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
Neoliberal Propaganda:
Journalism in the Service of the Powerful Few
Journalism Vacation from Truth is a direct threat to democracy. Without journalistic
integrity, there is no democracy as the average voter cannot make an informed choice. Inverted
totalitarism won some time ago.
The FAKE NEWS media (failing
@nytimes,
@NBCNews,
@ABC,
@CBS,
@CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the
American People! ~ Donald Trump
"The truth is that the newspaper is not a place for information to be given,
rather it is just hollow content, or more than that, a provoker of content.
If it prints lies about atrocities, real atrocities are the result."
Karl Kraus, 1914
WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
1984
We are the world, we are exceptional, we cannot fail. The elite will lie, and
the people will pretend to believe them. Heck about 20 percent of the American public will believe
almost anything if it is wrapped with the right prejudice and appeal to passion.
"The media's interest in the well-being of a foreign population is directly proportional to the West's interest in
toppling its government, while editorial standards are inversely proportional to its enemy status." ~John McEvoy
The UK's propaganda machine rivals and even surpasses Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.
I think journalists today — elite journalists at least — absorb the biases of the
ruling neoliberal oligarchy far more readily than they used to do. The media establishment is
populated by yes-men. I do not understand how any skeptical person can, in good conscience, trust a
western MSM description of foreign events. You need a second source to compare coverage. The
mainstream media gives us no real news. Just the regurgitation of talking points they were
given. Seeing how they treat the concept of truth these days, one might think that 1984 dystopia was
an understatement.
The problem is fundamental, and relates to a broad spectrum of policy issues both foreign and
domestic, because truth — factual reality — is a necessary foundation to consider and evaluate and debate
policy on any subject.
Crushing the truth means not just our having to endure any one misdirected
policy; it means losing the ability even to address policy intelligently.
To the extent that
falsehood is successfully instilled in the minds of enough people, the political system loses what
would otherwise be its ability to provide a check on policy that is bad policy because it is inconsistent
with factual reality.
I think it is good that people question their lying politicians and these lying, corrupt partisans pretending to be MSM
pundits. If that means that MSM try to slander the people as “conspiracy
theorists” you should take it with a grain of salt. As Gore Vidal quipped they are actually "conspiracy analysts" not
"conspiracy theorists". BTW the term was invented by CIA to crush alternative versions of JFK assassination. This label
is a form of censorship, plain and simple.
I would
rather be a conspiracy theorist than take anything CNN or FOX says as gospel. Or, God forbid, believe what US politicians say to
justify their action or inaction. Skepticism is good. These people don’t automatically deserve our trust. As Reagan said
(translating Russian proverb) "Trust but verify".
The angle under which this page views events and MSM can be called anti-neoliberal angle (please note that the term populism is
the attempt to discredit any anti-neoliberal movement). Until recently such sites were a lone voice. In 2019 this changed. See
Tucker Carlson rejection of neoliberalism
If you take in television news as truthful information, that's all a critically thinking person needs to know about you. In
reality 99% of political coverage is neoliberal propaganda, sometimes refined, sometimes crude.
Propaganda can be defined as a war on reality using fake news, disinformation, projection, witch-hunts (see
neo_Mccarthhyism) and other methods. An attempt to create an artificial reality.
Propaganda can be defined as a war on reality using fake news, disinformation, projection,
witch-hunts (see neo_Mccarthhyism) and other
methods. It is an attempt to create an artificial reality. The key here is
controlling the narrative. For example, "fake news" hysteria is a perfect method of
suppressing of dissent and questions about MSM ties to three-letter agencies ( see
US and British media are servants of security apparatus
)
Journalists manipulate us in the interest of the Powerful. Do you also have the feeling, that
you are often manipulated by the media and lied to? Then you're like the majority of Germans.
Previously it was considered as a "conspiracy theory". Now it revealed by an Insider, who tells
us what is really happening under the hood.
The Journalist Udo Ulfkotte ashamed today that he spent 17 years in the Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung. ...he reveals why opinion leaders produce tendentious reports and serve as the extended
Arm of the NATO press office. ...the author also was admitted into the networks of American elite
organizations, received in return for positive coverage in the US even a certificate of honorary
citizenship.
In this book you will learn about industry lobby organisations. The author calls hundreds of
names and looks behind the Scenes of those organizations, which exert bias into media, such as:
Atlantic bridge, Trilateral Commission, the German Marshall Fund, American Council on Germany,
American Academy, Aspen Institute, and the Institute for European politics. Also revealed are
the intelligence backgrounds of those lobby groups, the methods and forms of propaganda and financing
used, for example, by the US Embassy. Which funds projects for the targeted influencing
of public opinion in Germany
...You realize how you are being manipulated - and you know from whom and why. At the end it
becomes clear that diversity of opinion will now only be simulated. Because our "messages" are
often pure brainwashing.
Simplifying, the US MSM foreign events media coverage (and large part of domestic coverage related to the opposition to
neoliberalism and neoliberal
globalization, see
Anti Trump Hysteria
during elections and immediately after them ) has very little to do with the reality and is mostly a barometer of the paranoia of
the US neoliberal elite. It is 100% propaganda, or as CBS like to call it "fake news".
How does Fake History and Fake News
in the US MSM gradually superseded their reality-based version
(which never was perfect, and often quite distorted) is a very interesting question but it is too big for this page. I would only
say that this process is closely connected with the process of the neoliberalization of the US society which started in full force in late
70th (see also late Sheldon Wolin notion of
Inverted Totalitarism) . We can take election of Reagan as a
starting point although the process started immediately after WWII. From this point "fake news" were enforced on the
US society as the only acceptable narrative? Which, is
essence, is a neoliberal war on reality.
The process started with the creation of CIA. The key question that arise in this regard is whether
representative democracy is compatible with the existence large all-powerful and largely uncontrollable and positioned "above the
law" intelligence agencies.
The key question that arise in this regard is whether
representative democracy is compatible with the existence large all-powerful and largely uncontrollable and positioned "above the
law" intelligence agencies.
At some point any society with powerful intelligence agencies naturally arrive to the point when "the tail wags the dog."
In other words they became political power and in institutional hierarchy are positioned above White House. In the USA this probably happened around 1963, with the JFK assassination. In a
way the USSR via Truman enforced its model of governance on the USA ;-). Creation of intelligence agencies by Truman was actually the act of the creation of national security state. Which could be
viewed as an official end of the US democracy with quick (less then two decades) rise to power of the Deep State (with the first
major victory
demonstrated to the US people in 1963).
With it the huge apparatus of state propaganda
(and by extension means of suppressing of dissent) intelligence
agencies, which gradually acquired political power including considerable (but not yet absolute, that will come much later, after
9/11) level of control of MSM
(see Church Committee - Wikipedia ). Which is documented in
the book by Dr. Udo Ulfkotte Journalists for Hire
How the CIA Buys the News
After 1963, the level outrage in the society was such that there were some meek attempts to check this power, especially the
power of intelligence agencies over the MSM (Church Committee - Wikipedia
was probably the most well known) but they lead to nowhere. CIa and other inteeligence againces remain positioned above the
White House.
Color revolution against Trump (aka
Russiagate) launched by CIA and FBI after election has shown who is the real master of the USA. It was accompanied by
unprecedented neo-McCarthism campaign in which neoliberal MSM lost any remnants of decency
and objectivity.
The recent incident with CIA director Gina Haspel
lying to President Trump to inflict severe sanctions on Russia is just a confirmation of the level of this influence. She will
never be fired for her "transgressions"
"If Trump were not in on the schemes he would just fire his underlings!"
This sentiment indicates a failure to understand the power dynamics at play here. Haspel
is not the "underling" . Trump is the underling. Sure, being that he is also an
oligarch makes Trump's role in the show complicated, but Presidents are installed in order to
serve the oligarchy, and the CIA are top level strategists/enforcers for the oligarchy.
In the real organization chart for the empire the CIA is above the President.
This has been the case in the US since Kennedy.
Trump cannot fire Haspel or Pompeo. They can fire him, though, and with a sniper's bullet
if they want.
Unfortunately for the oligarchy, that would cause additional complications at a time when
they have lots of tricky and inexplicably unstable (for them) operations ongoing, which is
why they are just steering Trump around instead of replacing him. And Trump is willfully
cooperating, even if they are not filling him in on the plans.
Trump will not fire Haspel. He can't. He's just an actor playing a role in a show, and
Haspel is one of the producers/writers of that show. If she doesn't put firing in the script
then Trump cannot say those lines. I doubt he really wants to anyway.
1. We do not want war.
2. The opposite party alone is guilty of war.
3. The enemy is the face of the devil.
4. We defend a noble cause, not our own interest.
5. The enemy systematically commits cruelties; our mishaps are involuntary.
6. The enemy uses forbidden weapons.
7. We suffer small losses, those of the enemy are enormous.
8. Artists and intellectuals back our cause.
9. Our cause is sacred. "The ages-old 'God bless America' is playing once more."
10. All who doubt our propaganda, are traitors.
The blog empirestrikesblack cites Belgian investigative journalist
Michel Collon who has outlined five principles driving war propaganda:
Obscure one’s economic interests;
Appear humanitarian in work and motivations;
Obscure history;
Demonize the enemy; and
Monopolize the flow of information.
NeoMcCarthyism
NeoMcCarthyism campaign which was launched around mid 2016 by Democratic Party operatives as tactical tool to distract attention
from DNC corruption and illegal removal of Bernie Sanders from the Democratic ticket after lection of Trump turned into important
component of color revolution against Trump. And was fueled not only by MSM but also powerful factions of neoliberals and neocons in
US intelligence agencies concerted about their future and the level of financing of "national security parasites". They also
have skeletons in the closet to hide (especially FBI and CIA) and did not prepare well to the Trump victory as this was a huge
surprise for everybody including Trump himself. See
Steele dossier and
Strzok-gate
Please note that the original
McCarthyism campaign lasted more then a decade. And McCarthyism was not exactly or only
about Communist infiltration into the US government. It has elements of a more general framework of suppressing any "dissidents" who question "official
narrative" and simultaneously served as the framework of brainwashing of population creating a
stereotype of enemy, in best Bolsheviks, or, if you wish Nazi Germany, style.
In other words, like in famous Orwell novel 1984, under McCarthyism questioning of official narrative has become a "though crime"
(much like it was in the USSR, especially under Stalinism period). And repressions were real,
although far less extensive and brutal, than in the USSR in 30th. Thousands of people lost jobs and were blacklisted. Many
ostracized, especially from artistic circles, committed suicides.
While Senator McCartney has a certain gist for blackmailing people and, being an alcoholic,
he probably would be a suitable
candidate for high position in NKVD, he was not a pioneer. He was just a talented follower. This
type of modern witch hunt was first implemented on large scale by Bolsheviks in Russia after 1917.
Actually Bolsheviks originated many modern methods of brainwashing of the population. Which
later were enhanced and further developed in Nazi Germany and than imported to the USA after WWII.
That all brings us to the concept of "deep state" and its control of MSM. The problem with the "deep state" approach to governance is that it replicates Bolshevism on a new,
more polished, level, with high officials of
intelligence agencies, Wall Street and military industrial complex as a new Politburo. Which is not elected but still
controls that nations. So much for remnants of democracy in the USA. That does not mean that some deviations from the "Party
line" are impossible: the election of Trump is one such event. But loop at the power of the reaction of the "deep state" on
this event. Not that Trump (who can be viewed as some kind of Republican "Change we can believe in" Obama" ) was intended to follow
his election promises in any case. The level of vetting of candidates is two party system probably is higher then many of us
suspect.
As currently there is no alternative to neoliberalism, the current situation will continue to exist. Notwithstanding the
fact that neoliberal ideology was discredited after 2008 financial crisis, much like Bolshevism in 60th. Bolshevism as a theocratic ideology was essentially dead after WWII (although it managed to kick the can down the road for
another 45 years). After 60the
Soviet people despite constant brainwashing started to have wide-ranging doubts about the communist state and communist ideology. Listening to state-sponsored propaganda radio-stations from the West
such as BBC and Voice of America became national pasture of Soviet citizens, especially educated
one. Despite all the jamming. Similar situation happened with the USA after 2008, when citizen suddenly start showing some
level of interest RT broadcasts and views on internal situation in the USA ;-). And, of cause, all this needs to be stopped.
