putin's plan to replace older Jewish institutions in Russia with corresponding organizations that were loyal to him.
The biggest contributor to Chabad in the world was Leviev, the billionaire "King of Diamonds" who had a direct line to Rabbi Berel Lazar, aka "Putin's rabbi," to Donald Trump, and to Putin himself dating back to the Russian leader's early days in St. Petersburg.
Indeed, one of the biggest contributors to Chabad of Port Washington, Long Island, was Bayrock founder Tevfik Arif, a Kazakh-born Turk with a Muslim name who was not Jewish, but nonetheless won entry into its Chai Circle as a top donor.
2013-The Hermitage Fund, an HSBC-backed vehicle that invested in Russia and became embroiled in a diplomatic war with the Kremlin over the death of one of its accountants, closes down..
2014, Vekselberg's Renova Group became a partner with Wilbur Ross in the takeover of the Bank of Cyprus, which had held billions in deposits from wealthy Russians.
Back in early 90's Trump found himself in financial trouble when his three casinos in Atlantic City were under foreclosure threat from lenders. He was bailed-out by senior managing director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Wilbur Ross, who Trump would later appoint as Secretary of Commerce. Ross, who is known as the "King of Bankruptcy," specializes in leveraged buyouts of distressed businesses.
Along with Blackstones Carl Icahn, Ross convinced bondholders to strike a deal with Trump that allowed Trump to keep control of the casinos.
By the mid-1990s, Ross was a prominent figure in New York Democratic Party politics and had caught the attention President Bill Clinton who appointed him to lead the U.S.-Russia Investment Fund.
2015 - Donald Trump, after emerging from a decade of litigation, multiple bankruptcies, and $ 4 billion in debt, had risen from the near-dead with the help of Bayrock and its alleged ties to Russian intelligence and the Russian Mafia. "They saved his bacon," said Kenneth McCallion, a former federal prosecutor
2015 - Kushner paid $295 million for some of the floors in the old New York Times building, purchased in 2015 from the US branch of Israeli-Russian oligarch Leviev's company, Africa Israel Investments (AFI), and partner, Five Mile Capital.
Kushner later borrowed $285 million from the German financial company Deutsche Bank, which has also been linked to Russian money laundering,
Jared and Ivanka were also close to another of Putins oligarchs, Roman Abramovich and his wife, Dasha Zhukova.
2015-While Wilbur Ross served as vice-chairman of the Bank of Cyprus, the bank's Russia-based businesses were sold to a Russian banker and consultant, Artem Avetisyan, who had ties to both the Russian president and Russia's largest bank, Sberbank. At the time, Sberbank was under US and EU sanctions following Russia's annexation of Crimea.
Avetisyan had earlier been selected by Putin to head a new business branch of the Russian president's strategic initiative agency, which was tasked with improving business and government ties.
Avetisyan's business partner, Oleg Gref, is the son of Herman Gref, Sberbank's chief executive officer, and their consultancy has served as a "partner" to Sberbank, according to their website. Ross had described the Russian businesses – including 120 bank branches in Russia – as being worth "hundreds of millions of euros" in 2014 but they were sold with other assets to Avetisyan for €7m (£6m).
Ross resigned from the Bank of Cyprus board after he was confirmed as commerce secretary in 2017
2018 - Cyprus suspended cooperation with Russia, which had been seeking assistance from the government in Moscow's alleged case of tax evasion against Hermitage Capital Founder Bill Browder.
Jul 02, 2020 | www.unz.com
Alfred , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 3:31 pm GMTThere is an interesting connection between Bill Bowder, Robert Maxwell, Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and others. They are all members of "CLUB"Really No Shit , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 3:55 pm GMT
There are many more revealing articles on Martin Armstrong's blog. Browder is one of the biggest scumbags to ever walk on this earth. He is trying to start a war against Russia – because they took away some of the things he had stolen. An absolute arsehole.
Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested – Clinton's & Epstein's Lover | Armstrong EconomicsBen Cardin must feel like a schmuck given Ben Bidder's exposé in the Der Spiegel but having suborned the late drama queen Johnny McCain in supporting him in his efforts to protect a fellow tribesman, the noodge won't make any effort to rescind the illicit bill now that's the power of corruption!Bombercommand , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 4:54 pm GMT@Saggy Many thanks for posting this. Halfway through the film I began to suspect that Browder had Magnitsky killed: "Dead Men Tell No Tales", and an accountant can tell very important tales for the procecution. I had no idea that several guys connected with Browder shell companies convienently turned up dead. Looks like the "cleanup" scenes in Scorcese's "Casino".Craig Nelsen , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 5:34 pm GMTThe Nekrasov film is absolutely devastating. Bowder comes off looking like the rat-faced vermin he is.geokat62 , says: Show Comment July 2, 2020 at 9:32 pm GMTHere's a link to all 6 parts of Browder's deposition in the Previzon case
Jul 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Jackrabbit , Jul 2 2020 21:10 utc | 46Ghislaine Maxwell arrested
Whitney Webb's view1/2 Having now read the SDNY indictment of Ghislaine Maxwell, one thing stands out. The charges are mainly for enticing minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts specifically w Epstein and there is also a perjury charge ....<> <> <> <> <> <>
2/2 However, the indictment says Maxwell herself sexually abused the victims but WASN'T charged for that. In other words, they admit that she sexually assaulted minors but is only charged her for enticing minors to travel for abuse by Epstein, NOT her. Slap on the wrist incoming
Now trending on twitter: #Ghislanemaxwelldidntkillherself
uncle tungsten , Jul 2 2020 21:42 utc | 51William Gruff #45Mark2 , Jul 2 2020 23:55 utc | 65
Well Ghislaine Maxwell could have hidden in Salisbury UK with all those spooks about. She has UK citizenship so maybe a prisoner exchange for Julian Assange is possible. Mind you the englanders do like their torture toys.
But where is Les Wexner, the chief, the founder of this racket. For that matter where are the Awan family spy and blackmail gang?Here's Maxwell with Trump.james , Jul 3 2020 0:11 utc | 66
So what has she got on trump. ?
https://mobile.twitter.com/the_resistor/status/1278834914540937217/photo/1how many intel agencies are behind this blackmailing duo?? can't be just one...
Jul 02, 2020 | www.msn.com
Ghislaine Maxwell, Associate of Jeffrey Epstein, Is Arrested Nicole Hong, Benjamin Weiser and Mihir Zaveri 6 hrs ago
Ghislaine Maxwell , the former girlfriend and longtime associate of the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, was arrested Thursday in New Hampshire on criminal charges linked to his alleged sex-trafficking operation, according to a law enforcement official.
Ms. Maxwell was accused in an indictment of recruiting and grooming "multiple" girls, including one as young as 14, for Mr. Epstein, who sexually abused them. She also faces perjury charges.
The arrest came nearly a year after Mr. Epstein was charged in a federal indictment with sexually exploiting and abusing dozens of underage girls at his mansion in Manhattan, his estate in Palm Beach, Fla. and other locations between at least 2002 and 2005.
The indictment said he paid the girls to give him massages while they were nude or topless, in encounters that typically included sex acts.
Mr. Epstein hanged himself in August in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Lower Manhattan, where he was jailed pending trial on the federal sex-trafficking charges.
Ms. Maxwell, a longtime confidante and companion of Mr. Epstein's, had for years been accused of helping to procure and groom young girls for the financier, including instructing them on how to pleasure Mr. Epstein sexually.
The daughter of the British publishing magnate Robert Maxwell, Ms. Maxwell also helped manage Mr. Epstein's properties and introduced him to the high-profile celebrities and business executives who would form his social circle.
Civil lawsuits have accused Ms. Maxwell of managing a network of recruiters that Mr. Epstein relied on to entice young and often financially strapped girls and women into his scheme, promising he would help them with their education and careers.
"They were like partners in a business," Mr. Epstein's house manager, Janusz Banasiak, said in a deposition.
"She orchestrated the whole thing for Jeffrey," one of Mr. Epstein's accusers, Sarah Ransome, who sued him in 2017, told The New York Times in an interview.
The new federal indictment, unsealed on Thursday, charged Ms. Maxwell with six counts: enticing minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in sexual activity, two conspiracy counts related to those charges and two counts of perjury.
The indictment described three instances between 1994 and 1997 of Ms. Maxwell befriending girls, taking them shopping and to the movies. After establishing a rapport with them, Ms. Maxwell would "normalize sexual abuse" by undressing in front of the girls or talking about sexual topics, the indictment claimed.
Mr. Epstein would then abuse the girls in various residences and other locations in New York, New Mexico, Florida and London, according to the indictment.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, who has been a lawyer for Ms. Maxwell, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Jul 01, 2020 | skynews.com.au
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.392.0_en.html#goog_347031026 Pause Mute Loaded : 7.89% Remaining Time - 26:10 Quality Levels
SPECIAL REPORT: Jeffrey Epstein and his royal protector Phil Ritchie | 02/07/2020 | 28min
Prince Andrew's life has been torn asunder by the fallout of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein triggering a stalemate with the US Justice Department which threatens the reputation of the entire British royal family. This Sky News Australia special investigation probes their friendship and brings you that latest in the royal scandal which has gripped the world.
Jul 01, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
willie , Jun 28 2020 23:59 utc | 74
Haven't read the article in french that I link to now:
but I'm off to bed.
The title says: Ghislaine Maxwell lives in a very luxury appartment in Paris,at a few minutes distance from both the 8.6 million dollars Epstein property and its neighbour the Israeli Embassy.
International criminals usually live in Paris,where Interpol always looks on the wrong side,inspector Clouseau heads it.
Jun 24, 2020 | www.unz.com
geokat62 , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 8:51 pm GMTBreaking news
NEW: Alan Dershowitz's attorney confirms that his client has access to Virginia Giuffre's sealed depositions. Those depositions reveal that she was directed by Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with former Israeli PM Ehud Barak & Victoria's Secret's Les Wexner.
-- julie k. brown (@jkbjournalist) June 23, 2020
Jun 21, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Christian J. Chuba , Jun 21 2020 14:18 utc | 78Re: the Nuremberg trials , I became fascinated by the writings of Paul R. Pillar who pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace' . This is when one country sets up an environment for war against another country. I'll grant you that this is vague but if this is applicable at all how is this not an accurate description of what we are doing against Iran and Venezuela?
In both cases, we are imposing a full trade embargo (not sanctions) on basic civilian necessities and infrastructures and threatening the use of military force. As for Iran, the sustained and unfair demonization of Iranians is preparing the U.S. public to accept a ruthless bombing campaign against them as long overdue. We are already attacking the civilian population of their allies in Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.
How Ironic that the country that boasts that it won WW2 is now guilty of the very crimes that it condemned publicly in court.
Jun 19, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Two new documentaries on the Jeffery Epstein affair delve into lurid details & give voice to his victims, but both scratch the surface of the political & intelligence dimensions of the scandal... Authored by Elizabeth Vos via ConsortiumNews.com,
Investigation Discovery premiered a three-hour special, "Who Killed Jeffrey Epstein?" on May 31, the first segment in a three-part series, that focused on Epstein's August 2019 death in federal custody. The series addresses Epstein's alleged co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, his links with billionaire Leslie Wexner, founder of the Victoria Secrets clothing line, and others, as well as the non-prosecution deal he was given.
The special followed on the heels of Netflix's release of " Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich ," a mini-series that draws on a book of the same name by James Patterson.
Promotional material for "Who Killed Jeffery Epstein?" promises that: " exclusive interviews and in-depth investigations reveal new clues about his seedy underworld, privileged life and controversial death. The three-hour special looks to answer the questions surrounding the death of this enigmatic figure." Netflix billed its series this way: "Stories from survivors fuel this docuseries examining how convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein used his wealth and power to carry out his abuses."
Neither documentary however deals at all with Epstein's suspected ties to the world of intelligence.
Absent from both are Maxwell's reported links to Israeli intelligence through her father, Robert Maxwell , former owner of The New York Daily News and The Mirror newspaper in London. Maxwell essentially received a state funeral in Israel and was buried on the Mount of Olives after he mysteriously fell off his yacht in 1991 in the Atlantic Ocean.
Ari Ben-Menashe. (From his memoir, "Profits of War")
In an interview with Consortium News , former Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe said Epstein did not work with Mossad. "Military intelligence was who he was working with," said Ben-Menashe. "Big difference," he said. "He never worked with Mossad, and Robert Maxwell never did, either. It was military intelligence."
Ben-Menashe claimed Robert Maxwell was Epstein's "tie over. Robert Maxwell was the conduit [in the Iran-Contra scandal]. The financial conduit."
In " Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales ," a book published in December, Ben-Menashe is quoted as saying he worked with Robert Maxwell who introduced his daughter and Epstein to Israeli intelligence, after which they engaged in a blackmail operation for Israel. "[Epstein] was taking photos of politicians f**king fourteen-year-old girls -- if you want to get it straight. They [Epstein and Maxwell] would just blackmail people, they would just blackmail people like that," he says in the book.
Ben-Menashe also claims that Robert Maxwell had attempted to blackmail Mossad. "He really lost his compass once he started playing these games with people," he told Consortium News.Prince Andrew
Prince Andrew in a carriage procession, June 2012. (Carfax2, CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia Commons)
About a week after both documentaries premiered, the U.S. Department of Justice approached the U.K.'s Home Office requesting that Prince Andrew answer questions in the U.K. over his links to Epstein, The Mirror reported. If he refuses, the paper said, U.S. prosecutors would ask that he be brought to a British court to respond to their questions. Andrew's lawyers say he three times agreed to be questioned by U.S. authorities, but it is not known if Andrew attached conditions, such as immunity.
Both documentaries mention Prince Andrew in the context of allegations about him from one of Epstein's victims, Virginia Roberts Giuffre. But neither film goes into much detail about Andrew's role in the Epstein operation, which Ben-Menashe said, was to lure powerful men into Epstein's orbit.
"One of the things that are really key to this is that he [Epstein] befriended a very useful idiot called Prince Andrew," Ben-Menashe told CN . "Now what really happened was that this Prince Andrew, with nothing to do, was having fun with this, and Prince Andrew brings in the fancy people, invites them to play golf with him, and then takes them out for fun. Then Epstein shows up, and these people are basically blackmailed."
"The only person that can talk, that probably knows quite a bit, is the great prince," Ben-Menashe said. "He was with him [Epstein] all the time. I really don't know what his future is going to be like, either."
Since a number of influential figures were named in a lawsuit filed by Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell the day before Epstein was found dead in his federal prison cell in New York, Ben-Menashe said: "I'm starting to think that lawsuit was his death sentence, because people didn't want to be named. That's my guess, it's just a guess. Obviously, somebody decided that he had to go."
Epstein's death was ruled a "suicide" by New York's chief medical examiner. A pathologist hired by Epstein's brother said it was homicide.An Angry Call
Just before Ben-Menashe spoke to Consortium News on Monday, he said he had received an angry telephone call from Israel's Channel 13 television station.
"They called me, and they went wild: 'What, you believe Israel would use little girls? You are saying that? You are insulting the nation, you are making us anathema around the world.' I said, 'The truth is the truth.' And Jeffrey Epstein's story is something that nobody wanted to hear. He was working with the Israelis, he was working with Maxwell," Ben-Menashe said.
He added: "It's a very bad story, and I can see why the Israelis are so concerned about it. I believe [Channel 13] were expressing anger, and I believe this was a message. I don't like messages like that it has to do with the timing and these stories coming out about Epstein. They [Israel] are starting to become anathema to the world, this adds to it -- the Epstein story."Victims' Voices
The Netflix and Investigation Discovery productions allow survivors to recount their experiences in interviews as well as taped police recordings and focus on the sweetheart plea deal provided to Epstein by former Trump Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta during Acosta's tenure as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida.
Each series outlines Epstein's relationships with Wexner, Maxwell, and a variety of elite figures. Investigation Discovery focuses on the controversy surrounding Epstein's death while Netflix's "Filthy Rich" examines the second attempt to prosecute Epstein in the context of the Me Too movement.
The Netflix series describes the initial investigation of Epstein as it shifted from the state to the federal level, and airs allegations that Florida journalists covering the story were threatened. Netflix also interviews psychologist Dr. Kathryn Stamoulis, a specialist in adolescent sexuality, who gives a description of Epstein's targeting and grooming of young girls. Epstein survivor Giuffre later describes in the film being groomed to tolerate exploitation and sex trafficking as part of a "deranged family."
The final section of the fourth episode in Netflix's miniseries includes a survivor stating that this was not simply an Epstein operation, but an "international sex trafficking ring that reached all over the world." Epstein is described as a "very small piece in a huge network." But the documentary goes no further than that.
As in the Belgian Dutroux case , victims alleged that multiple abusers acted in concert with each other, using blackmail to keep each other in line. In both instances, authorities and the media portrayed the abuse as chiefly the product of an aberrant lone predator.
"This wouldn't be the only time this happened, but this guy got way over his head," Ben-Menashe told Consortium News . "He probably was blackmailing too many people, too many powerful people. And then, this is a story the Israelis wouldn't want to come out, anyway."
Thriving in Murky Waters
Another angle the documentaries did not approach was the environment in which Epstein thrived like an algae bloom in stagnant water, that is, within a long history of child trafficking rings linked with intelligence agencies , often with the aim of gathering blackmail material. It was within this reality that Epstein appeared to be rendered untouchable.
Omitting the intelligence aspect of Epstein's history allows the Establishment media to portray his case as a mysterious and unsolvable aberration, rather than perhaps a continuation of business-as-usual amongst those in power.
The glaring refusal to address Epstein's intelligence involvement becomes clear when Investigation Discovery and Netflix's programs discuss the role of Acosta in securing Epstein's "sweetheart" plea deal, but do not reference Acosta's widely reported explanation as to why Acosta agreed to the deal. As reported by The Daily Beast , Acosta claimed that he cut the non-prosecution deal because he had been told that "Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone."
Independent journalist Whitney Webb has reported on Epstein's many ties with intelligence , telling CNLive! in August last year that there is evidence this included with the CIA.
Webb spoke about Iran-Contra links to Epstein via his and billionaire Wexner's efforts to relocate Southern Air Transport (formerly the CIA's Air America) from Florida to Ohio: "What's significant here is that out of all the airlines in the United States, Wexner and Epstein choose the airline, the only airline that is outed, publicly known at the time, to be a CIA cut-out. Out of all the airlines that exist, that's the one they go for," she said.
Webb also cited reporting by Nigel Rosser, a British journalist, who wrote in the Evening Standard in 2001 that Epstein claimed he worked for the CIA in the 1990s.Lip Service
Investigation Discovery and Netflix give lip service to Wexner's ties with Epstein, omitting that Wexner gave Epstein the largest private residence in New York City -- essentially for free . Investigation Discovery does not mention that the residence was extensively wired with surveillance equipment, per Webb and The New York Times .
"James Patterson, before writing his book on Epstein, 'Filthy Rich,' on which this documentary [by Netflix] is based, wrote a novel ['The President is Missing'] with Bill Clinton , who is of course quite close to the Epstein scandal, so that definitely, in my opinion, raises some eyebrows," Webb told Consortium News.
"I think that one of the goals of this [Netflix] documentary is to basically imply that Epstein was the head of the operation and that now that he is dead, all of that activity has ceased," Webb said. "If they had actually bothered to explore the intelligence angle, in some of the more obvious facts about the case, like Leslie Wexner's role, for example, it becomes clear that Epstein was really just more of a manager of this type of operation, [and] that these activities continue."
Webb said a main reason for avoiding discussion of the intelligence angle is that mention of state sponsorship would lead to calls for accountability and open inquiry into a history of sexual blackmail by intelligence agencies. "So if they had given even superficial treatment of those ties, it would have exposed threads that if anyone had bothered to pull on a little bit, would start to unravel a lot of things that obviously these powerful people and institutions don't want exposed," Webb said.
More than nine months since Epstein's death, no alleged Epstein co-conspirator has been arrested or charged with a crime despite reports of an active criminal investigation of Maxwell (who has disappeared), and multiple failed attempts of alleged Epstein victims to serve her with civil suits.
"The criminal case against him, and all the evidence that was gathered against him as part of that, will never be made public unless someone else is charged," said Webb. "So, the fact that they're not charging anyone else is quite telling, and the fact that the mainstream media isn't pushing back against that, I think is telling as well."
The omissions of major aspects of the Epstein case by the media, specifically its links with the intelligence community, seems to be yet another example of a buffer between justice and those responsible for rendering Epstein untouchable.
Jun 16, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
A User , Jun 16 2020 3:36 utc | 87I'm always amused, nah that is a little harsh - dumbfounded is more reasonable, when Americans express dismay that 'their' constitution is not being adhered to by the elites.
The minutiae of American political history hasn't greatly concerned me after a superficial study at high school, when I realized that the political structure is corrupt and was designed to facilitate corruption.
The seeming caring & sharing soundbites pushed out by the 'framers' scum such as Thomas Jefferson was purely for show, an attempt to gather the cannon fodder to one side. This was simple as the colonial media had been harping on about 'taxation without representation' for decades.
It wasn't just taxes, in fact for the American based elites that was likely the least of it. The objective of the elites was to wrest control of resources eg land and/or timber plus so-called royal warrants that controlled who was allowed to produce, sell export products to who, grab allocation out of the control of the mobs of greedy royal favorites, then into the hands of the new American elites.
A well placed courtier would put a bagman into the regional center of a particular colony (each colony becoming a 'state' post revolution), so that if someone wanted to, I dunno, say export huge quantities of cotton, the courtier would charge that 'colonial' for getting the initial warrant, then take a hefty % of the return on the product - all collected by the on-site bagman then divvied up.
The bagmen & courtiers grew fat at the expense of the colonists and generally the bagman, who also spied on the locals for obvious reasons, would go back to England once he had made his stash.
The system was ponderous inaccurate & very expensive. Something had to be done, but selling revolutionary change to the masses on the basis of the need to enrich the already wealthy was not likely to be a winner. Consequently the high faulting blather.
The American elites wanted and, after the revolution got, the power to control economic development for themselves.Hence the birth of lobbyists simultaneous with the birth of the American nation state.
IMO the constitution was about as meaningful to the leaders of the revolution as campaign promises are to contemporary politicians.That is, something to be used as self protection without ever implementing.
Jun 16, 2020 | www.youtube.com
Saagar Enjeti discusses the FBI's decision to formally request Prince Andrew's cooperation in the sexual abuse investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.
Dutch , 6 days ago
spaceracer23 , 1 week ago
"The Clintons would like to extend their sympathy to the royal family for the upcoming suicide of Prince Andrew."
Kira Barsmith , 6 days ago
Why is the FBI focusing on foriegn nationals instead of the numerous AMERICAN politicians involved with Epstein? It's like the FBI has a long history of not having any interest in holding the Clintons accountable....
Andy DSouza , 6 days ago
That photo is worth more than a thousand words, absolutely priceless.
Peter Sepall , 1 week ago
Why have we still not found Ghislain Maxwell.Who stands to inherit Epsteins assets?
Mark Taylor , 6 days ago
I will believe the FBI when they stop talking the talk and start walking the walk.
All of the worldwide 1% "elite" are riddled with corruption. What pukes...
Lying Dutchman , 6 days ago
Mila Lewis , 6 days ago (edited)
Come on, Saagar, we know why he got off: he was a CIA operative. Alex Acosta said he "belonged to Intelligence."
Jisti Koff , 6 days ago
Shouldn't the FBI be hounding their own American "elites" as well? Why the studious silence by the US alphabet soup agencies on Maxwell and her whereabouts? Why have the Clintons and Dershowitz and even Trump been handled with kid gloves in this case? Or what about Bill Gates? By all means, put pressure on Prince Andrew, but it's the lack of consistency in the manner in which US authorities have been handling this from the get go that piques my ire. It's as if Andrew is being used as a sacrificial scapegoat to deflect attention away from America's own very, very, long list of Epstein and Maxwell's "clients"... many of them serious power-players with incredible influence. How typical of the monumental hypocrisy and double standards which have become the "stock in trade" of the US empire.
Luce Ra , 1 week ago
How about Bill Gates, the world's healer? Another buddy of Epstein.
josh benedict , 3 days ago
There are no conspiracy theories around Epstein's case, just obvious facts. A group of the richest people share same sexual appetite for kids. And justice department will not do anything about it.
galactica80 , 3 days ago
The Hill is just exposing the tip of the iceberg. Look more into the Clintons, Winfrey, and Gates if you're serious.
Why have I known about Clinton for so long? I can't even remember when I first heard that Clinton was on the island and the Lolita express? I thought it was public knowledge.
dobrodave123 , 2 days ago
ThatRegnar , 1 week ago
"Einstein didn't kill himself" : AOC.
When are we going to question Bill Clinton over his association with Epstein?
Jun 14, 2020 | www.serendipity.li
And now there is the Epstein matter, which threatens not only former president Bill Clinton, but a cosmos of political, financial, and entertainment "stars" in countless ugly incidents that involve a kind of personal corruption that has no political context but says an awful lot about the obliteration of moral and ethical boundaries by the people who ended up running things in this fretful moment of US history.
Jun 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
migueljose , Jun 8 2020 3:27 utc | 55I watched all of the Netflix series on Epstein-- "Filthy Rich" last night. I'd be interested in others' perspectives.
It focused on the victims' stories, did a good job on revealing how young, poor girls who are psychologically scarred through family breakdowns, predatory adults and neglect are then easily exploited during their teen years by sociopaths.Very revealing.
However, there was not one mention of Israel. Whitney Webb's work including her recent interviews with Maria Farmer are essential:
Watch them both-- the Netflix series and Whitney Webb's.
May 25, 2020 | logosjournal.com
Originally from: Gangster Politics Logos Journal by by Stephen Eric Bronner
Gangster politicians like to think that they are slick. They talk slang and curse a lot, grab a girl's ass (or worse), insist that they never read a book, thumb their noses at intellectual elites, boast about their high IQs, and proclaim their "street smarts." They also view themselves both as victims of their critics' malice and "great men" alone capable of curing the nation's ills.
They make their base feel the same: they are despised and yet the real Americans! Their belief in the boss is unwavering. Only he can make America great again.
Those who oppose his policies are traitors and the threats they pose are serious -- and, if they are not serious, then they must be made serious. History teaches what might become necessary in order to teach them a lesson. The Reichstag Fire of 1933 and the (staged) assassination of Sergei Kirov in 1934 were the dramatic events that led Hitler and Stalin to justify attacks on enemies, renegades, and supposed traitors to the state. Gangster politicians under internal pressure pray for a crisis, or what Trump once forecast as a "major event," in order to rally the troops and clean house.
Gangster politics requires no ideology. Lack of principle itself becomes a principle.
The great man must do what must be done: if that means lying, reneging on deals, shifting gears, rejecting transparency, and whatever else, then so be it. That he can employ the double standard is a given.
Big talk takes the place of diplomacy and, if the bluster doesn't work then America alone -- or, better, the boss alone -- can rely on "fire and fury" whenever and wherever he likes.
Traditionalists employed jingoistic rhetoric and wrapped themselves in the flag. The gangster politician talks like a schoolyard bully and salutes himself.
Gangster politicians of times past had subordinates swear an oath of loyalty not to the state but to them. Yesterday's "America! Love it or leave it!" has today turned into: "Trump! Love him -- or shut up!"
May 25, 2020 | logosjournal.com
In The Communist Manifesto , Marx and Engels referred to the state as "the executive committee of the ruling class." Reflecting the collective capitalist interest in maintaining its accumulation process, capable of forging compromises among competing sectors of its own and other classes, this committee was also meant to enforce legal norms, contracts, and other rules of the game.
If necessary, indeed, it would even subordinate individual capitalist interests to the collective interests of the class. The executive committee might foster imperialist ambitions and declare war. But it might also call for redistributive legislation to foster demand even though no individual capitalist would want to pay higher taxes to cover the cost. Recalcitrant elements of the ruling class and protestors from below require punishment. Fascist states easily get carried away in that regard. Banana republics usually exhibit bureaucratic gangster tendencies. In a capitalist democracy, however, things are supposedly different: its executive committee should jail Al Capone and marginalize corruption. The lines between legal and illegal business transactions are blurring and the term "political mafia" is taking on a whole new meaning. 
Gangster politics has little in common with the interests of petty criminals, white collar crooks, 'Crips and 'Bloods, and the like. Vast sums are at stake: so, for example, roughly 82.8% of benefits from the 2017 tax bill are being funneled into the portfolios of the top 1%,  and the corporate tax rate is being dropped from 35% to 21%. The boss knows where his bread is buttered. That the godfather should get his cut goes without saying: Trump's family will make upwards of "tens of millions of dollars" from his tax legislation.  And with the "ca-ching!" (that sweet sound of the cash register) comes the "bling" (the payoffs, the hush-money, and the gifts) along with the "glitz" of the porno stars, the third-rate actresses, the models, and the rest.
Gangster politics hovers between the authoritarian and the democratic. The boss and his posse receive their perks for a reason. Gangster politics immunizes capitalist society from class contradictions that have become too acute or demands from below that have grown too onerous. Its representatives are not exactly fascists. They don't rely on paramilitary forces, concentration camps, official censorship, or explicit ideals of a racially pure society. Sleaze is the ethos of gangster politics. Its style and tone insinuate themselves into existing institutions such as the town meeting, the mass rally, media, electoral debates, and the use of legislative tricks, and legal minutiae. Gangster politicians know how to "game" the system. Their populist rhetoric is window dressing. The old "bicycle mentality" of the petty bourgeoisie holds sway, namely, push up and kick down.
Gangsters have long been identified with capitalists, cops, and state officials. Balzac noted that every great fortune hides a great crime. Upton Sinclair and Frank Norris made the connection as did Ibsen. But, perhaps most notoriously, Bert Brecht saw the gangster ethos uniting capitalists, imperialists, and militarists in a host of plays beginning with The Three Penny Opera . Contemporary films and television shows constantly depict the CIA, corrupt politicians and greedy corporate interests as interwoven. But these usually appear as either the work of rogue individuals (who must be brought into line) or an always vague and unalterable "system" that demands utter cynicism as the only appropriate response.
Gangster politics is not a structured institutional formation, as often argued,  but rather a semi-legal adaptation to legal forms of governance. It arises when the gangster's clients sense danger. Memories still linger concerning the economic crisis of 2008.  Banks are still over-extending unfavorable loans, stocks have been erratic, insider trading is the rule of the day and the "average guy" is panicking as capital becomes centralized in ever fewer hands. Production requires an ever smaller yet more educated working class; consumption is inordinately skewed to the wealthy; and the class question increasingly turns on how best to disempower working people, those living below the poverty line, women, citizens of color, and immigrants
Enforcing gerrymandering, curtailing voting rights, privatizing the prison system, access peddling, and accruing unlimited donations for electoral campaigns are effective tactics that border on the illegal. Right-wing control over an increasingly centralized media helps deflect criticisms and divide the disenfranchised and exploited. The audience has been primed. The boss' mass base detests his critics. Environmentalists, immigrants, people of color, uppity women, decadent gays and the transgendered infuriate the "good citizens" of America clinging to outworn traditions in small towns as well as evangelicals and retrograde (white) sectors of the industrial working class. They despair over loss of jobs, government "waste" and "welfare chiselers," moral decline, and (above all) the loss of their cultural privileges. They look back to a time when "men were men," "America was great!" and "happy days" followed one another non-stop.
Elites nod approvingly, though they have different priorities: de-regulation, lower taxes, fewer welfare policies, and cuts in the "costs of doing business." Oligarchic tendencies are built into capitalism and, as they expand, their exploitative impact on workers and the urban poor become more intense. That is where gangster politics enters the mainstream. Corporate elites require protection from progressive forces.  Their leaders must often choose between authoritarianism with profits as against democracy with costs. Thy always assume that they can control their enforcer. Once in office, however, the parvenu begins exercising power in his own interest. Donald Trump turned on mainstream Republicans, who pandered to the Tea Party early in the Obama presidency, just as Hitler turned on his former patron, Fritz von Papen, and his "cabinet of the barons" in 1933. It was the same with General Pinochet who was installed by the traditional conservative Eduard Frei following the fall of Salvador Allende's democratic regime in Chile in 1973. Other examples are available.