In the name of the "health of the state", democracy be dumned (religious term which literally means "condemned
to eternalpunishment")
In this particular sense, imitating the enemy by the USA elite after WWII, which was done to fight communist threat (which
was overblown) was a very dangerous course with
far reaching consequences. The new level of this process of "imitating the enemy" now started with the USA -- the rise of alternative press (kind of Samizdat replica
from Soviet past) and clumsy attempt of the deep state to suppress it claiming that they are propagator of "fake news" with the
subtext that they are Russian agents (the campaign which spectacularly backfired: which the help of President Trump tweets
this term now became the standard nickname of the "official" US MSM). That brings us directly to revising Stalin's
"Show trials" and corresponding witch-hunt in the USSR. Appointing Muller to investigate Trump for "Russian connection"
(so called "Russiagate") replays
favorite theme of accusing enemies of Stalin of being British agents. On a new level incorporating set of political
technologies of overthrowing the legitimate government commonly known as "color revolution" technologies. But in both cases it
is all about eliminating political rivals.
In broader context the current practice of manipulating population is similar to "high demand cults" style practice
-- Bolshevism actually can be best viewed as a religious cult merged with the political movement,
much like political Islam today ( Belief-coercion in high
demand cults ):
They use all of the techniques as "low demand" faith groups use: requiring members
to accept a system of beliefs, conforming to certain behavioral norms; expecting
them to involve themselves in the life of the congregation, etc. However, mind-control
groups add many additional methods, and take them all to a much higher level. Some
are:
Members' access to outside information is severely restricted
Their thoughts, beliefs and emotions are tightly controlled by:
stress; e.g. long hours of work; little or no free time
restricting sleep
requiring endless repetition of prayers
auto-hypnotic exercises
generation of fear and paranoia; viewing the outside world as threatening
restricting criticism of the leadership or group policies
Their behavior may be controlled by:
public shaming and humiliation
requiring personal confessions
isolation from outside contacts, including their family of origin
Members are not physically restrained from leaving the group. They are not held
prisoner. They can walk away at any time. But there are strong pressures to remain.
If they left, all social and emotional support would disappear; they will often
be shunned. Some groups teach that God will abandon or punish them if they leave.
They may be told that they will die in the imminent war of Armageddon if they leave
the protection of the group.
The main methods here always was the generation and totalitarian
control of "suitable" narrative (that's why Sheldon Wolin called neoliberal society "inverted
totalitarism"):
"The primary aim of official propaganda is to generate an "official narrative" that can be
mindlessly repeated by the ruling classes and those who support and identify with them. This official
narrative does not have to make sense, or to stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. Its factualness
is not the point. The point is to draw a Maginot line, a defensive ideological boundary, between
"the truth" as defined by the ruling classes and any other "truth" that contradicts their narrative.
"
Gerald Celente coined the term "presstitutes", which is obviously politically incorrect,
but still is a very precise term:
presstitutes sell themselves to neoliberal establishment for access and governments to prosper financially and to keep their jobs.
In the USSR journalist were called "soldiers of the Party" so in the less humiliating way we can call them "soldiers of neoliberal
establishment" ;-).
Read more
Due to the size an introductory article was converted to a separate page
Neoliberal Propaganda
Listen to this article 6 minutes 00:00 / 06:06 1x Earnings, valuation and rampant speculation have all played a role in the extraordinary bull market that began a year ago this week. The latest combination of the three has a troubling reliance on the speculative element. A broad framework for thinking about stocks can be derived from the late economist Hyman Minsky's three stages of debt. In the first stage, borrowers take on only what they can afford to repay in full from their earnings by the time the debt matures; a standard mortgage works like this. Earnings, valuation and rampant speculation have all played a role in the extraordinary bull market that began a year ago this week. The latest combination of the three has a troubling reliance on the speculative element. A broad framework for thinking about stocks can be derived from the late economist Hyman Minsky's three stages of debt. In the first stage, borrowers take on only what they can afford to repay in full from their earnings by the time the debt matures; a standard mortgage works like this. A broad framework for thinking about stocks can be derived from the late economist Hyman Minsky's three stages of debt. In the first stage, borrowers take on only what they can afford to repay in full from their earnings by the time the debt matures; a standard mortgage works like this. A broad framework for thinking about stocks can be derived from the late economist Hyman Minsky's three stages of debt. In the first stage, borrowers take on only what they can afford to repay in full from their earnings by the time the debt matures; a standard mortgage works like this. U.S. 10-year Treasury yield Source: Tullett Prebon As of March 24 % Pre-pandemic peak of S&P 500 2020 '21 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 S&P 500 forward price/earnings ratio Source: Refinitiv Note: Weekly data S&P 500 peak 2020 '21 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 The parallel in the stock market is stocks going up when earnings -- or rather the expectation of earnings, since the market looks ahead -- go up. There is a risk of course, just as there is with debt: The earnings might not appear, and the stock goes back down. But earnings offer the least risky form of gains, and one that we should welcome as obviously justified. From the low in the summer, 2020 earnings forecasts jumped more than 10%, and expectations for this year rose more than 8%. Stocks responded. In Minsky's second stage, borrowers plan only to repay the interest, and refinance when the main debt is due to be repaid; much company debt works like this. It is taken out with a plan to roll it over indefinitely. Interest rates matter a lot: If they go down when the company needs to refinance, it will pay less. The equity parallel is to gains in valuation due to lower long-term rates. As with corporate debt, this is entirely justified and sustainable so long as rates stay low, because future earnings are now more appealing. The danger is that rates rise, in which case the stock might be hit no matter how earnings pan out. A big chunk of the gains in stocks in the past year came from the sharply lower rates in the first response to the pandemic when the Federal Reserve flooded the system with money. Price-to-forward-earnings multiples soared. From the S&P 500's low on March 23 to the end of June, the market went from 14 to more than 21 times estimated earnings 12 months ahead, even as those estimated earnings fell amid lockdown gloom. The yield on the 10-year Treasury, already down sharply from mid-February's high, fell further as stocks rebounded. In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the The parallel in the stock market is stocks going up when earnings -- or rather the expectation of earnings, since the market looks ahead -- go up. There is a risk of course, just as there is with debt: The earnings might not appear, and the stock goes back down. But earnings offer the least risky form of gains, and one that we should welcome as obviously justified. From the low in the summer, 2020 earnings forecasts jumped more than 10%, and expectations for this year rose more than 8%. Stocks responded. In Minsky's second stage, borrowers plan only to repay the interest, and refinance when the main debt is due to be repaid; much company debt works like this. It is taken out with a plan to roll it over indefinitely. Interest rates matter a lot: If they go down when the company needs to refinance, it will pay less. The equity parallel is to gains in valuation due to lower long-term rates. As with corporate debt, this is entirely justified and sustainable so long as rates stay low, because future earnings are now more appealing. The danger is that rates rise, in which case the stock might be hit no matter how earnings pan out. A big chunk of the gains in stocks in the past year came from the sharply lower rates in the first response to the pandemic when the Federal Reserve flooded the system with money. Price-to-forward-earnings multiples soared. From the S&P 500's low on March 23 to the end of June, the market went from 14 to more than 21 times estimated earnings 12 months ahead, even as those estimated earnings fell amid lockdown gloom. The yield on the 10-year Treasury, already down sharply from mid-February's high, fell further as stocks rebounded. In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the In Minsky's second stage, borrowers plan only to repay the interest, and refinance when the main debt is due to be repaid; much company debt works like this. It is taken out with a plan to roll it over indefinitely. Interest rates matter a lot: If they go down when the company needs to refinance, it will pay less. The equity parallel is to gains in valuation due to lower long-term rates. As with corporate debt, this is entirely justified and sustainable so long as rates stay low, because future earnings are now more appealing. The danger is that rates rise, in which case the stock might be hit no matter how earnings pan out. A big chunk of the gains in stocks in the past year came from the sharply lower rates in the first response to the pandemic when the Federal Reserve flooded the system with money. Price-to-forward-earnings multiples soared. From the S&P 500's low on March 23 to the end of June, the market went from 14 to more than 21 times estimated earnings 12 months ahead, even as those estimated earnings fell amid lockdown gloom. The yield on the 10-year Treasury, already down sharply from mid-February's high, fell further as stocks rebounded. In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the In Minsky's second stage, borrowers plan only to repay the interest, and refinance when the main debt is due to be repaid; much company debt works like this. It is taken out with a plan to roll it over indefinitely. Interest rates matter a lot: If they go down when the company needs to refinance, it will pay less. The equity parallel is to gains in valuation due to lower long-term rates. As with corporate debt, this is entirely justified and sustainable so long as rates stay low, because future earnings are now more appealing. The danger is that rates rise, in which case the stock might be hit no matter how earnings pan out. A big chunk of the gains in stocks in the past year came from the sharply lower rates in the first response to the pandemic when the Federal Reserve flooded the system with money. Price-to-forward-earnings multiples soared. From the S&P 500's low on March 23 to the end of June, the market went from 14 to more than 21 times estimated earnings 12 months ahead, even as those estimated earnings fell amid lockdown gloom. The yield on the 10-year Treasury, already down sharply from mid-February's high, fell further as stocks rebounded. In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the The equity parallel is to gains in valuation due to lower long-term rates. As with corporate debt, this is entirely justified and sustainable so long as rates stay low, because future earnings are now more appealing. The danger is that rates rise, in which case the stock might be hit no matter how earnings pan out. A big chunk of the gains in stocks in the past year came from the sharply lower rates in the first response to the pandemic when the Federal Reserve flooded the system with money. Price-to-forward-earnings multiples soared. From the S&P 500's low on March 23 to the end of June, the market went from 14 to more than 21 times estimated earnings 12 months ahead, even as those estimated earnings fell amid lockdown gloom. The yield on the 10-year Treasury, already down sharply from mid-February's high, fell further as stocks rebounded. In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the The equity parallel is to gains in valuation due to lower long-term rates. As with corporate debt, this is entirely justified and sustainable so long as rates stay low, because future earnings are now more appealing. The danger is that rates rise, in which case the stock might be hit no matter how earnings pan out. A big chunk of the gains in stocks in the past year came from the sharply lower rates in the first response to the pandemic when the Federal Reserve flooded the system with money. Price-to-forward-earnings multiples soared. From the S&P 500's low on March 23 to the end of June, the market went from 14 to more than 21 times estimated earnings 12 months ahead, even as those estimated earnings fell amid lockdown gloom. The yield on the 10-year Treasury, already down sharply from mid-February's high, fell further as stocks rebounded. In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the A big chunk of the gains in stocks in the past year came from the sharply lower rates in the first response to the pandemic when the Federal Reserve flooded the system with money. Price-to-forward-earnings multiples soared. From the S&P 500's low on March 23 to the end of June, the market went from 14 to more than 21 times estimated earnings 12 months ahead, even as those estimated earnings fell amid lockdown gloom. The yield on the 10-year Treasury, already down sharply from mid-February's high, fell further as stocks rebounded. In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the A big chunk of the gains in stocks in the past year came from the sharply lower rates in the first response to the pandemic when the Federal Reserve flooded the system with money. Price-to-forward-earnings multiples soared. From the S&P 500's low on March 23 to the end of June, the market went from 14 to more than 21 times estimated earnings 12 months ahead, even as those estimated earnings fell amid lockdown gloom. The yield on the 10-year Treasury, already down sharply from mid-February's high, fell further as stocks rebounded. In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the The parallel in the stock market is the The parallel in the stock market is the hunt for the greater fool . Sure, GameStop < shares bear no relation to the reality < of the company, but I can make money from buying an overpriced stock if I can find someone willing to pay even more because they "like the stock." Wild bets became obvious this year, as newcomers armed with stimulus, or "stimmy," checks Wild bets became obvious this year, as newcomers armed with stimulus, or "stimmy," checks Wild bets became obvious this year, as newcomers armed with stimulus, or "stimmy," checks drove up the price of many tiny stocks, penny shares and those popular on Reddit discussion boards. Speculative bets such as the solar and ARK ETFs rallied up until mid-February, long after growth stocks peaked in August Price performance Source: FactSet *Russell 1000 indexes As of March 25, 7:02 p.m. ET % Invesco Solar Value* ARK Innovation Growth* Sept. 2020 '21 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 The concern for investors: How much of the market's gain is thanks to this pure speculation, and how much to the justifiable gains of the improving economy and low rates? If too much comes from speculation, the danger is that we run out of greater fools and prices quickly drop back. The concern for investors: How much of the market's gain is thanks to this pure speculation, and how much to the justifiable gains of the improving economy and low rates? If too much comes from speculation, the danger is that we run out of greater fools and prices quickly drop back. me title= A look at how stocks moved through the pandemic suggests earnings and bond yields are still much more important than the gambling element for the market as a whole, but is still troubling. From the S&P peak in mid-February to the end of June, the story was of cratering earnings partly offset by higher valuations. The S&P was down 8%. Earnings forecasts for 12 months ahead fell 20%, while with 10-year yields down almost a full percentage point, valuations were up from a precrisis high of 19 times forecast earnings (itself the highest since the aftermath of the dot-com bubble) to 21 times. Growth stocks -- based on the Russell 1000 index of larger companies -- were slightly up, because they benefit most from falling bond yields, having more of their earnings far in the future. Cheap value stocks, which benefit less, were down 18%. A look at how stocks moved through the pandemic suggests earnings and bond yields are still much more important than the gambling element for the market as a whole, but is still troubling. From the S&P peak in mid-February to the end of June, the story was of cratering earnings partly offset by higher valuations. The S&P was down 8%. Earnings forecasts for 12 months ahead fell 20%, while with 10-year yields down almost a full percentage point, valuations were up from a precrisis high of 19 times forecast earnings (itself the highest since the aftermath of the dot-com bubble) to 21 times. Growth stocks -- based on the Russell 1000 index of larger companies -- were slightly up, because they benefit most from falling bond yields, having more of their earnings far in the future. Cheap value stocks, which benefit less, were down 18%. A look at how stocks moved through the pandemic suggests earnings and bond yields are still much more important than the gambling element for the market as a whole, but is still troubling. From the S&P peak in mid-February to the end of June, the story was of cratering earnings partly offset by higher valuations. The S&P was down 8%. Earnings forecasts for 12 months ahead fell 20%, while with 10-year yields down almost a full percentage point, valuations were up from a precrisis high of 19 times forecast earnings (itself the highest since the aftermath of the dot-com bubble) to 21 times. Growth stocks -- based on the Russell 1000 index of larger companies -- were slightly up, because they benefit most from falling bond yields, having more of their earnings far in the future. Cheap value stocks, which benefit less, were down 18%. From the S&P peak in mid-February to the end of June, the story was of cratering earnings partly offset by higher valuations. The S&P was down 8%. Earnings forecasts for 12 months ahead fell 20%, while with 10-year yields down almost a full percentage point, valuations were up from a precrisis high of 19 times forecast earnings (itself the highest since the aftermath of the dot-com bubble) to 21 times. Growth stocks -- based on the Russell 1000 index of larger companies -- were slightly up, because they benefit most from falling bond yields, having more of their earnings far in the future. Cheap value stocks, which benefit less, were down 18%. From the S&P peak in mid-February to the end of June, the story was of cratering earnings partly offset by higher valuations. The S&P was down 8%. Earnings forecasts for 12 months ahead fell 20%, while with 10-year yields down almost a full percentage point, valuations were up from a precrisis high of 19 times forecast earnings (itself the highest since the aftermath of the dot-com bubble) to 21 times. Growth stocks -- based on the Russell 1000 index of larger companies -- were slightly up, because they benefit most from falling bond yields, having more of their earnings far in the future. Cheap value stocks, which benefit less, were down 18%. Growth stocks -- based on the Russell 1000 index of larger companies -- were slightly up, because they benefit most from falling bond yields, having more of their earnings far in the future. Cheap value stocks, which benefit less, were down 18%. Growth stocks -- based on the Russell 1000 index of larger companies -- were slightly up, because they benefit most from falling bond yields, having more of their earnings far in the future. Cheap value stocks, which benefit less, were down 18%. NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP ( Mar 26, 2021 , www.wsj.com )
The Financial Instability Hypothesis (FIH) has both empirical and theoretical aspects that
challenge the classic precepts of Smith and Walras, who implied that the economy can be best
understood by assuming that it is constantly an equilibrium-seeking and sustaining system. The
theoretical argument of the FIH emerges from the characterization of the economy as a
capitalist economy with extensive capital assets and a sophisticated financial system.
In spite of the complexity of financial relations, the key determinant of system behavior
remains the level of profits: the FIH incorporates a view in which aggregate demand determines
profits. Hence, aggregate profits equal aggregate investment plus the government deficit. The
FIH, therefore, considers the impact of debt on system behavior and also includes the manner in
which debt is validated.
Minsky identifies hedge, speculative, and Ponzi finance as distinct income-debt relations
for economic units. He asserts that if hedge financing dominates, then the economy may well be
an equilibrium-seeking and containing system: conversely, the greater the weight of speculative
and Ponzi finance, the greater the likelihood that the economy is a "deviation-amplifying"
system. Thus, the FIH suggests that over periods of prolonged prosperity, capitalist economies
tend to move from a financial structure dominated by hedge finance (stable) to a structure that
increasingly emphasizes speculative and Ponzi finance (unstable). The FIH is a model of a
capitalist economy that does not rely on exogenous shocks to generate business cycles of
varying severity: business cycles of history are compounded out of (i) the internal dynamics of
capitalist economies, and (ii) the system of interventions and regulations that are designed to
keep the economy operating within reasonable bounds.
"... much like the dot-com period, there is a broad subset of stocks (mostly in technology) that have become completely untethered, particularly since the summer of 2020, from business fundamentals like earnings and even sales -- driven higher only by euphoric market participants extrapolating from a past extraordinary trajectory of prices. ..."
"... A lot of today's US stock market has become what I call a "pure price-chasing bubble." Examination of the history of comparable pure price-chasing bubbles shows there has been a set of key causal factors that contributed to these rare (I have found nine in total) market events; the presence of most of these factors has usually been necessary for markets to reach the requisite escape velocity. ..."
"... To fuel the bubble further, there was a rapid expansion of bank money beginning three years before the market peak -- but the expansion of credit was even greater, owing to an explosion of margin credit (with implied annuaized interest rates sometimes reaching 100 percent) through an informal system utilizing postdated checks ..."
"... The US market certainly exhibits an exceptional record of price appreciation, with the S&P 500 having risen by almost 500 percent over more than a decade. In contrast to most other bubbles, however, it is notable that US economic growth over this period has been relatively anemic. ..."
"... Due to a sustained high rate of corporate equity purchases financed with debt, this overarching expansion of credit has also made its way into the last decade's bull market and steepened its price trajectory. ..."
"... The role of message boards and chat rooms -- with their millions of participants, all in instant real-time contact -- has created crowd dynamics in speculative stock market favorites at a pace without parallel in other pure price-chasing bubbles. ..."
"... a peak will be reached, a decline will follow, and the psychological dynamics in play on the way up will go into reverse and will accelerate the fall. ..."
"... Moreover, in the context of a grossly underestimated mass of corporate debt, history tells us the consequences of the bursting of the US stock market bubble should be another financial crisis and another recession ..."
According to Frank Veneroso, a broad subset of today's US stock market has become what he
calls a "pure price-chasing bubble." Examination of the history of comparable pure
price-chasing bubbles shows there has been a set of key causal factors that contributed to
these rare market events.
The most extreme such case was an over-the-counter market in Kuwait called the "Souk
al-Manakh." This exemplar of a pure price-chasing phenomenon may shed light -- albeit
unflattering -- on the current US equity market, Veneroso contends.
Well yeah, "demos" are running all this having robbed any meaning from that traditional
labor/common man viewpoint (think FDR) thus in full cahoots with the global cabal which is
gates and all the other devils, which must be stopped. Too long to list, here is astonishing
summary big food/pharma/chemical/oil/$
I wrote a post on the above-mentioned subject but I deleted it. I will not discuss the
demonisation of White heterosexual Males in all its forms for fear of cancellation. I will
instead leave you with my conclusions – which are consistent with The Walrus Law;
Governments achieve the reverse of their stated objectives.
Conclusion 1. No white male corporate manager is going to risk their career by engaging in
any of the following actions:
– Mentoring female subordinates.
– Taking one on one meetings with any female.
– Participating in any but the most innocuous social functions with female subordinates
and certainly not where alcohol is present.
– In fact avoiding any one on one situation with a female.
– It also stands to reason that women will not be employed or promoted if sufficient
excuse can be found. There wasn't a glass ceiling. There is now.
Why? Because a female subordinate can now permanently end a males career in a microsecond by
the act of alleging any impropriety thanks to #metoo. No proof is required.
Conclusion 2. The British/ European/ American class system is coming back with a vengeance.
Young men and their parents will confine their search for partners and social interactions, to
females of the same social strata, values, financial resources and background as their own.
This is not a guarantee of marital harmony, It does however decrease the likelihood of a male
being accused of relationship and career destroying improprieties twenty years after the
alleged event. You can forget marrying 'for love' outside your social class.
Conclusion 3. Male behaviour in the upper and middle classes is indeed going to change. We
will witness the return of the Chaperone for males. We will witness the end of many mixed sex
parties and entertainments because of the ever present threat of denouncement. Expect single
sex private schools to flourish. Co -education is an invitation for a young males career to be
finished before it even starts – all it takes these days is an allegation made perhaps
years and years after the alleged "event". The first a young male will know about it is when he
is arrested and handcuffed.
Conclusion 4. The nature of families is going to change. We are going to see the return of
stereotyped roles. Case in point? As a Grandfather I have decided I will have nothing more to
do with the informal upbringing of grand daughters – there is too much risk that if they
go off the rails in puberty or get involved in drugs, mental illness, etc. they will
conveniently blame sexual abuse by a relative as the cause. That means I will never allow
myself to be alone with them or be responsible for them ever and the rest of the family know
it. Period. The personal risk is just too great
I have examples to back up each conclusion but I will not share them with you.
I have not addressed the American race and firearm based issues but I would expect that
changes to firearm laws and characterisation of various behaviors as "extremist' will also have
the same opposite effect from what Government intended.
Indeed. I suspect that if I were of dating age (and single) today I would go on to die
celibate. A minority of women have made engaging with the entire gender entirely too
dangerous.
Reply
We are an adaptive bunch; witness how successful Prohibition was, or the alleged 'War on
Drugs'. Look at how Trumps border wall was rapidly shot to hell with a few acetylene
torches and some hinges – making really nice gates for the coyotes to run people
through.
It's interesting that there is no actual, physical way that the number of guns out here
'in the wild' is even known, much less can be seized. Guns can be seized by the
ATF/FBI/etc. making a huge raid on a single family and killing them all as examples –
but once that card is played, the ante will be upped and things will not be as easy for
them. The gun grabbers are literally about 200 years too late, as the gun cow is long out
of the barn.
The Covidian Cult is waning finally – in spite of the push by the globalist CDC,
WHO, Big Pharma, MSM and many others. It's hard to push fear of dying when there is nothing
to base it on any longer.
So now we are back to Ukraine, where Biden is both well known and well connected. Russia
will swat anything approaching her borders, and may swat hard. I would not be surprised to
see our puny couple of ships in their sea crippled electronically, again. But Russia
doesn't want what NATO and Biden are serving for dinner.
It's the same old SSDD of world ending disasters to keep everyone afraid of everyone
else while the big wheels in government are sending contracts out to their family members
and their various foundations using money leveraged against our grandkids.
57 genders; women cannot be approached without opening yourself to legal actions and yet
they are all in the military and government positions in far larger percentages than people
realize. Our local school principal was recently accused of "inappropriate conduct" with a
female teacher who is so obese she requires an electric scooter to move her bulk about.
Having actually seen this female, it was obvious to me, as a man with normal appetites,
that approaching her would have resulted in disgorgement of the previous meal and not
engorgement of anything.
It's human nature that when you forbid something unilaterally, it becomes more
attractive to many, just for the sake of flouting convention. Perhaps that is what the
morbidly obese teacher is striving for?
We are entering the Land of Unintended Consequences, and there is no way but
through.