Gangster politics has its own logic. Traditionalists like to believe that the conflict is between "them and us." For the political gangster, however, the struggle is between "them and me." The only fixed rule is -- don't cross the boss! And, if only for this reason, he chooses to be feared rather than loved. He taunts his subordinates, publicly humiliates them, throws them under the bus, and perhaps even fires them a few days before their retirement. Cabinet officials and agency directors require no expertise or security clearance,  all that counts is loyalty to the boss. But, then, loyalty is a one-way street. Internal security advisers, press secretaries, cabinet secretaries, chiefs of staff, assistants, agency directors, White House attorneys, and deputies of all stripes come and go. Trump's administration has already had a turnover rate of 34%, more than triple that of the Obama presidency.  Confusion and chaos proliferate. There is a sense in which the goal of gangster politics is what Franz Neumann termed "the stateless state." It serves a concrete purpose: everyone knows who is in charge of everything.
Gangster politicians like to think that they are slick. They talk slang and curse a lot, grab a girl's ass (or worse), insist that they never read a book, thumb their noses at intellectual elites, boast about their high IQs, and proclaim their "street smarts." They also view themselves both as victims of their critics' malice and "great men" alone capable of curing the nation's ills. They make their base feel the same: they are despised and yet the real Americans! Their belief in the boss is unwavering. Only he can make America great again. Those who oppose his policies are traitors and the threats they pose are serious -- and, if they are not serious, then they must be made serious. History teaches what might become necessary in order to teach them a lesson. The Reichstag Fire of 1933 and the (staged) assassination of Sergei Kirov in 1934 were the dramatic events that led Hitler and Stalin to justify attacks on enemies, renegades, and supposed traitors to the state. Gangster politicians under internal pressure pray for a crisis, or what Trump once forecast as a "major event," in order to rally the troops and clean house.
Gangster politics requires no ideology. Lack of principle itself becomes a principle.
The great man must do what must be done: if that means lying, reneging on deals, shifting gears, rejecting transparency, and whatever else, then so be it. That he can employ the double standard is a given. Big talk takes the place of diplomacy and, if the bluster doesn't work then America alone – or, better, the boss alone – can rely on "fire and fury" whenever and wherever he likes. Traditionalists employed jingoistic rhetoric and wrapped themselves in the flag. The gangster politician talks like a schoolyard bully and salutes himself. Gangster politicians of times past had subordinates swear an oath of loyalty not to the state but to them. Yesterday's "America! Love it or leave it!" has today turned into: "Trump! Love him –or shut up!"
... ,,, ,,
 Herbert Marcuse, 1974 Paris Lectures at Vincennes University eds. Peter-Erwin Jansen and Charles Reitz (Published by the Marcuse Archives).
 Dylan Matthews, "The Republican tax bill got worse: now the top 1% gets 83% of the gains,"VOX, December 18, 2017, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/18/16791174/republican-tax-bill-congress-conference-tax-policy-center
 Louis Jacobson, "How much does the Trump family have to gain from GOP tax bills?"PolitiFact, November 27, 2017,http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/27/lloyd-doggett/how-much-does-trump-family-have-gain-gop-tax-bills/
 The term "gangster state" has been used often, and there are a number of different interpretations of the phenomenon ie. Katherine Hirschfeld, Gangster States: Organized Crime, Kleptocracy and Political Collapse (New York: Palgrave, 2015); Charles Tilly, "State Formation as Organized Crime" in eds. Peter Evans et. al (Bringing the State Back In (New York: Cambridge University press, 1985); Michael Hirsh, "Gangster States" in http://www.newsweek.com/gangster-state-166356Paul Craig Roberts, "Gangster State America: Where is America's Democracy?" https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/05/06/gangster-state-america-paul-craig-roberts-2/;
 Gretchen Morgenstern and Joshua Rosner, Reckles$ Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon (New York: Henry Holt, 2011).
 Note the discussion in Stephen Eric Bronner, The Bitter Taste of Hope: Ideals, Ideologies and Interests in the Age of Obama (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2017), 1ff.
 Max Greenwood, "At least 30 White House officials, Trump appointees lack full clearances: report," The Hill, February 9, 2018http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/373220-at-least-30-white-house-officials-trump-appointees-lack-full#.Wn7-uVrZvb8.facebook
 Jeremy Berke, "REX TILLERSON IS OUT -- here are all the casualties of the Trump administration so far," Business Insider, March 13, 2018 http://www.businessinsider.com/who-has-trump-fired-so-far-james-comey-sean-spicer-michael-flynn-2017-7/#rob-porter-1 ; New York Times (February 13, 2018).
 Nicholas Confessore and Karen Yourish, "$2 Billion Worth of Free Media for Donald Trump," New York Times , March 15, 2016https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html
Stephen Eric Bronner is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Director of Global Relations for the Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights at Rutgers University. His most recent work is The Bitter Taste of Hope: Ideals, Ideologies and Interests in the Age of Obama.
Apr 10, 2019 | www.theguardian.com
Thousands of people march through London to protest against underfunding and privatisation of the NHS. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Barcroft Images M y life was saved last year by the Churchill Hospital in Oxford, through a skilful procedure to remove a cancer from my body . Now I will need another operation, to remove my jaw from the floor. I've just learned what was happening at the hospital while I was being treated. On the surface, it ran smoothly. Underneath, unknown to me, was fury and tumult. Many of the staff had objected to a decision by the National Health Service to privatise the hospital's cancer scanning . They complained that the scanners the private company was offering were less sensitive than the hospital's own machines. Privatisation, they said, would put patients at risk. In response, as the Guardian revealed last week , NHS England threatened to sue the hospital for libel if its staff continued to criticise the decision.
The dominant system of political thought in this country, which produced both the creeping privatisation of public health services and this astonishing attempt to stifle free speech, promised to save us from dehumanising bureaucracy. By rolling back the state, neoliberalism was supposed to have allowed autonomy and creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a semi-privatised authoritarianism more oppressive than the system it replaced.
Workers find themselves enmeshed in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and micromanaged. Organisations that depend on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and hospitals – are stripped down, hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The introduction of private capital into public services – that would herald a glorious new age of choice and openness – is brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom but demands conformity and silence.
Much of the theory behind these transformations arises from the work of Ludwig von Mises. In his book Bureaucracy , published in 1944, he argued that there could be no accommodation between capitalism and socialism. The creation of the National Health Service in the UK, the New Deal in the US and other experiments in social democracy would lead inexorably to the bureaucratic totalitarianism of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
He recognised that some state bureaucracy was inevitable; there were certain functions that could not be discharged without it. But unless the role of the state is minimised – confined to defence, security, taxation, customs and not much else – workers would be reduced to cogs "in a vast bureaucratic machine", deprived of initiative and free will.
By contrast, those who labour within an "unhampered capitalist system" are "free men", whose liberty is guaranteed by "an economic democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote". He forgot to add that some people, in his capitalist utopia, have more votes than others. And those votes become a source of power.
His ideas, alongside the writings of Friedrich Hayek , Milton Friedman and other neoliberal thinkers, have been applied in this country by Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron, Theresa May and, to an alarming extent, Tony Blair. All of those have attempted to privatise or marketise public services in the name of freedom and efficiency, but they keep hitting the same snag: democracy. People want essential services to remain public, and they are right to do so.
If you hand public services to private companies, either you create a private monopoly, which can use its dominance to extract wealth and shape the system to serve its own needs – or you introduce competition, creating an incoherent, fragmented service characterised by the institutional failure you can see every day on our railways. We're not idiots, even if we are treated as such. We know what the profit motive does to public services.
So successive governments decided that if they could not privatise our core services outright, they would subject them to "market discipline". Von Mises repeatedly warned against this approach. "No reform could transform a public office into a sort of private enterprise," he cautioned. The value of public administration "cannot be expressed in terms of money". "Government efficiency and industrial efficiency are entirely different things."
"Intellectual work cannot be measured and valued by mechanical devices." "You cannot 'measure' a doctor according to the time he employs in examining one case." They ignored his warnings.
Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state, insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name of freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became not so much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control.
Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning efficacy. It has become an end in itself.
Its perversities afflict all public services. Schools teach to the test , depriving children of a rounded and useful education. Hospitals manipulate waiting times, shuffling patients from one list to another. Police forces ignore some crimes, reclassify others, and persuade suspects to admit to extra offences to improve their statistics . Universities urge their researchers to write quick and superficial papers , instead of deep monographs, to maximise their scores under the research excellence framework.
As a result, public services become highly inefficient for an obvious reason: the destruction of staff morale. Skilled people, including surgeons whose training costs hundreds of thousands of pounds, resign or retire early because of the stress and misery the system causes. The leakage of talent is a far greater waste than any inefficiencies this quantomania claims to address.
New extremes in the surveillance and control of workers are not, of course, confined to the public sector. Amazon has patented a wristband that can track workers' movements and detect the slightest deviation from protocol. Technologies are used to monitor peoples' keystrokes, language, moods and tone of voice. Some companies have begun to experiment with the micro-chipping of their staff . As the philosopher Byung-Chul Han points out , neoliberal work practices, epitomised by the gig economy, that reclassifies workers as independent contractors, internalise exploitation. "Everyone is a self-exploiting worker in their own enterprise."
The freedom we were promised turns out to be freedom for capital , gained at the expense of human liberty. The system neoliberalism has created is a bureaucracy that tends towards absolutism, produced in the public services by managers mimicking corporate executives, imposing inappropriate and self-defeating efficiency measures, and in the private sector by subjection to faceless technologies that can brook no argument or complaint.
Attempts to resist are met by ever more extreme methods, such as the threatened lawsuit at the Churchill Hospital. Such instruments of control crush autonomy and creativity. It is true that the Soviet bureaucracy von Mises rightly denounced reduced its workers to subjugated drones. But the system his disciples have created is heading the same way.
George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist
Pinkie123 , 12 Apr 2019 03:23The other point to be made is that the return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a radicalized form of neoliberalism. If 'free markets' of enterprising individuals have been tested to destruction, then capitalism is unable to articulate an ideology with which to legitimise itself.glisson , 12 Apr 2019 00:10
Therefore, neoliberal hegemony can only be perpetuated with authoritarian, nationalist ideologies and an order of market feudalism. In other words, neoliberalism's authoritarian orientations, previously effaced beneath discourses of egalitarian free-enterprise, become overt.
The market is no longer an enabler of private enterprise, but something more like a medieval religion, conferring ultimate authority on a demagogue. Individual entrepreneurs collectivise into a 'people' serving a market which has become synonymous with nationhood.
A corporate state emerges, free of the regulatory fetters of democracy. The final restriction on the market - democracy itself - is removed. There then is no separate market and state, just a totalitarian market state.This is the best piece of writing on neoliberalism I have ever seen. Look, 'what is in general good and probably most importantly what is in the future good'. Why are we collectively not viewing everything that way? Surely those thoughts should drive us all?economicalternative -> Pinkie123 , 11 Apr 2019 21:33Pinkie123: So good to read your understandings of neoliberalism. The political project is the imposition of the all seeing all knowing 'market' on all aspects of human life. This version of the market is an 'information processor'. Speaking of the different idea of the laissez-faire version of market/non market areas and the function of the night watchman state are you aware there are different neoliberalisms? The EU for example runs on the version called 'ordoliberalism'. I understand that this still sees some areas of society as separate from 'the market'?economicalternative -> ADamnSmith2016 , 11 Apr 2019 21:01ADamnSmith: Philip Mirowski has discussed this 'under the radar' aspect of neoliberalism. How to impose 'the market' on human affairs - best not to be to explicit about what you are doing. Only recently has some knowledge about the actual neoliberal project been appearing. Most people think of neoliberalism as 'making the rich richer' - just a ramped up version of capitalism. That's how the left has thought of it and they have been ineffective in stopping its implementation.economicalternative , 11 Apr 2019 20:42Finally. A writer who can talk about neoliberalism as NOT being a retro version of classical laissez faire liberalism. It is about imposing "The Market" as the sole arbiter of Truth on us all.Pinkie123 , 11 Apr 2019 13:27
Only the 'Market' knows what is true in life - no need for 'democracy' or 'education'. Neoliberals believe - unlike classical liberals with their view of people as rational individuals acting in their own self-interest - people are inherently 'unreliable', stupid. Only entrepreneurs - those close to the market - can know 'the truth' about anything. To succeed we all need to take our cues in life from what the market tells us. Neoliberalism is not about a 'small state'. The state is repurposed to impose the 'all knowing' market on everyone and everything. That is neoliberalism's political project. It is ultimately not about 'economics'.The left have been entirely wrong to believe that neoliberalism is a mobilisation of anarchic, 'free' markets. It never was so. Only a few more acute thinkers on the left (Jacques Ranciere, Foucault, Deleuze and, more recently, Mark Fisher, Wendy Brown, Will Davies and David Graeber) have understood neoliberalism to be a techno-economic order of control, requiring a state apparatus to enforce wholly artificial directives. Also, the work of recent critics of data markets such as Shoshana Zuboff has shown capitalism to be evolving into a totalitarian system of control through cybernetic data aggregation.manolito22 -> MrJoe , 11 Apr 2019 08:14
Only in theory is neoliberalism a form of laissez-faire. Neoliberalism is not a case of the state saying, as it were: 'OK everyone, we'll impose some very broad legal parameters, so we'll make sure the police will turn up if someone breaks into your house; but otherwise we'll hang back and let you do what you want'. Hayek is perfectly clear that a strong state is required to force people to act according to market logic. If left to their own devices, they might collectivise, think up dangerous utopian ideologies, and the next thing you know there would be socialism. This the paradox of neoliberalism as an intellectual critique of government: a socialist state can only be prohibited with an equally strong state. That is, neoliberals are not opposed to a state as such, but to a specifically centrally-planned state based on principles of social justice - a state which, to Hayek's mind, could only end in t totalitarianism. Because concepts of social justice are expressed in language, neoliberals are suspicious of linguistic concepts, regarding them as politically dangerous. Their preference has always been for numbers. Hence, market bureaucracy aims for the quantification of all values - translating the entirety of social reality into metrics, data, objectively measurable price signals. Numbers are safe. The laws of numbers never change. Numbers do not lead to revolutions. Hence, all the audit, performance review and tick-boxing that has been enforced into public institutions serves to render them forever subservient to numerical (market) logic. However, because social institutions are not measurable, attempts to make them so become increasingly mystical and absurd. Administrators manage data that has no relation to reality. Quantitatively unmeasurable things - like happiness or success - are measured, with absurd results.
It should be understood (and I speak above all as a critic of neoliberalism) that neoliberal ideology is not merely a system of class power, but an entire metaphysic, a way of understanding the world that has an emotional hold over people. For any ideology to universalize itself, it must be based on some very powerful ideas. Hayek and Von Mises were Jewish fugitives of Nazism, living through the worst horrors of twentieth-century totalitarianism. There are passages of Hayek's that describe a world operating according to the rules of a benign abstract system that make it sound rather lovely. To understand neoliberalism, we must see that it has an appeal.
However, there is no perfect order of price signals. People do not simply act according to economic self-interest. Therefore, neoliberalism is a utopian political project like any other, requiring the brute power of the state to enforce ideological tenets. With tragic irony, the neoliberal order eventually becomes not dissimilar to the totalitarian regimes that Hayek railed against.Nationalised rail in the UK was under-funded and 'set up to fail' in its latter phase to make privatisation seem like an attractive prospect. I have travelled by train under both nationalisation and privatisation and the latter has been an unmitigated disaster in my experience. Under privatisation, public services are run for the benefit of shareholders and CEO's, rather than customers and citizens and under the opaque shroud of undemocratic 'commercial confidentiality'.Galluses , 11 Apr 2019 07:26What has been very noticeable about the development of bureaucracy in the public and private spheres over the last 40 years (since Thatcher govt of 79) has been the way systems are designed now to place responsibility and culpability on the workers delivering the services - Teachers, Nurses, social workers, etc. While those making the policies, passing the laws, overseeing the regulations- viz. the people 'at the top', now no longer take the rap when something goes wrong- they may be the Captain of their particular ship, but the responsibility now rests with the man sweeping the decks. Instead they are covered by tying up in knots those teachers etc. having to fill in endless check lists and reports, which have as much use as clicking 'yes' one has understood those long legal terms provided by software companies.... yet are legally binding. So how the hell do we get out of this mess? By us as individuals uniting through unions or whatever and saying NO. No to your dumb educational directives, No to your cruel welfare policies, No to your stupid NHS mismanagement.... there would be a lot of No's but eventually we could say collectively 'Yes I did the right thing'.fairshares -> rjb04tony , 11 Apr 2019 07:17'The left wing dialogue about neoliberalism used to be that it was the Wild West and that anything goes. Now apparently it's a machine of mass control.'
It is the Wild West and anything goes for the corporate entities, and a machine of control of the masses. Hence the wish of neoliberals to remove legislation that protects workers and consumers.
Apr 15, 2020 | www.unz.com
Even though distracted by the havoc resulting from the coronavirus, the United States and much of Europe is engaged in a frenzied search for anti-Semitism and anti-Semites so that what the media and chattering class are regarding as the greatest of all crimes and criminals can finally be extirpated completely. To be sure, there have recently been some horrific instances of ethnically or religiously motivated attacks on synagogues and individual Jews, but, as is often the case, however, quite a lot of the story is either pure spin or politically motivated. A Jewish student walking on a college campus who walks by protesters objecting to Israel's behavior can claim to feel threatened and the incident is recorded as anti-Semitism, for example, and slurs written on the sides of buildings or grave stones, not necessarily the work of Jew-haters, are similarly categorized. In one case in Israel in 2017, the two street swastika artists were Jews.
Weaponizing one point of view inevitably limits the ability of contrary views to be heard. The downside is, of course, that the frenzy that has resulted in the criminalization of free expression relating in any but a positive way to the activity of Jewish groups. It has also included the acceptance of the dishonest definition that any criticism of Israel is ipso facto anti-Semitism, giving that nation a carte blanche in terms of its brutal treatment of its neighbors and even of its non-Jewish citizens.
Jewish dominated Hollywood and the entertainment media have helped to create the anti-Semitism frenzy and continue to give the public regular doses of the holocaust story. Currently there are a number of television shows that depict in one form or another the persecution of Jews. Hunters on Amazon is about Jewish Americans tracking and killing suspected former Nazis living in New York City in the 1970s. The Plot to Destroy America on HBO is a retro history tale about how a Charles Lindbergh/Henry Ford regime installs a fascist government in the 1930s. One critic describes the televisual revenge feast "as one paranoid Jewish fantasy after another advocating murder as the solution to what they perceive as the problem of anti-Semitism."
But, as always, nothing is quite so simple as such a black and white portrayal where there are evil Nazis and Jewish victims who are always justified when they seek revenge. First of all, as has been demonstrated , many recent so-called anti-Semitic attacks on Jews involve easily recognizable Hasidic Jews and are actually based on community tensions as established neighborhoods are experiencing dramatic changes with the newcomers using pressure tactics to force out existing residents. And after the Hasidim take over a town or neighborhood, they defund local schools to support their own private academies and frequently engage in large scale welfare and other social services fraud to permit them to spend all their days studying the Talmud, which, inter alia teaches that gentiles are no better than beasts fit only to serve Jews.
The recent concentration of coronavirus in Orthodox neighborhoods in New York as well as the eruption of measles cases last year have been attributed to the unwillingness of some conservative Jews to submit to vaccinations and normal hygienic practices. They also have persisted in illegal large gatherings at weddings and religious ceremonies, spreading the coronavirus within their own communities and also to outsiders with whom they have contact.
Regularly exposing anti-Semitism is regarded as a good thing by many Jewish groups because the state of perpetual victimization that it supports enables them to obtain special benefits that might otherwise be considered excessive in a pluralistic democracy. Holocaust education in schools is now mandatory in many jurisdictions and more than 90% of discretionary Department of Homeland Security funding goes to Jewish organizations. Jewish organizations are now lining up to get what they choose to believe is their share of Coronavirus emergency funding.
Claims of increasing anti-Semitism, and the citation of the so-called holocaust, are like having a perpetual money machine that regularly disgorges reparations from the Europeans as well as billions of dollars per year from the U.S. Treasury. Holocaust and anti-Semitism manufactured guilt are undoubtedly contributing factors to the subservient relationship that the United States enjoys with the state of Israel, most recently manifested in the U.S. Department of Defense's gift of one million surgical masks to the Israel Defense Force in spite of there being a shortage of the masks in the United States (note how the story was edited after it first appeared by the Jerusalem Post to conceal the U.S. role but it still has the original email address and the photo cites the Department of Defense).
And then there is the issue of Jewish power, which is discussed regularly by Jews themselves but is verboten to gentiles. Jews wield hugely disproportionate power in all the Anglophone states as well as in France and parts of Eastern Europe and even in Latin America. If anti-Semitism is as rampant as has often been claimed it is odd that there are so many Jews prominent in politics and the professions, most especially financial services and the media. Either anti-Semitism is not really "surging" or the actual anti-Semities have proven to be particularly incompetent in making their case.
Further muddying the waters, there have been a number of instances in which Jews have themselves been responsible for what have been claimed to be anti-Semitic incidents. There has also been credible speculation that some of the incidents have been false flags staged by the Israeli government itself, presumably acting through its intelligence services. The objective would be to create sympathy among the public in Europe and the U.S. for Israel and to encourage diaspora emigration to the Jewish state. The recent tale of Israeli-American Michael Kadar, who has been credited with many of early 2017's nearly two thousand bomb scares targeting Jewish community centers and synagogues worldwide, is illustrative.
Kadar, who holds both Israeli and American nationality, was arrested in Ashkelon Israel on March 2017 by Israeli police in response to the investigation carried out by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Kadar's American address was in New Lenox Illinois but he actually resided in Israel. Kadar's defense was that he had a brain tumor that caused autism and was not responsible for his actions, but he was found to be fit for trial and was sentenced to 10 years in prison in June 2017. He was apparently subsequently quietly released from prison and returned to Illinois in mid-2018. In August 2019 he was arrested for violation of parole on a firearms and drugs offense.
The court in Tel Aviv convicted Kadar on counts including "extortion, disseminating hoaxes in order to spread panic, money laundering and computer hacking over bomb and shooting threats against community centers, schools, shopping malls, police stations, airlines, and airports in North America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Denmark." It claimed that "As a result of 142 telephone calls to airports and airlines, in which he said bombs had been planted in passenger planes or they would come under attack, aircraft were forced to make emergency landings and fighter planes were scrambled."
It was also claimed by the court that Kadar had gotten involved with the so-called restricted access "dark web" to make threats for money. He reportedly earned $240,000 equivalent worth of the digital currency Bitcoin. Kadar has reportedly refused to reveal the password to his Bitcoin wallet and its value is believed to have increased to more than $1 million.
The tale borders on the bizarre and right from the beginning there were many inconsistencies in both the Department of Justice case and in terms of Kadar's biography and vital statistics. After his arrest and conviction, many of his public, private and social networking records were either deleted or changed, suggesting that a high-level cover-up was underway.
Most significant, the criminal complaint against Kadar included details of the phone calls that were not at all consistent with the case that he had acted alone. The threats were made using what is referred to as spoofing telephone services, used by marketers to hide the caller's true number and identify, but the three cell phone numbers identified by the Department of Justice to make the spoofed calls were all U.S.-based and one of them was linked to a Jewish Chabad religious leader and one to the Church of Scientology's counter-intelligence chief in California. In addition, some of the calls were made when Kadar was in transit between Illinois and Israel, suggesting that he had not initiated the calls.
DOJ's criminal complaint also included information that the threat caller was a woman who had "a distinct speech impediment." Michael Kadar's mother has a distinct speech impediment. Oddly enough she has not been identified in any public documents and the Israelis claimed that Michael was disguising his voice, but she is believed to be Dr. Tamar Kadar, who resided in Ashkelon at the same address as Michael. Dr. Kadar is a chemical weapons researcher at the Mossad-linked Israel Institute for Biological Research ("IIBR").
Michael appears to have U.S. birthright citizenship because he was born in Bethesda in 1990 while his mother was a visiting researcher at the U.S. Army Military Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID). While Dr. Kadar was at USAMRIID, anthrax went missing from the Army's lab and may have been subsequently used in the 2001 anthrax letter attacks inside the U.S., which resulted in the deaths of five people. The FBI subsequently accused two USAMRIID researchers of the theft, but one was exonerated and the other committed suicide, closing the investigation.
So, there are some interesting issues raised by the Michael Kadar case. First of all, he appears to have been the fall guy for what may have been a Mossad directed false-flag operation actually run by his mother, who is herself an expert on biological weapons and works at an Israeli intelligence lab. Second, the objective of the operation may have been to create an impression that anti-Semitism is dramatically increasing, which ipso facto generates a positive perception of Israel and encourages foreign Jews to emigrate to the Jewish state. And third, there appears to have been a cover-up orchestrated by the Israeli and U.S. governments, evident in the disappearance of both official and non-official records, while Michael has been quietly released from prison and is enjoying his payoff of one million dollars in bitcoins. As always, whenever something involves promoting the interests of the state of Israel, the deeper one digs the more sordid the tale becomes.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is email@example.com .
niteranger , says: Show Comment April 14, 2020 at 5:17 am GMTGood piece of work Dr. Giraldi. A few things about this case of the Kadars. Basically Israel refused to cooperate with the FBI at the beginning and resisted giving up the kid. Furthermore, the FBI was told to "back off" by higher ups in the agency and let Israel handle it. So the results are what you would expect with a false flag.Antares , says: Show Comment April 14, 2020 at 8:45 am GMT
The anthrax case still has legs. Bruce Irvins was the microbiologist at Detrick you are referring to. He was never charged and they never proved he was involved and the FBI could not place him in any of the spots they wanted. He had some issues and the FBI gang banged him looking for a patsy. Dr. Hatfill was the "original" Person of Interest whom the Jewish controlled media followed around and they ruined his life. He sued the FBI and won a lot of money.
The FBI appeared to intentionally mess up the anthrax samples. Reviews by the National Academy of Science rocked the idiots at the FBI and they concluded Irvins was not involved. The real kicker to all of this is that the FBI leader of the investigation was Robert Mueller! The same Mueller who spent almost 3 years chasing Russian spies well knowing that it was lie.
And finally who sealed the files so no one could ever come up with the real perpetrators ..Obama!Antisemitism is pro-Israel, the Nazis included (shipping jews to Palestine).Been_there_done_that , says: Show Comment April 14, 2020 at 9:49 am GMT
For some reason I know exactly what a neonazi looks like, how he behaves, how he talks, how he thinks and even how he feels. But I never met one. Where does this 'knowledge' come from?
I happen to remember some television that I have seen as a child. Most people don't and are living in a fantasy world with fantasy enemies and fantasy friends and take it for reality.Robert Pinkerton , says: Show Comment April 14, 2020 at 11:05 am GMT
"Further muddying the waters, there have been a number of instances in which Jews have themselves been responsible for what have been claimed to be anti-Semitic incidents."
There have been so many such incidents over the years that when a synagogue or cemetery gets spray-painted with swastikas, the default presumption for any subsequent investigation is automatically "inside-job".
The stereotypical perpetrator would tend to be a deranged student residing at the campus Hillel House, majoring in film studies or some other flakey college program.
Years ago there was a case of a San Francisco synagogue on fire. After the arsonist, a Jew, was caught and confessed, the tenor of the response was that one had to feel sorry for him because he needed help.
In light of such incidents there has even been a visual meme out there: Hey Rabbi Watcha Doin'?! (See Google Images)
Getting a patsy to do the dirty work is significantly more effective in provoking outrage and sympathy. Though last year's attack on a synagogue in Halle, Germany, during Yom Kippur services in early October was highly suspicious, media reports managed to suppress those aspects and instead generated a victimhood-card bonanza that lasted for weeks.
The German population was easily bamboozled. Prominent Jewish representatives publicly demanded more stringent laws against "anti-semitism", as recently re-defined, and parliamentarians duly obliged.
News that had not been much reported about, but was circulating at the outset in alternative media:
• Mentally deranged perpetrator, who had shared his views on an Internet chat group, expressed his desire to attack Muslims and Antifa.
• Anonymous "handler / minder" in California offered to pay him half a bitcoin to redirect his attack toward the synagogue instead.
• Synagogue had just recently been equipped with elaborate security system installed by Israeli company to withstand shooting and bombing attacks.
• Local police, which normally would provide security outside, during holiday services, were conspicuously absent during that time, and slow to respond (likely stand-down orders from above).
• Perpetrator filmed his rampage, which he broadcast in real-time as a live stream video online (wanting to emulate an earlier attack in New Zealand), enabling his handlers to monitor the shooting spree while in progress.
• After his mission failed, frustrated perpetrator "spilled the beans" in real-time and cussed out the Californian bitcoin payer, who had apparently set him up to be framed, as probably being a Jew.
Of course, by design, the securely locked synagogue door easily withstood the shooting attack with multiple exterior bullet holes into its wooden exterior. Everybody in the world probably saw that part.Pressure of an external enemy reinforces group cohesion.niente , says: Show Comment April 14, 2020 at 12:57 pm GMT
In Roman antiquity the Main Enemy was Carthage. Once it was destroyed, fissures in Roman social cohesion became canyons.I was born in Argentina, 1950. There was a populist nationalist government then, strongly disliked by the US. It included a whole spectrum, right to left. It assisted together with the Vatican the rescuing of Nazi criminals that settled in the country. There was an antisemitic movement headed by a provocateur, Juan Guillermo Kelly for name. Jews emigrated to Israel. In the 80s he made public he was a Mossad agentDesert Fox , says: Show Comment April 14, 2020 at 1:13 pm GMT... get the book By Way of Deception by former Mossad officer Victor Ostrosky, it can be had on amazon.Jake , says: Show Comment April 14, 2020 at 1:35 pm GMT@vot tak How can Jews be a 'colonial occupation force' in any nation that is English-speaking and has not totally rejected the political and cultural heritage of WASP Empire?Greg Bacon , says: Website Show Comment April 14, 2020 at 1:59 pm GMT
Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy. When the Anglo-Saxon Puritans won their revolution, they cemented Modern English culture as one twined with Jewish ideas and ideals. Archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell cemented that doubly by allying with Jewish bankers on the Continent. From the mid-1600s, Jews have been the defining bankers of English Empire, of WASP Empire. And bankers are always the opposite of outsiders. Bankers own and eventually come to control fully.
Anglo-Zionist Empire has existed since at least Oliver Cromwell.As in the case of the Mossad asset Jeff Epstein, who was running a child-rape assembly line on his 'Orgy Island' and on his 'Lolita Express,' to ensnare weakling politicians, video-taping them in the process of raping young girls–and boys–then use that to blackmail them into becoming an enthusiastic supporter of Israel, the one lead that was never pursued was, "How many other Epstein's are out there, doing their slimy business for Israel?"geokat62 , says: Show Comment April 14, 2020 at 2:24 pm GMT
The same could be asked of this 'Mikey' Kadar terrorist, who I'm sure has plenty of accomplices world-wide, still phoning in threats or maybe spray-painting Jew cemeteries with the dreaded Nazi Swastika.
This terrorist does about one year in prison, then is set free and off to the USA he runs? If his name had been Mohammed or he was a skin-headed nationalist, he'd be in prison for the rest of his life, but since he's from that class of those Chosen by G-d, he gets a pass.@nienteRichard B , says: Show Comment April 14, 2020 at 2:35 pm GMT
There was an antisemitic movement headed by a provocateur, Juan Guillermo Kelly
Very interesting information. I did a quick search and the only info I found was this wiki entry in Spanish.
I used google translate to convert to English.
Do you have any sources that confirm his alleged affiliation with Mossad?[Hide MORE]
From a young age he was a member of the Nationalist Liberation Alliance. Until then, it was led by Juan Queraltó and had a clear anti-Semitic profile that Kelly fought against. The group went on to become a shock force of Peronism.
During the bombing of Plaza de Mayo, when a group of military personnel opposed to the government of Juan Domingo Perón attempted to assassinate him and carry out a coup d'état, several squadrons of aircraft belonging to Naval Aviation, bombarded and machine-gunned them with anti-aircraft ammunition, Plaza de Mayo and the Casa Rosada, as well as the CGT building, Kelly, aided by the Nationalist Liberation Alliance, dueled with the Marines responsible for the attack. 