Time is in Russia's favor: let the Ukraine continue to serve as a financial black hole to
the IMF. Let the Western Ukrainians continue to emigrate en masse to Poland and then to the
rest of the EU and the UK. Russia has already received some 1 million Eastern Ukrainian;
those are probably the more well-educated, more productive Ukrainians, ...
Posted by: vk | Apr 11 2021 1:20 utc | 77
This is rather sketchily related to reality.
1. Ukraine is not a "black hole for the IMF". They got a smallish credit, and now they are
being denied extensions on rather preposterous grounds, and Ukraine is charged for the unused
credit line. Contrary to Nulands boasting, the West keeps Ukraine on a leash with a rather
skimpy budget.
2. There is no clear distinction between migration patterns. The one time I was in Russia,
the tourist guide on a one-day bus trip was from Rivne -- in Poland in years 1918-39. And as
Polish medical workers go to Spain etc., Ukrainian once fill the vacant positions, and they
may come from any place. Ditto with the "quality of workers". Poland has more of seasonal
jobs in picking crops (while Poles do it further West) than Russia, Russia perennially seeks
workers ready to accept extra pay in less than benign climes. The closest to truth is
scooping engineers and highly qualified workers from factories that before worked for Russian
market, including military, replaced with Russian factories and, when needed, Ukrainian
know-how. That is pretty much accomplished -- predominantly from the Eastern Ukraine. As a
result, the remaining workforce is so-so from east to west.
I have just finished reading a couple of weighty tomes with similar themes: Dark Money by Jane
Mayer is about how some nominally right-wing libertarian sociopaths, (i.e. the Kochs and their
coterie) seek to control American politics through various 'charitable' think tanks and stealth
infiltration of top ranked universities; and
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff, which is about how some nominally
left-wing(ish) libertarian whiz kid sociopaths seek to control the whole world through social
media.
My main take away is that libertarian ideology is just shorthand for narcissistic
entitlement and psychopathic greed.
By
Jeff Horwitz
and
Keach Hagey
Updated April 11, 2021 11:41 am ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
Listen to this article
6 minutes
00:00 / 05:50
1x
Google for years operated a secret program that used data from past bids in the company's digital advertising exchange to
allegedly give its own ad-buying system an advantage over competitors, according to court documents filed in a Texas antitrust
lawsuit.
The program, known as "Project Bernanke," wasn't disclosed to publishers who sold ads through Google's ad-buying systems. It
generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the company annually, the documents show. In its lawsuit, Texas alleges
that the project gave Google, a unit of
Alphabet
Inc.,
GOOG
0.90%
an
unfair competitive advantage over rivals.
Google's Ad Machine
Online ads are typically sold in auctions that happen in an instant, when a user's webpage is loading. Google
dominates at virtually every step of the process. In an antitrust lawsuit, Texas alleges that Google's secret
"Project Bernanke" allowed the company to use knowledge it gained running its ad exchange to unfairly compete against
rivals. Here's how the digital advertising machine works:
THE SELL SIDE: PUBLISHERS
AD SPACE
FOR SALE
When a
user
visits
a large online
publisher's
website
or app, the publisher uses an
ad
server
to sell ad space on its pages.
The publisher also gives the exchange information about the reader -- their age, income, browsing history and
interests, for example.
In this example, the publisher uses Google's DoubleClick for Publishers, the leading ad-serving tool.
The tool puts the publisher's ad space up for sale on
exchanges
,
marketplaces where transactions happen in real-time between sellers (
publishers
)
and buyers (
advertisers
).
REAL-TIME
AUCTION HOUSES
Google has the largest such marketplace, the DoubleClick Ad Exchange, or AdX.
THE BUY SIDE: ADVERTISERS
An advertiser, representing its clients' products, uses sophisticated buying tools to purchase ads.
In this example, an advertiser uses Google's buying tool, DV360, the industry leader.
The advertiser can specify the types of audiences it wants to target -- such as location, gender or age of
user -- and the price of their offer.
To get its ad in front of the user, the advertiser places bids in the auction marketplace -- the highest bidder
wins.
Once a match is made on the exchange, an ad pops up on users' screens.
The documents filed this week were part of Google's initial response to
the
Texas-led antitrust lawsuit
, which was filed in December and accused the search company of running a digital-ad monopoly
that harmed both ad-industry competitors and publishers. This week's filing, viewed by The Wall Street Journal, wasn't
properly redacted when uploaded to the court's public docket. A federal judge let Google refile it under seal.
Some of the unredacted contents of the document were earlier disclosed by MLex, an antitrust-focused news outlet.
The document sheds further light on the state's case against Google, along with the search company's defense.
Much of the lawsuit involves the interplay of Google's roles as both the operator of a major ad exchange -- which Google likens
to the New York Stock Exchange in marketing documents -- and a representative of buyers and sellers on the exchange. Google also
acts as an ad buyer in its own right, selling ads on its own properties such as search and YouTube through these same systems.
Texas alleges that Google used its access to data from publishers' ad servers -- where more than 90% of large publishers use
Google to sell their digital ad space -- to guide advertisers toward the price they would have to bid to secure an ad placement.
Google's use of bidding information, Texas alleges, amounted to insider trading in digital-ad markets. Because Google had
exclusive information about what other ad buyers were willing to pay, the state says, it could unfairly compete against rival
ad-buying tools and pay publishers less on
its
winning bids for ad inventory
.
The unredacted documents show that Texas claims Project Bernanke is a critical part of that effort.
How tech giants are both cooperating while competing in hardware, software and technology services
Google acknowledged the existence of Project Bernanke in its response and said in the filing that "the details of Project
Bernanke's operations are not disclosed to publishers."
Google denied in the documents that there was anything inappropriate about using the exclusive information it possessed to
inform bids, calling it "comparable to data maintained by other buying tools."
Peter Schottenfels, a Google spokesman, said the complaint "misrepresents many aspects of our ad tech business. We look
forward to making our case in court." He referred the Journal to an analysis conducted by a U.K. regulator that concluded that
Google didn't appear to have had an advantage.
The Texas attorney general's office didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
Google's outsize role in the digital-ad market is both controversial and at times murky.
In some instances, "we're on both the buy side and the sell side," Google Chief Economist Hal Varian said at a 2019 antitrust
conference held by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Asked how the company managed those roles, Mr. Varian
said the topic was "too detailed for the audience, and me."
The Jewish Anti-defamation league is after Tucker Carlson. That's as bad as it gets. They
have more money than God.
Anti-Defamation League chief Jonathan Greenblatt "Tucker must go"...."white supremacist
tenet that the white race is in danger by a rising tide of non-whites" that is "anti-Semitic,
racist and toxic."
"" Lord, if it be your will, harden my heart. Stop me from striving to see the best in
people. Stop me from being hopeful that White people can do and be better."
I wonder if this sick woman has any idea, how many good people trapped in the violence of
hoods...could feel exactly the same way about blacks?
Justifiably...
Liesel 24 minutes ago
Dear God, please help me to stop spending money on Amazon and doing Google searches...
Liesel 27 minutes ago (Edited)
If we refuse to spend money at all these businesses that are "woke", there would literally
be no place left to shop. It's really getting that bad. However, please remember the powers
that be want people divided and hating each other. In their eyes, people who are united are
the most dangerous them.
Darth-Budice 34 minutes ago
Been 7 years since I stepped foot into a Target.
If they think 13% of the population + the soy-infused can support them...
I have a different take on this. The US should move to take back Cuba. Let Russia have
Ukraine, we take back Cuba. After Cuba take back Venezuela. Then Russia and China have no
ports in the Americas. Much bigger win for the US.
permanent victim 1 hour ago
Take back?
libfrog88 56 minutes ago
That is the usual word for Americans for stealing.
My simple solution is to turn the vacant malls into giant marijuana growing operations,and
huge meth labs,and use the revenue from the meth and weed sales to balance the Federal
budget..As an additional plus,you put the Mexican drug cartels out of business,which can't be
a bad thing,either
FurnitureFireSale 26 minutes ago
The smile on the side of the Prime trucks looks like a big wang (Bezos's?) saying "F-U,
take THIS!" to all the small businesses. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.
Puppyteethofdeath 14 minutes ago
Turn them into homeless shelters.
744,000 Americans filed for 1st time unemployment last week.
Every week the numbers are the same.
no cents at all 5 minutes ago
Yet mall property owners and their ilk have equity prices in the stratosphere. Same with
cruise lines. A mystery. (Although doesn't take scooby doo to understand why)
It is difficult to find a black cat in the empty dark room, but neoliberal MSM jump over
their head screaming Cat! Evil Russian cat!
Notable quotes:
"... Looking for something in wikipedia, I discover that in 1961, the first manned spaceflight was..."a propaganda victory". There's no hope! ..."
"... I think Russians have weaponized word 'weaponized' because presence in headlines represents most useful mechanism to map current extent of Mockingbird 2 operations. ..."
"... It was an interesting demonstration of the circularity of belief mechanisms at work when people adopted ideas like: "Putin did not really intervene in our elections, he was much more devious. He made us think he did intervene and that way caused us to undermine ourselves! That is how devilish he is and we were even more right than we thought about that!" ..."
"... It is beyond question that such a "system" is overly hysterical, to say the least ..."
With the US/UK press in full Russia hysteria mode, right now, it's time for a thread on
things the Anglo-American media has accused Moscow of "weaponising."
We shall start with Charlie Sheen.
Yes. Really. Not a joke.
Take a bow, @ak_mack & @ForeignPolicy
Bryan MacDonald's thread is a good opportunity to update our list of all the issues, ideas
and things Russia has weaponized.
Even while the list below now includes 111 entries - like robotic cockroaches, postmodernism
and 14.legged squids - it is likely far from being complete.
Some people, crazed extremists no doubt, might regard all that as a way of softening up
public opinion for conflict. Reading through the list, it seems more like the ravings of
paranoid schizophrenics then it does journalists.
This demonizing of Russia is an attempt to portray it as a threat: there is certainly a clash
of interests between Russia and the West. But the confrontation being pursued will not lead
to the conclusion NATO predicts. Failure to heed the warnings of history is leading us to the
nuclear apocalypse. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Even for Reuters their center headline, photo and subtext are over the top.
They no longer make any effort to disguise political opinion as facts
(their sheeple readers won't catch on).
As of this writing the headline is: Half of Republicans believe false accounts of Capitol riot: Reuters/Ipsos poll
and the subtext is: Since the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, former President Donald Trump
and his Republican allies have pushed false and misleading accounts to downplay the event
that left five dead and scores of others wounded. His supporters appear to have
listened.
He tread water wearing a blissful smile as the organism approached him (14 armed
killer squid). Obviously the "vampire Squid" Goldman Sachs has been submersively trying to
disrupt Russia.
Why would the CIA be so interested in the ability of North Korea to modify weather? Most
probably because the CIA's efforts to pull off a repeat of the flooding in North Korea in
1994-1995 failed and they want to know why.
Aside: Research the CIA's "Operation Popeye" in 1967 Vietnam if you are doubtful of
how evil and crazy the CIA is.
Most likely the party involved in foiling the CIA's plot to flood North Korea again and
trigger another famine was China and not Russia. Not only does China have extensive
experience with cloud seeding, but they are in the proper location to accomplish the task.
Cloud seeding is how the Chinese provided clear weather over Beijing for the Olympics in
2008... they seeded air masses farther upwind to make it rain there and dry out the air
heading to Beijing. If the air heading towards North Korea (relatively consistent west to
east flow there) has already been seeded and much of the moisture in it already precipitated
out, then when the CIA's spook planes seed it nearer to the Korean peninsula it will be too
dry to squeeze much more rain out of. The CIA would be cockblocked and frustrated and they
will naturally want to know why their attempts at genocide failed.
Our Mission
At Collateral Global, we believe that there is an urgent need to study the consequences of
public health measures implemented in response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, including the
second and third-order effects.
Through commitment to the enduring principles of scientific inquiry, we aim to provide
scholarship and research, building an evidence-based understanding of mitigation measures
that is both accessible and actionable.
How long until the above site is compromised or McCarthyism-smeared?
Maybe these count. I looked for variations of weaponize in title. These were stories I
remember reading and did quick search to retrieve something about them. Great list.