After the self-proclaimed liberating revolution dictatorship was established, after a bombardment of the headquarters of his organization, located in San Martín and Corrientes Avenue in Buenos Aires. On September 21, the coup armed forces received from Córdoba the order to eliminate that focus of resistance in the heart of the city of Buenos Aires and advanced on it with cannons and two Sherman tanks, sending an emissary to surrender. The cannons and tanks fired and some fifty men, led by Guillermo Patricio Kelly, surrendered. Those who remained inside died under the rubble of the three-story building, destroyed with gunshots. The number of deaths that some raise to more than 400 is unknown.  After that, he was arrested by the dictatorship and transferred to the Río Gallegos prison, where one night in 1957 he starred in a film escape along with John William Cooke, Jorge Antonio and Héctor Cámpora and other political prisoners managed to escape, after which he applied for political asylum in Chile, but this was denied. When he was about to be sent to Argentina, he escaped again, this time dressed as a woman, [required appointment] to Venezuela where Perón was. When he left Chile for Caracas, he used a new identity: he was "Doctor Vargas, psychoanalyst".
When on January 26, 1958, the newspaper El Nacional titled "Perón led the repression against the Venezuelan people," he identified him, along with Kelly, as "National Security torture consultants" and published Perón's fraternal letters to the head of that body.
When the revolution broke out in Venezuela, Perón was another of the insurgents' objectives, along with his collaborators, among whom was Kelly, and they had to take refuge in the Embassy of the Dominican Republic. Outside, more than a thousand people were shaking the entrance gate. They had already been locked up for two days, and people were still outside. All the Argentines looked askance at Kelly. "They are going to kill us all because of this one," they growled. There were several who wanted to kick him out and someone raised the motion: to vote if he should withdraw. It was not necessary: Kelly decided to face up. He only asked for two conditions: that he be given a pair of dark glasses and a hat. He also asked for silver. When he walked out of the embassy and mixed with the crowd, no one could recognize him. In the midst of the seizure, Kelly made contact with two CIA agents: -- The Communists are going to enter the embassy and they are going to kill Perón. And if they kill him, the entire continent is communicated – he warned them. Finally, the United States prepared to rescue him, interceding with the revolutionary government to clear the area and facilitate his departure to the Dominican Republic. 
Kelly was stoned from the Caracas airport, obtained refuge in Haiti and, after a turbulent stay in which he was imprisoned,  crossed the border to the Dominican Republic, where he remained for a few days. He returned to Argentina in 1958 with the passport that he stole from Roberto Galán and after six months he was arrested and transferred again to the Ushuaia prison. 
Throughout his life he was imprisoned for almost eight years. In 1966 he occupied the headquarters of the PJ National Coordinating Board for a few hours, from where he launched a violent proclamation against union leader Augusto Vandor. [appointment required]
In 1981, in the midst of a military dictatorship, he denounced the theft of $ 60 million from Argentina, 10% of that debt belonging to General Suárez Mason, considering him a "murderer of the people." According to Kelly, Mason is involved in the YPF emptying in the 1980s. He also said that the military man worked as a mercenary training mercenary troops to fight in the Caribbean, which received money from the Nord high command, who was accused of murdering the brother and two nephews of former President Arturo Frondizi. Also involved in this robbery was former judge Pedro Narvaez who fled to Rio de Janeiro and then to Spain.  
In 1983, he gained notoriety after formulating a series of complaints related to the P-2 Lodge, the YPF dismissal and the murder of Fernando Branca, in addition to filing a criminal complaint against Emilio Massera. Shortly thereafter, in August of that year, Kelly was kidnapped and severely beaten by a gang led by Aníbal Gordon, who claimed to have acted on the orders of the last military dictator Reynaldo Bignone and the Army Corps I.
In 1991, during the presidency of Carlos Menem, he was the host of an ATC program called Sin Concesiones, in which he maintained that it would reveal "where the children of the ´Noble Ladies´ come from", alluding to the children adopted by the director from the Clarín newspaper, Ernestina Herrera de Noble. After a meeting between Herrera de Noble, Héctor Magnetto and Carlos Menem held at the Quinta de Olivos on Thursday, May 2, 1991, Clarín and the government agreed on Kelly's air release at ATC in exchange for the air output of the program of the journalist Liliana López Foresi, Magazine 13, Journalism with an opinion, in which Menem was severely criticized.    
On the subject of Herrera de Noble's children, Kelly wrote a book published by Arkel Publishing in 1993 titled Noble: Imperio Corrupto. Only 200 copies were published, although the author gave several of them to public libraries in the United States. 
He died on July 1, 2005 at 8:30 am, a victim of terminal cancer at the German Hospital in the City of Buenos Aires.  
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Kelly@Colin WrightTrinity , says: Show Comment April 14, 2020 at 2:59 pm GMT
Very much so. Because it helps direct our attention to something very important.
Though they're good at infiltration, subversion, betrayal, destruction and death, they're no good at social-managment.
I refer to them as Jewish Supremacy Inc. (JSI).
It's a distinction worth making because it separates them from Jews who don't hate Whites and aren't obsessed with being Jewish.
They're out there, however small their numbers might be.
After all, Gilad Atzmon's not the only one.
It's also worth pointing out that JSI gets lots of help from three other groups who aren't Jewish at all. In fact they're White.
1. the cynical, self-centered whores of opportunity who will do anything to protect their own materialistic, narcissistic trough.
2. the incurably gullible, pathologically naive Whites from Left-wingy Multi-Culties to Right-wing Christian Zionists.
3. the perfectly indifferent who walk around with that stroked out look on their face from watching too much ESPN and Pornhub.
The rest of us are freedom-lovers, or TUR readers/commenters or potential TUR readers/commenters.
Meaning they'd be open to what the actual readers/commenters have to say and won't fly off the handle with a knee-jerk reaction before springing into fight or flight mode.
In short, this boils down to a battle of
Dogma versus Pragma
What's the difference?
Pragma is open to exposing its ideas to a process of continuous feedback and correction for the purpose of improving the quality of its social-management
And Dogma isn't.Excuse me, but this is comical. There is no other group in America and the entire West who are more protected and more privileged than Jews. While White Gentiles are routinely attacked, beaten to a pulp, raped, and brutally murdered by Blacks, Hispanics, Pakis, Arabs, in Europe and America, just for having the temerity to walk outside in countries built by their White ancestors. How does a painted swastika equate with rape-torture murders of the Christian-Newsom Knoxville Horror? And if you think the Christian-Newsom murders are a rare crime in America, you are living under a rock. And lest we forget the Christian-Newsom Murders nor the Wichita Massacre murders were labeled "hate crimes." Despite thousands upon thousands of Black on White and other nonwhite on White attacks, rapes, murders in this country, you can bet the house that no one in Washington has voiced concerns over the violence being perpetrated on White Gentiles daily in America. America is indeed a racist country and Whites experience that racism every single day.Trinity , says: Show Comment April 14, 2020 at 3:18 pm GMT
Remember a couple years ago when someone was calling bomb threats to Jewish Community Centers? Remember that they found out it was some Jewish guy in a Tel Aviv basement calling in the bomb threats. Of course at first the (((media))) went through their spiel about how anti-Semitism was on the rise in America, and then once we all found out that the perpetrator was a Jewish guy in Israel, ( I believe a dual citizen at that) the (((media))) dropped this case quicker than you could claim some NY/NJ rabbis were selling body organs.
Most of these hate crime HOAXES are simply Jews and/or Blacks drawing swastikas, hanging a nooses in a locker, or some other ridiculous and downright childish act that in no way even if done by a White racist who hates Jews and Blacks, equates to a Mississippi girl named Jessica Chambers being burned alive, a 12 year old white male being burned alive with a blow torch by an adult black female in Texas, etc., etc. The fact of the matter is that "hate crimes" against nonwhites and Jews are downright rare in America, ( not talking about HOAXES here) and there is no way that a crayon drawing of a swastika or hanging a noose in someone's locker can be linked as the same as someone dying a horrific and brutal death like the White victims I listed. IF we lived in a TRULY just and decent country, EVERYONE out there, regardless of color, creed or religion would recognize that we need to stop all the hate and violence directed at White Gentiles before moving on to worrying about crayon drawings.Remember when Noel Ignatiev the Jewish professor stated we need to "abolish Whiteness?" Now imagine a White professor stating that we need to "abolish Jewishness in America?" Can you imagine what would have happened to that guy? Is it possible for a Jew in America/Canada or Europe to be fired from his or here job for making racist or inflammatory remarks about Whites?TGD , says: Show Comment April 14, 2020 at 3:22 pm GMTThe story of Michael Kadar is reminiscent of the tale of another criminal young male with dual Israeli US citizenship, Samuel Sheinbein.Wally , says: Show Comment April 14, 2020 at 3:50 pm GMT
Sheinbein and a colleague murdered, dismembered and burnt a fellow high school classmate, the hispanic Fredo Enrique Tello, Jr., in September, 1997. Sheinbein fled to Israel and in a long drawn out court battle, Sheinbein's requested extradition to the State of Maryland to stand trial was refused by Israel's supreme court.
You can read the whole sordid story in Wikipedia including how Sheinbaum was killed in a shootout with the guards who were escorting him from one prison to another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Sheinbein@Been_there_done_that A must see:Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment April 14, 2020 at 4:39 pm GMT
Fake Hate Crimes: a database of hate crime hoaxes in the USA :
-Mural of Tina Turner is defaced with a red swastika outside a North Carolina record store .. Who benefits? : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7830579/Tina-Turner-mural-defaced-North-Carolina-record-store.html
– Jewish suspects arrested over swastika graffiti on synagogues : http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-suspects-arrested-over-swastika-graffiti-on-synagogues/
– Poorly Drawn Swastikas Spray-Painted On Monument In Milwaukee : https://www.prisonplanet.com/fake-hate-trump-rules-poorly-drawn-swastikas-spray-painted-on-monument-in-milwaukee.html
– Jew arrested for dozens of fake 'hate crimes': http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/23/israeli-jew-19-arrested-antisemitic-hate-crime-hoax-spree/
– Man Caught Spray Painting Swastika On College Campus Is Black : http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/16/man-caught-spray-painting-swastika-on-college-campus-is-black-report-says/
– Staged Jew bomb hoaxes: http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-files-massive-indictment-against-jcc-bomb-hoaxer-for-thousands-of-counts-of-threats-extortion-fraud/
– another staged 'hate crime' / 'Neo-Nazi' Graffiti Found In Brooklyn Synagogue – Suspect is Black leftist https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12101
– Fake Hate? 'Trump Rules' & Poorly Drawn Swastikas Spray-Painted On Monument In Milwaukee
– Jewish suspects arrested over swastika graffiti on synagogues : http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-suspects-arrested-over-swastika-graffiti-on-synagogues/@Jake Here we go with the WASP thing again. A minority of descendants of the Angles were Puritans, and even fewer Saxons were Puritans. There were also Norse Puritans, Norman Puritans and Briton Puritans. All Puritans were minorities. Many "Protestant" Churches, including the Anglican Church, considered Puritans dissenters, verging on heretics, and not really Protestants beyond protesting the Church of Rome. Knox's Presbyterians had a lot in common with Puritans as did Dutch Protestants, and there were a lot of Dutch who moved to East Anglia. Some became Puritans. It's silly to refer to it at it being "Anglo-Saxon Puritans" as not all were Angles or Saxons. They were Puritans who happened to be Angles, Saxons and others. WASP is even sillier. Are there Brown, Yellow, or Red Anglo-Saxons?
Cromwell seized power because the Stuarts were unpopular for many reasons, and as with every revolution, a minority with zealotry seizes power from an apathetic majority. Sure he turned to the Jewish Amsterdam bankers, who were already funding the Dutch Empire, including New Amsterdam, but who else would have helped? The Puritans were vehemently anti Catholic and would have never turned there. They were also vehemently anti-Muslim, so the Ottomans were out. The Jews were it by elimination.
As for the culture. The culture of the elite is seldom the culture of the general population.
The "Anglo-Saxons" were more than happy to restore the Stuarts after Cromwell, as long as they were Protestants. The installation of King Billy, replacing James, was due to James having converted to Catholicism and the fear of his imposing it on the country.
It was under William and Mary that the newly, created by Parliament, Bank of England was taken over by Jewish bankers. The same minority Puritan Parliament that restored the Stuarts and sponsored the overthrow of James.
Apr 14, 2020 | www.unz.com
Olivier1973 , says: Show Comment April 14, 2020 at 12:30 am GMT@A123 Thanks a lot for bringing this subject!
Safe haven, isn't it?
You write "peace" followed by a LOL icon. The meaning is indeed very clear. Thanks a lot for displaying so openly your hate.
Apr 09, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org
"The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear."
– Antonio Gramsci
The Pandemic & Public Health Crisis
On January 20th, 2020, the first confirmed case of COVID-19 infection took place in the United States. Since then, over 240,000 Americans have tested positive for the COVID-19 virus, with over 6,000 dying as a result of the pandemic. The New York Times suggests that the actual numbers are likely 6-10 times higher than is being currently reported.
According to studies from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), people with underlying health conditions such as diabetes, obesity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart disease, and those who smoke, are at high-risk of severe illness or death if they contract the virus. Unfortunately, that's a lot of Americans.
Several days ago, Dr. Anthony Fauci estimated that anywhere between 100,000-240,000 Americans will die from COVID-19 by the end of August, and that's if "we do everything perfectly," as the good doctor put it. Since no one actually believes that the United States will conduct the response in a "perfect" manner, we can assume those numbers are low.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume they're correct. For some perspective, 116,708 Americans died in World War I (1914-1918). Roughly 416,800 Americans died in World War II (1941-1945). Over 40,000 Americans died in the Korean War (1950-1953). And 70,000 Americans died in the Vietnam War (1965-1975).
Perhaps we throw around large numbers too often, or maybe there's simply no way to humanize 240,000 lives -- regardless, we cannot allow the U.S. government to normalize gross numbers of fatalities, especially as a result of a completely preventable pandemic. Remember, this isn't a 'Natural Disaster' -- this is a 'Man Made Disaster,' and it should be treated as such. Yes, Trump is responsible, but he's not the only one. In fact, individuals aren't the problem. The entire Neoliberal Capitalist project is to blame.
Americans aren't unhealthy because they've made bad choices as individuals. Americans are disproportionately unhealthy (when compared to both industrialized and industrializing nations) and susceptible to the worst effects of COVID-19 because Neoliberal Capitalist policies have created a social, political, economic, and ecological context in which this pandemic can thrive and impose maximum destruction.
Deindustrialization, privatization, and deregulation, has driven down the cost of labor, creating millions of working-poor Americans who live on credit and swim in mounds of debt, while attempting to navigate a social landscape of food deserts, fast food chains, sugar-rich foods, and low-wage service sector work. This context creates a population of addicted, depressed, and desperate workers whose sole pleasure at the end of a long shift is a can of Coke and bag of potato chips.
People don't purposely make themselves obese and unhealthy. When people are put in desperate situations, they make impulsive decisions. That's how people behave in a context of scarcity and oppression. Unfortunately, this is exactly the social context in which COVID-19 could cause extreme and permanent damage.
The Political Crisis
The political context in the U.S. is equally disturbing. Since the 1970s, politicians have drifted further and further into the realm of absurdity and utter corruption. Gone are the days of enlightened debates. Enter the age of Trump, Tweets, and trolling.
As empires decline, so does the quality of their leaders. The U.S. might wish to run away from reality, but Uncle Sam can't run away from history. History has finally caught up with the U.S. Indeed, Donald Trump is the result of forty-plus years of hyper-individuality, 'greed is good' culture, superficial materialism, and a politics based not on substance or principles, but looks, marketability, and adherence to Neoliberal fundamentalist ideologies.
One of the few principled politicians in Washington D.C., Bernie Sanders, was raked over the coals by the corporate press for simply attempting to give Americans a basic social safety-net. That, for the Neoliberals, was too much. CNN and MSNBC unleashed the pundit hounds. The New York Times and Washington Post ran round-the-clock editorials about the "dangers" of Sanders' policies, his supposed "unelectability," and "radical" following, degrading the tens of millions of poor and working class people who largely see Bernie's campaign as their last electoral hope.
Now, Joe Biden is the frontrunner. As a result, virtually everyone I know and work with has checked out of the electoral scene. Most of my friends have already come to the conclusion that Trump will win again in 2020. Hell, his numbers continue to rise even in the midst of the deadliest pandemic in over a 100 years, a pandemic he could've prevented. Frustrating, but not surprising.
Most Americans have checked out of politics. It's not that they don't care. They just don't believe that participating will make a difference. Who could blame them, really? I'm 35 years old. The U.S. government hasn't implemented one major program that's benefitted me since the day I was born. Obamacare? Get real. Every major political institution in this country has rapidly deteriorated over the course of my life.
When I was 16, Bush II, with the help of his brother, stole the White House from Al Gore. No one really did anything about it, even Al Gore. That was 20 years ago. Since then, we've experienced 9/11, the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, two terms of GWB, the 2008 Recession, Obama's bullshit 'Hope & Change,' which really meant 'More Of The Same,' the Tea Party, nationwide union busting efforts, the explosion of charter schools, Citizens United, corporate consolidation, financial deregulation, increasingly militarized policing, exploding prison populations, privatization of public goods and services, and elections that no one trusts because paper ballots are gone and billionaires own the electoral process. And yes, in 2016, the election of Donald Trump, the perfect ending to a 40 year nightmare.
Let's remember why Trump won in the first place. Trump defeated Hillary Clinton because Democrats stayed home. Bottom line. Democrats stayed home because they were betrayed by Obama, disgusted by Clinton, and upset about the entire 2016 primary process. As many others have pointed out, Trump is a symptom, not the disease. Here, we should be very clear: yes, Trump poses unique challenges and threats, but he is not the primary source of our collective problems. Our collective problems are structural, not individual, in nature.
Right now, the entire electoral-parliamentary process of representative democracy should be in question. Quite obviously, this particular mode of democratic participation has reached its limits. People are flat-out sick and tired of voting for politicians who answer to corporations. People are tired of the Democrat vs. Republican electoral carnival. Who could blame them? I'm tired of it. You're tired of it. We're all tired of it.
This is the toxic legacy of Reaganism, a bankrupt ideology that has destroyed the American political system, civic society, and popular culture. As a result, both major political parties have drifted so far to the right that people can barely tell the difference between the two. The Democratic Party is a walking corpse. And the Republican Party is full-blown batshit crazy. The Green Party doesn't really stand a chance, but I give them credit for trying to develop an alternative, however flawed it may be. After all, the Greens, not the Dems, came up with the 'Green New Deal.'
Large NGOs are moribund and, in many ways, counterproductive, even on their best days. Right now, the left contains no structural articulation of its politics beyond various regional organizations and radical local unions. In reality, most of 'the left' as we know it primarily exists in online forums and alternative media projects. The political situation is dire, no doubt.
The only way out of this mess is through deep organizing at the workplace and within communities. Tactically, this will take the form of massive strikes, street protests, targeted direct actions, and militant non-violent resistance. But people also need a vision and a strategy, and structures and institutions to carry out that vision and strategy. Right now, both are in short order. However, like all moments of immense historical crises, this context provides an opportunity to introduce radical alternatives, and hopefully, change course. If leftwing groups can't use this moment to radicalize and politicize people, shame on us.
The Crisis of Capitalism
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, despite what you might've heard on corporate news outlets, Global Capitalism was on the ropes. Liberal economists such as Paul Krugman and Dean Baker, but also leftwing economists such as Jack Rasmus, Doug Henwood, and Richard Wolff, among others, have been sounding the alarm bells for some time now. The pandemic ended up being the match that lit a combustible array of socio-economic ingredients, including wide-spread underemployment, entire legions of workers who've dropped out of the labor pool, millions living in poverty, millions more on the verge of poverty, stagnating wages, hundreds of thousands of Americans sleeping on the streets, tens of millions lacking health coverage, and the majority of Americans drowning in ever-growing debt.
The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the hollowness and brutality of Global Capitalism. The most vulnerable will endure the brunt of this pandemic. They already have. Those who were barely surviving before this crisis will be lucky to survive the crisis. And so it goes.
The multitude of injustices and structural inequalities that existed before the pandemic will be exacerbated during a global health crisis and economic depression. The brutal legacies of colonization, imperialism, and neo-imperialism put the most vulnerable at risk and expose a system that's incapable of providing even the most basic necessities to those most in need. In fact, quite the opposite, as Wall Street receives trillions of dollars for wrecking the global economy, ordinary Americans will have to wait weeks for their measly $1,200 stimulus checks.
Unlike 2008, the free marketeers are nowhere to be found. During the Great Financial Recession, the market fundamentalists wanted the whole system to collapse. The financial press blamed the recession on overpaid auto workers and poor families, especially poor black families, who the corporate pundits insisted "bought homes they couldn't afford." That was the dominant narrative in 2008. The calls for austerity were swift and loud. This time around, not so much.
Today, millions of Americans identify as socialists, and Bernie Sanders' policies, flawed and inadequate as they may be, are supported by the majority of Democrats, many Independents, and even some Republicans. It's true that Bernie's policies aren't 'socialist' in the traditional sense, but they're socialistic in nature, and provide a welcome alternative to Neoliberal barbarism. Thanks to Occupy Wall Street and radical unions, today's context is much different. Americans are much further to the left than they were twelve years ago.
Ralph Nader has long described the U.S. economic system as "socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the rest of us." This is true. As Christian Parenti points out in a recent article in Jacobin , the financialization of the U.S. economy is already largely socialized, using public funds to prop-up private institutions, but with little to no social benefit for poor and working class people. Today, the COVID-19 pandemic shows us that the state is more important than ever before. Indeed, the Federal Government is the only entity powerful enough to reign-in capital. Ironically, as Parenti notes, only socialist policies can revive 21st Century Capitalism.
The state is also the only entity capable of dealing with a pandemic: providing healthcare supplies, financial resources, dealing with supply chain and logistical challenges, directing private sector production, etc. Here, we are witnessing in real-time the fundamental limits of private power and market fundamentalism within the context of a global healthcare crisis. Now is not the time to coddle capitalism -- now is the time to castrate capitalism. Unless the left has a strategy to bypass the state and provide the many services the state provides by alternative means, our approach to the ensuing economic depression must include an analysis of state power, how it relates to capital, and how leftwing organizations and movements relate to both.
Historian Alfred McCoy, in his recent book, In the Shadows of the American Century , notes that China will overtake the U.S. as the largest economy in the world by 2030, perhaps sooner (Trump & COVID-19 have helped). Then again, China faces its own internal dilemmas, including an increasingly affluent workforce that's very much interested in liberal democratic norms, and a growing number of repressed workers who are fighting back against China's unique brand of 'Authoritarian Capitalism.' Some of the same contradictions and questions can be applied to India, the world's 5th largest economy, authoritarian-religious nationalism, and hundreds of millions of precarious workers provide a potentially explosive political context.
Without question, capitalism will survive COVID-19. The unfolding COVID-19 pandemic and economic crises will alter the future of capitalism. The real question is: how can workers and ordinary people nudge things in a preferred direction, a path that leads to more collectivism and cooperation? How can we exploit the contradictions within the system? How can we ruthlessly expose the inherent limitations and internal contradictions of capital accumulation?
Most importantly, we must not exit this crisis with a more authoritarian version of capitalism. Giving the banks and multinational corporations more power is a death knell for the human species and much of the planet. Time is running out. The economic shocks will continue in frequency and severity. Now is the time for alternatives.
The Crisis of Militarism & Empire
Since 9/11, the U.S. has bombed seven nations: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. U.S. troops remain in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya, with special forces operations taking place in Pakistan and Somalia. The ongoing war in Afghanistan is the longest war in U.S. history. And the U.S. continues to economically, logistically, politically, and militarily support the systematic repression and genocide of the Palestinian people vis a vi the brutal Israeli regime.
According to military historian, Nick Turse, U.S. forces conduct, on average, three combat or intelligence missions per day on the continent of Africa. Of course, Uncle Sam's growing footprint in Africa has gone virtually unreported in the corporate press. In October, 2017, when 9 U.S. troops were killed in the 'Tongo Tongo Ambush' in Niger, most Americans had no idea that U.S. troops were even stationed in Niger, let alone conducting combat missions. While it's true that U.S. Empire is in decline, it's also true that empires throughout history lash out during their final days, leaving a path of destruction in their wake.
As a result, the human cost of the post-9/11 'War on Terror' has been immense. Iraq: 300,000-1,000,000 dead. Syria: 400,000-600,000 dead. Afghanistan: 120,000 dead. Libya: 30,000 dead. Pakistan: 50,000 dead. Somalia: (unknown). Yemen: 100,000 dead. On the U.S. side, over 7,000 troops have lost their lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Pakistan, with more than double that number of private contractors dying in U.S.-led conflicts.
The Great Oil Wars of the early 21st Century have also caused the greatest refugee crisis since World War II, with more than 100,000 Syrian refugees fleeing their war-torn country, and over 3 million Iraqis internally displaced. Tens of thousands have fled Libya. The same is true in Pakistan. Millions abroad live in abject poverty and suffer preventable diseases as a result of Uncle Sam's military adventures.
Veterans of course, also suffer from Uncle Sam's hubris, with over 10,000 having committed suicide since 9/11. On a personal note, I've lost more of the marines from my platoon than died during our unit's three combat deployments to Iraq.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said: "The bombs in Vietnam explode at home -- they destroy the dream and possibility for a decent America." The same is true today, as the United States spends what the next 15 nations spend combined on its military empire ($750 billion a year), a monstrosity and sign of deep societal decay. According to Brown University, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost U.S. taxpayers $5.9 trillion. With that money, the U.S. government could've paid off every Americans' credit card, student loan, and auto loan debt, and still had money left over.
As the U.S. spends trillions of dollars on weapons of war, hospitals run out of surgical masks and ventilators. A ventilator costs anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000 -- a tomahawk missile costs $1.4 million.
Like every empire, the U.S. has drained its domestic resources to maintain its imperial hegemony, but that influence is waning with time. As the republic crumbles under the weight of its own internal contradictions, U.S. allies are distancing themselves, while Uncle Sam's foes are becoming increasingly empowered with each blunder and catastrophe that's unfolded since 9/11. As Chomsky points out, the U.S. has been in decline since World War II, the peak of Uncle Sam's imperial prowess.
Already, Trump is using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to ramp-up tensions with both Venezuela and Iran, two countries the U.S. has been politically, militarily, and economically terrorizing for decades. During the pandemic, U.S.-imposed sanctions in Iran have caused a disproportionate number of deaths due to lack of proper health equipment and medicine.
Fortunately, several European countries have broken the sanctions and delivered medical goods to the Iranian government. Also, as we speak, Trump has directed the U.S. Navy to move several U.S. Navy ships in close proximity to Venezuelan waters under the pretext of "curbing drug smuggling" -- no doubt a top priority during the worst pandemic since 1918.
History shows us that every empire eventually confronts the same choice: maintain military forces and watch the republic crumble from within, or de-escalate conflicts, demilitarize, and maintain some semblance of a functioning state. The Roman Empire chose the former. The British Empire chose the latter. The coming decade will determine which path Uncle Sam chooses. If the last 20 years are a window into the future, God help us all.
If we hope to survive the next pandemic, the U.S. government must redirect the resources it's currently spending on weapons of war, and instead invest in public healthcare infrastructure (hospitals, equipment, resources, nurses, personnel, EMTs), public education (medical schools, tuition free), housing (free and available to all), and research and development.
If we hope to survive the coming decades, the U.S. government must redirect its vast resources to mitigating climate change and ecological devastation.
The Climate & Ecological Crisis
The world has ten years to make radical changes to the global economy and its relation to fossil fuel production and consumption or the planet will be uninhabitable by the end of the century. Climate Change isn't the issue , it's the overarching context in which we now exist. Everything we do or don't do over the next ten years will determine whether or not future generations will inhabit a living planet, or a barren wasteland.
There is simply no way to downplay the urgency of our collective challenge. As author David Wallace-Wells' notes in his latest book, The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming , "we could potentially avoid 150 million excess premature deaths by the end of century from air pollution (the equivalent of 25 Holocausts or twice the number of deaths from World War II) if we could limit average global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius." Right now, we're on track to hit 1.5 degrees Celsius by as early as 2030.
In the future, numbers will matter. The 100,000-240,000 Americans projected to die from COVID-19 will soon turn into numbers like 1,000,000-5,000,000. What we accept today, we'll be expected to accept tomorrow.
In some ways, we've already accepted mass death, but our relationship to the living world is so warped that these numbers don't seem to shake us. Species extinction rates are 100-1,000 times faster than they were, on average, during the evolutionary time-scale of planet Earth. More than 100 go extinct every single day.
Oceans have been destroyed by toxic materials, dumping, shipping, and large-scale industrial fishing. Coral reefs are dying. Warming temperatures mean less phytoplankton, which means less oxygen, which means more carbon dioxide. Some studies suggest that most of the large fish in the world's oceans will be gone by 2050. Deforestation continues at breakneck speeds, ravaging ecosystems and leaving nothing behind. Ice caps melt. Prairies destroyed for suburban developments. Mountains leveled for minerals. Lakes drained for bottled water. Rivers polluted for industry. Life murdered for profit.
The level of ecological disruption and destruction industrial society has unleashed on the living world is unparalleled. And time is running out.
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report, Global Warming of 1.5 degree Celsius , outlines our reality: if we wish to hold the line to 1.5 degrees, we have to cut emissions by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. Then, we have to reach net-zero around 2050. That's to avoid the 250 million deaths Wallace-Wells mentioned. So far, none of that is happening. In fact, we're moving in the opposite direction as global emissions rise each year.
If we continue at current rates of emission, global temperature could rise by 7 degrees Celsius, and the number of human deaths from pollution could rise to 1-3 billion by 2100. That's not including deaths due to habitat loss, crop failure, lack of fresh water, lack of medical care, lack of housing, rising sea levels, lack of employment, addiction, suicide, unbearable temperatures, failing governments, collapsing economies, and everything that comes with those cascading crises: tribal war, banditry, barbarism, and eventually, genocide.
The Totality of Our Crisis
Without question, the stakes couldn't be higher. In many ways, the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing economic depression is a dress rehearsal for the future. From here on out, each crisis will be more pronounced and severe than the last. The new normal is cascading and multilayered crises all playing out at the same time. How we collectively respond to this crisis will determine how we respond to the impending large-scale crises of the future, not the least of which being Climate Change. So far, we're failing miserably.
If the United States can't handle a small-scale pandemic and virus that's moderately deadly, though admittedly quite disruptive, how can we expect the government to cope with tens of millions of climate refugees fleeing their homes in the coming decades, while seeking housing, employment, and safety in cities and counties already strapped for resources?
If capitalists already are taking advantage of this pandemic, netting trillions of dollars from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury, while simultaneously jacking up the price of medical equipment and charging poor victims exorbitant amounts of money for health insurance, needed medicine, and hospital treatment, how can we expect them to behave in the context of rapid ecological collapse?
If the state is incapable of providing even menial assistance to poor and working class Americans during the worst pandemic in over 100 years, how can we expect the state to behave in the context of cascading and multilayered crises unfolding at a rapid pace over a short period of time, crises that will undoubtedly require massive state intervention in the economy?
Unfortunately, we know the answers to these questions, but only if most poor and working class people remain unorganized or unwilling to fight back.
Let's remember, all of this takes place within a context of many unnamed crises, many of which weren't mentioned in this essay. Some of those include gun culture/NRA (weapons sales are at all-time highs since the pandemic started), police militarism, the prison-industrial complex (already being used to manufacture surgical masks, while prisoners remain trapped in COVID-19 incubators), patriarchy (domestic violence calls have skyrocketed during the pandemic), homelessness (500,000 Americans can't 'stay at home'), systemic racism (already, statistics show that black people are disproportionately impacted by and suffering the worst effects of COVID-19), housing (Americans already spend a insane amounts of their income toward rent/mortgage payments -- those problems have only accelerated during the pandemic), childcare (cash-strapped families and single parents choosing between safety and work), and the list goes on, and on.
Every single aspect of our society is under extreme stress. Even the most passive populations can only take so much. Human beings can only take so much. The living world can only take so much. Eventually, things will explode.
The question is: how? Will poor and working class Americans turn that despair and cynicism into a righteous anger and rage? And if so, who will that anger and rage be directed toward? Each other? Or the powerful elites?
The current social context in the U.S. and across the globe is ripe for radical political change, but that change doesn't necessarily have to be progressive in nature. It could also be reactionary and fueled by religious extremism, xenophobia, racism, and tribalism. That's up to us. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Vincent Emanuele
Vincent Emanuele writes for teleSUR English and lives in Michigan City, Indiana. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Apr 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Bemildred , Apr 2 2020 20:25 utc | 69Ian Welsh:
Why Western Elites Are So Incompetent And What The Consequences AreLet's chalk this up to aristocratic elites. Aristocrats, unlike nobles, are decadent, but don't stop with that word, understand what it means.