I am deeply troubled that you conveniently neglected to include another fearsome Russian
Super-Dooper Weapon: the children's cartoon Masha and the Bear .
It's obvious that Masha and the Bear is a nefarious Russian plot to steal the precious
bodily fluids of our children!
We must be constantly vigilant. The CIA, FBI, MI6, NSA, and Homeland Security must be
notified about the Masha Threat. YouTube must censor Masha. And blue check-marked Twitter
police must condemn anyone who watches Masha.
This one didn't have the word 'weaponize', close though: "opening a new front in its spy
battles".
accusing the Kremlin of opening a new front in its spy battles with the West amid the
worldwide competition to contain the pandemic.
...
American intelligence officials said the Russians were aiming to steal research to
develop their own vaccine more quickly, not to sabotage other countries' efforts. There was
likely little immediate damage to global public health, cybersecurity experts said.
Russia's weaponized Zersetzung
...
And although economic sanctions might hurt Russia's economy, they won't easily heal the
divisions that weaponized decomposition has deepened in America. Putin's assault on the
national soul is working.
The U.S. media is weaponizing ignorance.
The more one absorbs their reporting, the more the brain is reduced to mush.
I can only manage a few hundred works and I become irritated and disoriented.
My hat is off to people who can somehow look at that stuff and remain sane.
Or are they...hmmm...
A major mistake in interpreting the massive parallelism of all these claims is to assume a
form of central coordination.
In fact the parallellism is spontaneous once the target has a bad reputation. Centrally
organized propaganda can tune the reputation of the target but even that is not essential and
it can happen organically. Once the reputation is set however the process has its own
momentum. There is a bit more to it than merely the reputation of the target because the
positive reputation of those who attack the target also plays. In fact you have to work with
a large network of trust relations to get a good picture.
Glenn Greenwald recently linked to an article of Erik Weinstein on Russell Conjugation , how
the same events get an entirely different emotional content depending on the reporter. In the
long list of links above everyone is using the same spectacles for looking at events, but
also for filtering what is relevant , meaningful and worthy of attention.
This is why the NYTimes is still an interesting paper once you know how to read it. But few
people can use it that way.
The Russians, along with the Chinese, have apparently weaponized the protests of British
citizens against overreaching Police legislation.
"The disruption being caused through "Kill the Bill" protests in UK is an effort by the
Sino-Russian alliance to destroy trust and confidence in political and institutional systems,
in a bid to leave society demoralised and feeling powerless against events." https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/china-russia-use-social-media-fuel-protests-uk
div> Surely Harry and Megan must have been weaponized by that dreadful
Putin! Stands to reason. Doesn't it?
We need to keep in mind one thing: That which The West accuses Russia of, they are actually
committing themselves.
Nearly all of the 'weaponisations' that we are reading about above, The West is actually
DOING. The hypocracy is incredible. But we need to look at this hypocrisy, because in all
instances the propaganda is being directed at YOU! You / Us / Me in The West. We are the
target of this propaganda. In many instances it is MILITARY ORGANISTIONS that are targeting
civilians with lies and misinformation. WE are being attacked by military organisations.
I think enough is enough on The West. It's disgraceful that military organisations are
allowed to target civilians with BLATANT propaganda. It's time to fight back.
Howdy people. I think Russians have weaponized word 'weaponized' because presence in
headlines represents most useful mechanism to map current extent of Mockingbird 2
operations.
classical psychological projection by the weaponized narrative enablers of the worst Empire
in all human history, as we stand at 90 Seconds to Midnight on the very precipice of nuclear
war and ecological catastrophe, and the engine of the Armageddon Express starts to go off the
cliff....
I have two parakeets that I have been trying to weaponize for the better part of a month. But
it appears to be totally hopeless. If Mr. Putin happens to read this blog for some
weaponistic purpose, would you please offer me some of your invaluable advice? Please?
I think weaponized sheep is the winner, with incompetence a close second.
Jen, can you please tell me where one can watch the skating? Or perhaps, well we would call
them re-runs in the ancient history days - perhaps utoobs?
I see tantalizing hints on RT, but no real films.
The russian skaters (from what I saw last year) are truly amazing. Thanks.
If the system used by restaurants and cafes in HK is similar to what we have in Australia,
then they are required at least to provide a method by which their customers can be contacted
and advised if someone who has tested positive for COVID-19 has also visited the eateries
within 14 days of the customers having visited the establishments. That way those customers
can know if they need to isolate and limit their contacts with others.
The contact tracing is also supposed to help government authorities know how quickly the
disease is or is not spreading so they only have to lockdown certain neighbourhoods or areas
where there may be a cluster developing, instead of locking down an entire city or a state or
even a whole country.
Also you need to be careful reading Al Jazeera articles: Al Jazeera is definitely not a
fan of Russia or China.
"... And among those chafing at the government's response, like restaurant owners and their
customers, a form of grassroots resistance was forged.
Instead of asking their customers to scan the health department's QR code and transmit
their location, some owners have designed an alternative code that feeds into a Googleform
which will be erased every 31 days, the period for which businesses are required by
authorities to retain the data ..."
That action by the restaurant owners is not exactly grassroots resistance if the
authorities have already approved the Googleform and the erasures.
Around ten years ago, I called this "Dog Putin ate my homework syndrome". It is not only
propaganda against an economic, political and even soul competitor (last resort of real
Christianity is Russia), it is not even just a projection ("killer Putin", as Putin himself
explained). Its primary purpose is to tell you why you are living worse than 20 years ago,
why your children will live even worse than you now if they remain in this lost cause of
deeply corrupt and rotten so called countries. It is an excuse for everything that is wrong -
it is all because Putin and Xi weaponised it.
When I see such things in alt media, since I do not consume the swill from the main
sewerage media, I get that sinking feeling that I live in a wrong place, a place without a
future.
I do not care who the "authorities" denigrate, Russia, China, they are even to me. I only
wish they would do something to reduce the problems of our own societies instead of always
blaming someone else. Because as long as the rulers and their sewerage media sycophants keep
pointing fingers at Russia and China nothing will change for the better here where I am.
Any propaganda works if the people know they will never suffer the consequences of war.
The idea, all the way from Saddam Hussein, that we can influence the USA public to stop
their govt waging war on us, is misplaced.
I used to believe it too. I dont believe anymore. I dont believe the USA govt needs to
strain themselves to get the citizens behind them to put up blockades/sanctions or launch
cruise missiles.
Some still think this or that event will be used to "sanction russia", "attack iran"
etc.
(The "more sanctions coming" part is weird. As though Russia today prospers at the
pleasure of the West)
The only thing that stops an attack on Iran is hard cold realities of thousands of dead US
Marines and destitution at home once the oil terminals are blown up. Same vs Russia.
Still bloggers write stuff to try to convince the Anerican public.
Only thing that convinces any person/society is the consequences for actions.
But mark my words: West was beaten on 2020-01-08. Payment soon to Russia for going along
with the c19. Iran got some of its payment with that 25yr agreement.
It's still "One Country / Two Systems" in China / Hongkong as far as I can tell. If
Googleforms are not available in Hongkong, maybe you need to tell
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
"Because as long as the rulers and their sewerage media sycophants keep pointing fingers at
Russia and China nothing will change for the better here where I am."
Posted by: Kiza | Apr 6 2021 1:18 utc | 51
Absolutely Kiza, damn shame, but expect no change, and no disappointment will arise. The
new feudalism has arrived.
The take away ending quote
"
For the EU, the Chinese entry into global politics is more problematic. It was trying to
leverage its own 'strategic autonomy' by erecting European values as the gateway to inclusion
into its market and trade partnership. China effectively is telling the world to reject any
such hegemonic imposition of alien values and rights.
The EU is stranded in the midst. Unlike the U.S., it is precluded from printing the money
with which to resurrect its virus-blighted economy. It desperately needs trade and
investment. Its biggest trading partner, and its tech well-spring, however, has just told the
EU (as the U.S.), to give up on its moralising discourse. At the same time, Europe's
'security partner' has just demanded the opposite – that the EU strengthens it. What's
to be done? Sit back, and watch (with fingers crossed that no one does something extremely
stupid).
"
Trying to wade through the muck that passes as news today IS a fools errand.
Long time reader of MOA, followed Paveway long ago.
B, keep this site alive and let me know how to contribute.
It was an interesting demonstration of the circularity of belief mechanisms at work when
people adopted ideas like: "Putin did not really intervene in our elections, he was much more
devious. He made us think he did intervene and that way caused us to undermine ourselves!
That is how devilish he is and we were even more right than we thought about that!"
I recently read an article which stuck with me on a Flemish 'eminence grise' (Jan
Balliauw)on Russia which commented on
the European turnabout over the Sputnik vaccine(in dutch) : yes we misjudged the Russian
vaccine but it is the fault of the Russians and the bastards are cheering now! And he goes on
to the main theme by emphasizing the Russians can't be trusted.
It is beyond question that such a "system" is overly hysterical, to say the least
. Show me the proof that there is a need to cancel democracy and human rights for something
that does not affect 99.9% if anyone at all. And if you do, why not lock everybody in because
of traffic accidents, violent crime or actual diseases such as malaria, dengue fever or
whatever.
I question the motives for what is going on: that is to say: I do not accept that people's
health is the driving factor behind this. Show me the proof that what is claimed is actually
happening and if so also show me the proof that the intrusive technology is actually
meaningful. In my view this is conditioning the people to accept personal surveillance on a
level that goes far beyond 1984, and it is infinitely more scary than "covid".
How Russia Amerika+France+UK+++ weaponized "the Great Syrian Democratic
Revolution"
How much longer can people still insist that there is a Syrian revolution, when the most
powerful group is not only friendly to the West, but an "asset"?
In Australia, the minimum that restaurants, cafes, other dining establishments, other
private retail establishments and places where large numbers of people might gather can do is
provide a way in which customers and patrons can be notified that they may have come in
contact with someone who has COVID-19 or who has tested positive for COVID-19. But most of
these places cannot compel people to leave their contact details (usually mobile phone
numbers) with them.
In cases where places do compel people to leave their mobile phone details for the
purposes of contact tracing, people have the option of going somewhere else that does not
insist on their leaving their contact details behind.
The system used in Hong Kong dining places appears to be
similar to the system used in Australia: by law, these establishments must provide
methods by which people can be contacted if they become sites of infection. They either
encourage people to download a contact-tracing app or ask people to write their details down
on paper forms. Customers have the option also of not going out at all and eating at home,
which is difficult to do in a culture where dining out in public with friends and family is
expected and where most people live in small apartments so they prefer to entertain others by
taking them out to restaurants and cafes.
Some restaurants and cafes in HK have also refused to take people's contact details and
have opted to serve takeaway meals only.
Theoretically this system would reduce the need for blanket lockdowns of an entire city or
a larger administrative unit such as a state or province, or even country. In Sydney, the NSW
government used contact tracing to determine that a cluster of COVID-19 cases was limited
mainly to the northeast side of the metropolitan area and this part of Sydney was subjected
to lockdown. Traffic access to the area (population: about 250,000) was blocked by police.
The lockdown lasted about 21 days and included New Year's Eve and New Year's Day. During this
period people living in the affected area couldn't leave it but were allowed to leave their
homes for exercise, essential shopping and getting takeaway meals within the area.
The issue that Al Jazeera brings up is an issue of compulsion and creeping authoritarian
rule (based on stereotypes about China and the Chinese government) but it uses a poor example
to demonstrate what it wants its readers to believe. It turns out that the HK govt is not
forcing all dining establishments to use its contact-tracing app but is giving them a choice.
Al Jazeera should have done better research.
Show me the proof that there is a need to cancel democracy and human rights for
something that does not affect 99.9% ...
Jen is not advocating for canceling democracy and human rights. And the pandemic
affects us all. Everyone is capable of getting sick and passing it on to others.
Democracies have responded to the pandemic with measures that many people find onerous and
many lies have been spread by some of these people such as: 1)"masks don't work" (they do
work but they protect others, not the mask-wearer) ; 2) "only old people die" (even teens
have died); and 3) that the pandemic is a hoax (it's not just the flu!).
Your "... does not affect 99.9% if anyone at all" is just regurgitating
nonsense.
Many more-authoritarian countries have actually been more successful in fighting the
pandemic. They haven't had to have the long "lockdowns" (a misnomer that exaggerates) that
Western democracies have imposed. Among the things that they have done (as temporary
emergency measures) is: rigorous contact-tracing, and quarantining the sick and suspected
sick.
I would also note that the hypocrisy is astounding:
People that DEMAND a return to normalcy also argue against the actions that could have
returned us to normal much sooner than waiting for experimental vaccines;
Libertarians that don't complain much about laws like speed limits and the prohibition
against yelling "fire!" in a crowed theater are DEMANDING an end to pandemic measures that
curtail their liberty;
Republicans that are pushing for voting ID and accept a police state are DEMANDING that
the economy be "opened up".
I should add, for the benefit of readers that don't know me, that my criticism of those
who are critical of pandemic measures doesn't mean that I'm not skeptical of many things
about this pandemic such as:
USA/Empire desire to stoke hate for China;
Big Pharma - government ties;
mRNA tech which has been funded by US Mil for use in biowarfare;
the immense propaganda spawned by the the above and the sheeple's acceptance of
same.
The only thing that holds America or the "democratic" West together is an increasingly rabid
hatred of Russia and China.
The Western-controlled Free Press and its unhinged accusations against Russia is matched
by its equally unhinged torrent of Yellow Peril propaganda against China, as evidenced
below:
Simply put, the collective West--led by the America and the Anglosphere--resembles a
civilization of paranoid schizophrenics, whose delusional ravings will drive them towards
world war--total war.
Needless to say, things will not end well for them.
This guy is nothing but a f * c king crook and a gangster. They just paid a fine of a
BILLION dollars for manipulating the Gold Market. And they even give time for this shyster to
even speak?
jamesblazen62 10 hours ago remove link
Dimon is in greed's grasp and he can't escape. He's had 2 brushes with death (cancer and
emergency heart surgery). You'd think a billionaire with more money than he can ever need or
want has something better to do in his life than conniving for more money and playing big
corporate games of manipulation and deceit.
Evil-Edward-Hyde 50 minutes ago
J P Morgan is a crime Syndicate.
They constantly Break the Laws.
No Problem for Them,
They Just Pay The Fines.
Their secret is they make much much more money on the scam did they have to pay in
fines.
FiscalBatman 1 hour ago remove link
It's amazing how out of touch these guys are. They just don't get it. Dimon will be
swaying back and forth with the rest of them at this rate
The Competent Man 8 hours ago remove link
This is NOT a boom.
When was the last time houses went for above asking price, ever, with 20 million out of
work?
All of this 'boom' is nothing but asset inflation.
And also by the level of degeneration of the US neoliberal elite. Healthy elite would never
resort to "Wokism" in the attempt to crush populism and deflect anger directed on banksters, tech
moguls and politicians
Political populism, a common lament for Dimon, was also criticized.
" Americans know that something has gone terribly wrong, and they blame this country's
leadership: the elite, the powerful, the decision makers - in government, in business and in
civic society," he wrote.
"This is completely appropriate, for who else should take the blame?"
That fuels populism on the right and left, he said.
"But populism is not policy, and we cannot let it drive another round of poor planning and
bad leadership that will simply make our country's situation worse."
The lengthy letter touched on many perennial policy bugbears like the need for "proper
immigration policies" - ie making it easier for tech companies and others to hire skilled labor
from abroad - while the CEO also wrote that " affordable housing remains out of reach for too
many Americans."
At one point, Dimon offered a defense of the dollar's status as the world's reserve
currency, arguing that the Chinese yuan isn't "fully convertible" like its American
counterpart, and warned of the possibility of capital controls and prohibitions against assets
like gold and cyptocurrency.
But the CEO was very candid about China...
"China's leaders believe America is in decline... The Chinese see an America that is
losing ground in technology, infrastructure and education – a nation torn and crippled
. . . and a country unable to coordinate government policies (fiscal, monetary, industrial,
regulatory) in any coherent way to accomplish national goals."
"Unfortunately," Dimon writes, "there is a lot of truth to this."
Warning of the real risks of stagflation, the banker warned
"...the United States could be perceived as a place that is inhospitable to capitalism and
capitalists," and he advised readers to think about "currency diversification, country
diversification, and asset class diversification."
And
as SovereignMan's Simon Black notes , Dimon then lists goes on to provide a wide-ranging
laundry list of problems that have been building for years in the United States– "I'll
give some examples, but if I tried to address them all this letter would become a book."
Dimon cites "a litigation and regulatory system that is costly, crippling small
businesses with red tape and bureaucracy ".
" terrible infrastructure planning and investment"
"huge waste and inefficiency at both the federal and state levels"
a lack of "effective immigration policies"
"we fail to properly fund pension obligations "
" income equality has gotten worse"
"social safety nets [are] poorly designed"
" 30% of Americans don't have enough savings to deal with unexpected expenses that total
as little as $400"
"Veterans [hospitals] . . . are broken"
"Almost all institutions – governments, schools, media and businesses – have
lost credibility in the eyes of the public. And perhaps for good reason: Many of our
problems have been around for a long time and are not aging well."
"Politics is increasingly divisive, and government is increasingly dysfunctional "
He also rails against the education and healthcare systems, saying:
"Our education and health issues come together in this alarming statistic: Seventy percent
of today's youth (ages 17-24) are not eligible for military service , essentially due to a
lack of proper education (basic reading and writing skills) or health issues (commonly
obesity or diabetes)."
Dimon goes on to explain that all of these problems "may explain why, over the last 10
years, the U.S. economy has grown cumulatively only about 18%. "
"Some think that this sounds satisfactory, but it must be put into context: In prior sharp
downturns (1974, 1982 and 1990), economic growth was 40% over the ensuing 10 years."
The country ultimately needs to "move beyond our differences and self-interest and act for
the greater good," Dimon said. "The good news is that this is fixable."
Of course, a strong economic rebound is good for JP Morgan, and waxing about the threat
posed by Big Tech could help the CEO push for less regulation even under a Democratic
Administration. Is Dimon once again just talking his book?
"Our education and health issues come together in this alarming statistic: Seventy percent
of today's youth (ages 17-24) are not eligible for military service , essentially due to a
lack of proper education (basic reading and writing skills) or health issues (commonly
obesity or diabetes)."
When you have no standards, SJW everyone is equal, then you have ****ty results.
5G-Powered Nanobots 3 hours ago
Good. Lets cut "defense" by 25% a year for the next 10 years
Clockwork Orange is complete, unbelievable nonsense. Our current leaders would not have
cured Alex, they would have appointed him an Ambassadorship to Syria or made him Vice
President, perhaps even given him a shot at Prime Minister or President one day.
Yes, but on condition that the 'Alexes' play the game. Deep State is full of sociopaths but
they spent their years in elite schools, not stealing cars and invading homes. Go to school,
get your degree, and then you can invade entire nations and kill many more people. Turk 152 says:
April 2, 2021 at 9:33
pm GMT • 4.8 days ago ↑ @Priss Factor
I suppose it is pretty tough these days to be a mass murderer on a global scale without
Harvard or Yale on your resume. In the old days, Truman was able to drop 2 atomic bombs and
firebomb Dresden with merely a degree from Spalding's Commercial College.
Other that that this ilist is just another sign of the crisi of neoliberlaism in the USA
and elsewhere. That why neoliberal elite badly needs a scapegoat to avoid the possibility to
be hanging from lampposts. The high level of hate toward neoliberal elite( parcially
redirected by "woke" movement toward whites ) and the loss of legitimacy is not
undeniable.
...Bryan MacDonald's thread is a good opportunity to update our list of all the issues,
ideas and things Russia has weaponized.
Even while the list below now includes 111 entries - like robotic cockroaches,
postmodernism and 14-legged squids - it is likely far from being complete:
I am deeply troubled that you conveniently neglected to include another fearsome Russian
Super-Dooper Weapon: the children's cartoon Masha and the Bear .
It's obvious that Masha and the Bear is a nefarious Russian plot to steal the precious
bodily fluids of our children!
We must be constantly vigilant. The CIA, FBI, MI6, NSA, and Homeland Security must be
notified about the Masha Threat. YouTube must censor Masha. And blue check-marked Twitter
police must condemn anyone who watches Masha.
This one didn't have the word 'weaponize', close though: "opening a new front in its spy
battles".
accusing the Kremlin of opening a new front in its spy battles with the West amid the
worldwide competition to contain the pandemic.
...
American intelligence officials said the Russians were aiming to steal research to
develop their own vaccine more quickly, not to sabotage other countries' efforts. There was
likely little immediate damage to global public health, cybersecurity experts said.
The U.S. media is weaponizing ignorance. The more one absorbs their reporting, the more
the brain is reduced to mush.
I can only manage a few hundred works and I become irritated and disoriented. My hat is
off to people who can somehow look at that stuff and remain sane. Or are they...hmmm...
That makes Jamie brilliant. play_arrow 5 play_arrow 1
zorrosgato 10 hours ago
"flush with savings"
HA!
Yen Cross 10 hours ago
Jack, ****, Dimon? Which one was it Z/H Google moderator?
I donate at Christmas.
Basil 20 minutes ago
whats gone wrong is the cancer of progressiveism. wokeism, social justice nonsense.
Gadbous 29 minutes ago
Don't you want to just slap these people?
MuleRider 18 minutes ago
You misspelled decapitate.
GrandTheftOtto 2 hours ago
"It was a year in which each of usfaced difficult personal challenges"
boundless hypocrisy...
Mr. Rude Dog 2 hours ago remove link
" Americans know that something has gone terribly wrong, and they blame this country's
leadership: the elite, the powerful, the decision makers - in government, in business and in
civic society," he wrote.
"This is completely appropriate, for who else should take the blame?"
Lets see if he projects the problem back on the citizens...Let's see what happens.
"But populism is not policy, and we cannot let it drive another round of poor planning
and bad leadership that will simply make our country's situation worse."
I knew the so called elites could not take the blame... You know populism always makes bad
decisions with the economy, our monetary system, our infrastructure and just managing our tax
money in general...Yes I knew Jamie could not take the blame..LOL.!!!!
QE4MeASAP 2 hours ago
So Dimon is giving the state of the union instead of Biden?
Budnacho 2 hours ago
Jamie Dimon....Friend of the Little Guy....
Tomsawyer2112 PREMIUM 11 hours ago
He doesn't believe a word of what he just said. But he knows that if he wants his bank to
continue to be an extension of the government and curry favor then he needs to tow the line.
I am sure he also has his eye on a future role as Fed Lead or US Treasurer but might be tough
since he's not a diversity candidate.
oknow 2 hours ago
Someone turn off his mike, dont need your sorry *** confession
Just confiscate his wealth and make him do 9 to 5 jobs for the rest of his life.
ChromeRobot 9 hours ago remove link
This guy is a rarity in the banking industry. He's a billionaire. Running a bank I was
often told in my early years in finance was foolproof. Everybody needs money and they have
it. Hard to fk up. Somehow this "titan" has gamed it to do really well doing something
incredibly easy. Positioning yourself to be a SIFI helps too! Too big to fail has it's
perks.
a drink before the war 10 hours ago
What Jamie is really saying without saying it is " I get paid in stock options however
since the pandemic JPM and other banks haven't been allowed to do stock buy back but come
June we get back to the NORMAL and with the FED printing money and giving it to us we going
to talk this stock WAY up no matter what because I got almost two years of stock options I
gotta get paid for!"
lay_arrow 2
archipusz 10 hours ago
If you want to get to the top, you must speak the party line narrative.
The truth is something different altogether.
Eddie Haskell 10 hours ago
If you want to be a state-approved oligarch you've gotta suck the right dickie. Good
job.
Detective Miller 38 minutes ago
"Jaimie Tells Bagholders To 'Buy Buy Buy!!!'"
Onthebeach6 38 minutes ago
The US is addicted to helicoptor money.
The world looks fine to an addict until the supply is cut off.
sbin 41 minutes ago
Off shore industry
Steal pension funds
Laundering drug money
Regulatory capture.
Jimmy going to lock himself in jail and forfeit his assets?
34k of jerkoff.