Elites who are not aligned with the actual productive activities of society and are engaged primarily in activities which are contrary to production, are decadent. This was true in Ancien Regime France (and deliberately fostered by Louis XIV as a way of emasculating the nobility.) It is true today of most Western elites: they concentrate on financial numbers, and not on actual production. Even those who are somewhat competent, tend not to be truly productive: see the Waltons, who made their money as distributers–merchants.
March 24, 2020 < OlderNo Respite for the Wicked, Pompeo Unleashed Written by Tom Luongo Tuesday
There are few things in this life that make me more sick to my stomach than watching Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talking. He truly is one of the evilest men I've ever had the displeasure of covering.
Into the insanity of the over-reaction to the COVID-19 outbreak, Pompeo wasted no time ramping up sanctions on firms doing any business with Iran, one of the countries worse-hit by this virus to date.
It's a seemingly endless refrain, everyday, more sanctions on Chinese, Swiss and South African firms for having the temerity in these deflating times to buy oil from someone Pompeo and his gang of heartless psychopaths disapprove of.
This goes far beyond just the oil industry. Even though I'm well aware that Russia's crashing the price of oil was itself a hybrid war attack on US capital markets. One that has had, to date, devastating effect.
While Pompeo mouths the words publicly that humanitarian aid is exempted from sanctions on Iran, the US is pursuing immense pressure on companies to not do so anyway while the State Dept. bureaucracy takes its sweet time processing waiver applications.
Pompeo and his ilk only think in terms of civilizational warfare. They have become so subsumed by their big war for the moral high ground to prove American exceptionalism that they have lost any shred of humanity they may have ever had.
Because for Pompeo in times like these to stick to his talking points and for his office to continue excising Iran from the global economy when we're supposed to be coming together to fight a global pandemic is the height of soullessness.
And it speaks to the much bigger problem that infects all of our political thinking. There comes a moment when politics and gaining political advantage have to take a back seat to doing the right thing.
I've actually seen moments of that impulse from the Democratic leadership in the US Will wonders never cease?!
Thinking only in Manichean terms of good vs. evil and dehumanizing your opponents is actually costlier than reversing course right now. Because honey is always better at attracting flies than vinegar.
But, unfortunately, that is not the character of the Trump administration.
It can only think in terms of direct leverage and opportunity to hold onto what they think they've achieved. So, until President Trump is no longer consumed with coordinating efforts to control COVID-19 Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper are in charge of foreign policy. They will continue the playbook that has been well established.
Maximum pressure on Iran, hurt China any way they can, hold onto what they have in Syria, stay in Iraq.
To that end Iraqi President Barham Salei nominated Pompeo's best choice to replace Prime Minister Adil Abdel Mahdi to throw Iraq's future into complete turmoil. According to Elijah Magnier, Adnan al-Zarfi is a US asset through and through .
And this looks like Pompeo's Hail Mary to retain US legal presence in Iraq after the Iraqi parliament adopted a measure to demand withdrawal of US troops from the country. Airstrikes against US bases in Iraq continue on a near daily basis and there have been reports of US base closures and redeployments at the same time.
This move looks like desperation by Pompeo et.al. to finally separate the Hashd al-Shaabi from Iraq's official military. So that airstrikes against them can be carried out under the definition of 'fighting Iranian terrorism.'
As Magnier points out in the article above if al-Zarfi puts a government together the war in Iraq will expand just as the US is losing further control in Syria after Turkish President Erdogan's disastrous attempt to remake the front in Idlib. That ended with his effective surrender to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The more I watch these moves by Pompeo the more sympathetic I become to the most sinister theories about COVID-19, its origins and its launch around the world. Read Pepe Escobar's latest to get an idea of how dark and twisted this tale could be .
It is sad that, to me, I see no reason to doubt Pompeo and his ilk in the US government wouldn't do something like that to spark political and social upheaval in those places most targeted by US hybrid war tactics.
But, at the same time, I can see the other side of it, a vicious strike back by China against its tormentors. And China's government does itself, in my mind, no favors threatening to withhold drug precursors and having officials run their mouths giving Americans the excuse they need to validate Trump and Pompeo's divisive rhetoric.
Remaining on the fence about this issue isn't my normal style. But everyone is dirty here and the reality may well be this is a natural event terrible people on both sides are exploiting.
And I can only go by what people do rather than what they say to assess the situation. Trump tries to buy exclusive right to a potential COVID-19 vaccine from a German firm and his administration slow-walks aid to Iran.
China sends aid to Iran and Italy by the container full. Is that to salve their conscience over its initial suppression of information about the virus? Good question. But no one covers themselves in glory by using the confusion and distraction to attempt further regime change and step up war-footing during a public health crisis, manufactured or otherwise.
While Pompeo unctuously talks the talk of compassion and charity, he cannot bring himself to actually walk the walk. Because he is a despicable, bile-filled man of uncommon depravity. His prosecuting a hybrid war during a public health crisis speaks to no other conclusion about him.
It's clear to me that nothing has changed at the top of Trump's administration. I expect COVID-19 will not be a disaster for Trump and the US. It can handle this. But the lack of humanity shown by its diplomatic corps ensures that in the long run the US will be left to fend for itself when the next crisis hits.
Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation .
- Soros Plays Both Ends in Syria Refugee Chaos - 31 December 2015
- About That ISIS Plan to Attack Munich - 4 January 2016
- Do We Need the Fed? - 21 December 2015
- Obama Administration Fights To Withhold Over 2,000 Photos Of Alleged US Torture and Abuse - 18 December 2015
- Enough Already! It's Time To Send The Despicable House Of Saud To The Dustbin Of History - 6 January 2016
Mar 20, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Mao , Mar 19 2020 23:25 utc | 225A group of economists and policy experts on Wednesday called on President Donald Trump to immediately lift the United States' crippling sanctions against Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries, warning that the economic warfare -- in addition to being cruel in itself -- is "feeding the coronavirus epidemic" by hampering nations' capacity to respond.
"This policy is unconscionable and flagrantly against international law. It is imperative that the U.S. lift these immoral and illegal sanctions to enable Iran and Venezuela to confront the epidemic as effectively and rapidly as possible," Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs said in a statement just hours after the Trump administration intensified sanctions against Iran, which has been devastated by COVID-19.
Mao , Mar 19 2020 23:37 utc | 229Promising to "smash" Venezuela's government during a "maximum pressure March," Trump has imposed crushing sanctions that force Venezuela to spend three times as much as non-sanctioned countries on coronavirus testing kits.
Mar 11, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org
... ... ...
The 2008 crisis put in the spotlight the psychopathic level of greed, vice, apathy and short-sightedness from those who wanted to play into the City of London and Wall Street casino houses. Get rich quick and don't care who you screw in the process, after all, at the end of the day you're either a winner or a loser.
Since the general public tends to consist of decent people, there is a widespread difficulty in comprehending how entire economies of countries have been hijacked by these piranhas. That we have hit such a level of crime that even people's hard earned pensions, education, health-care, housing etc. are all being gambled away LEGALLY.
Looking upon investment bankers today, one is reminded of those sad addicts in the casino who are ruined and lose everything, except the difference is, they are given the option to sell their neighbour's family into slavery to pay off their debt.
It is no secret that much of the "finance" that goes through the City of London and Wall Street is dirty and yet despite this recognition, there appears to be an inability to address it and that at this point we are told that if we tried to address it by breaking up and regulating the "Too Big to Fail" banks, then the whole economy would come tumbling down.
That is, the world is so evidently run by criminal activity that at this point we have become dependent on its dirty money to keep afloat the world economy.
Faced with the onrushing collapse of the financial system, the greatest Ivy League trained minds of the world have run into a dead end: the bailouts into the banking system that began this past September have prevented a chain reaction meltdown for a few months, but as the liquidity runs out so too will the ideas on where the money justifying bank bailouts will come from.
With these dead ends, we have seen the lightbulb go off in the minds of a large strata of economists who have been making the case in recent years that valuable revenue can yet be generated from one more untapped stream: the decriminalisation and legalisation of vice.
Hell, the major banks have already been doing this covertly as a matter of practice for generations so why not just come out of the closet and make it official? This is where the money is at. This is where the job market is at. So let us not "bite the hand that feeds us"!
But is this truly the case? Is there really no qualitative difference how the money is generated and how it is spent as long as there is an adequate money flow?
Well it is never a good sign when beside the richest you can also find the poorest just a stone's throw away. And right beside the largest financial center in the world, the City of London, there lies the poorest borough in all of London: Tower Hamlets with a 39% poverty rate and an average family income amounting to less than £ 13, 000/year .
A City within a City
" Hell is a city much like London "
– Percy Bysshe Shelley
Although Wall Street has contributed greatly to this sad situation, this banking hub of America is best understood as the spawn of the City of London.
The City of London is over 800 years old, it is arguably older than England herself, a nd for over 400 years it has been the financial center of the world.
During the medieval period the City of London, otherwise known as the Square Mile or simply the City, was divided into 25 ancient wards headed each by an alderman. This continues today . In addition, there existed the ominously titled City of London Corporation, or simply the Corporation, which is the municipal governing body of the City. This also still continues today .
Though the Corporation's origins cannot be specifically dated, since there was never a "surviving" charter found establishing its "legal" basis, it has kept its functions to this day based on the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta is a charter of rights agreed to by King John in 1215, which states that " the City of London shall have/enjoy its ancient liberties ". In other words, the legal function of the Corporation has never been questioned, reviewed, re-evaluated EVER but rather it has been left to legally function as in accordance with their "ancient liberties", which is a very grey description of function if you ask me. In other words, they are free to do as they deem fit.
And it gets worst. The Corporation is not actually under the jurisdiction of the British government. That is, the British government presently does not have the authority to undermine how the Corporation of the City chooses to govern the largest financial center in the world . The City has a separate voting system that allows for, well, corporations to vote in how their separate "government" should run. It also has its own private police force and system of private courts.
The Corporation is not just limited to functioning within the City. The City Remembrancer, which sounds more like a warped version of the ghost of Christmas past, has the role of acting as a channel of communication between the Corporation and the Sovereign (the Queen), the Royal Household and Parliament. The Remembrancer thus acts as a "reminder", some would even say "enforcer", of the will of the Corporation. This position has been held by Paul Double since 2003, it is not clear who bestows this non-elected position.
Mr. Double has the right to act as an official lobbyist in the House of Commons, and sits to the right of the Speaker's chair, with the purpose of scrutinising and influencing any legislation he deems affects the interests of the Corporation. He also appears to have the right to review any piece of legislation as it is being drafted and can even comment on it affecting its final outcome. He is the only non-elected person allowed into the House of Commons.
According to the official City of London website , the reason why the City has a separate voting system is because:
"The City is the only area in the country in which the number of workers significantly outnumbers the residents and therefore, to be truly representative of its population, offers a vote to City organisations so they can have their say on the way the City is run."
However, the workers have absolutely no say. The City's organisations they work for have a certain size vote based on the number of workers they employ, but they do not consult these workers, and many of them are not even aware that such elections take place.
If you feel like you have just walked through Alice's Looking Glass, you're not alone, but what appears to be an absurd level of madness is what has been running the largest financial center in the world since the 1600s, under the machinations of the British Empire.
Therefore the question is, if the City of London has kept its "ancient liberties" and has upheld its global financial power, is the British Empire truly gone?
Offshore Banking: Adam Smith's Invisible Hand?
Contrary to popular naïve belief, the empire on which the sun never sets (some say " because God wouldn't trust them in the dark ") never went away .
After WWII, colonisation was meant to be done away with, and many thought, so too with the British Empire. Countries were reclaiming their sovereignty, governments were being set up by the people, the system of looting and pillaging had come to an end.
It is a nice story, but could not be further from the truth.
In the 1950s, to "adapt" to the changing global financial climate, the City of London set up what are called "secrecy jurisdictions". These were to operate within the last remnants of Britain's small territories/colonies. Of Britain's 14 oversea territories, 7 are bona fide tax havens or "secrecy jurisdictions". A separate international financial market was also created to facilitate the flow of this offshore money, the Eurodollar market. Since this market has its banks outside of the UK and U.S., they are not under the jurisdiction of either country.
By 1997, nearly 90% of all international loans were made through this market.
What is often misunderstood is that the City of London's offshore finances are not contained in a system of banking secrecy but rather of trusts. The difference being that a trust ultimately plays with the concept of ownership. The idea is that you hand over your assets to a trustee and at that point, legally those assets are no longer yours anymore and you are not responsible for accounting for them. Your connection to said assets is completely hidden.
In addition, within Britain's offshore jurisdictions, there is no qualification required for who can become a trustee: anyone can set up a trust and anyone can become a trustee. There is also no registry of trusts in these territories. Thus, the only ones who know about this arrangement are the trustee and the settler.
John Christensen, an investigative economist, estimates that this capital that legally belongs to nobody could amount to as high as $50 trillion within these British territories. Not only is this not being taxed, but a significant portion of it has been stolen from sectors of the real economy.
So how does this affect "formerly" colonised countries?
There lies the rub for most developing nations. According to John Christensen, the combined external debts of Sub-Saharan African countries was $177 billion in 2008. However, the wealth that these countries' elites moved offshore, between 1970-2008, is estimated at $944 billion, 5X their foreign debt. This is not only dirty money, this is also STOLEN money from the resources and productivity of these economies. Thus, as Christensen states, "Far from being a net debtor to the world, Sub-Saharan Africa is a net creditor" to offshore finance.
Put in this context, the so-called "backwardness" of Africa is not due to its incapability to produce, but rather that it has been experiencing uninterrupted looting since these regions were first colonised.
These African countries then need to borrow money, which is happily given to them at high interest rates, and accrues a level of debt that could never be repaid. These countries are thus looted twice over, leaving no money left to invest in their future, let alone to put food on the table.
Offshore havens are what make this sort of activity "legal" and rampant.
And it doesn't stop there. Worldwide, it is estimated that developing countries lose $1 trillion every year in capital flight and tax evasion. Most of this wealth goes back into the UK and U.S. through these offshore havens, and allows their currencies to stay strong whilst developing nations' currencies are kept weak.
However, developing nations are not the only ones to have suffered from this system of looting. The very economies of the UK and U.S. have also been gutted. In the 1960s and onward, the UK and U.S., to compensate for the increase in money flow out of their countries decided that it was a good idea to open their domestic markets to the trillions of dollars passing through its offshore havens.
However, such banks are not interested in putting their money into industry and manufacturing, they put their money into real estate speculation, financial speculation and foreign currency trade. And thus the financialization of British and American economies resulted, and the real jobs coming from the real economy decreased or disappeared.
Although many economists try to claim differently, the desperation has boiled over and movements like the yellow vests are reflections of the true consequences of these economic policies.
We have reached a point now where every western first world country is struggling with a much higher unemployment rate and a lower standard of living than 40 years ago. Along with increased poverty has followed increased drug use, increased suicide and increased crime.
A Stable Economy based on Freedom or Slavery?
According to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) report in 2017 , the UK has by far the highest rate of drug overdose in all of Europe at 31% followed by Germany at 15%. That is, the UK consists of 1/3 drug overdoses that occur in all of Europe.
The average family income in the UK is presently £28, 400. The poverty rate within the UK is ~20%.
The average family income of what was once the epicentre of world industrialisation, Detroit, has an average family income of $26, 249. The poverty rate of Detroit is ~34.5%.
What is the solution?
Reverse Margaret Thatcher's 1986 Big Bang deregulation of the banking system that destroyed the separation of commercial banking, investment banking, trusts and insurance for starters. A similar restoration of Glass-Steagall in the USA should follow suit, not only to break up the "Too Big to Fail" banking system but to restore the authority of nation states over private finance once more. IF these emergency measures were done before the markets collapse (and they will collapse), then the industrial-infrastructure revival throughout trans-Atlantic nations can still occur.
Let us end here by hearkening to the words of Clement Attlee, UK Prime Minister from 1945-1951:
" Over and over again we have seen that there is another power than that which has its seat at Westminster. The City of London, a convenient term for a collection of financial interests, is able to assert itself against the government of the country. Those who control money can pursue a policy at home and abroad contrary to that which is being decided by the people. "
Mar 11, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
vk , Mar 10 2020 18:54 utc | 10
To complete the SC's double-header, here's a cool article about the impossibility of separating capitalism from mafia-style banditism:
Sugar and Spice and Everything Vice: the Empire's Sin City of London
Extra points for the headline.
Sep 29, 2014 | www.theguardian.com
An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities
'We are forever told that we are freer to choose the course of our lives than ever before, but the freedom to choose outside the success narrative is limited.'
We tend to perceive our identities as stable and largely separate from outside forces. But over decades of research and therapeutic practice, I have become convinced that economic change is having a profound effect not only on our values but also on our personalities. Thirty years of neoliberalism, free-market forces and privatisation have taken their toll, as relentless pressure to achieve has become normative. If you're reading this sceptically, I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others.
There are certain ideal characteristics needed to make a career today. The first is articulateness, the aim being to win over as many people as possible. Contact can be superficial, but since this applies to most human interaction nowadays, this won't really be noticed.
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can you know a lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and feel little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
On top of all this, you are flexible and impulsive, always on the lookout for new stimuli and challenges. In practice, this leads to risky behaviour, but never mind, it won't be you who has to pick up the pieces. The source of inspiration for this list? The psychopathy checklist by Robert Hare , the best-known specialist on psychopathy today.
This description is, of course, a caricature taken to extremes. Nevertheless, the financial crisis illustrated at a macro-social level (for example, in the conflicts between eurozone countries) what a neoliberal meritocracy does to people. Solidarity becomes an expensive luxury and makes way for temporary alliances, the main preoccupation always being to extract more profit from the situation than your competition. Social ties with colleagues weaken, as does emotional commitment to the enterprise or organisation.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace. This is a typical symptom of the impotent venting their frustration on the weak in psychology it's known as displaced aggression. There is a buried sense of fear, ranging from performance anxiety to a broader social fear of the threatening other.
Constant evaluations at work cause a decline in autonomy and a growing dependence on external, often shifting, norms. This results in what the sociologist Richard Sennett has aptly described as the "infantilisation of the workers". Adults display childish outbursts of temper and are jealous about trivialities ("She got a new office chair and I didn't"), tell white lies, resort to deceit, delight in the downfall of others and cherish petty feelings of revenge. This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and that fails to treat employees as adults.
More important, though, is the serious damage to people's self-respect. Self-respect largely depends on the recognition that we receive from the other, as thinkers from Hegel to Lacan have shown. Sennett comes to a similar conclusion when he sees the main question for employees these days as being "Who needs me?" For a growing group of people, the answer is: no one.
Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough, all the while reinforcing privilege and putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and exhausted citizens. An increasing number of people fail, feeling humiliated, guilty and ashamed. We are forever told that we are freer to choose the course of our lives than ever before, but the freedom to choose outside the success narrative is limited. Furthermore, those who fail are deemed to be losers or scroungers, taking advantage of our social security system.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents, meaning responsibility lies entirely with the individual and authorities should give people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal. For those who believe in the fairytale of unrestricted choice, self-government and self-management are the pre-eminent political messages, especially if they appear to promise freedom. Along with the idea of the perfectible individual, the freedom we perceive ourselves as having in the west is the greatest untruth of this day and age.
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: "Never have we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer have any significance freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference. Yet, on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful that is, "make" something of ourselves. You don't need to look far for examples. A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's degree in economics a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture. Yet our norms and values make up an integral and essential part of our identity. So they cannot be lost, only changed. And that is precisely what has happened: a changed economy reflects changed ethics and brings about changed identity. The current economic system is bringing out the worst in us.Psychology Work & careers Economics Economic policy
- Sick of this market-driven world? You should be George Monbiot George Monbiot: The self-serving con of neoliberalism is that it has eroded the human values the market was supposed to emancipate 5 Aug 2014 1,877
- Neoliberalism has spawned a financial elite who hold governments to ransom Deborah Orr 8 Jun 2013 400
- Who's in control nation states or global corporations? Gary Younge 2 Jun 2014 767
- Who can control the post-superpower capitalist world order? Slavoj iek 6 May 2014 454
- If you think we're done with neoliberalism, think again George Monbiot 14 Jan 2013 797
Apr 16, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
Financial meltdown, environmental disaster and even the rise of Donald Trump – neoliberalism has played its part in them all. Why has the left failed to come up with an alternative? @GeorgeMonbiot
Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you'll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?
Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness , the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump . But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?
Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin's theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.
Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it's your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.
See also Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us by Paul Verhaeghe, Sep 24, 2014
Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it's unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously applied, is the loneliness capital of Europe . We are all neoliberals now.
The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and the gradual development of Britain's welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.
In The Road to Serfdom , published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control. Like Mises's book Bureaucracy , The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism – the Mont Pelerin Society – it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.
With their help, he began to create what Daniel Stedman Jones describes in Masters of the Universe as "a kind of neoliberal international": a transatlantic network of academics, businessmen, journalists and activists. The movement's rich backers funded a series of thinktanks which would refine and promote the ideology. Among them were the American Enterprise Institute , the Heritage Foundation , the Cato Institute , the Institute of Economic Affairs , the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute . They also financed academic positions and departments, particularly at the universities of Chicago and Virginia.
As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek's view that governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way – among American apostles such as Milton Friedman – to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward for efficiency.
Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost its name. In 1951, Friedman was happy to describe himself as a neoliberal . But soon after that, the term began to disappear. Stranger still, even as the ideology became crisper and the movement more coherent, the lost name was not replaced by any common alternative.
At first, despite its lavish funding, neoliberalism remained at the margins. The postwar consensus was almost universal: John Maynard Keynes 's economic prescriptions were widely applied, full employment and the relief of poverty were common goals in the US and much of western Europe, top rates of tax were high and governments sought social outcomes without embarrassment, developing new public services and safety nets.
But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter the mainstream. As Friedman remarked, "when the time came that you had to change ... there was an alternative ready there to be picked up". With the help of sympathetic journalists and political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially its prescriptions for monetary policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter's administration in the US and Jim Callaghan's government in Britain.
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice should have been promoted with the slogan 'there is no alternative'
After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services. Through the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation, neoliberal policies were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much of the world. Most remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged to the left: Labour and the Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes, "it is hard to think of another utopia to have been as fully realised."
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have been promoted with the slogan "there is no alternative". But, as Hayek remarked on a visit to Pinochet's Chile – one of the first nations in which the programme was comprehensively applied – "my personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism". The freedom that neoliberalism offers, which sounds so beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to mean freedom for the pike, not for the minnows.
Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the freedom to poison rivers , endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.Facebook Twitter Pinterest Naomi Klein documented that neoliberals advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted. Photograph: Anya Chibis/The Guardian
As Naomi Klein documents in The Shock Doctrine , neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted: for example, in the aftermath of Pinochet's coup, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, which Friedman described as "an opportunity to radically reform the educational system" in New Orleans .
Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed internationally, through trade treaties incorporating " investor-state dispute settlement ": offshore tribunals in which corporations can press for the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have voted to restrict sales of cigarettes , protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy bills or prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations have sued, often successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre.
Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one
Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition relies upon universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime of assessment and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the losers. The doctrine that Von Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic nightmare of central planning has instead created one.
Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one. Economic growth has been markedly slower in the neoliberal era (since 1980 in Britain and the US) than it was in the preceding decades; but not for the very rich. Inequality in the distribution of both income and wealth, after 60 years of decline, rose rapidly in this era, due to the smashing of trade unions, tax reductions, rising rents, privatisation and deregulation.
The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water, trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that they have you over a barrel .In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all phone services and soon became the world's richest man. Photograph: Henry Romero/Reuters
Those who own and run the UK's privatised or semi-privatised services make stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India, oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone services and soon became the world's richest man.
Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in Why We Can't Afford the Rich , has had a similar impact. "Like rent," he argues, "interest is ... unearned income that accrues without any effort". As the poor become poorer and the rich become richer, the rich acquire increasing control over another crucial asset: money. Interest payments, overwhelmingly, are a transfer of money from the poor to the rich. As property prices and the withdrawal of state funding load people with debt (think of the switch from student grants to student loans), the banks and their executives clean up.
Sayer argues that the past four decades have been characterised by a transfer of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy: from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those who make their money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest or capital gains. Earned income has been supplanted by unearned income.
Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not only are the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in Ill Fares the Land , Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot be allowed to collapse, which means that competition cannot run its course. Business takes the profits, the state keeps the risk.
The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every organ of the public sector.
Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of people have been shed from politics.
Chris Hedges remarks that "fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the 'losers' who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment". When political debate no longer speaks to us, people become responsive instead to slogans, symbols and sensation . To the admirers of Trump, for example, facts and arguments appear irrelevant.
Judt explained that when the thick mesh of interactions between people and the state has been reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, the only remaining force that binds us is state power. The totalitarianism Hayek feared is more likely to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that arises from the delivery of public services, are reduced to "cajoling, threatening and ultimately coercing people to obey them".
Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of anonymities.
The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry, has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that Charles and David Koch , two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the Tea Party movement . We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks, noted that "in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised".
The nouveau riche were once disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Today, the relationship has been reversed
The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. "The market" sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What "the market wants" tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. "Investment", as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities "camouflages the sources of wealth", leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.
A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off as rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors style themselves entre preneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.
These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for whom they toil ; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that even the police cannot discover the beneficial owners ; the tax arrangements that bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.
The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are influenced by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some justice – that it is used today only pejoratively . But they offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves as classical liberals or libertarians, but these descriptions are both misleading and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there is nothing novel about The Road to Serfdom , Bureaucracy or Friedman's classic work, Capitalism and Freedom .
For all that, there is something admirable about the neoliberal project, at least in its early stages. It was a distinctive, innovative philosophy promoted by a coherent network of thinkers and activists with a clear plan of action. It was patient and persistent. The Road to Serfdom became the path to power.
Neoliberalism, Locke and the Green party | Letters Read more
Neoliberalism's triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the 70s, there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008 there was ... nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years.
Every invocation of Lord Keynes is an admission of failure. To propose Keynesian solutions to the crises of the 21st century is to ignore three obvious problems. It is hard to mobilise people around old ideas; the flaws exposed in the 70s have not gone away; and, most importantly, they have nothing to say about our gravest predicament: the environmental crisis. Keynesianism works by stimulating consumer demand to promote economic growth. Consumer demand and economic growth are the motors of environmental destruction.
What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is that it's not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century.
George Monbiot's How Did We Get into This Mess? is published this month by Verso. To order a copy for £12.99 (RRP £16.99) ) go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99.Topics Economics
Feb 05, 2018 | www.truthdig.com
There will be no economic or political justice for the poor, people of color, women or workers within the framework of global, corporate capitalism. Corporate capitalism, which uses identity politics , multiculturalism and racial justice to masquerade as politics, will never halt the rising social inequality, unchecked militarism, evisceration of civil liberties and omnipotence of the organs of security and surveillance. Corporate capitalism cannot be reformed, despite its continually rebranding itself. The longer the self-identified left and liberal class seek to work within a system that the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin calls " inverted totalitarianism ," the more the noose will be tightened around our necks. If we do not rise up to bring government and financial systems under public control -- which includes nationalizing banks, the fossil fuel industry and the arms industry -- we will continue to be victims.
Corporate capitalism is supranational . It owes no loyalty to any nation-state. It uses the projection of military power by the United States to protect and advance its economic interests but at the same time cannibalizes the U.S., dismantling its democratic institutions, allowing its infrastructure to decay and deindustrializing its factory centers to ship manufacturing abroad to regions where workers are treated as serfs.
Resistance to this global cabal of corporate oligarchs must also be supranational. It must build alliances with workers around the globe. It must defy the liberal institutions, including the Democratic Party, which betray workers. It is this betrayal that has given rise to fascist and protofascist movements in Europe and other countries. Donald Trump would never have been elected but for this betrayal. We will build a global movement powerful enough to bring down corporate capitalism or witness the rise of a new, supranational totalitarianism.
The left, seduced by the culture wars and identity politics, largely ignores the primacy of capitalism and the class struggle. As long as unregulated capitalism reigns supreme, all social, economic, cultural and political change will be cosmetic. Capitalism, at its core, is about the commodification of human beings and the natural world for exploitation and profit. To increase profit, it constantly seeks to reduce the cost of labor and demolish the regulations and laws that protect the common good. But as capitalism ravages the social fabric, it damages, like any parasite, the host that allows it to exist. It unleashes dark, uncontrollable yearnings among an enraged population that threaten capitalism itself.
"This is a crisis of global dimensions," David North , the national chairman of the Socialist Equality Party in the United States, told me when we spoke in New York. "It is a crisis that dominates every element of American politics. The response that we're seeing, the astonishing changes in the state of the government, in the decay of political life, the astonishingly low level of political and intellectual discourse, is in a certain sense an expression of the bewilderment of the ruling elite to what it's going through."
"We can expect a monumental explosion of class struggle in the United States," he said. "I think this country is a social powder keg. There is an anger that exists over working conditions and social inequality. However [much] they may be confused on many questions, workers in this country have a deep belief in democratic rights. We totally reject the narrative that the working class is racist. I think this has been the narrative pushed by the pseudo-left, middle-class groups who are drunk on identity politics, which have a vested interest in constantly distracting people from the essential class differences that exist in the society. Dividing everyone up on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference fails to address the major problem."
North argues, correctly, that capitalism by its nature lurches from crisis to crisis. This makes our current predicament similar to past crises.
"All the unanswered questions of the 20th century -- the basic problem of the nation-state system, the reactionary character of private ownership with the means of production, corporate power, all of these issues which led to the first and Second world wars -- are with us again, and add to that fascism," he said.
"We live in a global economy, highly interconnected," North went on. "A globalized process of production, financial system. The ruling class has an international policy. They organize themselves on an international scale. The labor movement has remained organized on a national basis. It has been completely incapable of answering this [ruling-class policy]. Therefore, it falls behind various national protectionist programs. The trade unions support Trump."
The sociologist Charles Derber , whom I also spoke with in New York, agrees.
"We don't really have a left because we don't have conversations about capitalism," Derber said. "How many times can you turn on a mainstream news like CNN and expect to hear the word 'capitalism' discussed? Bernie [Sanders] did one thing. He called himself a democratic socialist , which was a bit transformational simply in terms of rhetoric. He's saying there's something other than capitalism that we ought to be talking about."
"As the [capitalist] system universalizes and becomes more and more intersectional, we need intersectional resistance," Derber said. "At the end of the 1960s, when I was getting my own political education, the universalizing dimensions of the left, which was growing in the '60s, fell apart. The women began to feel their issues were not being addressed. They were treated badly by white males, student leaders. Blacks, Panthers, began to feel the whites could not speak for race issues. They developed separate organizations. The upshot was the left lost its universalizing character. It no longer dealt with the intersection of all these issues within the context of a militarized, capitalist, hegemonic American empire. It treated politics as siloed group identity problems. Women had glass ceilings. Same with blacks. Same with gays."
The loss of this intersectionality was deadly. Instead of focusing on the plight of all of the oppressed, oppressed groups began to seek representation for their own members within capitalist structures.
"Let's take a modern version of this," Derber said. " Sheryl Sandberg , the COO of Facebook, she did a third-wave feminism thing. She said 'lean in.' It captures this identity politics that has become toxic on the left. What does 'lean in' mean? It means women should lean in and go as far as they can in the corporation. They should become, as she has, a major, wealthy executive of a leading corporation. When feminism was turned into that kind of leaning in, it created an identity politics that legitimizes the very system that needs to be critiqued. The early feminists were overtly socialists. As was [Martin Luther] King. But all that got erased."
"The left became a kind of grab bag of discrete, siloed identity movements," Derber said. "This is very connected to moral purity. You're concerned about your advancement within the existing system. You're competing against others within the existing system. Everyone else has privilege. You're just concerned about getting your fair share."
"People in movements are products of the system they're fighting," he continued. "We're all raised in a capitalistic, individualistic, egoistic culture, so it's not surprising. And it has to be consciously recognized and struggled against. Everybody in movements has been brought up in systems they're repulsed by. This has created a structural transformation of the left. The left offers no broad critique of the political economy of capitalism. It's largely an identity-politics party. It focuses on reforms for blacks and women and so forth. But it doesn't offer a contextual analysis within capitalism."