Nuk Soo Kow 2 hours ago
How magnanimous of Jamie to blame elitists and civic "leaders" for the structural problems
in America. It was the banksters that pushed NAFTA and helped China engineer it's currency
against the dollar, which led to massive outflows of productive capital. It was the banksters
via the use of financial legerdemain who engineered the collapse in 2008 (not to mention
every other banking panic and collapse prior to). It's high time to throw out this den of
vipers once and for all.
Nature_Boy_Wooooo 2 hours ago
He lost me at.....
We need more cheap immigrant labor...... housing is unaffordable for many.
No **** moron!......you suppressed our wages and increased demand for housing.
PT 10 hours ago remove link
I always consult the fox when I want to know about the state of the hen house.
QuiteShocking 10 hours ago
Economic boom?? Is really just trying to get back to where we were previously before the
pandemic hit with things opening back up etc... More people have been working from home so
different spending patterns are developing.. but could change... Supply chain chaos makes it
seem like shortages and inflation etc... It may only last through 2023?? but with Dems in
charge this is not a given with their anti business slant??
same2u 11 hours ago
UBI for the rich= stock market...
Hope Copy 3 hours ago (Edited)
Jamie knows that the core of Crypto is at the CIA and that the pseudo Republic has far to
much Fascist politics at the core .. There has been a competitive failure at most all levels
of the government in recent times with a 'winner take all' at the cost of keeping competitive
practices alive (not to mention kickbacks).. Of course China is laughing even though they
have a history of cutting corners (and outright fraud) in every economic sector.
Mario Landavoz 20 minutes ago
Banker. That's all ya need to know.
Just a Little Froth in the Market 40 minutes ago
But the CEO was very candid about China...
"China's leaders believe America is in decline... The Chinese see an America that is
losing ground in technology, infrastructure and education – a nation torn and
crippled . . . and a country unable to coordinate government policies (fiscal, monetary,
industrial, regulatory) in any coherent way to accomplish national goals
This is correct.
Joe A 55 minutes ago
He is just mocking and taking a piss at everybody. That America is such a mess is because
of people like him with his scorched earth robber baron rogue capitalism. But there is a way
to redeem yourselves. Just make all your assets available to the American people. And oh,
blow your own brain out.
Abi Normal 3 hours ago remove link
What else is he supposed to say? As long as things don't go bad for Jamie it's cool.
OrazioGentile 3 hours ago
The Banksters, after years of mismanagement, borderline fraud, and endless bailouts now
see that investments in unicorn startups, selling mindless BS to each other, and the quick
buck lead to a burned out husk called America?!? Now?!? Let all of them live in the great
paradise called the Cayman Islands that they helped build and see how far they get selling
"capital instruments" to each other. The last 20 years have taught most Americans that hard
work is meaningless to get ahead IMHO.
"... Do Mr. Biden and his people claim that the dogmatic and occasionally hysterical certitude of the woke is sufficient warrant to turn the country upside down? ..."
"... If the 2020 election meant anything, it confirmed the irreconcilable differences -- a standoff of the cobra and mongoose. The election certainly didn't give Mr. Biden marching orders from the American people to open the southern border to all comers, or to redesign the natural order of biology (in regard to gender identity and all the social arrangements that have flowed from the difference between the sexes since time immemorial), or to change the country in a hundred other ways, bundling it off on an expedition to the far left fringes of reality and grievance. What the new administration proposes may be less a transformation than a hijacking. Half the country doesn't want to be reinvented -- not on Mr. Biden's terms. ..."
"... He and his people have gone into business with a bogus, echo-chamber mandate: They manipulate a media illusion of unanimity, and presume to impose a moral narrative. The Bolsheviks, a tiny but ferociously focused minority, proceeded in this way in 1917. ..."
While Trump was rejected by electorate (Biden got 7 million votes more -- mainly in costal
states and large cities), Biden was elected only because of extention of mail-in voting and
because he was not Trump. Now people regret their choice, while main-in voting "irregularities"
deprive Biden administration of the legitimacy. Moreover due to Biden neocon foreign policy and
pandering to woke Bolsheviks, many people have "post-election remorse," But in two-party system
you can do nothing about it: the train already left the station.
Now the Biden administration, headed by a man a few years too old to be a boomer, entertains
ambitions to take a great leap forward. But wait. Does a transformation require a mandate? By
what mandate does the Biden administration undertake the work of irrevocably altering American
society? Do Mr. Biden and his people claim that the dogmatic and occasionally hysterical
certitude of the woke is sufficient warrant to turn the country upside down?
There was no mandate in the outcome of the last election. November 2020 merely confirmed
that the U.S. remains split precisely down the middle, 50-50, as it has been for more than 20
years, since the deadlock of Al Gore and George W. Bush and the hanging chads of Florida.
If the 2020 election meant anything, it confirmed the irreconcilable differences -- a
standoff of the cobra and mongoose. The election certainly didn't give Mr. Biden marching
orders from the American people to open the southern border to all comers, or to redesign the
natural order of biology (in regard to gender identity and all the social arrangements that
have flowed from the difference between the sexes since time immemorial), or to change the
country in a hundred other ways, bundling it off on an expedition to the far left fringes of
reality and grievance. What the new administration proposes may be less a transformation than a
hijacking. Half the country doesn't want to be reinvented -- not on Mr. Biden's terms.
He and his people have gone into business with a bogus, echo-chamber mandate: They
manipulate a media illusion of unanimity, and presume to impose a moral narrative. The
Bolsheviks, a tiny but ferociously focused minority, proceeded in this way in 1917.
... ... ...
Mr. Morrow is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. His latest book
is "God and Mammon: Chronicles of American Money."
Peter Von Nessi SUBSCRIBER 29 minutes ago "A man of his age --
fearing that he may amount to nothing more than the great Obama's onetime sidekick -- is apt to
react to the surprise of waking up in the White House by pandering to the flashiest ideas of
the young people and their hero Bernie Sanders. Mr. Biden can, for a moment, forestall death if
he veers way left and makes his mark, however chaotically."
I think the author gives too much credit to Biden and not his handlers. After all Pinocchio
was made of wood. When was the last time you saw a piece of wood think....about anything? SHOW
MORE REPLIES
N Neil Steinhoff SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago Joe did not know which state he was in, what office
he was running for and said 150 million Americans have died of Covid Here is an update from
Joe. "I have been in government for 180 years". "I wake up every morning, look at Jill, and say
'where the he- are we?'" on February 17, 2021. What could possibly go wrong? Greg Caldwell SUBSCRIBER 58 minutes ago (Edited) Mr. Ferrara: Many
people voted for Joe's ideas because he claimed to be more of a centrist while he was running
for office. I know of quite a few people who voted for Joe (1) because he wasn't Trump, and;
(2) he claimed he would govern from the middle-left.
Those people are now saying they didn't vote for anything he has done to the jobs, to
energy, nor do they buy his lies about Covid Relief (only 9% of over $1.9T actually went to
Covid); the Infrastructure bill (of which only 7% actually has anything to do with our
infrastructure); or, finally the repeated outright lies about the Georgian Voting Law. People
who voted for him are paying attention and many are not happy.
Like thumb_up Reply reply Share link Report
flag
M Melissa Firestone SUBSCRIBER 49 minutes ago Vote counting continued on and on in pivotal
states in 2020. That's why 2016 was so different than 2020. And in 2020, pivotal states were
decided by less than 21,000 votes - WI, AZ, and GA. And PA and MI were more competitive than
the polls showed going into election night. Votes continued to be counted days after the
election and as we know in some cases weeks. That's why this wasn't a mandate for Biden. It was
a rejection of Trump by the marginal voter - the ones who in tight elections determine
outcomes. The same was true for Trump when he won - Hillary was so hated by so many voting
blocks the Republicans could have run any of their potential nominees and would have won.
G George Nesterenko SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago Claiming the WH, and both chambers of Congress
is, in deed a mandate.
The only measure by which the election was 'close' was the electoral college. By the number
of.. you know... actual people... there was no, and is no contest. That's is also, indeed, a
mandate.
And as demographics shift, the mandate deepens. Which is why the GOP is so adamant against
preventing a DC or Puerto Rico statehood. An unpopular, shrinking minority is desperately
holding on to any iota of power. Not 'half the country', as Mr. Morrow repeats on several
occasions.
A national rebirth is desperately needed. Although I doubt it will happen under Biden, we
can at least get on our way.
"... Back then, I didn't know how contemptuously intelligence agencies spoke about journalists. "You can get a journalist for less than a good whore, for a few hundred dollars a month." These are the words of a CIA agent, as quoted by the Washington Post editor Philip Graham. The agent was referring to the willingness and the price journalists would accept to spread CIA propaganda reports in their articles. ..."
"... I inevitably found out during my decades abroad, almost every foreign reporter with an American or British newspaper was also active for their national intelligence services. That's just something to keep in mind whenever you think you've got "neutral" reporting by the media in front of you. I remember when I got involved with the Federal Academy for Security Politics, with their close ties to intelligence agencies. This was encouraged by my employer. ..."
Looking back, I was a lobbyist. A lobbyist tries to, for example, influence public opinion
through mainstream media in favor of special interest groups. I did that.
Like for the German Foreign Intelligence Service. The FAZ expressly encouraged me to
strengthen my contact with the Western intelligence services and was delighted when I signed my
name to the pre-formulated reports, at least in outline, that I sometimes received from
them.
Like many of the reports I was fed by intelligence services, one of many examples I can
remember well was the expose, "European Companies Help Libya Build a Second Poison Gas Factory"
from March 16, 1993. Needless to say, the report caused a stir around the world.
However, I watched as two employees of the German Federal Intelligence Service (the German
CIA, the Bundesnachrichtendienst or BND), drafted it in a meeting room of the FAZ offices at
Hellerhofstrasse 2 in Frankfurt. In other words: They basically told me what to write,
paragraph for paragraph, right there in the FAZ editorial offices and then the article was
published. One of the duties of these two BND employees was writing reports for
large-circulation German newspapers. According to employee accounts, the BND fed reports to
many German newspapers at the time - with the knowledge of their publishing houses.
The Federal Intelligence Service even had a little front company with an office directly
above a shop on the Mainzer Landstrasse in Frankfurt, only two blocks away from the FAZ's main
office. In any case, they had classified materials there that came from the BND.
Once you became a "player" on the team that drafted such articles, this was followed by the
next level of "cooperation": You would be given stacks of secret documents that you could
evaluate at your leisure. I remember we brought in a steel filing cabinet just for all the
secret reports at the FAZ. (When I was visiting colleagues at a magazine in Hamburg, I saw that
they'd done the same thing in their editorial offices).
Back then, I didn't know how contemptuously intelligence agencies spoke about
journalists. "You can get a journalist for less than a good whore, for a few hundred dollars a
month." These are the words of a CIA agent, as quoted by the Washington Post editor Philip
Graham. The agent was referring to the willingness and the price journalists would accept to
spread CIA propaganda reports in their articles. Of course, this was also with the
approval of their employers, who knew about and encouraged all of this.
In Germany, the Federal Intelligence Service was the extended arm of the CIA, basically a
subsidiary. I was never offered money by the Federal Intelligence Service, but they never even
had to. I, like many of my German colleagues, found it thrilling to be a freelance writer for
an intelligence agency or to be allowed to work for them in any capacity at all.40
... ... ...
During the summer of 2005 when I was the "chief correspondent" of the glossy magazine Park
Avenue, I had a phone call with the Director of the CIA James Woolsey, which lasted more than
an hour. His wife is active in the transatlantic propaganda organization German Marshall Fund
(but we'll touch on this later). Sitting in my Hamburg office at Griiner + Jalir publishing, I
was amazed that I didn't lose the connection, because at the beginning of our conversation
Woolsey was sitting in his office in Virginia, then he was in a limousine and after that in a
helicopter. The connection was so good, it was as if he was sitting right next to me. We spoke
about industrial espionage. Woolsey wanted me to publish a report through Griiner + Jahr that
would give the impression that the USA doesn't carry out any industrial espionage in Germany
through their intelligence services. For me, the absurd thing about this conversation wasn't
its content, which was fortunately never printed. What I really found absurd was that after the
conversation, Griiner + Jahr sent the CIA henchman Woolsey's secretary in Virginia a bouquet of
flowers after the call, because someone at Griiner + Jahr wanted to keep the line to the CIA
open.