Derber, like North, argues that the left's myopic, siloed politics paved the way for right-wing, nativist, protofascist movements around the globe as well as the ascendancy of Trump.
"When you bring politics down to simply about helping your group get a piece of the pie, you lose that systemic analysis," he said. "You're fragmented. You don't have natural connections or solidarity with other groups. You don't see the larger systemic context. By saying I want, as a gay person, to fight in the military, in a funny way you're legitimating the American empire. If you were living in Nazi Germany, would you say I want the right of a gay person to fight in combat with the Nazi soldiers?"
"I don't want to say we should eliminate all identity politics," he said. "But any identity politics has to be done within the framework of understanding the larger political economy. That's been stripped away and erased. Even on the left, you cannot find a deep conversation about capitalism and militarized capitalism. It's just been erased. That's why Trump came in. He unified a kind of very powerful right-wing identity politics built around nationalism, militarism and the exceptionalism of the American empire."
"Identity politics is to a large degree a right-wing discourse," Derber said. "It focuses on tribalism tied in modern times to nationalism, which is always militaristic. When you break the left into these siloed identity politics, which are not contextualized, you easily get into this dogmatic fundamentalism. The identity politics of the left reproduces the worse sociopathic features of the system as a whole. It's scary."
"How much of the left," he asked, "is reproducing what we are seeing in the society that we're fighting?"
Sep 08, 2017 | www.faireconomy.org
Many of us have come across the term "neoliberal," or "neoliberalism" before, but for all its use, few have ever taken the chance to actually explain what it is. An inadequate popular definition has allowed the term to be abused and misrepresented in a variety of ways. Despite these misrepresentations, however, "neoliberalism" is a concept that is very useful for understanding the world we live in today.
In simple terms, neoliberalism is a broad ideology that became popular in political, economic, and governmental circles in the 1970's and reached its peak in global popularity in the 1980's. Neoliberalism describes the political paradigm we are in right now, the political conditions of modern society . As the name suggests, it calls for a revitalization of the classical liberal view of economic policy. It's important to understand that "classical liberal" here refers to an older understanding of the word liberal than the one it has in modern America- it is referencing the liberalism of the Enlightenment era, represented by thinkers like Adam Smith and John Locke, not modern social liberalism as embodied by Barack Obama and much of the rest of the Democratic Party. In concrete policy terms, neoliberalism means free trade, low taxes, deregulation, privatization, and balanced budgets.
Neoliberalism represents a shift in the way we look at the world: it entails seeing every aspect of society, even those typically considered civic or community affairs, in the terms of the market economy."Stagflation" & Schools of Economic Thought
Neoliberalism emerged as a reaction to welfare state politics and Keynesian economics that had become popular in the West following the end of World War II.
What is Keynesian Economics? Two major schools of economic thought are Classical Economics and Keynesian Economics. Adam Smith's (1723-1790) theory of Classical Economics asserts that the market is a rapidly-adjusting, self-correcting entity. John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) believed that Classical Economics was flawed. If classical economics were true, Keyes asserted, waves of massive unemployment wouldn't exist, as the market would quickly self-adjust for the downturn. Keynes theorized that during an economic downturn, consumer demand tended to drop, causing employers to lay off employees, which would then decrease overall consumer demand, and the cycle would continue. Keynes concluded that in periods of economic downturn, government could manipulate demand by hiring, directly or through policy, unemployed workers and break the cycle.
Following a long period of significant prosperity, the 1970's brought with it a phenomenon known as "stagflation" - simultaneous stagnation (where worker wages are kept flat) and inflation (where the cost of living rises). Keynesians, who had been the dominant group in American economics at the time, believed it was impossible for stagflation to exist for any extended period of time.
As the Keynesians tried to make sense of economic realities of the day, a new wave of economists began to create other schools of thought. Milton Friedman (known as "the Chicago School" or "monetarists") made the case not only for a different approach to monetary policy in order to solve stagflation, but also for the idea that many forms of governmental involvement in the economy are in fact harmful. Others, like James Buchanan pioneered a field known as "public choice theory," which made the case to the economics profession that government bureaucrats acted in personal self-interest, not in the public interest, and thus that policy prescriptions should be much more cautious in calling for governmental solutions to economic issues.Activist Business
At the same time as the intellectual environment began to shift toward the political right in economics, the business community also began to be more aggressive in asserting their interests in politics. This development was prompted in part by soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. writing a memo to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1971, arguing that "the American economic system is under attack" from progressive critics of big business and that the business community should fight back. A number of conservative and libertarian think tanks and advocacy organizations were created and expanded during this period in order to make the intellectual case for "freer" capitalism, including the Heritage Foundation (1973), the Cato Institute (1974), and the American Enterprise Institute (founded in 1938 but becoming influential during the 1970′s).A Radical Message
Combine a turn against government in the field of economics and a growing assertion of political power by businesses, and throw in increased public skepticism of government after Vietnam and Watergate, and you have a recipe for fundamental political change. Between the economic disarray, the public distrust, and both intellectual and financial support for an alternative to post-war welfare statism, a new ideology became dominant in the political sphere. This ideology was encapsulated by the presidency of Ronald Reagan, who summed it up perfectly with his famous quote: "in this current crisis, government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem."
Such a claim may sound like standard conservative fare today, but both Reagan and his message were quite radical at the time, even among Republicans. At the time of his election, Reagan was seen by some ( including Gerald Ford ) as simply too far right to win. The last (elected) Republican president before him, Nixon, created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), and a number of other progressive programs. He also called for healthcare reform that could arguably be called stronger than Obamacare, and an expansion of welfare , the latter of which was the inspiration for the Earned Income Tax Credit, passed shortly after he left office. Pieces of Nixon's economic agenda were noticeably left-wing, so much so that one journalist at the time noted that he left the Democrats having to resort to "me-tooism."
Nixon took such positions because he needed to respond to political pressures from the left, the same pressures that had pushed LBJ on civil rights legislation and the war on poverty. In the late 1970's, as the activism and radicalism of the 1960's began to die out, those pressures began to be outweighed by increasing pressure from businesses in the direction of neoliberalism. This started under Jimmy Carter, who oversaw the cautious deregulation of airlines in 1978 and the trucking industry in 1980. However, it was Reagan who truly delivered the neoliberal agenda in America and institutionalized it into government.
Importantly, this era also saw the start of the growth in the importance of campaign donations. Republicans had not only a strong base of think tanks to provide them with a network of intellectual support, they also had far more money from the corporate interests they were serving. Congressional Republicans beat their Democratic counterparts in campaign expenditures in every election year from 1976 to 1992.
Traditionally, Democrats had relied on unions as a critical source of both campaign donations and organizational support. With union strength declining (a trend the Reagan administration encouraged through policy), the Democrats were being totally outgunned. According to Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's book "Winner-Take-All Politics":The Third Way
" From the late 1970s to the late 1980s, corporate PACS [political action committees] increased their expenditures in congressional races nearly five fold. Labor spending only rose about half as fast... By 1980, unions accounted for less than a quarter of all PAC donations -- down from half six years earlier."
Even with the emergence of conservative "Reagan Democrats" during the 1980's, the game had changed for the Democratic Party. Recognizing this, a number of Democrats (including Bill Clinton) joined together in a group called the Democratic Leadership Council with the goal of dragging the party to the right and boosting campaign contributions. They succeeded. When Clinton eventually won the presidency, he cemented neoliberalism as the law of the land by making it clear that the Democrats would not challenge the new fundamental doctrine of limited government involvement in many parts of the economy, and as a result made the Democrats politically competitive again. (Both the previously mentioned "Winner-Take-All Politics" and Thomas Ferguson and Joel Roger's "Right Turn" go more into detail on this issue, and on neoliberalism more generally).
Instead of challenging the entirety of Reagan's assertion of government-as-problem, Clinton espoused a "third way" ideology: in his second inauguration, he said that "Government is not the problem, and Government is not the solution. We -- the American people -- we are the solution." Though the Clinton White House at times backed left-liberal policies like mild tax hikes on the wealthy, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Family Medical Leave Act, it also continued the neoliberal march of rolling back progressive achievements through the deregulation of Wall Street (the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, etc.), conservative welfare reform in 1996, NAFTA, and the gutting of public housing .A One-Party System
Clinton himself was aware of the way that American politics was moving to the right, and he was sometimes frustrated with it. Allegedly, he once entered a meeting in the Oval Office complaining : "Where are all the Democrats? I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower Republicans. We're Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?"
Despite this, however, Clinton and most of the rest of the Democratic Party accepted their role doing nothing more than, to borrow a phrase from political philosopher Roberto Unger, "to put a softer face on the agenda of their conservative opponents." They seek to make marginal improvements for poor, working class, and middle class voters here and there, but never seek to fundamentally shake up the political-economic system in any way. As one critic put it in 1990, even before Clinton's election, the Democratic Party is "...history's second-most enthusiastic capitalist party. They do not interfere with capitalist momentum, but wait for excesses and the inevitable popular reaction." This is why many left-wing critics will refer to some Democrats as neoliberals even when they don't literally advocate for free market capitalism.
Neoliberalism within the Democratic Party looks less like a proposal to privatize or abolish Social Security as much as it does a commitment to benefit-cutting "entitlement reform." It can be seen both in language (the constant discussion of education as an "investment" in "skills" necessary for "improving the workforce," instead of a guaranteed right for all citizens) and in policy (proposing tax cuts for the middle class instead of social spending even when taxes are at some of their lowest rates in decades ; compromis[ing] in advance on major policy proposals like the 2009 stimulus; advocating piecemeal technocratic reforms to healthcare and finance instead of deeper, fundamental reform; etc.).
With their opponents on the defensive and partially compliant with their agenda, the Republicans continued to push further right under the leadership of Newt Gingrich and his "Contract with America." The Democrats started to dig their heels in and push back a little for the first time during the later part of the George W. Bush administration as his (and the wars') approval ratings sank, and they now seem to have more or less stabilized. An increasingly loud progressive coalition of activists and advocates continues to push for ideas like single-payer healthcare, often dismissed as radical despite both being an international norm and the explicit goal of many mainstream Democratic politicians before neoliberalism's rise. The Democratic party establishment, on the contrary, is largely fine holding on to ideological territory that is, in certain areas, to the right of where it was several decades ago.
With the establishment of both major political parties accepting neoliberal ideology, it became default wisdom among economic, political, and media elites. Because the most powerful class of America accepted it as fact, it was instilled into the American consciousness as "common sense" that can't be seriously challenged. Ideas in direct opposition to neoliberalism were largely marginalized, and as a result, much of our modern debate now takes place within its bounds. Today, though, this marginalization is rapidly disappearing.
Today, we are witnessing the collapse of neoliberalism's "common sense" status. Republican elites took neoliberalism being one of their root organizing principles for granted while running campaigns using dog-whistle racism, never realizing that they were attracting a base of voters who hated immigrants a lot more than they hated regulation. The Republicans have drifted so far to the right that unabashed nationalists like Trump can now take the lead of the party, even as he espouses racist xenophobia-inspired protectionism that are in conflict with the neoliberal ideals of the party's business wing.
Even during their neoliberalization, the Democrats always had a left-wing occupied by social democrats. Today they largely occupy the Congressional Progressive Caucus. They were empowered by both opposition to the Iraq War late in the Bush era and the subsequent economic crash that occurred as a result of neoliberal deregulation of the finance sector. Obama ran as a semi-progressive but governed as a standard Democrat, leaving progressive disappointment and frustration to rise to the surface again once a primary was held to determine who would be the Democratic candidate after Obama: thus, the Bernie phenomenon.Globalism & Neoliberalism
It seems as though the extinction of neoliberalism is embedded in the formula of neoliberalism itself. Neoliberalism and accompanying globalization have resulted in inequality and poverty for significant portions of the population, leaving many people economically impoverished and politically alienated. This prompts an inevitable political reaction, angry and populist in nature. The center-left (ex. Hillary Clinton) and center-right (ex. Jeb Bush) sing the praises of neoliberal globalization, while the left (ex. Bernie Sanders) vigorously attacks the "neoliberal" part of it, and the far-right (ex. Donald Trump) vigorously attack the "globalization" part of it. Today, progressives dislike neoliberalism, but also believe that the far-right's disdain for all forms of globalization is a distraction and misidentification of the root issue, using foreigners and people of color as scapegoats. The problem is not globalization, but globalization implemented in such a way so as to benefit the wealthy and powerful.
Neoliberalism is a powerful ideology and way of looking at the world. The neoliberal views most government involvement in the economy as harmful, and seeks to leave social problems to be solved by private enterprise and markets whenever possible. This is an idea that, over the last several decades, has become widely accepted to varying degrees by people across the political spectrum, and as such has been embedded into modern government and public policy.
When discussing modern politics, a recognition of the role neoliberalism has played in fueling massive increases in inequality and corrupting our democracy is vital.
A number of other industrialized countries have undergone neoliberalization on roughly the same time frame as the US, and are now experiencing similar backlashes: the U.K., neoliberalized under Margaret Thatcher and others, now has UKIP on its right and Jeremy Corbyn and social democratic Scottish nationalists on its left. France has witnessed the rise of not only the National Front on its far-right, but also the rise of populist socialists like Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Germany has the AfD and Pegida on its right and Die Linke on its left. New Zealand has New Zealand First. Sweden has the Sweden Democrats. Spain has Podemos. Additionally, backlash against "Washington Consensus" neoliberalism in Latin America contributed to a revitalization of left-populism in many countries. Though there are some nations that have experienced some form of neoliberalism without such political effects, a definite connection between neoliberalism and the emergence of anti-neoliberal populism certainly seems to exist.
Mar 04, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Eric in Kansas , Mar 4 2020 5:00 utc | 122Okay, here's a little speculative fiction.
The setup: US national politics is gang warfare. The Crips vs. the Bloods. Two criminal enterprises with roughly the same aims and tactics, fighting for turf. With minor differences of style. Trump upsets the leadership of the Bloods in 2016, but it turns out that, outrageous as he is, he is good for business, so all the Bloods but the wimps with a weak stomach fall in behind him.
The Crips are bloated and in decline. A bunch of naïve, starry eyed nobodies mount a campaign to take the Crips legit. The old Crips are irritated that they have to take time out from grifting so as to squash the upstart pests.
That is where I see us today. But let's just suppose that the old Crips are not quite as pathetic as they look. Let's imagine that they actually learned something in 2016. It was supposed to be easy for them in 2016, and they were surprised. So they have had four years to hone their election-stealing skills. And most of the traditional election stealing organizations in this country seem largely to hate Trump.
So let's posit that the FBI & CIA, or whoever it is manages to prop up Biden, and succeed in stealing the election for him. Who would object to that?
Yes, exactly – all the Trump die-hards, and 'tribal' gang bangers would object. It could get really nasty.
And so far, I have not seen any evidence that any of the characters that would be willing to play such a gambit have any inclination to give a shit for the consequences for us little people.
Jackrabbit , Mar 4 2020 5:23 utc | 125Eric in Kansas @121: gang warfarekiwiklown , Mar 4 2020 8:32 utc | 141
Not two gangs but one Deep State political mafia with two families running a protection racket (MIC), prostitution (media propaganda, psyops), drugs (industry incentives), and gambling (overseas adventurism)...
... aka "Tammany on the Potomac."
Wikipedia describes Tammany as :The Tammany Society emerged as the center for Democratic-Republican Party politics in the city in the early 19th century. After 1854, the Society expanded its political control even further by earning the loyalty of the city's rapidly expanding immigrant community, which functioned as its base of political capital. The business community appreciated its readiness, at moderate cost, to cut through red tape and legislative mazes to facilitate rapid economic growth... Tammany Hall also served as an engine for graft and political corruption, perhaps most infamously under William M. "Boss" Tweed in the mid-19th century....
[Tweed's biographer wrote:]It's hard not to admire the skill behind Tweed's system ... The Tweed ring at its height was an engineering marvel, strong and solid, strategically deployed to control key power points: the courts, the legislature, the treasury and the ballot box. Its frauds had a grandeur of scale and an elegance of structure: money-laundering, profit sharing and organization.
!!trailertrash @6 --- Americans have been railroaded into endless squabbling about voting and democracy instead of demanding good governance. How does choosing between two similarly corrupt parties deliver good governance?
Voting in the lesser evil is still choosing evil.
What does it profit a nation to have voting every 4 years when excrement covers her sidewalks? and vets suicide themselves daily? and soldiers get raped daily by fellow soldiers?
Mar 03, 2020 | www.commondreams.org
"Huge surprise medical bills [are] going to make sure people with symptoms don't get tested. That is bad for everyone." by Jake Johnson, staff writer Public health advocates, experts, and others are demanding that the federal government cover coronavirus testing and all related costs after several reports detailed how Americans in recent weeks have been saddled with exorbitant bills following medical evaluations.
Sarah Kliff of the New York Times reported Saturday that Pennsylvania native Frank Wucinski "found a pile of medical bills" totaling $3,918 waiting for him and his three-year-old daughter after they were released from government-mandated quarantine at Marine Corps Air Station in Miramar, California.
"My question is why are we being charged for these stays, if they were mandatory and we had no choice in the matter?" asked Wucinski, who was evacuated by the U.S. government last month from Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak.
"I assumed it was all being paid for," Wucinski told the Times . "We didn't have a choice. When the bills showed up, it was just a pit in my stomach, like, 'How do I pay for this?'"
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is not billing patients for coronavirus testing, according to Business Insider . "But there are other charges you might have to pay, depending on your insurance plan, or lack thereof," Business Insider noted. "A hospital stay in itself could be costly and you would likely have to pay for tests for other viruses or conditions."
Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University, told the Times that
"the most important rule of public health is to gain the cooperation of the population."
"There are legal, moral, and public health reasons not to charge the patients,"
Congress needs to immediately pass a bill appropriating funding to cover 100% of the cost of all coronavirus testing & care within the United States. We will not have a chance at containing it otherwise. @tedlieu - as my rep, can you please ensure this is brought up?
-- William LeGate (@williamlegate) March 2, 2020
In the case of the Wucinskis, Kliff reported that "the ambulance company that transported [them] charged the family $2,598 for taking them to the hospital."
"An additional $90 in charges came from radiologists who read the patients' X-ray scans and do not work for the hospital," Kliff noted.
The CDC declined to respond when Kliff asked whether the federal government would cover the costs for patients like the Wucinskis.
The Intercept 's Robert Mackey wrote last Friday that the Wucinskis' situation spotlights "how the American government's response to a public health emergency, like trying to contain a potential coronavirus epidemic, could be handicapped by relying on a system built around private hospitals and for-profit health insurance providers."
We should be doing everything we can to encourage people with #COVIDー19 symptoms to come forward. Huge surprise medical bills is going to make sure people with symptoms don't get tested. That is bad for everyone, regardless of if you are insured. https://t.co/KOUKTSFVzD
-- Saikat Chakrabarti (@saikatc) March 1, 2020
Play this tape to the end and you find people not going to the hospital even if they're really sick. The federal government needs to announce that they'll pay for all of these bills https://t.co/HfyBFBXhja
Last week, the Miami Herald reported that Osmel Martinez Azcue "received a notice from his insurance company about a claim for $3,270" after he visited a local hospital fearing that he contracted coronavirus during a work trip to China.
"He went to Jackson Memorial Hospital, where he said he was placed in a closed-off room," according to the Herald . "Nurses in protective white suits sprayed some kind of disinfectant smoke under the door before entering, Azcue said. Then hospital staff members told him he'd need a CT scan to screen for coronavirus, but Azcue said he asked for a flu test first."
Azcue tested positive for the flu and was discharged. "Azcue's experience shows the potential cost of testing for a disease that epidemiologists fear may develop into a public health crisis in the U.S.," the Herald noted.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, highlighted Azcue's case in a tweet last Friday.
"The coronavirus reminds us that we are all in this together," Sanders wrote. "We cannot allow Americans to skip doctor's visits over outrageous bills. Everyone should get the medical care they need without opening their wallet -- as a matter of justice and public health."
Last week, as Common Dreams reported , Sanders argued that the coronavirus outbreak demonstrates the urgent need for Medicare for All.
The coronavirus reminds us that we are all in this together. We cannot allow Americans to skip doctor's visits over outrageous bills.
Everyone should get the medical care they need without opening their wallet -- as a matter of justice and public health. https://t.co/c4WQMDESHU
-- Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 28, 2020
The number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the U.S. surged by more than two dozen over the weekend, bringing the total to 89 as the Trump administration continues to publicly downplay the severity of the outbreak.
Dr. Matt McCarthy, a staff physician at NewYorkPresbyterian Hospital, said in an appearance on CNBC 's "Squawk Box" Monday morning that testing for the coronavirus is still not widely available.
"Before I came here this morning, I was in the emergency room seeing patients," McCarthy said. "I still do not have a rapid diagnostic test available to me."
"I'm here to tell you, right now, at one of the busiest hospitals in the country, I don't have it at my finger tips," added McCarthy. "I still have to make my case, plead to test people. This is not good. We know that there are 88 cases in the United States. There are going to be hundreds by middle of week. There's going to be thousands by next week. And this is a testing issue."
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Harry_Pjotr 13hSmerl fern 12h
Did anyone expect the unconscionable greed of capitalism to cease when a public health crisis emerges? This is just testing for the virus, wait until a vaccine has been developed so expensive that the majority of the US populace can not afford it at all and people are dropping like flies. Wall Street, never-the-less, will continue to have its heydays
A wall street bank or private predator may own your emergency room. A surprise bill may await your emergency treatment above insurance payments or in some instances all of the bill.
An effort was made recently in congress to stop surprise billings but enough dems joined repubs to kill it. More important to keep campaign dollars flowing than keep people alive. fern Smerl 12h I know emergency rooms are being purchased by organizations like Tenet (because they are some of the most expensive levels of care) and M.D.s provided by large agencies. I'm not as up on this as I should be but a friend of mine tells me that some of this is illegal. I have received bills that were later discharged by challenge. This is worth investigating further. Atlas oldie 11h Hmmmm A virus that overwhelmingly kills the elderly and/or those with pre-exisitng conditions.
Sounds like a medical insurance companies wet dream. As well as .gov social security/medicare wet dream.
The very idea that the defense and "Homeland" security budgets are bloated and additional funding approved year after year but the citizens of this country are not afforded 100% health coverage In a time of global health crisis that could become a pandemic. And as has been stated, the unconscionable idea suggested that a possible vaccine (a long way away or perhaps not developed at all) might not be affordable to the workers who pay the taxes that fund the government? That's insane.
Another example of "American Exceptionalism." China doesn't charge its coronavirus patients, neither does South Korea. I guess they are simply backward countries.
I own my own home after years of hard work paying it off. It's the only thing of value, besides my old truck, that I have. If I get the virus, I will stay home and try to treat it the best I can. I can't afford to go to the hospital and pay thousands in medical bills, with the chance that they'll come after my possessions. America, the land of the _______. Fill in the blank. (Hint: it's no longer free).
fern 1 Barton 11h
There are other ways to protect your home. Homesteading or living trust. I'm not good at this but I know there are ways to do it. Hopefully, it would never come to that but outcomes are not certain even with treatment in this case.
Giovanna-Lepore oldie 11h
As someone who lost a mother at 5 years old I can sympathize with your grief in losing a daughter-in-law and especially seeing her four children orphaned. However, I think you miss the point here: This is about we becoming a society invested in each others welfare and not a company town that commodifies everything including the health and well being of us all.
fern 1 Giovanna-Lepore 11h
I'm going by: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129/text
As a revision it is better but flawed. It is a cost containment bill based on the same research as the republican plan with global budgets and block grants.
Edited: I encourage you to read this:
-ttps://www.rand.org/blog/2018/10/misconceptions-about-medicare-for-all.html Giovanna-Lepore 10h oldie:
Higher education is not free but they do need to become free for the students and payed by us as a society.
Part D is a scam, a Republican scam also supported by corporate democrats because of its profit motive and its privatization
Medicare only covers 80% and does not cover eye and dental care and older folks especially need these services. Medicaid helps but there are limits and one cannot necessarily use it where one needs to go. Expanded, Improved Medicare For All is a vast improvement. because it covers everyone in one big pool and, therefore, much more dignified than the rob Paul to pay peter system we have.
Social Security too can be improved. Why should it simply be based on the income of the person which means that a person working in a low paying job in a capitalist system gone wild with greed will often work until they die.
Pell grants can be eliminated when we have what the French have: publicly supported education for everyone.
The demise of unions certainly did not help but it was part of the long strategy of the Right to privatize everything to the enrichment of the few.
Yunzer SuspiraDeProfundis 10h
Thank goodness for the "/s". Poe's Law you know
The overall competence that Canada is handling this outbreak, compared to the USA, is stark. First world (Canada) versus third-world (USA). Testing is practically available for free, to any suspect person, sick or not, as Toronto alone can run 1000 tests a day and have results in 4 hours. That is far more than all the US's capacity for 330 million people.
I wonder how long before Canada closes its borders to USAns? Me and my wife (both in a vulnerable age/medical group) should seriously consider fleeing to my brother's place in Toronto as the first announced cases in Pittsburgh are probably only days away. What about our poor cat though? We could try to smuggle her across the border, but she is a loud and talkative kitty
Greenwich 10hSeeker 9h Greenwich:
Don't want to discourage anyone from any protective measures but the "low down" from my veggie store today was that a lot of health professionals shop there and they think it's being hyped by media. Did get this from my NJ Sen. Menendez
Center for Disease and Control and Prevention (CDC)
There is currently no vaccine to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The best way to prevent illness is to avoid being exposed to this virus. However, everyday preventive actions can help prevent the spread of respiratory diseases:
- Wash your hands often
- Avoid close contact with people who are sick.
- Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth.
- Stay home when you are sick.
- Cover your cough or sneeze with a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash.
- For more information : htps://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/prevention-treatment.html
- How it spreads : The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person. It may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads. [Read more.]
- Symptoms : For confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, reported illnesses have ranged from mild symptoms to severe illness and death. Symptoms can include fever, cough, and shortness of breath.
Don't want to discourage anyone from any protective measures but the "low down" from my veggie store today was that a lot of health professionals shop there and they think it's being hyped by media.
I agree it is being hyped by the media to the point of being fear mongering. At the same time it is being ignored by the administration to such an extent that really little almost nothing is being done. At some point the two together will create an even bigger problem.
It is like the old adage: "Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you." Each over/under reach in considering the reality of the situation has its own problem, which multiply when combined. Every morning when I wake up I say a little atheistic prayer to myself before I get out of bed: "Another day and for better or worse...".
Well, two reported here in Florida tonight. One in my county, one in the county next door. And more of the "we already knew, but told you late". One person checked into the hospital on Wednesday. We hear it Monday night. Both were ignored far a long time it seems, and 84 in particular are being watched (roommates, friends, hospital workers not alerted for several days, the usual). But no one knows every place they had been since becoming infected.
Oh, and they have tested a handful of people. No worry?
I can't see anyway that this level of incompetency is an accident. Spring break is just starting usually a 100's of thousand tourist bonanza.
So the question is do they want to kill us, or just keep us in fear?
I think the later. But the end result is a crap shoot. So once again, it is a gamble with our lives.
The business of America is business. Sometimes that can go too far and this is one of those times. Making money from the loss, distress, harm and suffering of others is perverse beyond belief.
Mar 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
chu teh , Mar 4 2020 0:50 utc | 80Tonymike | Mar 3 2020 18:08 utc | 26
re ... Your house foreclosed upon by shady bank: naked capitalism, .0001% paid on interest savings: naked capitalism, poor wages: naked capitalism, dangerous workplace: naked capitalism, etc. ...
"naked capitalism" is not a clear description. Consider using "predatory capitalism", which clearly describes what it is.
Here's the Wiki dictionary definition:
1. relating to or denoting an animal or animals preying naturally on others.
synonyms: predacious, carnivorous, hunting, raptorial, ravening;
Example: "predatory birds".
2. seeking to exploit or oppress others.
synonyms: exploitative, wolfish, rapacious, greedy, acquisitive, avaricious
Example: "I could see a predatory gleam in his eyes"
Note where the word comes from:
The Latin "praedator", in English meaning "plunderer".
And "plunderer" helps the reader understand and perhaps recognize what is happening.
Every plunderer understands.
Mar 01, 2020 | off-guardian.org
Joerg ,It is an illusion to talk of "the Left" and "the Right" anymore, because the USA have become outright criminal: A Mafia-system ruled by some syndicates.
Think of this enormous sum of 23 (I believe) trillion Dollars missing in the Pentagon. And the House even decided to not research where this money went! To this see https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1407-mark-skidmore-on-the-pentagons-missing-trillions/
Or think of the Ukraine and Joe and Hunter Biden (and other corrupt persons from the EU). Author Bill Martin mentions this above with :"dirty business in Ukraine".
But its not only about corruption. Now it's also about a murder-attempt -- as every Mafia would never hesitate to execute. And Western media doesn't report this.
This has happened: Because of Joe Biden's quid-pro-quo demand to former Ukrainian president Poroshenko (no billions of Dollars from the US, if Shokin was not fired) state prosecutor Shokin was then fired. But some months ago there had now also been a poison-attack on Shokin.
And now Shokin goes after Joe Biden -- and he must, if he wants to survive!: To this on the site https://youtube.com/channel/UCdeMVChrumySxV9N1w0Au-w There click the video "JOE BIDEN, UKRAINE AND VIKTOR SHOKIN MERCURY POISONING".
Mar 01, 2020 | off-guardian.org
Savorywill Yes, I agree completely (though I would have to study the materials more carefully to fully understand it all). It is mentioned that one accomplishment of Trump was his take-down of the Bush dynasty for the lies spun justifying the Iraq war. It was in S. Caroline that Trump did this, in a debate of Republican candidates at the start of the election campaign in 2016. I knew nothing about Trump at the time, having lived in Japan and Australia for many years, never saw the Apprentice or even heard of him. So, when he started snipping at Jeb saying that Jeb's brother George, led America in the biggest mistake in US history by starting the war on Iraq, and the audience started booing, to which Trump replied, 'oh, those are just paid for lobbyists – I don't need them as my campaign is self-funded', it was absolutely astonishing and I could hardly believe my ears, or eyes. Yet, there it was on TV, one of the first debates of the Republican party for their candidate. I then saw that Trump was, indeed, something very different from what we had ever seen in American politics.
I was rapt when he defeated Hillary, and completely surprised as it was so unexpected. It did give me faith in America again, to some degree. Here is the woman who orchestrated the criminal destruction of Libya, and then laughed about the horrific murder of Gaddafi, who was only trying to provide a decent society for Libyan citizens and deal with the madness of the forces around him. What happened to him, and to Libya, was just so heartbreaking, and she thought it was a big joke and tried to do the same in Syria. So, I was thrilled when she got beaten. Not that everything Trump has done since then has met with my approval, but he seems to be winding down the wars as he promised and I don't mind listening to his speeches at the rallies, which I sometimes do watch. I particularly like when he went to a farming area in California and signed a bill enabling local farmers to access water, something they were unable to do because of various regulations. I never heard of any other presidents so hands-on with their involvement with such things and I thought his speech in India, recently, was incredible. I couldn't stand listening to Hillary for any more than a few minutes. Even Obama never really rang true to me. He would say things like 'change we can believe in', or 'hope for more hope', vague platitudes like that that didn't really have many specifics. I can understand Clint Eastwood's speech talking to the empty chair (representing Obama) at the Republican convention in 2012, actually. Obama seems like a media projection, or something. Hard to identify or see him as an actual person.
sharon marlowe ,"Not that everything Trump has done since then has met with my approval, but he seems to be winding down the wars as he promised"
What is "winding down the wars"? Do mean that you stopped paying attention?
Savorywill ,Seems like they are winding down, don't you think? Just today I read the the Taliban just signed an agreement to that effect, to finally finish that war going on for nearly 20 years, no closer to success since the start. The US is not overtly involved in the Syrian conflict as well as it seems to be trying to get out of Iraq.
Had Hillary won, she would have gone full bore into Syria and probably would have made matters much, much worse. She is a thorough warmonger, her track record clearly demonstrated that.
sharon marlowe ,First, an attempted assassination-by-drone on President Maduro of Venezuela happened. Then Trump dropped the largest conventional bomb on Afghanistan, with a mile-wide radius. Then Trump named Juan Guido as the new President of Venezuela in an overt coup. Then he bombed Syria over a fake chemical weapons claim. He bombed it before even an investigation was launched. Then the Trump regime orchestrated a military coup in Bolivia. Then he claimed that he was pulling out of Syria, but instead sent U.S. troops to take over Syrian oil fields. trump then assassinated Gen. Solemeni. Then he claimed that he will leave Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi government asked the U.S. to leave, and Trump rejected the request. The Trump regime has tried orchestrating a coup in Iran, and a coup in Hong Kong. He expelled Russian diplomats en masse for the Skripal incident in England, before an investigation. He has sanctioned Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and Venezuela. He has bombed Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Those are the things I'm aware of, but what else Trump has done in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America you can research if you wish. And now, the claim of leaving Afghanistan is as ridiculous as when he claimed to be leaving Syria and Iraq.
"winding down the wars" makes no sense.
Antonym ,Trump just signed a peace pact with the Taliban. As they are basically CIA -ISI irregulars he got the green light from Langley.
He needs this gesture for his re-election campaign.
Savorywill ,Yes, what you say is right. However, he did warn both the Syrian and Russian military of the attack in the first instance, so no casualties, and in the second attack, he announced that the missiles had been launched before they hit the target, again resulting in no casualties. When the US drone was shot down by an Iranian missile, he considered retaliation. But, when advised of likely casualties, he called it off saying that human lives are more valuable than the cost of the drone. Yes, he did authorize the assassination of the Iranian general, and that was very bad. His claims that the general had organized the placement of roadside bombs that had killed US soldiers rings rather hollow, considering those shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place.
I am definitely not stating that he is perfect and doesn't do objectionable things. And he has authorized US forces to control the oil wells, which is against international law, but at least US soldiers are not actively engaged in fighting the Syrian government, something Hillary set in motion. However, the military does comprise a huge percentage of the US economy and there have to be reasons, and enemies, to justify its existence, so his situation as president must be very difficult, not a job I would want, that is for sure.
Petra Liverani ,The assassination (or other means of disappearance) of Soleimani seems to have been a collusion between Trump and Rouhani who wasn't a fan of the guy and the evidence shows that the crash of PS-752 was staged.
I do like this video, Seats and People, by Peekay and Meta-Scriptors
sharon marlowe ,There were at least nine people killed when Trump bombed Douma.
Only a psychopath would kill people because one of its spy drones was shot down. You don't get points for considering killing people for it and then changing your mind.
People should get over Hillary and pay attention to what Trump has been doing. Why even mention what Hillary would have done in Syria, then proceed to be an apologist for what Trump has done around the world in just three years? Trump has been quite a prolific imperialist in such a short time. A second term could well put him above Bush and Obama as the 21st century's most horrible leaders on earth.
Who has done the shit under the Trump Regime (lol Regime! You lot)
Trump – not.
Regime – yes.
If you think that the potus is the omnipotent ruler of everything he certainly seems to be having some problems with his minions in the CIA, NSA, FBI..State Dept etc.
The potus is best described (by Assad actually) as a CEO of a board of directors appointed by the shareholders who collectively determine their OWN interests.
Your gaslighting ain't succeeding round here – Regime! So desperate, so so sad 🤣
sharon marlowe ,Are you seven years old? There's no such thing as omnipotent rulers. I said Trump was the leader of the U.S. regime. That's how it's said in the real world;)
Dungroanin ,Right – and the regime of which he is the leader of has been trying to usurp him from day one, correct?
So in your world view Trump has been trying to overthrow himself?
That all the Russiagate, Ukrainegate – coupgates in short are all Trump doing it to himself!!!
Who is being childish by conflating all of that?
Koba ,He's sent more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan he strayed several coups in Latin America and was game for taking on the dprk until they got nukes and wants to bomb Iran! Winding down?!
Dungroanin ,Yeah yeah and 'he' gave Maduro 7 days to let their kid takeover in Venezuela! And built a wall. And got rid of obamacare and started a nuke war with Rocketman and and and
In 2016 Trumps role (whether he fully realised it or not) was to get rid of all the existing Republican candidates that may have stopped Hillary getting her crown.
He and the Clinton family were old friends in NY and he played golf with Bill regularly.
What you haven't identified in what you saw in 2016 is the choreographed pantomime villainy of The Donald during the debates with Hillary.
It was designed for him to lose appeal and keep GOP voters at home.
The reason Hillary lost :
The stitch up of Bernie and his supporters as revealed by the DNC email leaks which kept them from voting for her;
Her failure to campaign effectively being a cold hearted murdering bitch that couldn't empathise with a kitten;
A load of ordinary poorish Americans who got a bit pissed at being labelled 'deplorable' by her.
Simple as that.
Donald was as suprised as anyone to have actually won that night – he had to go chat to the Clintons and say "what the fuck am I supposed to do now? I have a whole load of Apprentice episodes lined up to film, and Hotels & Golf courses to build!"
Obviously he couldn't say it must be a mistake and his friends the Clintons should be allowed back into the White House as planned – that wouldn't have washed – so he ended up in the Oval Office.
As potus he would have to make decisions which no one including the Clintons could force him to do anything HE ultimately didn't want to do. No matter how many of the stooges imposed upon him tried to get away with murder.
He quickly realised there was some nasty goings on that he was supposed to rubberstamp and he rebelled against it at his inauguration speech which gave the establishment a slap across the face as Pres George W Bush quipped to his dad PresGeorge Bush
"That was some weird shit"
And all else followed the yellow brick road to right here, right now.
The Left has fallen into reactionary insanity
The other main proof for the above: they support Islamism just because the "alt-right" opposes it.
Islamism kicks all the Left's causes in the teeth: equality only for Muslims, as all the others are despicable kaffirs; misogyny to the power of 2; LGTB rights below zero; nothing against shark capitalism in the Koran.
The Iranian Left was massacred in 1988 by the Iranian Islamists.
Dungroanin ,Antzy the Bush's from Grandaddy Prescot to the CIA JFK killers and Pres George Senior to Pres Dubya to all current scions are bestties with the most extreme form of islamists in hostory the Wahhabists who enable the Saudis to control Saudi Arabia and it's wealth – they have even been referred to as the most Likudist state outside of Israel by Nuttyyahoo!
Koba ,The Jew defender has spoken! Show me this support for Islamism! Im yet to find even a mainstream or fringe left wing party support that at all! Good goy a shekel has been deposited into your account
MASTER OF UNIVE ,The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars.
Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business.
Trump is not an asset.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,Okay, I'll admit that he is a Russian Federation asset in so far as he is Putin's & Russian Federation Intelligence asset fodder that Putin can utilize at will whenever he desires but aside from being the biggest dumb arse in the Western Empire he is really an ignorant ignoramus when you drill right down to it.
I support the USA Deep State conspiracy to rid the good people of the United States of America of the Orange Oaf conundrum. The global business community would rather restore business fundamentals IMHO.
As MOU my perspective is absolute, sorry.
Like Josef Stalin I too have a reputation to uphold.
Joerg ,It is an illusion to talk of "the Left" and "the Right" anymore, because the USA have become outright criminal: A Mafia-system ruled by some syndicates.
Think of this enormous sum of 23 (I believe) trillion Dollars missing in the Pentagon. And the House even decided to not research where this money went! To this see https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1407-mark-skidmore-on-the-pentagons-missing-trillions/
Or think of the Ukraine and Joe and Hunter Biden (and other corrupt persons from the EU). Author Bill Martin mentions this above with :"dirty business in Ukraine".
But its not only about corruption. Now it's also about a murder-attempt – as every Mafia would never hesitate to execute. And Western media doesn't report this.
This has happened: Because of Joe Biden's quid-pro-quo demand to former Ukrainian president Poroshenko (no billions of Dollars from the US, if Shokin was not fired) state prosecutor Shokin was then fired. But some months ago there had now also been a poison-attack on Shokin. And now Shokin goes after Joe Biden – and he must, if he wants to survive!: To this on the site https://youtube.com/channel/UCdeMVChrumySxV9N1w0Au-w There click the video "JOE BIDEN, UKRAINE AND VIKTOR SHOKIN MERCURY POISONING".
paul ,Trump, Sanders and Corbyn were all in their own way agents of creative destruction.
Trump tapped into the popular discontent of millions of Americans who realised that the system no longer even pretended to work in their interests, and were not prepared to be diverted down the Identity Politics Rabbit Hole.
The Deep State was outraged that he had disrupted their programme by stealing Clinton's seat in the game of Musical Chairs. Being the most corrupt, dishonest and mendacious political candidate in all US history (despite some pretty stiff opposition) was supposed to be outweighed by her having a vagina. The Deplorables failed to sign up for the programme.
Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were, lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the world to see. This cannot be undone.
For all his pandering to Adelson and the Zionist Mafia, for all his Gives to Netanyahu, Trump has failed to deliver on the Big Ticket Items. Syria was supposed to have been invaded by now, with Hillary cackling demonically over Assad's death as she did over Gaddafi, and rapidly moving on to the main event with Iran. They will not forgive him for this. They realise they are under severe time pressure. It took them a century to gain their stranglehold over America, and this is a wasting asset. America is in terminal decline, and may soon be unable to fulfil its ordained role as dumb goy muscle serving Zionist interests. And the parasite will find it difficult to find a replacement host.
paul ,Sanders was shafted in 2016 by the corrupt DNC machine, and he is being shafted again.
He will probably be sidelined in favour of some third rate hack like Buttplug, or some other synthetic, manufactured nonentity.
If he isn't, and by some miracle does secure the nomination, they will fail to support him and just allow him to be defeated by Trump. It doesn't matter.
There are millions of decent people who have long been persuaded to play the game of Lesser Evils. They will be as disenchanted as was Trump's Base by a transparently corrupt, rigged system, and finally withdraw their support.
This has to be seen as a positive development.
They can no longer paper over the cracks.
paul ,Likewise, there are more than a few crumbs of comfort to be drawn from the smearing and destruction of Corbyn.
As in America, it forced the Deep State to step out from behind the curtain and take direct control. The Zionist wire pullers had to step out into the spotlight and reveal the true extent of their domination.
The endless treachery and backstabbing of the Blairites have shown the Labour Party to be a lost cause, a dead end, a waste of time, effort and energy, and a waste of a man's rations, making way for something more worthwhile. This is another positive development.
Koba ,Paul the people playing the lesser of two evils game aren't good people. They pretend they are. That's it. In a nutshell.
Dungroanin ,Well Bill you make great points especially around the Impeachment minutiae – Eric the Schiffleur, Paul, a genuine legal expert, Schiffs shape changing and snakeeyed mesmerising , the levitation of Bolton into a Saviour? Holly shit!! Yanks eat some nasty foods no wonder there is great obesity (gratuitous I know).
BUT Bill, you will insist on working the old long con – the Left/Right imaginary one dimensional divide.
There is only a 3-D Top-Bottom construct in the world in a roughly Pyramidal 'con' shape which shifts its peaks and size in time (4D).
It is the super rich oligarch owning Pathocracy in the hidden heights and their visible representative Kings and plutocrats at the top and their circles of diminishing powers and affluence down to the majority of humans below – kept in the dirt and slavery through indenture where they can't by shear violence of slave masters and dog soldiers.
There is only that top – bottom, squashed by bought priests and philosophers and 'economists' into first a 2-D triangle and then squashed into a 1-D line that people are told is left and right. The great owners of everything having disappeared of that scale but represented by their ciphers:-
Clintons / Obama are Left – Bush's / Trump are right.
Crap – they are just pawns in the top down 4D game trying to claw up the peaks – no wonder Donald named his son Baron – it may be his way of giving the finger to the glass ceiling he aims to shatter.
Bernie is a threat to that pyramid as Jeremy was here in the UK.
They had to stop Jeremy at any cost and the Judaeo-phobic smear was massive, added to the terrorist smear in the 2017 election. Along with the he was both a Brexiteer and anti Brexiteer smear and a Commie!
It was still not quite certain so the US openly interfered in rhe UK election with Pompeo's Gauntlet to stop Corbyn – where the fuck is the concerned democratic purveyors of the US on that election interference by the Sec of State and a pressure group upon a another sovereign country ?
Where are the judges? The IG's ? The glitterati? The Intellectuals ?
They FIXED the postal ballots to make sure – even after making sure a unprecedented winter, December, short daylight, prexmas date to minimise turnout.
Yes they did.
Sanders looks like he is going to get the gauntlet but being Jewish to start with – it will be harder to throw the Judaeophobe mud at him – so the shit thrown is, COMMUNIST ! It has already started, but to make sure the election will also be rigged, whether via the delegates or by the 'hanging chard de nous jour'.
Only a massive turnout and careful independent international election inspectors would ever get near that – though they didn't stop the Bolivian coup by the CIA did they?
Anyway Trump has a trump card he will play anyday soon – a NEW YALTA – which will turn him into a giant statesman of the world stage and he'll stomp home for his second term – for these above in the Pyramid better the devil they know and give Baron a baronial peak of his own snd Donald his pound if flesh!
George Mc ,Haven't you just agreed with him here?
He thinks the left died in the 1960s, over a half century ago. It's pretty simple to identify a leftist: anti-imperialist/ anti-capitalist. The Democrats are imperialists. People who vote for the Democrats and Republicans are imperialists. This article is a confused mess, that's my whole point;)
If the Democrats and Republicans (and those who vote for them) are imperialists (which they are) then the left are indeed dead – at least as far as political representation goes. Although to be sure, that makes his point confused to say the least. He seems to be attempting to drum up support for Sanders who, by his own logic, isn't going to make a damn bit of difference (any more than Corbyn would have made had HE been elected in the UK).
George Mc ,Truth be told, I usually tend to glaze over when I see articles about Trump's impeachment. Or indeed articles about American politics in general. And I see the Corbyn fiasco as the ultimate indication that UK politics is just another rigged show. The ultimate irony being, as I've said, that Corbyn would not have made a difference even if elected anyway. The fact that the media went so ruthlessly after him is an indication that even the appearance of socialism is too much for them. But I feel that, in the spirit of "What else can we write about?", we will continue to have articles on the minutiae of shenanigans between Boris and Patel etc. It seems to me that the only hope we now have is from events outside the political system which threaten to burst the charade apart.
George Mc ,I think that if Corbyn had been elected, there would have been a severe limit as to what he could have achieved. (While of course, the media would be going into meltdown about plans for a new Auschwitz on the M1 etc.) However – I grant that the very election of such an "extreme" figure would cause a similar meltdown behind the scenes as it would lead to the deadliest thing of all: hope! It would have been a signal that an extensive part – even the majority – of the British public were sick of this neoliberal cancer. Thus, while the practical effect of a Corbyn victory would have been limited, the psychological effect (the damage done to the showbiz façade) would have been profound.
sharon marlowe ,"Truth be told, I usually tend to glaze over when I see articles about Trump's impeachment. Or indeed articles about American politics in general."
lol So do I:)
It definitely irked me that such an article appeared here. It looked like a U.S.-TV-political-pundit-monologue thing.
Jan 16, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
fajensen , , January 14, 2020 at 11:13 am
Gina Haspel? She is probably equally good with a handgun, an ice pick and a pair of pliers.
curious euro , , January 14, 2020 at 11:49 am
Is she effective? What has she done to make her a spy mastermind? She is obviously a torturer, but is that a qualification in any way useful to be a intelligence agency boss?
I have the suspicion Haspel was elevated to their office by threatening "I know where all the bodies are buried (literally) and if you don't make me boss, I will tell". Blackmail can helping a career lots if successful.
Thuto , , January 14, 2020 at 11:18 am
The outcomes of incompetence and malicious intent are sometimes indistinguishable from one another. With the people Trump has surrounded himself with, horrible, nasty outcomes are par for the course because these guys are both incompetent and chock full of malicious intent. Instead of draining the swamp, he's gone and filled it with psychotic sociopaths.
Jan 21, 2020 | fair.org
Even when critical of US actions, media commentary on recent US bombings and assassinations in the Middle East is premised on the assumption that the US has the right to use violence (or the threat of it) to assert its will, anytime, anywhere. Conversely, corporate media coverage suggests that any countermeasure -- such as resistance to the US presence in Iraq -- is inherently illegitimate, criminal and/or terroristic.Iranian puppeteers
One step in this dance is depicting US military forces in Iraq as innocent bystanders under attack by sadistic Iranian puppetmasters. Media analysis of the US murder of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani consistently asserted that he was "an architect of international terrorism responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans" ( New York Times , 1/3/20 ) or "a terrorist with the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands" ( Washington Post , 1/7/20 ). According to Leon Panetta ( Washington Post , 1/7/20 ), a former Defense secretary and CIA director,
The death of Soleimani should not be mourned, given his responsibility for the killing of thousands of innocent people and hundreds of US military personnel over the years.
There is little evidence for this contention that Iran in general or Soleimani personally is responsible for killing hundreds of Americans. When the State Department claimed last April that Iran was responsible for the deaths of 608 American servicemembers in Iraq between 2003 and 2011, investigative journalist Gareth Porter ( Truthout , 7/9/19 ) asked Navy Commander Sean Robertson for evidence, and Robertson "acknowledged that the Pentagon doesn't have any study, documentation or data to provide journalists that would support such a figure."
Porter showed that the US attribution of deaths in Iraq to Iran is an unsubstantiated government talking point from the Cheney era, one that was exposed at the time when Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno admitted that, though the US had attributed Iraqi resistance fighters' weapons to Iran, US troops found many sites in Iraq at which such weapons were being manufactured.
Gareth Porter reported in Truthout ( 7/9/19 ) that "the myth that Tehran is responsible for killing over 600 US troops in the Iraq War is merely a new variant of a propaganda line that former Vice President Dick Cheney used to attempt to justify a war against Iran more than a decade ago."
Scholar Stephen Zunes ( Progressive , 1/7/20 ) similarly demonstrated the lack of evidence for the idea that Iran is behind the killing of US forces in Iraq. Zunes noted that the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq , compiled by America's 16 intelligence agencies, downplayed Iran's role in Iraq's violence at roughly the same time that the Bush administration was saying that Iran was culpable.
As Porter pointed out, there was a much simpler explanation for American deaths in the period: The US targeted Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Mahdi Army fought back, imposing more casualties on US troops.
That the pundits dusted off 13-year-old propaganda to rationalize killing Soleimani is a clear indication that they were desperately grasping for any imperialist apologia within reach. If the American public is led to believe that Soleimani killed hundreds of Americans, large swathes of it are likely to regard his assassination as justified, necessary, or at worst a feature of the tit-for-tat ugliness inherent to war.
The narrative also ideologically shores up the US war on Iran in the American popular consciousness by presenting Iranians as primordially violent savages out to spill the blood of Americans, notably those in the military who are in the Middle East, presumably doing nothing but minding their own business. Presenting Iran as the reason for attacks on US forces in Iraq also implies that Iraqis had little objection to the US invasion, legitimizing the US's ongoing military presence in the country. The most obvious point about the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq is that they wouldn't happen if US soldiers weren't in Iraq.When violence isn't violence
Another media dance move is to condemn anti-imperial violence while naturalizing imperialist violence. An editorial in the New York Times ( 1/3/20 ) said that Soleimani
no doubt had a role in the campaign of provocations by Shiite militias against American forces in Iraq that recently led to the death of an American defense contractor and a retaliatory American airstrike against the militia responsible for the attack.
Having US troops in Iraq, a country in which the US is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands , is not a "provocation," in the Times ' perspective; opposition to their presence is the provocation.
The December 27 attack that killed the US contractor did not occur in a vacuum. In 2018, the US was suspected of bombing affiliates of Kataib Hezbollah, the group the US blames for killing the contractor. Israel is suspected of carrying out a string of deadly bombings of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces, of which Kataib Hezbollah is a key component, between July and September, a scenario at which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hinted .
The US reportedly confirmed that Israel was behind at least one of the bombings, and said it supports Israel's actions while denying direct participation. In any case, the US's lavish military support for Israel means that the former is effectively a party to the latter's bombing. Thus, the Kataib Hezbollah attack that killed the contractor can be seen as " retaliatory ," which complicates the notion that the subsequent US attack was as well.
Another Times editorial ( 1/4/20 ) describes Soleimani as "one of the region's most powerful and, yes, blood-soaked military commanders." At no point is Trump or any other US leader described as "blood-soaked" or anything comparable -- here, or in any of the mainstream media coverage I can find -- even as he and his predecessors are sopping with that of Afghans , Iraqis , Libyans and Syrians , to cite only a few recent cases. Evidently imperial violence is so righteous it leaves no trace behind.
Stephen Hadley, national security adviser in the George W Bush administration, wrote in the Washington Post ( 1/5/20 ):
What is clear is that one of the PMFs, Kataib Hezbollah, has been behind the escalating violence over the past several months as part of a campaign (assuredly with Iranian approval) to force out US troops. The campaign culminated in the December 31 attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad. (The head of Kataib Hezbollah, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was killed with Soleimani.)
By expelling US forces, the Iraqi government would be falling into Kataib Hezbollah's trap: rewarding the militia's violent campaign, strengthening the Iranian-backed PMFs, weakening the Iraqi government and state sovereignty, and jeopardizing the fight against the Islamic State.
Kataib Hezbollah's actions are called "violence" twice in these three sentences, with their apex apparently being "the December 31 attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad." Remarkably, the author makes no mention of the December 29 US airstrikes on five sites in Iraq and Syria that the US says belong to Kataib Hezbollah, bombings that reportedly killed 25 and injured 55 . Those, it would seem, do not constitute "violence." Iraqis damaging the embassy of the country whose economic sanctions killed half a million Iraqi children is "violence," but the US's lethal air raids are not. And expelling foreign armies weakens state sovereignty!
"No one in Baghdad was fooled" by anti-US protests in Iraq, which were "almost certainly a Soleimani-staged operation to make it look as if Iraqis wanted America out," declared Thomas Friedman ( New York Times , 1/3/20 ). (In a 2016 poll , 93% of young Iraqis said that they perceived the US as an "enemy.")
Thomas Friedman's Times article ( 1/3/20 ) on Soleimani's murder was bad even by Thomas Friedman standards. He dismissed the protests at the US embassy:
The whole "protest" against the United States Embassy compound in Baghdad last week was almost certainly a Soleimani-staged operation to make it look as if Iraqis wanted America out when in fact it was the other way around. The protesters were paid pro-Iranian militiamen. No one in Baghdad was fooled by this.
In a way, it's what got Soleimani killed. He so wanted to cover his failures in Iraq he decided to start provoking the Americans there by shelling their forces, hoping they would overreact, kill Iraqis and turn them against the United States. Trump, rather than taking the bait, killed Soleimani instead.
That there were thousands of protesters at the US embassy and that the Iraqi security forces stood aside to allow them to demonstrate suggests that what happened at the embassy cannot be reduced to a hoax stage-managed and paid for by Iran. Furthermore, the US did kill Iraqis two days before the protests, and that's what ignited them (to say nothing of the longer term record of the US devastating Iraq ). Like Hadley, however, Friedman pretends that the US's December 27 bombings didn't happen.
In the imperial imagination, the US has the right to violently pursue its objectives wherever it wants, and any resistance is illegitimate.
Gregory Shupak teaches media studies at the University of Guelph-Humber in Toronto. His book, The Wrong Story: Palestine, Israel and the Media , is published by OR Books.
January 21, 2020 at 1:20 pmKudos to you Gregory for keeping us informed in this era of "post-truth". It takes courage to do what you are doing and I really admire it. Reply
Christian J Chuba
January 22, 2020 at 1:01 pmAnd yet their are 'fact checkers' out out the pro-Iran / anti-American media juggernaut, someone went to Tehran and reported on Soleimani's funeral, gasp, she must be denounced as a useful idiot because that was staged. All events we don't like are staged. Did Iran let people out of school or advertise the time and place of the procession? Most likely but so was JFK's funeral. In any case, who actually bothered to find out if the Iranians forced or paid people to attend Soleimani's funeral.
I do feel violated being subjected to Friedman's self-proclaimed expertise. He does not feel any need to actually validate his statements other than to say, 'no one was fooled' and voila it is so. Great work if you can get it. ReplyWhat's FAIR
FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. We expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, we believe that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.ContactFairness & Accuracy In Reporting
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001
Feb 03, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
It's not just a populist backlash many economists who once swore by free trade have changed their minds, too. How had they got it so wrong?
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email T he annual January gathering of the World Economic Forum in Davos is usually a placid affair: a place for well-heeled participants to exchange notes on global business opportunities, or powder conditions on the local ski slopes, while cradling champagne and canapes. This January, the ultra-rich and the sparkling wine returned, but by all reports the mood was one of anxiety, defensiveness and self-reproach.
The future of economic globalisation, for which the Davos men and women see themselves as caretakers, had been shaken by a series of political earthquakes. "Globalisation" can mean many things, but what lay in particular doubt was the long-advanced project of increasing free trade in goods across borders. The previous summer, Britain had voted to leave the largest trading bloc in the world. In November, the unexpected victory of Donald Trump , who vowed to withdraw from major trade deals, appeared to jeopardise the trading relationships of the world's richest country. Forthcoming elections in France and Germany suddenly seemed to bear the possibility of anti-globalisation parties garnering better results than ever before. The barbarians weren't at the gates to the ski-lifts yet but they weren't very far.
In a panel titled Governing Globalisation , the economist Dambisa Moyo , otherwise a well-known supporter of free trade, forthrightly asked the audience to accept that "there have been significant losses" from globalisation. "It is not clear to me that we are going to be able to remedy them under the current infrastructure," she added. Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, called for a policy hitherto foreign to the World Economic Forum : "more redistribution". After years of hedging or discounting the malign effects of free trade, it was time to face facts: globalisation caused job losses and depressed wages, and the usual Davos proposals such as instructing affected populations to accept the new reality weren't going to work. Unless something changed, the political consequences were likely to get worse.
The backlash to globalisation has helped fuel the extraordinary political shifts of the past 18 months. During the close race to become the Democratic party candidate, senator Bernie Sanders relentlessly attacked Hillary Clinton on her support for free trade . On the campaign trail, Donald Trump openly proposed tilting the terms of trade in favour of American industry. "Americanism, not globalism, shall be our creed," he bellowed at the Republican national convention last July. The vote for Brexit was strongest in the regions of the UK devastated by the flight of manufacturing. At Davos in January, British prime minister Theresa May, the leader of the party of capital and inherited wealth, improbably picked up the theme, warning that, for many, "talk of greater globalisation means their jobs being outsourced and wages undercut." Meanwhile, the European far right has been warning against free movement of people as well as goods. Following her qualifying victory in the first round of France's presidential election, Marine Le Pen warned darkly that "the main thing at stake in this election is the rampant globalisation that is endangering our civilisation."
It was only a few decades ago that globalisation was held by many, even by some critics, to be an inevitable, unstoppable force. "Rejecting globalisation," the American journalist George Packer has written, "was like rejecting the sunrise." Globalisation could take place in services, capital and ideas, making it a notoriously imprecise term; but what it meant most often was making it cheaper to trade across borders something that seemed to many at the time to be an unquestionable good. In practice, this often meant that industry would move from rich countries, where labour was expensive, to poor countries, where labour was cheaper. People in the rich countries would either have to accept lower wages to compete, or lose their jobs. But no matter what, the goods they formerly produced would now be imported, and be even cheaper. And the unemployed could get new, higher-skilled jobs (if they got the requisite training). Mainstream economists and politicians upheld the consensus about the merits of globalisation, with little concern that there might be political consequences.
Back then, economists could calmly chalk up anti-globalisation sentiment to a marginal group of delusional protesters, or disgruntled stragglers still toiling uselessly in "sunset industries". These days, as sizable constituencies have voted in country after country for anti-free-trade policies, or candidates that promise to limit them, the old self-assurance is gone. Millions have rejected, with uncertain results, the punishing logic that globalisation could not be stopped. The backlash has swelled a wave of soul-searching among economists, one that had already begun to roll ashore with the financial crisis. How did they fail to foresee the repercussions?
I n the heyday of the globalisation consensus, few economists questioned its merits in public. But in 1997, the Harvard economist Dani Rodrik published a slim book that created a stir. Appearing just as the US was about to enter a historic economic boom, Rodrik's book, Has Globalization Gone Too Far?, sounded an unusual note of alarm.
Rodrik pointed to a series of dramatic recent events that challenged the idea that growing free trade would be peacefully accepted. In 1995, France had adopted a programme of fiscal austerity in order to prepare for entry into the eurozone; trade unions responded with the largest wave of strikes since 1968. In 1996, only five years after the end of the Soviet Union with Russia's once-protected markets having been forcibly opened, leading to a sudden decline in living standards a communist won 40% of the vote in Russia's presidential elections. That same year, two years after the passing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), one of the most ambitious multinational deals ever accomplished, a white nationalist running on an "America first" programme of economic protectionism did surprisingly well in the presidential primaries of the Republican party.
What was the pathology of which all of these disturbing events were symptoms? For Rodrik, it was "the process that has come to be called 'globalisation'". Since the 1980s, and especially following the collapse of the Soviet Union, lowering barriers to international trade had become the axiom of countries everywhere. Tariffs had to be slashed and regulations spiked. Trade unions, which kept wages high and made it harder to fire people, had to be crushed. Governments vied with each other to make their country more hospitable more "competitive" for businesses. That meant making labour cheaper and regulations looser, often in countries that had once tried their hand at socialism, or had spent years protecting "homegrown" industries with tariffs.Facebook Twitter Pinterest Anti-globalisation protesters in Seattle, 1999. Photograph: Eric Draper/AP
These moves were generally applauded by economists. After all, their profession had long embraced the principle of comparative advantage simply put, the idea countries will trade with each other in order to gain what each lacks, thereby benefiting both. In theory, then, the globalisation of trade in goods and services would benefit consumers in rich countries by giving them access to inexpensive goods produced by cheaper labour in poorer countries, and this demand, in turn, would help grow the economies of those poorer countries.
But the social cost, in Rodrik's dissenting view, was high and consistently underestimated by economists. He noted that since the 1970s, lower-skilled European and American workers had endured a major fall in the real value of their wages, which dropped by more than 20%. Workers were suffering more spells of unemployment, more volatility in the hours they were expected to work.
While many economists attributed much of the insecurity to technological change sophisticated new machines displacing low-skilled workers Rodrik suggested that the process of globalisation should shoulder more of the blame. It was, in particular, the competition between workers in developing and developed countries that helped drive down wages and job security for workers in developed countries. Over and over, they would be held hostage to the possibility that their business would up and leave, in order to find cheap labour in other parts of the world; they had to accept restraints on their salaries or else. Opinion polls registered their strong levels of anxiety and insecurity, and the political effects were becoming more visible. Rodrik foresaw that the cost of greater "economic integration" would be greater "social disintegration". The inevitable result would be a huge political backlash.
As Rodrik would later recall, other economists tended to dismiss his arguments or fear them. Paul Krugman , who would win the Nobel prize in 2008 for his earlier work in trade theory and economic geography, privately warned Rodrik that his work would give "ammunition to the barbarians".
It was a tacit acknowledgment that pro-globalisation economists, journalists and politicians had come under growing pressure from a new movement on the left, who were raising concerns very similar to Rodrik's. Over the course of the 1990s, an unwieldy international coalition had begun to contest the notion that globalisation was good. Called "anti-globalisation" by the media, and the "alter-globalisation" or "global justice" movement by its participants, it tried to draw attention to the devastating effect that free trade policies were having, especially in the developing world, where globalisation was supposed to be having its most beneficial effect. This was a time when figures such as the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman had given the topic a glitzy prominence by documenting his time among what he gratingly called "globalutionaries" : chatting amiably with the CEO of Monsanto one day, gawking at lingerie manufacturers in Sri Lanka the next. Activists were intent on showing a much darker picture, revealing how the record of globalisation consisted mostly of farmers pushed off their land and the rampant proliferation of sweatshops. They also implicated the highest world bodies in their critique: the G7, World Bank and IMF. In 1999, the movement reached a high point when a unique coalition of trade unions and environmentalists managed to shut down the meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle.
In a state of panic, economists responded with a flood of columns and books that defended the necessity of a more open global market economy, in tones ranging from grandiose to sarcastic. In January 2000, Krugman used his first piece as a New York Times columnist to denounce the "trashing" of the WTO, calling it "a sad irony that the cause that has finally awakened the long-dormant American left is that of yes! denying opportunity to third-world workers".
Where Krugman was derisive, others were solemn, putting the contemporary fight against the "anti-globalisation" left in a continuum of struggles for liberty. "Liberals, social democrats and moderate conservatives are on the same side in the great battles against religious fanatics, obscurantists, extreme environmentalists, fascists, Marxists and, of course, contemporary anti-globalisers," wrote the Financial Times columnist and former World Bank economist Martin Wolf in his book Why Globalization Works. Language like this lent the fight for globalisation the air of an epochal struggle. More common was the rhetoric of figures such as Friedman, who in his book The World is Flat mocked the "pampered American college kids" who, "wearing their branded clothing, began to get interested in sweatshops as a way of expiating their guilt".
ss="rich-link"> Globalisation once made the world go around. Is it about to grind to a halt? Read more
Arguments against the global justice movement rested on the idea that the ultimate benefits of a more open and integrated economy would outweigh the downsides. "Freer trade is associated with higher growth and higher growth is associated with reduced poverty," wrote the Columbia University economist Jagdish Bhagwati in his book In Defense of Globalization. "Hence, growth reduces poverty." No matter how troubling some of the local effects, the implication went, globalisation promised a greater good.
The fact that proponents of globalisation now felt compelled to spend much of their time defending it indicates how much visibility the global justice movement had achieved by the early 2000s. Still, over time, the movement lost ground, as a policy consensus settled in favour of globalisation. The proponents of globalisation were determined never to let another gathering be interrupted. They stopped meeting in major cities, and security everywhere was tightened. By the time of the invasion of Iraq, the world's attention had turned from free trade to George Bush and the "war on terror," leaving the globalisation consensus intact.
Above all, there was a widespread perception that globalisation was working as it was supposed to. The local adverse effects that activists pointed to sweatshop labour, starving farmers were increasingly obscured by the staggering GDP numbers and fantastical images of gleaming skylines coming out of China. With some lonely exceptions such as Rodrik and the former World Bank chief and Columbia University professor Joseph Stiglitz the pursuit of freer trade became a consensus position for economists, commentators and the vast majority of mainstream politicians, to the point where the benefits of free trade seemed to command blind adherence. In a 2006 TV interview, Thomas Friedman was asked whether there was any free trade deal he would not support. He replied that there wasn't, admitting, "I wrote a column supporting the Cafta, the Caribbean Free Trade initiative. I didn't even know what was in it. I just knew two words: free trade."
I n the wake of the financial crisis, the cracks began to show in the consensus on globalisation, to the point that, today, there may no longer be a consensus. Economists who were once ardent proponents of globalisation have become some of its most prominent critics. Erstwhile supporters now concede, at least in part, that it has produced inequality, unemployment and downward pressure on wages. Nuances and criticisms that economists only used to raise in private seminars are finally coming out in the open.
A few months before the financial crisis hit, Krugman was already confessing to a "guilty conscience". In the 1990s, he had been very influential in arguing that global trade with poor countries had only a small effect on workers' wages in rich countries. By 2008, he was having doubts: the data seemed to suggest that the effect was much larger than he had suspected.
In the years that followed, the crash, the crisis of the eurozone and the worldwide drop in the price of oil and other commodities combined to put a huge dent in global trade. Since 2012, the IMF reported in its World Economic Outlook for October 2016 , trade was growing at 3% a year less than half the average of the previous three decades. That month, Martin Wolf argued in a column that globalisation had "lost dynamism", due to a slackening of the world economy, the "exhaustion" of new markets to exploit and a rise in protectionist policies around the world. In an interview earlier this year, Wolf suggested to me that, though he remained convinced globalisation had not been the decisive factor in rising inequality, he had nonetheless not fully foreseen when he was writing Why Globalization Works how "radical the implications" of worsening inequality "might be for the US, and therefore the world". Among these implications appears to be a rising distrust of the establishment that is blamed for the inequality. "We have a very big political problem in many of our countries," he said. "The elites the policymaking business and financial elites are increasingly disliked . You need to make policy which brings people to think again that their societies are run in a decent and civilised way."Facebook Twitter Pinterest Illustration by Nathalie Lees
That distrust of the establishment has had highly visible political consequences: Farage, Trump, and Le Pen on the right; but also in new parties on the left, such as Spain's Podemos, and curious populist hybrids, such as Italy's Five Star Movement . As in 1997, but to an even greater degree, the volatile political scene reflects public anxiety over "the process that has come to be called 'globalisation'". If the critics of globalisation could be dismissed before because of their lack of economics training, or ignored because they were in distant countries, or kept out of sight by a wall of police, their sudden political ascendancy in the rich countries of the west cannot be so easily discounted today.
Over the past year, the opinion pages of prestigious newspapers have been filled with belated, rueful comments from the high priests of globalisation the men who appeared to have defeated the anti-globalisers two decades earlier. Perhaps the most surprising such transformation has been that of Larry Summers. Possessed of a panoply of elite titles former chief economist of the World Bank, former Treasury secretary, president emeritus of Harvard, former economic adviser to President Barack Obama Summers was renowned in the 1990s and 2000s for being a blustery proponent of globalisation. For Summers, it seemed, market logic was so inexorable that its dictates prevailed over every social concern. In an infamous World Bank memo from 1991 , he held that the cheapest way to dispose of toxic waste in rich countries was to dump it in poor countries, since it was financially cheaper for them to manage it. "The laws of economics, it's often forgotten, are like the laws of engineering," he said in a speech that year at a World Bank-IMF meeting in Bangkok. "There's only one set of laws and they work everywhere. One of the things I've learned in my short time at the World Bank is that whenever anybody says, 'But economics works differently here,' they're about to say something dumb."
Over the last two years, a different, in some ways unrecognizable Larry Summers has been appearing in newspaper editorial pages. More circumspect in tone, this humbler Summers has been arguing that economic opportunities in the developing world are slowing, and that the already rich economies are finding it hard to get out of the crisis. Barring some kind of breakthrough, Summers says, an era of slow growth is here to stay.
In Summers's recent writings, this sombre conclusion has often been paired with a surprising political goal: advocating for a "responsible nationalism". Now he argues that politicians must recognise that "the basic responsibility of government is to maximise the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global good".
O ne curious thing about the pro-globalisation consensus of the 1990s and 2000s, and its collapse in recent years, is how closely the cycle resembles a previous era. Pursuing free trade has always produced displacement and inequality and political chaos, populism and retrenchment to go with it. Every time the social consequences of free trade are overlooked, political backlash follows. But free trade is only one of many forms that economic integration can take. History seems to suggest, however, that it might be the most destabilising one.
Nearly all economists and scholars of globalisation like to point to the fact that the economy was rather globalised by the early 20th century. As European countries colonised Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, they turned their colonies into suppliers of raw materials for European manufacturers, as well as markets for European goods. Meanwhile, the economies of the colonisers were also becoming free-trade zones for each other. "The opening years of the 20th century were the closest thing the world had ever seen to a free world market for goods, capital and labour," writes the Harvard professor of government Jeffry Frieden in his standard account, Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the 20th Century. "It would be a hundred years before the world returned to that level of globalisation."
In addition to military force, what underpinned this convenient arrangement for imperial nations was the gold standard. Under this system, each national currency had an established gold value: the British pound sterling was backed by 113 grains of pure gold; the US dollar by 23.22 grains, and so on. This entailed that exchange rates were also fixed: a British pound was always equal to 4.87 dollars. The stability of exchange rates meant that the cost of doing business across borders was predictable. Just like the eurozone today, you could count on the value of the currency staying the same, so long as the storehouse of gold remained more or less the same.
When there were gold shortages as there were in the 1870s the system stopped working. To protect the sanctity of the standard under conditions of stress, central bankers across the Europe and the US tightened access to credit and deflated prices. This left financiers in a decent position, but crushed farmers and the rural poor, for whom falling prices meant starvation. Then as now, economists and mainstream politicians largely overlooked the darker side of the economic picture.
In the US, this fuelled one of the world's first self-described "populist" revolts, leading to the nomination of William Jennings Bryan as the Democratic party candidate in 1896. At his nominating convention, he gave a famous speech lambasting gold backers: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labour this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." Then as now, financial elites and their supporters in the press were horrified. "There has been an upheaval of the political crust," the Times of London reported, "and strange creatures have come forth."
Businessmen were so distressed by Bryan that they backed the Republican candidate, William McKinley, who won partly by outspending Bryan five to one. Meanwhile, gold was bolstered by the discovery of new reserves in colonial South Africa. But the gold standard could not survive the first world war and the Great Depression. By the 1930s, unionisation had spread to more industries and there was a growing worldwide socialist movement. Protecting gold would mean mass unemployment and social unrest. Britain went off the gold standard in 1931, while Franklin Roosevelt took the US off it in 1933; France and several other countries would follow in 1936.
The prioritisation of finance and trade over the welfare of people had come momentarily to an end. But this wasn't the end of the global economic system.
T he trade system that followed was global, too, with high levels of trade but it took place on terms that often allowed developing countries to protect their industries. Because, from the perspective of free traders, protectionism is always seen as bad, the success of this postwar system has been largely under-recognised.
Over the course of the 1930s and 40s, liberals John Maynard Keynes among them who had previously regarded departures from free trade as "an imbecility and an outrage" began to lose their religion. "The decadent international but individualistic capitalism, in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war, is not a success," Keynes found himself writing in 1933 . "It is not intelligent, it is not beautiful, it is not just, it is not virtuous and it doesn't deliver the goods. In short, we dislike it, and we are beginning to despise it." He claimed sympathies "with those who would minimise, rather than with those who would maximise, economic entanglement among nations," and argued that goods "be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible".
The international systems that chastened figures such as Keynes helped produce in the next few years especially the Bretton Woods agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt) set the terms under which the new wave of globalisation would take place.
The key to the system's viability, in Rodrik's view, was its flexibility something absent from contemporary globalisation, with its one-size-fits-all model of capitalism. Bretton Woods stabilised exchange rates by pegging the dollar loosely to gold, and other currencies to the dollar. Gatt consisted of rules governing free trade negotiated by participating countries in a series of multinational "rounds" that left many areas of the world economy, such as agriculture, untouched or unaddressed. "Gatt's purpose was never to maximise free trade," Rodrik writes. "It was to achieve the maximum amount of trade compatible with different nations doing their own thing. In that respect, the institution proved spectacularly successful."Facebook Twitter Pinterest Construction workers in Beijing, China. Photograph: Ng Han Guan/AP
Partly because Gatt was not always dogmatic about free trade, it allowed most countries to figure out their own economic objectives, within a somewhat international ambit. When nations contravened the agreement's terms on specific areas of national interest, they found that it "contained loopholes wide enough for an elephant to pass", in Rodrik's words. If a nation wanted to protect its steel industry, for example, it could claim "injury" under the rules of Gatt and raise tariffs to discourage steel imports: "an abomination from the standpoint of free trade". These were useful for countries that were recovering from the war and needed to build up their own industries via tariffs duties imposed on particular imports. Meanwhile, from 1948 to 1990, world trade grew at an annual average of nearly 7% faster than the post-communist years, which we think of as the high point of globalisation. "If there was a golden era of globalisation," Rodrik has written, "this was it."
Gatt, however, failed to cover many of the countries in the developing world. These countries eventually created their own system, the United Nations conference on trade and development (UNCTAD). Under this rubric, many countries especially in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia adopted a policy of protecting homegrown industries by replacing imports with domestically produced goods. It worked poorly in some places India and Argentina, for example, where the trade barriers were too high, resulting in factories that cost more to set up than the value of the goods they produced but remarkably well in others, such as east Asia, much of Latin America and parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where homegrown industries did spring up. Though many later economists and commentators would dismiss the achievements of this model, it theoretically fit Larry Summers's recent rubric on globalisation: "the basic responsibility of government is to maximise the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global good."
The critical turning point away from this system of trade balanced against national protections came in the 1980s. Flagging growth and high inflation in the west, along with growing competition from Japan, opened the way for a political transformation. The elections of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were seminal, putting free-market radicals in charge of two of the world's five biggest economies and ushering in an era of "hyperglobalisation". In the new political climate, economies with large public sectors and strong governments within the global capitalist system were no longer seen as aids to the system's functioning, but impediments to it.
Not only did these ideologies take hold in the US and the UK; they seized international institutions as well. Gatt renamed itself as the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the new rules the body negotiated began to cut more deeply into national policies. Its international trade rules sometimes undermined national legislation. The WTO's appellate court intervened relentlessly in member nations' tax, environmental and regulatory policies, including those of the United States: the US's fuel emissions standards were judged to discriminate against imported gasoline, and its ban on imported shrimp caught without turtle-excluding devices was overturned. If national health and safety regulations were stricter than WTO rules necessitated, they could only remain in place if they were shown to have "scientific justification".
The purest version of hyperglobalisation was tried out in Latin America in the 1980s. Known as the "Washington consensus", this model usually involved loans from the IMF that were contingent on those countries lowering trade barriers and privatising many of their nationally held industries. Well into the 1990s, economists were proclaiming the indisputable benefits of openness. In an influential 1995 paper, Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner wrote: "We find no cases to support the frequent worry that a country might open and yet fail to grow."
But the Washington consensus was bad for business: most countries did worse than before. Growth faltered, and citizens across Latin America revolted against attempted privatisations of water and gas. In Argentina, which followed the Washington consensus to the letter, a grave crisis resulted in 2002 , precipitating an economic collapse and massive street protests that forced out the government that had pursued privatising reforms. Argentina's revolt presaged a left-populist upsurge across the continent: from 1999 to 2007, leftwing leaders and parties took power in Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, all of them campaigning against the Washington consensus on globalisation. These revolts were a preview of the backlash of today.
R odrik perhaps the contemporary economist whose views have been most amply vindicated by recent events was himself a beneficiary of protectionism in Turkey. His father's ballpoint pen company was sheltered under tariffs, and achieved enough success to allow Rodrik to attend Harvard in the 1970s as an undergraduate. This personal understanding of the mixed nature of economic success may be one of the reasons why his work runs against the broad consensus of mainstream economics writing on globalisation.
"I never felt that my ideas were out of the mainstream," Rodrik told me recently. Instead, it was that the mainstream had lost touch with the diversity of opinions and methods that already existed within economics. "The economics profession is strange in that the more you move away from the seminar room to the public domain, the more the nuances get lost, especially on issues of trade." He lamented the fact that while, in the classroom, the models of trade discuss losers and winners, and, as a result, the necessity of policies of redistribution, in practice, an "arrogance and hubris" had led many economists to ignore these implications. "Rather than speaking truth to power, so to speak, many economists became cheerleaders for globalisation."
In his 2011 book The Globalization Paradox , Rodrik concluded that "we cannot simultaneously pursue democracy, national determination, and economic globalisation." The results of the 2016 elections and referendums provide ample testimony of the justness of the thesis, with millions voting to push back, for better or for worse, against the campaigns and institutions that promised more globalisation. "I'm not at all surprised by the backlash," Rodrik told me. "Really, nobody should have been surprised."
But what, in any case, would "more globalisation" look like? For the same economists and writers who have started to rethink their commitments to greater integration, it doesn't mean quite what it did in the early 2000s. It's not only the discourse that's changed: globalisation itself has changed, developing into a more chaotic and unequal system than many economists predicted. The benefits of globalisation have been largely concentrated in a handful of Asian countries. And even in those countries, the good times may be running out.Facebook Twitter Pinterest Illustration by Nathalie Lees
Statistics from Global Inequality , a 2016 book by the development economist Branko Milanović, indicate that in relative terms the greatest benefits of globalisation have accrued to a rising "emerging middle class", based preponderantly in China. But the cons are there, too: in absolute terms, the largest gains have gone to what is commonly called "the 1%" half of whom are based in the US. Economist Richard Baldwin has shown in his recent book, The Great Convergence, that nearly all of the gains from globalisation have been concentrated in six countries.
Barring some political catastrophe, in which rightwing populism continued to gain, and in which globalisation would be the least of our problems Wolf admitted that he was "not at all sure" that this could be ruled out globalisation was always going to slow; in fact, it already has. One reason, says Wolf, was that "a very, very large proportion of the gains from globalisation by no means all have been exploited. We have a more open world economy to trade than we've ever had before." Citing The Great Convergence, Wolf noted that supply chains have already expanded, and that future developments, such as automation and the use of robots, looked to undermine the promise of a growing industrial workforce. Today, the political priorities were less about trade and more about the challenge of retraining workers , as technology renders old jobs obsolete and transforms the world of work.
Rodrik, too, believes that globalisation, whether reduced or increased, is unlikely to produce the kind of economic effects it once did. For him, this slowdown has something to do with what he calls "premature deindustrialisation". In the past, the simplest model of globalisation suggested that rich countries would gradually become "service economies", while emerging economies picked up the industrial burden. Yet recent statistics show the world as a whole is deindustrialising. Countries that one would have expected to have more industrial potential are going through the stages of automation more quickly than previously developed countries did, and thereby failing to develop the broad industrial workforce seen as a key to shared prosperity.
For both Rodrik and Wolf, the political reaction to globalisation bore possibilities of deep uncertainty. "I really have found it very difficult to decide whether what we're living through is a blip, or a fundamental and profound transformation of the world at least as significant as the one that brought about the first world war and the Russian revolution," Wolf told me. He cited his agreement with economists such as Summers that shifting away from the earlier emphasis on globalisation had now become a political priority; that to pursue still greater liberalisation was like showing "a red rag to a bull" in terms of what it might do to the already compromised political stability of the western world.
Rodrik pointed to a belated emphasis, both among political figures and economists, on the necessity of compensating those displaced by globalisation with retraining and more robust welfare states. But pro-free-traders had a history of cutting compensation: Bill Clinton passed Nafta, but failed to expand safety nets. "The issue is that the people are rightly not trusting the centrists who are now promising compensation," Rodrik said. "One reason that Hillary Clinton didn't get any traction with those people is that she didn't have any credibility."
Rodrik felt that economics commentary failed to register the gravity of the situation: that there were increasingly few avenues for global growth, and that much of the damage done by globalisation economic and political is irreversible. "There is a sense that we're at a turning point," he said. "There's a lot more thinking about what can be done. There's a renewed emphasis on compensation which, you know, I think has come rather late."
Nov 14, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
Neoliberalism and its usual prescriptions – always more markets, always less government – are in fact a perversion of mainstream economics.
As even its harshest critics concede, neoliberalism is hard to pin down. In broad terms, it denotes a preference for markets over government, economic incentives over cultural norms, and private entrepreneurship over collective action. It has been used to describe a wide range of phenomena – from Augusto Pinochet to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, from the Clinton Democrats and the UK's New Labour to the economic opening in China and the reform of the welfare state in Sweden.
The term is used as a catchall for anything that smacks of deregulation, liberalisation, privatisation or fiscal austerity. Today it is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas and practices that have produced growing economic insecurity and inequality, led to the loss of our political values and ideals, and even precipitated our current populist backlash.
We live in the age of neoliberalism, apparently. But who are neoliberalism's adherents and disseminators – the neoliberals themselves? Oddly, you have to go back a long time to find anyone explicitly embracing neoliberalism. In 1982, Charles Peters, the longtime editor of the political magazine Washington Monthly, published an essay titled A Neo-Liberal's Manifesto . It makes for interesting reading 35 years later, since the neoliberalism it describes bears little resemblance to today's target of derision. The politicians Peters names as exemplifying the movement are not the likes of Thatcher and Reagan, but rather liberals – in the US sense of the word – who have become disillusioned with unions and big government and dropped their prejudices against markets and the military.
The use of the term "neoliberal" exploded in the 1990s, when it became closely associated with two developments, neither of which Peters's article had mentioned. One of these was financial deregulation, which would culminate in the 2008 financial crash and in the still-lingering euro debacle . The second was economic globalisation, which accelerated thanks to free flows of finance and to a new, more ambitious type of trade agreement. Financialisation and globalisation have become the most overt manifestations of neoliberalism in today's world.
That neoliberalism is a slippery, shifting concept, with no explicit lobby of defenders, does not mean that it is irrelevant or unreal. Who can deny that the world has experienced a decisive shift toward markets from the 1980s on? Or that centre-left politicians – Democrats in the US, socialists and social democrats in Europe – enthusiastically adopted some of the central creeds of Thatcherism and Reaganism, such as deregulation, privatisation, financial liberalisation and individual enterprise? Much of our contemporary policy discussion remains infused with principles supposedly grounded in the concept of homo economicus , the perfectly rational human being, found in many economic theories, who always pursues his own self-interest.
But the looseness of the term neoliberalism also means that criticism of it often misses the mark. There is nothing wrong with markets, private entrepreneurship or incentives – when deployed appropriately. Their creative use lies behind the most significant economic achievements of our time. As we heap scorn on neoliberalism, we risk throwing out some of neoliberalism's useful ideas.
The real trouble is that mainstream economics shades too easily into ideology, constraining the choices that we appear to have and providing cookie-cutter solutions. A proper understanding of the economics that lie behind neoliberalism would allow us to identify – and to reject – ideology when it masquerades as economic science. Most importantly, it would help us to develop the institutional imagination we badly need to redesign capitalism for the 21st century.
N eoliberalism is typically understood as being based on key tenets of mainstream economic science. To see those tenets without the ideology, consider this thought experiment. A well-known and highly regarded economist lands in a country he has never visited and knows nothing about. He is brought to a meeting with the country's leading policymakers. "Our country is in trouble," they tell him. "The economy is stagnant, investment is low, and there is no growth in sight." They turn to him expectantly: "Please tell us what we should do to make our economy grow."
The economist pleads ignorance and explains that he knows too little about the country to make any recommendations. He would need to study the history of the economy, to analyse the statistics, and to travel around the country before he could say anything.Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tony Blair and Bill Clinton: centre-left politicians who enthusiastically adopted some of the central creeds of Thatcherism and Reaganism. Photograph: Reuters
But his hosts are insistent. "We understand your reticence, and we wish you had the time for all that," they tell him. "But isn't economics a science, and aren't you one of its most distinguished practitioners? Even though you do not know much about our economy, surely there are some general theories and prescriptions you can share with us to guide our economic policies and reforms."
The economist is now in a bind. He does not want to emulate those economic gurus he has long criticised for peddling their favourite policy advice. But he feels challenged by the question. Are there universal truths in economics? Can he say anything valid or useful?
So he begins. The efficiency with which an economy's resources are allocated is a critical determinant of the economy's performance, he says. Efficiency, in turn, requires aligning the incentives of households and businesses with social costs and benefits. The incentives faced by entrepreneurs, investors and producers are particularly important when it comes to economic growth. Growth needs a system of property rights and contract enforcement that will ensure those who invest can retain the returns on their investments. And the economy must be open to ideas and innovations from the rest of the world.
But economies can be derailed by macroeconomic instability, he goes on. Governments must therefore pursue a sound monetary policy , which means restricting the growth of liquidity to the increase in nominal money demand at reasonable inflation. They must ensure fiscal sustainability, so that the increase in public debt does not outpace national income. And they must carry out prudential regulation of banks and other financial institutions to prevent the financial system from taking excessive risk.
Now he is warming to his task. Economics is not just about efficiency and growth, he adds. Economic principles also carry over to equity and social policy. Economics has little to say about how much redistribution a society should seek. But it does tell us that the tax base should be as broad as possible, and that social programmes should be designed in a way that does not encourage workers to drop out of the labour market.
By the time the economist stops, it appears as if he has laid out a fully fledged neoliberal agenda. A critic in the audience will have heard all the code words: efficiency, incentives, property rights, sound money, fiscal prudence. And yet the universal principles that the economist describes are in fact quite open-ended. They presume a capitalist economy – one in which investment decisions are made by private individuals and firms – but not much beyond that. They allow for – indeed, they require – a surprising variety of institutional arrangements.
So has the economist just delivered a neoliberal screed? We would be mistaken to think so, and our mistake would consist of associating each abstract term – incentives, property rights, sound money – with a particular institutional counterpart. And therein lies the central conceit, and the fatal flaw, of neoliberalism: the belief that first-order economic principles map on to a unique set of policies, approximated by a Thatcher/Reagan-style agenda.
Consider property rights. They matter insofar as they allocate returns on investments. An optimal system would distribute property rights to those who would make the best use of an asset, and afford protection against those most likely to expropriate the returns. Property rights are good when they protect innovators from free riders, but they are bad when they protect them from competition. Depending on the context, a legal regime that provides the appropriate incentives can look quite different from the standard US-style regime of private property rights.
This may seem like a semantic point with little practical import; but China's phenomenal economic success is largely due to its orthodoxy-defying institutional tinkering. China turned to markets, but did not copy western practices in property rights. Its reforms produced market-based incentives through a series of unusual institutional arrangements that were better adapted to the local context. Rather than move directly from state to private ownership, for example, which would have been stymied by the weakness of the prevailing legal structures, the country relied on mixed forms of ownership that provided more effective property rights for entrepreneurs in practice. Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs), which spearheaded Chinese economic growth during the 1980s, were collectives owned and controlled by local governments. Even though TVEs were publicly owned, entrepreneurs received the protection they needed against expropriation. Local governments had a direct stake in the profits of the firms, and hence did not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
China relied on a range of such innovations, each delivering the economist's higher-order economic principles in unfamiliar institutional arrangements. For instance, it shielded its large state sector from global competition, establishing special economic zones where foreign firms could operate with different rules than in the rest of the economy. In view of such departures from orthodox blueprints, describing China's economic reforms as neoliberal – as critics are inclined to do – distorts more than it reveals. If we are to call this neoliberalism, we must surely look more kindly on the ideas behind the most dramatic poverty reduction in history.
One might protest that China's institutional innovations were purely transitional. Perhaps it will have to converge on western-style institutions to sustain its economic progress. But this common line of thinking overlooks the diversity of capitalist arrangements that still prevails among advanced economies, despite the considerable homogenisation of our policy discourse.
What, after all, are western institutions? The size of the public sector in OECD countries varies, from a third of the economy in Korea to nearly 60% in Finland. In Iceland, 86% of workers are members of a trade union; the comparable number in Switzerland is just 16%. In the US, firms can fire workers almost at will; French labour laws have historically required employers to jump through many hoops first. Stock markets have grown to a total value of nearly one-and-a-half times GDP in the US; in Germany, they are only a third as large, equivalent to just 50% of GDP.Facebook Twitter Pinterest 'China turned to markets, but did not copy western practices ... ' Photograph: AFP/Getty
The idea that any one of these models of taxation, labour relations or financial organisation is inherently superior to the others is belied by the varying economic fortunes that each of these economies have experienced over recent decades. The US has gone through successive periods of angst in which its economic institutions were judged inferior to those in Germany, Japan, China, and now possibly Germany again. Certainly, comparable levels of wealth and productivity can be produced under very different models of capitalism. We might even go a step further: today's prevailing models probably come nowhere near exhausting the range of what might be possible, and desirable, in the future.
The visiting economist in our thought experiment knows all this, and recognises that the principles he has enunciated need to be filled in with institutional detail before they become operational. Property rights? Yes, but how? Sound money? Of course, but how? It would perhaps be easier to criticise his list of principles for being vacuous than to denounce it as a neoliberal screed.
Still, these principles are not entirely content-free. China, and indeed all countries that managed to develop rapidly, demonstrate the utility of those principles once they are properly adapted to local context. Conversely, too many economies have been driven to ruin courtesy of political leaders who chose to violate them. We need look no further than Latin American populists or eastern European communist regimes to appreciate the practical significance of sound money, fiscal sustainability and private incentives.
O f course, economics goes beyond a list of abstract, largely common-sense principles. Much of the work of economists consists of developing stylised models of how economies work and then confronting those models with evidence. Economists tend to think of what they do as progressively refining their understanding of the world: their models are supposed to get better and better as they are tested and revised over time. But progress in economics happens differently.
Economists study a social reality that is unlike the physical universe. It is completely manmade, highly malleable and operates according to different rules across time and space. Economics advances not by settling on the right model or theory to answer such questions, but by improving our understanding of the diversity of causal relationships. Neoliberalism and its customary remedies – always more markets, always less government – are in fact a perversion of mainstream economics. Good economists know that the correct answer to any question in economics is: it depends.
Does an increase in the minimum wage depress employment? Yes, if the labour market is really competitive and employers have no control over the wage they must pay to attract workers; but not necessarily otherwise. Does trade liberalisation increase economic growth? Yes, if it increases the profitability of industries where the bulk of investment and innovation takes place; but not otherwise. Does more government spending increase employment? Yes, if there is slack in the economy and wages do not rise; but not otherwise. Does monopoly harm innovation? Yes and no, depending on a whole host of market circumstances.Facebook Twitter Pinterest 'Today [neoliberalism] is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas that have produced growing economic inequality and precipitated our current populist backlash' Trump signing an order to take the US out of the TPP trade pact. Photograph: AFP/Getty
In economics, new models rarely supplant older models. The basic competitive-markets model dating back to Adam Smith has been modified over time by the inclusion, in rough historical order, of monopoly, externalities, scale economies, incomplete and asymmetric information, irrational behaviour and many other real-world features. But the older models remain as useful as ever. Understanding how real markets operate necessitates using different lenses at different times.
Perhaps maps offer the best analogy. Just like economic models, maps are highly stylised representations of reality . They are useful precisely because they abstract from many real-world details that would get in the way. But abstraction also implies that we need a different map depending on the nature of our journey. If we are travelling by bike, we need a map of bike trails. If we are to go on foot, we need a map of footpaths. If a new subway is constructed, we will need a subway map – but we wouldn't throw out the older maps.
Economists tend to be very good at making maps, but not good enough at choosing the one most suited to the task at hand. When confronted with policy questions of the type our visiting economist faces, too many of them resort to "benchmark" models that favour the laissez-faire approach. Kneejerk solutions and hubris replace the richness and humility of the discussion in the seminar room. John Maynard Keynes once defined economics as the "science of thinking in terms of models, joined to the art of choosing models which are relevant". Economists typically have trouble with the "art" part.
This, too, can be illustrated with a parable. A journalist calls an economics professor for his view on whether free trade is a good idea. The professor responds enthusiastically in the affirmative. The journalist then goes undercover as a student in the professor's advanced graduate seminar on international trade. He poses the same question: is free trade good? This time the professor is stymied. "What do you mean by 'good'?" he responds. "And good for whom?" The professor then launches into an extensive exegesis that will ultimately culminate in a heavily hedged statement: "So if the long list of conditions I have just described are satisfied, and assuming we can tax the beneficiaries to compensate the losers, freer trade has the potential to increase everyone's wellbeing." If he is in an expansive mood, the professor might add that the effect of free trade on an economy's longterm growth rate is not clear either, and would depend on an altogether different set of requirements.
This professor is rather different from the one the journalist encountered previously. On the record, he exudes self-confidence, not reticence, about the appropriate policy. There is one and only one model, at least as far as the public conversation is concerned, and there is a single correct answer, regardless of context. Strangely, the professor deems the knowledge that he imparts to his advanced students to be inappropriate (or dangerous) for the general public. Why?
The roots of such behaviour lie deep in the culture of the economics profession. But one important motive is the zeal to display the profession's crown jewels – market efficiency, the invisible hand, comparative advantage – in untarnished form, and to shield them from attack by self-interested barbarians, namely the protectionists . Unfortunately, these economists typically ignore the barbarians on the other side of the issue – financiers and multinational corporations whose motives are no purer and who are all too ready to hijack these ideas for their own benefit.
As a result, economists' contributions to public debate are often biased in one direction, in favour of more trade, more finance and less government. That is why economists have developed a reputation as cheerleaders for neoliberalism, even if mainstream economics is very far from a paean to laissez-faire. The economists who let their enthusiasm for free markets run wild are in fact not being true to their own discipline.
H ow then should we think about globalisation in order to liberate it from the grip of neoliberal practices? We must begin by understanding the positive potential of global markets. Access to world markets in goods, technologies and capital has played an important role in virtually all of the economic miracles of our time. China is the most recent and powerful reminder of this historical truth, but it is not the only case. Before China, similar miracles were performed by South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and a few non-Asian countries such as Mauritius . All of these countries embraced globalisation rather than turn their backs on it, and they benefited handsomely.
Defenders of the existing economic order will quickly point to these examples when globalisation comes into question. What they will fail to say is that almost all of these countries joined the world economy by violating neoliberal strictures. South Korea and Taiwan, for instance, heavily subsidised their exporters, the former through the financial system and the latter through tax incentives. All of them eventually removed most of their import restrictions, long after economic growth had taken off.
But none, with the sole exception of Chile in the 1980s under Pinochet, followed the neoliberal recommendation of a rapid opening-up to imports. Chile's neoliberal experiment eventually produced the worst economic crisis in all of Latin America. While the details differ across countries, in all cases governments played an active role in restructuring the economy and buffering it against a volatile external environment. Industrial policies, restrictions on capital flows and currency controls – all prohibited in the neoliberal playbook – were rampant.Facebook Twitter Pinterest Protest against Nafta in Mexico City in 2008: since the reforms of the mid-90s, the country's economy has underperformed. Photograph: EPA
By contrast, countries that stuck closest to the neoliberal model of globalisation were sorely disappointed. Mexico provides a particularly sad example. Following a series of macroeconomic crises in the mid-1990s, Mexico embraced macroeconomic orthodoxy, extensively liberalised its economy, freed up the financial system, sharply reduced import restrictions and signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). These policies did produce macroeconomic stability and a significant rise in foreign trade and internal investment. But where it counts – in overall productivity and economic growth – the experiment failed . Since undertaking the reforms, overall productivity in Mexico has stagnated, and the economy has underperformed even by the undemanding standards of Latin America.
These outcomes are not a surprise from the perspective of sound economics. They are yet another manifestation of the need for economic policies to be attuned to the failures to which markets are prone, and to be tailored to the specific circumstances of each country. No single blueprint fits all.
A s Peters's 1982 manifesto attests, the meaning of neoliberalism has changed considerably over time as the label has acquired harder-line connotations with respect to deregulation, financialisation and globalisation. But there is one thread that connects all versions of neoliberalism, and that is the emphasis on economic growth . Peters wrote in 1982 that the emphasis was warranted because growth is essential to all our social and political ends – community, democracy, prosperity. Entrepreneurship, private investment and removing obstacles that stand in the way (such as excessive regulation) were all instruments for achieving economic growth. If a similar neoliberal manifesto were penned today, it would no doubt make the same point.
Critics often point out that this emphasis on economics debases and sacrifices other important values such as equality, social inclusion, democratic deliberation and justice. Those political and social objectives obviously matter enormously, and in some contexts they matter the most. They cannot always, or even often, be achieved by means of technocratic economic policies; politics must play a central role.
Still, neoliberals are not wrong when they argue that our most cherished ideals are more likely to be attained when our economy is vibrant, strong and growing. Where they are wrong is in believing that there is a unique and universal recipe for improving economic performance, to which they have access. The fatal flaw of neoliberalism is that it does not even get the economics right. It must be rejected on its own terms for the simple reason that it is bad economics.
A version of this article first appeared in Boston Review
Feb 22, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Jeffrey Epstein's alleged 'madam' told a former acquaintance that she and the now-dead pedophile had "everything on videotape," according to The Telegraph .
The acquaintance, socialite and distant relative to the royals Christina Oxenberg, said that Maxwell also told her that Epstein bought a private helicopter because commercial pilots were "eyes and ears" he did not need.
She revealed she had spoken to the FBI about what she had been told.
Ms Oxenberg, 57, first met Maxwell in the early 1990s and said she would never forget a conversation the pair once had in Maxwell's home.
"We were alone," she said. "She said many things. All creepy. Unorthodox. Strange. I could not believe whatever she was saying was real. Stuff like: 'Jeffrey and I have everyone on videotape.'"...
Maxwell has been accused by several alleged Epstein victims of both facilitating and participating in sexual crimes. She has vehemently denied the claims and has not been charged with any crimes in connection to Epstein's activities.
If true, we wonder who exactly was taped?
Feb 21, 2020 | www.bloomberg.com
L Brands went public in 1969 and Wexner was a billionaire by the 1980s, a person familiar with his finances has said. A self-proclaimed workhorse, Wexner preferred to focus on his job rather than managing his money, according to people who knew him at the time.
Then Epstein showed up.
The former math teacher and Bear Stearns Cos. banker became a central figure in the billionaire's life. The pair met in the late 1980s in Palm Beach, Florida, when Epstein was hustling for clients of his money-management firm that he said catered only to billionaires. The New Yorker and Wexner, one of the nation's richest people at the time, struck up a friendship that seemed odd to some who were close to the fashion mogul. Wexner soon abandoned the money manager he had been working with. In 1991, he gave Epstein power of attorney. He explained in a letter to his philanthropic foundation in August -- days before Epstein hanged himself in his Manhattan jail cell -- that the financier previously had "wide latitude to act on my behalf with respect to my personal finances." 'Good Decisions'
One of Epstein's roles was to manage Wexner's soaring stock holdings, but his duties also included suburban planning and yacht design. He represented Wexner when the billionaire sold a New York townhouse to the German government in 1991, according to Jessica Rohm, a retired real estate agent. Epstein was the beneficiary of hand-me-downs including a Boeing 727 and another Manhattan mansion on East 71st Street. "He votes the shares. I decide when to sell it," Epstein said in a 2003 interview at his private Caribbean island. "If you take a look back you'll see I've made very good decisions."
Wexner has a $7 billion fortune, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index . Less than a fifth of that is tied up in L Brands, thanks in part to the share sales Epstein oversaw. The mandate proved enormously profitable for him. Epstein's Financial Trust Co. collected $208 million in fee income from 2003 through 2006, according to accounts first obtained by the New York Times.
The filings indicate that Wexner was his central -- perhaps only -- backer in those years. When the two cut ties in 2007, fee income at Financial Trust fell to $4 million that year from $66 million in 2006.
Feb 21, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
If you want proof that private equity is predatory, you need go not further than its concerted efforts to extend and intensify the devastating practice of surprise billing.
Bad enough that patients develop afflictions or have accidents that land them in the hospital. Recovering physically is hard enough. But to then have the stress and financial damage of large and unexpected bills, which are exercises in rent extraction, is the sort of thing that creates Madame DeFarges.
Private equity experts Eileen Appelbaum and Rosemary Batt did the sleuthing to document how private equity has greatly extended and profited from this abuse. What most people do not realize is the degree to which hospitals have outsourced what most people would assume were core functions provided by doctors on the hospital's payroll, such as emergency room doctors. With many large nominally not-for-profit hospital groups run by MBAs out to justify higher pay packages for themselves, many practice areas are in fact outsourced. Private equity has hoovered up these groups. They, and not the hospital, provide the personnel for a particular case, and they make sure to get some out of network practitioners on the team to pad the bills.
One metric: a Stanford study determined that the odds of getting a surprise bill had increased from 32% in 2010 to 43% in 2016, and the average amount had risen over that time period from $220 to $628. A new study in Health Affairs found that this out of network billing raises health care costs by $40 billion per year .
Appelbaum gave a high-level overview in a op-ed in The Hill last May :
Physicians' groups, it turns out, can opt out of a contract with insurers even if the hospital has such a contract. The doctors are then free to charge patients, who desperately need care, however much they want.
This has made physicians' practices in specialties such as emergency care, neonatal intensive care and anesthesiology attractive takeover targets for private equity firms .
Emergency rooms, neonatal intensive care units and anesthesiologists' practices do not operate like an ordinary marketplace. Physicians' practices in these specialties do not need to worry that they will lose patients because their prices are too high.
Patients can go to a hospital in their network, but if they have an emergency, have a baby in the neonatal intensive care unit or have surgery scheduled with an in-network surgeon, they are stuck with the out-of-network doctors the hospital has outsourced these services to .
It's not only patients that are victimized by unscrupulous physicians' groups. These doctors' groups are able to coerce health insurance companies into agreeing to pay them very high fees in order to have them in their networks.
They do this by threatening to charge high out-of-network bills to the insurers' covered patients if they don't go along with these demands. High payments to these unethical doctors raise hospitals' costs and everyone's insurance premiums.
Appelbaum cited Yale economists who'd examined what happened when hospitals outsourced their emergency room staffing to the two biggest players, EmCare, which has been traded among several private equity firms and is now owned by KKR and TeamHealth, held by Blackstone:
.after EmCare took over the management of emergency services at hospitals with previously low out-of-network rates, they raised out-of-network rates by over 81 percentage points. In addition, the firm raised its charges by 96 percent relative to the charges billed by the physician groups they succeeded.
The study also described how TeamHealth extorted insurers by threatening them with high out-of-network charges for "must have" services:
in most instances, several months after going out-of-network, TeamHealth physicians rejoined the network and received in-network payment rates that were 68 percent higher than previous in-network rates.
California and the Federal government tried to pass legislation to curb surprise billing. As we noted, the California bill was yanked suddenly and no one felt compelled to offer an explanation. The bi-partisan Federal effort also failed.
Appelbaum and Batt, in a new article at CEPR, explain how private equity has been throwing money at astroturf group to keep its scam going :
Early in the summer of 2019, Congress appeared poised to protect consumers from surprise medical bills and to hold insured patients financially harmless in situations where they were unable to choose their doctor .
Two solutions, both of which take surprise charges to patients out of the equation, have been put forward. Employers, patient advocates, and insurance companies favor paying out-of-network doctors a rate "benchmarked" to rates negotiated with in-network doctors to hold down health costs. Not surprisingly, this solution is opposed by large physician staffing companies and specialist physician practices that want to continue to charge prices higher than the in-network fees. These doctors' practices, some backed by private equity firms, have been lobbying intensively for a second option that would allow doctors dissatisfied with a negotiated rate to seek a higher fee via an arbitration process that they believe will ensure higher physician pay and higher company revenues and profits.
The campaign by Physicians for Fair Coverage, a private equity-backed group lobbying on behalf of large physician staffing firms, launched a $1.2 million national ad campaign in July to push for this second approach.8 The lobbying campaign bore fruit. In July, [sponsors of the House bill] Pallone and Walden accepted an amendment to allow arbitration, but only in special cases, and it required the arbitrator to use negotiated rates instead of provider charges when deciding on disputes over payment.9 But the private equity-owned physician staffing companies were not satisfied. In late July, a mysterious group called Doctor Patient Unity launched a $28 million ad and lobbying campaign (now up to nearly $54 million) aimed at keeping any legislation to protect patients from surprise medical bills from passing. In mid-September, a representative for Doctor Patient Unity finally revealed what many observers already suspected -- that PE-owned doctor staffing firms Envision Healthcare and TeamHealth were behind the campaign
Agreement on a joint House and Senate bipartisan bill by Senators Alexander and Murray and Congressmen Pallone and Walden nearly made it into the omnibus continuing resolution that passed in December 2019. It was stymied when Massachusetts Congressman Richard Neal, Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, offered a last-minute alternative. The Neal bill protects consumers from surprise medical bills but requires disputes between providers and insurance companies to be resolved through arbitration. This, of course, is what the PE-owned staffing firms and the doctors' practices they own lobbied for. Lack of support from the Democratic leadership in the Senate and the House delayed passage of the legislation. In his September 2019 fundraising report, Neal reported receipt of $29,000 from Blackstone, owner of TeamHealth.
The entire article is very much worth reading , since it offers more detail on how the private equity firms tightened their grip on these chokepoints. And the threat of legal curbs has had an impact. As the piece also explains, the value of the debt on Envision, the parent of EmCare, and TeamHealth both fell into junk terrain and rebounded a bit when the bills were sidelined for 2019, but remains distressed:
Appelbaum and Batt are pessimistic that anything will get done in 2020:
In the current legislative session, Congress is again working to pass legislation to protect patients from surprise medical bills. But the disagreements in Congress remain unresolved Chances of a compromise bill emerging in this session of Congress do not look good as of this writing (mid-February 2020), and relief for insured patients from unexpected medical bills does not appear to be on the horizon.
However, bond investors clearly think there's still a risk of legislation with some teeth, although the earliest possibility is 2021. Keep your fingers crossed.
jackiebass February 21, 2020 at 6:31 am
Where I live the emergency room doctors are contracted out to a private group. This has been the practice for over a decade. Recently the local hospital got rid of their dialysis services by selling it to a private company. When a person is sick they don't think about asking if the provider is in their network. They simply want treatment to help recover.Another problem is in many areas there isn't a choice. Expensive services can have only one or no providers. That means you have to go out of you area and probably your network. I'm on medicare and chose to be on traditional medicare. You aren't locked into a small network of providers. My supplemental is through my former employer. Unfortunately it's network plan. Occasionally I have services not paid because they are out of network, even though medicare covers 80%. The deductible for out of network is so high that I end up with paying the 20%. I believe there is only one reason for network heart care. It's to increase profits and has little to do with reducing costs.
Shiloh1 February 21, 2020 at 8:02 am
If Al Capone was around today he would be in this criminal enterprise.
Criminal prosecution is the solution. Not "single payer for racketeering" or "mob protection for all".
Best government money can buy.
human February 21, 2020 at 1:05 pm
Capone famously once answered a reporter that, "Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class."
flora February 21, 2020 at 4:11 pm
I was thinking of Al Capone and his almost untouchable Chicago 'enterprise'. He was untouchable in Chicago because his racket paid off the judges, prosecutors, aldermen, and politicians. It took the feds stepping in to shut Capone down.
How many more people will go bankrupt, or avoid going to the doctor or hospital for fear of bankruptcy because of this PE surprise billing racket? Several state leges are passing or trying to pass legislation to block surprise billing.
Thanks for this post.
hoonose February 21, 2020 at 9:51 am
I hope that you've been negotiating your out of network billings! A third or half off may not be unreasonable. Heck, the hospital only collects about 25% of its total billings!
flora February 21, 2020 at 4:24 pm
This is one reason we need traditional M4A. Traditional Medicare has payment limits that the provider has to accept if they bill Medicare. (Medicare fraud is a problem, but it is tracked and prosecuted.)
Note: Medicare Advantage plans do not have this surprise billing limits protection. see:
John Anthony La Pietra February 21, 2020 at 6:34 am
Maybe I'm missing something, but offhand I don't see how this can even be a thing under a single-payer health-care system. If someone knows better otherwise, please enlighten me.
If I've got that much right, could this be another part of the motivation against M4A?
human February 21, 2020 at 7:35 am
Of course it is. A single-payer system will have massive leverage to achieve fair pricing and compensation.
hoonose February 21, 2020 at 11:34 am
Of course providers are all worried that compensations will be too meager and oppressive. For instance if the docs' income expectations go unmet, then they will certainly buck!
Yves Smith Post author February 21, 2020 at 4:58 pm
But the "providers," as in the MDs, are not the beneficiaries, or at least not much. It's the companies that own the practices .which are owned by PE funds.
Cripes February 21, 2020 at 7:05 am
This reminds me of the TV ad running lately featuring a nice young couple opening their cable bill and declaring "Its a ransom note!" as if its the height of comedy that we are living in a kleptocracy where everyone is constantly subject to "your money or your life" banditry we pretend were left behind in central park muggings of the 1970s.
I have recently had multiple occasions that I needed to write on patient responsibility forms that out of network and balance billing is refused, followed with letters citing applicable state laws and CMS contracts barring conduct in my state. It's insane.
Still I have stacks of collection notices I must beat back and win every time. They only need to win once to destroy someone. Have we no prisons?
The rapine and dispossession of late-stage American crapitalism (can we finally get to End Stage?) always exceeds our worst expectations.
Crime-infested swamp of a country.
Dare we hope a movement can coalesce and endure after a decent man in his waning years is thrust into an historical opportunity to move this train wreck from disaster?
He's the community organizer Obama never was and the new dealer FDR never quite was.
In the flatness of our current political terrain, Bernie's grandfatherly menscheism makes him a moral colossus next to the sniveling careerists and the nefarious old crassus.
1776, 1860, 1932, 1968. What will we make of this year?
On to Milwaukee
John Anthony La Pietra February 21, 2020 at 7:29 am
Can you put the rebuttal into your own easily reproducible form? Either a neat page to staple thoroughly to the bills (copied/printed in needed quantities) or a big rubber stamp with blanks to fill in if applicable?
Yves Smith Post author February 21, 2020 at 5:01 pm
Yes, if you can provide it, I would make it a post. Your version with your state's language and how to find similar language in other states. This is VERY important.
Note I have heard one reader say that their doctors said they wouldn't schedule the surgery if she made an issue out of out of network MDs, that she needed to go elsewhere. So those doctors were completely on board with this practice.
DHG February 21, 2020 at 7:22 am
Anyone who has not made themselves judgment proof really is the fool. No assets, nothing for them to get.
floyd February 21, 2020 at 8:23 am
Disagree -as Chris Hedges says, those people have value as prisoners where they can generate $40K+/yr for some private prison.
flora February 21, 2020 at 5:35 pm
"You wouldn't think you'd go to jail over medical bills": County in rural Kansas is jailing people over unpaid medical debt
fnx February 21, 2020 at 1:48 pm
Doesn't mean that can't get a judgment against you! Then you spend the rest of your life trying to avoid having people send money via Paypal or other services direct to your bank account since they can take it. Or winning the lottery or buying a new car the list is endless.
TG February 21, 2020 at 12:14 pm
I am currently visiting some old colleagues in Denmark. I told them about the new practice in the United States of "surprise medical billing."
They were shocked. "Sure that's something Trump would do, but surely the Democrats would stop it?"
Susan the other February 21, 2020 at 12:48 pm
As in "Privatize Sovereignty, Socialize Property" by David Cieplay, Blackstone and its ilk have this very business model. In this case they are buying up emergency room doctors' practices – with the promise they will make more money – and passing the cost on to insurance companies (poetic justice) and the state and federal gov. Because we have no laws against this sort of corporate privateering (heaven forbid congress should suddenly remember how and why to legislate), all the costs of health care are socialized and because the PE funds are untouchable they have effectively privatized sovereignty. When we all realize their useful function in this scam is one big nothing burger, congress will have to act. It's just another testament to how venal, immoral, lazy and rotten congress is. I can smell it from here.
Howard February 21, 2020 at 1:37 pm
Besides PE, it also makes sense that the real estate sector in general would be opposed to anything that reduces financial burden (particularly anything that would lessen medical debt) on middle- and lower-middle-income households, because foreclosures and desperation fire sales would then dry up.
TimH February 21, 2020 at 1:59 pm
Here's the California situation, from https://www.dmhc.ca.gov/Portals/0/HealthCareInCalifornia/FactSheets/fsab72.pdf
The law protects consumers from surprise medical bills when:
An enrollee goes to an in-network facility such as a hospital, lab or imaging center, but services are provided by an out-of-network health provider.
An enrollee receives emergency services from a doctor or hospital that is not contracted with the patient's health plan or medical group.
JCC February 21, 2020 at 4:13 pm
Yet another anecdote
I've been a relatively healthy individual and so rarely use my insurance. I used it for the first time in 20 years for a full yearly physical (just because it was "that time", not for any health problems). The annual full checkup is, supposedly, fully covered, and I chose a local clinic in my network.
The various clinics involved ended up billing me directly, so far, for over $3500.00, and that was before the colonoscopy bill which still hasn't arrived. I checked my Insurance Portal and, sure enough, the supposed covered charges were listed as "Denied".
So, considering all these costs were supposed to be covered, I took a full day off work (6 solid hours on various phone calls) to get it straightened out. While going through all these bills and working through each charge I discovered 1 bill for a clinic appt (a subsidiary of CVS) that never happened and 1 very high bill for standard blood tests (Quest) that never happened due to a screwup initiated by the CVS-owned clinic. We'll see what happens.
But while talking with one of the Insurance Co. reps she told me a classic surprise billing horror story that happened to her. She gets occasional nosebleeds and one day got a serious one while on the highway before her exit. A CHP officer pulled up behind her after she pulled over to take care of the situation and refused to let her continue on without going to the nearest Emergency Room, so she went.
Her visit lasted 1/2 hour. She was handed a bucket of clean water and a towel. After cleaning up, she waited around for awhile, gave up waiting, washed the towel out, cleaned the bucket out and left. She went on to tell me that 30 days later she recieved a bill from the Emergency Services group at the hospital for $45,000.00. For a towel and a bucket of water.
It took her two days of unpaid time off to get it straightened out and the bill removed.
She then told me she's voting for Sanders, too.
So I've learned three lessons from this; 1) even with insurance things go wrong far too often when it comes to billing issues, and 2) Surprise Billing is far more common than I was led to believe, and 3) Health Insurance/care in this country is riddled with fraud and outright criminality.
Yves Smith Post author February 21, 2020 at 5:07 pm
Hate to tell you, but with a colonoscopy, the exam is covered by Obamacare, but any snipping of polyps is not, and that can easily run to $1000.
The US Is the only advanced economy where colonoscopies are recommended for everyone over 50. In other countries, they are recommended only for people in high risk groups.
If you get an annual ( and it needs to be annual ) fecal occult blood test (easy and cheap, MD puts gloved finger in you, wipes test panel, and tells you right there), the results in terms of detection are on par with colonoscopies.
Feb 20, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Les Wexner is stepping down as chairman and CEO of L Brands as the company prepares to sell a 55% stake in its flagship brand, Victoria's Secret, to private equity firm Sycamore Partners for $525 million, according to a pair of reports from Bloomberg and WSJ.
Last month, we reported that Wexner, a longtime friend, benefactor and mentor to financier pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, was preparing to sell the company that he essentially built and led for decades.
Sources familiar with the talks told WSJ at the time that a full or partial sale of Victoria's Secret was expected, as the company was finally giving up on turning around the struggling lingerie brand.
WSJ described the decision to give up control of Victoria's Secret was an acknowledgement that 82-year-old billionaire Wexner "couldn't revei the fortunes of a troubled lingerie brand he had built around shopping malls and sex appeal.
Three other L Brands board members will step down along with Wexner, though Abigail's will remain on the board. A successor has already been chosen, per WSJ.
In an internal memo to staff, Mr. Wexner shared news of the deal and his departure. "I've thought about where I fit in the picture," he wrote in the email. "In keeping with this same thoughtful examination, I have decided that now is the right time to pass the reins to new leadership."
L Brands said it had promoted one of its longtime executives, Andrew Meslow, to take over as chief executive and be added to the board when the Sycamore deal closes. Mr. Meslow, who joined the company in 2003, is chief operating officer of its Bath & Body Works chain.
Three longtime board members, including L Brand's lead independent director, will step down at the next annual meeting. Two other directors left last year amid pressure from an activist investor. Mr. Wexner, who owns a 17% stake, and his wife Abigail will keep seats on the board.
The deal will spin off VS as a separate company with a valuation worth $1.1 billion, just a fraction of the $34 billion valuation for Lululemon Athletica and other rivals.
Feb 14, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
snake , Feb 13 2020 11:16 utc | 147
Pft 85 < The Constitution of the United States of America is a corporate charter. in form and substance, it redirected the distribution of profits from shareholders to feudal lords.
What it has been doing since Lincoln was shot is to develop lordships (called monopoly possessing corporations) and making sure those lordships were vested by rule of law, war in foreign land, and other measures as needed, to make sure the feudal lords and their corporations were always profitable no matter what and to be sure that any need or want the feudal lords had need for, the USA corporation would extract from those (called Americans) that it governs. ..
When the feudal lords fail, the government is made to give the feudal lord the money it needs to keep going. until the failed feudal lord can realize by its bull shit existence to be profitable again.
Vig , Feb 13 2020 12:48 utc | 152Comment les Etats-Unis ont demandé à la communauté internationale de soutenir leur plan israélo-palestinien.or look for lefigaro.fr then international,then moyen orient.
Posted by: willie | Feb 13 2020 0:48 utc | 94
Interesting willie. Yes the best about Trump is that it makes the US system so visibly transparent: The king and his servants (acolytes) looking for personal advantage ... Hillarious. Don't you second-rate allies/acolytes use the wrong words. We better give you talking points.
Feb 14, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
uncle tungsten , Feb 12 2020 22:34 utc | 77Now here is a good piece on Trump gangsterism by Gordon Duff.
I guess some is Duffy but most entirely believable.
Q wont reprint this .
ben , Feb 12 2020 22:41 utc | 81Thanks for the link ut @ 77; An excerpt;Pft , Feb 12 2020 23:28 utc | 85
"Those who accept the policies of the Trump administration, cancellation of the JCPOA with Iran, seizing oil fields in Syria, endless sanctions on nation after nation, Europe blackmailed, endless threats emanating almost hourly from Trump's iPhone as "national policy" or even criminally deranged is simply not paying attention."
Excellent come back for the Qanon fantasy, which, IMO, ranks right up there with Ayn Rand's fevered dreams...Ran across this quote which is more true than not.uncle tungsten , Feb 13 2020 1:23 utc | 96
There is no America. Everything is just one vast corporation, an association of corporations. There's no Britain. There's no America. There's no Holland. There's no China. There's no Russia. It's one conglomerate of corporations. Money runs the thing."
-- Peter Finch as character Howard Beale, in the movie "Network
Its true when you consider the interlocking ownership of the elites in the major corporations and industries, which also capture governments political parties and regulatory agencies, and in China of course these local global elites make up parts of the party elite. While money is an important attribute of power, I think its a means and not an end to them. Their motivations is an ideology based on Platos Republic where they are pholisopher kings ruling the rest, and a religious idea that they, as elites may evolve to become like God and recover what was lost after the fall - as man was originally made in Gods image. Another name for it is Transhumanism which actually is idea that came from gnostic Judeo-Christian beliefs. Religion like Eugenics has not disappeared, both have just been renamed and repurposed. The Elites are Gods chosen people and the rest exist to serve.Penelope #95
Exactly Penelope, that is precisely what the Trump and establishment oligarchy want. Red herrings to mesmerise and nimble fingers to pick pockets and all backed by their 'rule of law', their thugs, their assault on humanity.
Benign neglect of the safety of citizens as part of this strategy of creating high level terror (be it actual violence or a coronavirus)is called out in this excellent analysis .
Feb 10, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Victoria's Secret Sale To Sycamore Imminent; L Brands' Shares Pop by Tyler Durden Mon, 02/10/2020 - 07:15 0 SHARES Shares of Victoria's Secret parent company L Brands jumped 10% Monday on news private equity firm Sycamore Partners is close to a deal to purchase the women's lingerie brand, reported CNBC .
News of the potential deal involving Sycamore was released in the overnight hours, with more details expected this week.
There was no word on a succession plan for L Brands CEO Les Wexner. Still, as we noted several weeks ago, his mediocre performance as CEO and controversial relationship with late sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein , assured that his time at the helm of the company is coming to an end. That said, since we first previewed the potential sale of Victoria's Secret, there has been no indication if the transaction is tied to Wexner's relationship with Epstein.
Victoria's Secret has experienced declining sales in the last four years, which triggered a mass exodus of investors from L Brands' stock, sending it plunging 74% since 2016. Shareholders criticized Wexner for his inability to evolve Victoria's Secret to changing consumer demands, despite L Brands having massive success in its other companies, such as Bath & Bodyworks personal care shop.
Victoria's Secret generated $7.4 billion in sales last year but has been considered a dying brand among consumers.
William Dorritt , 3 hours ago linkWilliam Dorritt , 4 hours ago link
WEXNER & THE OTHER OLIGARCHS WHO FINANCED EPSTEIN'S KIDDIE SEX SLAVE OPERATION
- - Should have all of their cash and assets frozen and confiscated under Global Magnetski
- - FBI, DOJ and Federal Courts have totally collapsed and can not enforce Laws where the Elite Pedos are involved
- - Trump and Mnuchin don't have the balls to seize the assets from 20+ Jewish Oligarch Billionaire sex slave traffickers
- - Ban kiddie sex involved Barak from entry into the US same for Bibi if he doesn't give the blackmail videos to the criminal court in the Hauge and the US Justice DeptSeasmoke , 4 hours ago link
WEXNER'S 300 ft yacht will never be sold
- Too much physical evidence on the ship ??
- It will be quietly scrapped in Pakistan
while the DOJ, FBI and Federal Courts continue to provide cover for the Elite Pedos
- 2 x CIA and 1 former Mosad have stated that Epstein was a Mosad Compromise Operation
- The operation created Control Files on the Business, Academic (MIT, Harvard etc) and Political Elite in the US and Europe
- Dershowitz and Weinstein were frequent Flyers as were both Clintons
- Virginia Roberts testified she was forced to have sex with Dershowitz who she found repulsive
- Prince Andrew was photographed embracing under age Roberts inside of the Wexner-Epstein kiddie sex mansion in NYC as was Israeli PM Barak who also supplied Weinstein with former Mosad contact; company that specialized in making PR problems go away, Black Cube
- Asia Argento, Me Too, accused Weinstein of raping her and up to 100 other actresses; boyfriend Antony Bordain who had outspoken against Weinstein died after x Mosad was employed to solve problems
- Epstein was a Globalist who belonged to the CFR and Tri Lateral Commission
- Epstein ran a Eugenics program in NM, in the Middle of the Governor's Ranch, Zorro Ranch
- Bill Gates was friends with Epstein after Epstein's kiddi-sex conviction
- McCain's wife said they knew about Epstein, and did zero for the kiddie-sex-slaves
- Epstein's neighbor in the Virgin Island also ran a sex slave cult operation, Nexium
- Alex Acosta Federal Prosecutor was told to tank the case against Epstein because Epstein was Intelligence, who gave Acosta the order, his Boss AG Gonzales who reported directly the Bush Jr aka Clinton's brother from another mother ?
- AG Barr successfully defended the Acosta deal as AG, the next day the Federal Judge who approved the original deal told the kiddie sex victime 30+ of them to piss up a rope or better luck next time
- Epstein's "death" ended all legal action in the courts
- Sleeping guards, the cameras were broken, hung himself with toilet paper from 3 feet etc, videos lost and erased from prison. 4- chan reported Epstein taken out of prison in van minutes before death announcement was made
- Disney was bring children to Epstein Islandmendigo , 4 hours ago link
Wexner > Epstein.William Dorritt , 2 hours ago link
He's not being terminated, he's being removed from the scene. Financier of pedofile ring and abuser of women is not positive for the brand. Even if branch is only throw away underwear - maybe he can move into adult diaper industry.NAV , 17 minutes ago link
Sycamore Partners was founded in 2011 by Stefan Kaluzny and Peter Morrow. Before Sycamore, Kaluzny was a Managing Partner at Golden Gate Capital and was employed since the firm's inception. Prior to joining Golden Gate, he co-founded Delray Farms, Inc. and also served as its Chief Executive Officer. Kaluzny received a BA from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School . Morrow served as a Principal at Golden Gate before co-founding Sycamore. Morrow received a BA from Stanford University and an MBA from Stanford Graduate School of Business .
LBO = Asset Stripping, Pension Stripping, Part time workers, WalMart Pay Scale, No benefits, Everything Made in Slave Countries ????MARDUKTA , 3 hours ago link
New York: Stefan Kaluzny has made a ton of money -- and drawn his share of critics -- buying down-on-the-heels retailers using lots of debt.
Now, Kaluzny's Sycamore Partners is under scrutiny again, after completing a deal that left even seasoned leveraged-buyout experts agog. On Tuesday, Sycamore pulled off a $5.4 billion refinancing of Staples Inc., which it bought in 2017, that funded a staggering $1 billion dividend to the private equity firm.
The dividend is among the biggest in recent memory, even in a world where buyout firms routinely extract large sums for themselves after taking companies private. Combined with a payment it took in January, it means Sycamore has recovered -- in less than two years -- roughly 80% of the equity it originally put up as part of the deal. Private equity investors typically run their companies for five to seven years before taking profits and exiting the investment. - Sycamore Partners under scrutiny after pocketing $1 billion from Staples deal, live mint.comReflectoMatic , 3 hours ago link
WEXNER A SICK ******* POS PEDO, WEAPONS AND DRUG TRAFFICKER WHO WILL HANG AT GITMO WHEN IT'S HIS TURN.
WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK HE SOLD HIS **** COMPANY?
Draw a huge oval shaped ring around the San Luis Valley of Colorado, at the top edge is Vail, at the bottom edge is the Epstein Zorro Ranch. In the center is the Blood-of Christ Mnt, Crestone and the Baca Grande Ranch which was owned by Maurice Strong, and where his wife Hanne & Nazi paperclip Vrill communicated with non-human beings starting in 1978.
In 1982 Maurice convened in Vail a gathering of the 300 top world leaders to 'hand them' the plan during a week long gathering in which they were drugged with psychedelics. 10 years later Maurice gave us Agenda 21 then in 2015 Agenda 2030, meanwhile, trade with China expanded and factories were relocated to China, the European Union was created and the North American Union was being created in secret. All seemed to be progressing well to bring about the plan, the One World Government & Religion (GAIA).
Did China get suckered by the globalist & democrats into thinking they were going to takeover the United States? Even worse, did the globalist think they were playing the top of the game?
Jeffery Epstein is thought to be the Messiah of biblical prophesy by many of the most powerful people. China is now a sort of leper colony. Saint James, kin to Jesus, and