Moreover, don t forget that in addition to 6,000 salaried employees, the Federal
Intelligence Service has around 17,000 more "informal" employees. They have completely ordinary
day jobs, and would never openly admit that they also work for the Federal Intelligence
Service. It is the same all over the world. As I inevitably found out during my decades
abroad, almost every foreign reporter with an American or British newspaper was also active for
their national intelligence services. That's just something to keep in mind whenever you think
you've got "neutral" reporting by the media in front of you. I remember when I got involved
with the Federal Academy for Security Politics, with their close ties to intelligence agencies.
This was encouraged by my employer.
I also remember that in the late summer of 1993 I was given time off to accept a six-week
invitation from the transatlantic lobbying organization, the German Marshall Fund of the
United States. All of this surely affected my reporting. The German Marshall Fund sent me to
New York, and I did a night shift with police officers in the Bronx. I wrote an article for the
FAZ about this titled: "The toughest policemen in the world go through these doors." It was one
of many positive articles I wrote about the USA - discreetly organized by the German Marshall
Fund.
It may be hard to believe, but I was actually given a loaded firearm in New York. There's
even a photo of the New York City Police Department handing it to me. The reader didn't learn
anything about what was going on behind the scenes, behind this favorable reporting in the FAZ.
They also didn't find out about the discreet contacts I made during my stay in the US. These
included a
"... his original title Bought Journalists (Gekaufte Journalisten) was kinder and more modest than my more sensational Presstitutes -- but as he had a pithy sense of humor, ..."
"... There is no free speech protection for setting fire to a crowded theater! In my book ISIS IS U.S., in fury at the fakery of these warmongers, I castigate the mainstream media, the MSM, as the МММ: the Mass Murdering Media, as well as the Military-Monetary- Media complex. Notice how the media only point the finger at the military and industry, but mum's the word about the money masters and the media manipulators, they who control the nerve system of the zombie nation, military-industrial complex and all? ..."
"... Sharmine Narwani is right. These are media combatants, these are war criminals, the lowest circle of hell in the ranks of crimes. ..."
What Is Freedom of the Press? Can censorship be freedom of the press? Legal minds favoring the interests of capital may be quick
to claim that newspaper owners and editors have a freedom-of-speech right to print what they think is fit to print. They affirm a
right of censorship or advocacy, above the duty to hew the line of objective reporting. Business, but not government, they say, may
restrict press freedom.
However, this attitude confuses two very distinct classes of law, the Bill of Rights and civil contract law. The First Amendment
merely forbids the government from infringing on freedom of expression. Thus if communist and nationalist parties each wish to publish
their own books or newspapers, congenial to their respective viewpoints, the state should not intervene. Most newspapers, however,
claim to be independent, objective or non- partisan. Thus there is an implied contract to provide an information service to readers.
Advertising in the paper should be clearly labeled as such. Truly independent media are a public service entrusted with a fiduciary
duty, similar to civil servants. The power and influence of their office is under their care, it is not theirs personally. Thus arises
the temptation of corruption, of selling favors. For a large corporation, the financial value of a decision by an official or a newspaperman
may easily dwarf the salary of the poor fellow, who may sell himself for pennies on the dollar.
A paper that claims to be independent when it actually serves hidden interests is guilty of fraud. That of course comes under
another branch of law, the criminal code.
We hear much more about political corruption, but media corruption may actually be worse. Media reporters are our eyes and ears.
What if our senses didn't reflect what is happening around us, but instead some kind of fantasy, or even remote programming? (Which
sounds a lot like TV;-) If our eyes fooled us like that, we would be asleep and dreaming with eyes open, or disabled, hospitalized
for hallucinations. We could never be masters of our own affairs, without a reliable sensorium. So the media must serve the nation
just as our senses must faithfully serve each one of us. But they serve themselves. With the media we have, we are a zombie nation.
Of course, it's hard to be objective on topics like politics which are matters of opinion. That's what the op-ed page is for. The
problem is systematic bias, when money talks in the news pages.
As a freshman in college, I once volunteered to be a stringer on the college paper, and was sent out to interview some subjects
on a campus controversy. I didn't seem to be cut out for a hard hitting journalist either! The episode always reminds me of a Mulla
Nasrudin story.
Mulla was serving as judge in the village, holding court in his garden. The plaintiff came and pleaded his case so convincingly,
that the Mulla blurted out. By Allah, I think you are right! His assistant demurred, But Mullah, you haven't heard the other side
yet! So now the defendant entered his plea, with even greater vigor and eloquence. Once again, the Mulla was so impressed, he cried
out, By Jove, I believe you are right! And once again his clerk protested: But Mulla, they can't both be right! Oh my God, exclaimed
the Mulla, I guess you are right, too!
My junior high school journalism teacher never tired of telling us. Journalism is a business. In theory it's a public trust, but
money makes the world go round. We all have to please the boss to keep our job. We are all bought one way or another. As Ulfkotte
points out, there are thousands of journalists looking for a job, not the other way about. So his original title Bought Journalists
(Gekaufte Journalisten) was kinder and more modest than my more sensational Presstitutes -- but as he had a pithy sense of humor,
I think he would have liked it anyway. The "privished" edition title Journalists for Hire seems to downplay the matter a shade though.
It's perfectly normal to be hired as a journalist, isn't it?
Perhaps we have to escalate the term to investigative journalist, because a journo is just somebody who writes things down.
In an interview ( https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/10/14/journalists-are-prostitutes ), Ulfkotte tells about his first assignment,
during the Iran-Iraq war. The international press corps set out from Baghdad into the desert with extra jerry cans of gasoline --
to set alight some long-destroyed tanks for a film shoot. Innocent sensationalism perhaps? But a million people have died in Iraq,
Libya and Syria because the press didn't just report the news, didn't just lie about the news, but they invented and sold the events
that served as pretexts for wars. That is way out of line.
There is no free speech protection for setting fire to a crowded theater! In my book ISIS IS U.S., in fury at the fakery of these
warmongers, I castigate the mainstream media, the MSM, as the МММ: the Mass Murdering Media, as well as the Military-Monetary- Media
complex. Notice how the media only point the finger at the military and industry, but mum's the word about the money masters and
the media manipulators, they who control the nerve system of the zombie nation, military-industrial complex and all?
Political candidates
who tackle the media do so at their peril. Sharmine Narwani is right. These are media combatants, these are war criminals, the lowest
circle of hell in the ranks of crimes.
We have million-dollar penalties for accidental product liability, but the salesmen of genocide
get off scot-free!? 3,000 died on the spot on 9/11, followed by two decades of wars. The key suspect: Netanyahu crony Larry Silverstcin.
His reward: a S3 billion insurance payout - pure profit, as he was only leasing the Towers.
The MSM cover it up, and revile you as
a "conspiracy theorist" if you protest. "Presstitutes" is too light-hearted a word for them. The tragedy is that many social media
agitators for the destruction of Syria were fools, who thought they were being oh so cool.
Remember the Milgram experiment? 1 like
my book covers to be a depiction of the title, an allegory, which led to the most salacious cover art on "Presstitutes" I've ever
dealt with. "Bought Journalists" could have been a covey of journos in a shopping cart, picking up their perks. Light satire blending
to comedy, but this isn't really a funny story. Too many people, including the author, have given their lives.
One nice thing about this book is you get to know a real nice guy. I like Udo. Decent, intelligent, good sense of humor, conscientious,
level-headed. He tells how he fell into this because he was just out of college and needing a job. We all have our compromises and
our confessions to make. Ulfkotte relates the moment when it became too corrupt for him, when politicians offered him €5000 to use
his cover as a journalist to spy and dig up dirt on the private life of their rival. That was too low down and dirty, too criminal
for him, although it seemed to be expected and natural to them. Ulfkotte was the rarest of courageous whistleblowers.
... ... ...
English translation never moved forward." Another curiosity: during the nearly three years Journalists for Hire was "on sale"
but unavailable on Amazon, it garnered only five-star reviews, 24 of them, from customers who wanted to read the book. Then the day
this edition became available, that edition got a 1 -star troll review, virulently attacking the author as a "yellow journalist"
- which happens to mean "warmonger." Weird.
Of course, there could be some mundane explanations for the failure of the first, or rather zero edition. Business failure. Language
barrier. Death of the author -- for a small publisher, a proactive author promoting the book is a necessity. It was spooky, too,
that the only book Tayen Lane seemed to have published before was a non-starter about suicide...
And what if the author's death was a key part of the pattern of suppression? There we go full conspiracy. It's not that incredible,
though. Ulfkotte's last page here is a declaration of war: "This book is the first volume of an explosive three-part series." It's
been alleged that the CIA has a weapon that works by triggering a heart attack. And like the Mafia, their code of silence calls tor
punishing ex-colleagues who took the oath of secrecy and then turned against them, more than mere bystanders like Joe Blogger or
Johnny Publisher.
So I hope I'm lucky to publish this book. Hopefully it will get reviews in the alternative media, or interviews with our translator
or myself. This is the second time I've published a German bestseller. The first was Mathias Broeckers' Conspiracy Theories and Secrets
of 9/11. It didn't turn a profit, but was a very interesting treatment. In the first part of the book he shows that conspiracy -
in the broadest sense, grouping together against outsiders - is one of three basic principles of life and evolution. Darwinians normally
only talk about competition, but the second one is cooperation, and the hybrid of the two is conspiracy. Our body consists of a collective
of cells cooperating and conspiring together against competing organisms! Conspiracy is as common as the air we breathe. Even the
official story of 9/11 is a theory about a conspiracy of 19 hijackers, who weren't even on the passenger lists... Then there is the
conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories, that the CIA purposely turned the term into an epithet to cover up the JFK assassination.
Of course not everything is a conspiracy. You have to remain skeptical, keep your balance and common sense. We need the flexibility
to add new perspectives, and not try to reduce everything to one perspective. Our brains are perfectly capable of this, we just have
to use them. Don't believe what they tell you, if it doesn't stand to reason. On 9/11, three towers fell at free- fall speed, but
only two were hit by airplanes - which were 5,000 times lighter than the steel buildings anyway. Anyone can do the math. The perps
didn't even bother to make it plausible, having the media to cover it up.
When a huge revelation like 9/11 hits, like it did some of us back in 2002, when I published the first "truther" book in English,
it's a big shock. This can make people either deny the new information, or go overboard with it. Sometimes the shock of losing the
mainstream world view is so great that people switch to the reverse explanation for everything. Yet most of life is still banal or
benign. Major criminal political conspiracies like 9/11 require a lot of effort, and are used strategically.
Although 9/11 showed that these people arc capable of almost anything, that doesn't mean they can or will do everything. For instance,
I don't believe in chemtrails, because it doesn't make sense, and the contrails persist mostly on days when there are natural cirrus
clouds in the upper atmosphere. Manipulation is even more common than conspiracy. We all do it to get other people to do things.
Ulfkotte shows that mass media manipulation is business as usual. It is so prevalent that it starts to get into the realm of a matrix,
a wall-to-wall pseudo-reality. The spider army spins its web 24/7. Their thread is a mix of outrages and banalities, bread and circuses.
The formula is clear to see in the major German tabloid Bild. Its readers go for simplified and emotional narratives, like a cheap
novel with themes of love and hate: "The reader's attention is steered away from what's objective- ly important and diverted to what's
trivial." Yes, there IS a sucker bom every minute. We are still just creatures that go too much on impressions and emotions rather
than logic, and the media play on that with sensationalism and simplified images. Sure, our brain has amazing powers, but it can
only focus on one thing at a time. (Luckily, that's at least one more than machines, that have no awareness of anything.)
Simplification, love and hate, enemy images. Our bane as a nation is our bent for political correctness and demonization. We are
the heirs of the Puritans, who had a nasty habit of picking on little old ladies, demonizing them and then burning them at the stake.
Who were the real demons there? Or in the tragedies of Libya and Syria?? When a huge revelation like 9/11 hits, like it did some
of us back in 2002, when I published the first "truther" book in English, it's a big shock. This can make people either deny the
new information, or go overboard with it. Sometimes the shock of losing the mainstream world view is so great that people switch
to the reverse explanation for everything. Yet most of life is still banal or benign. Major criminal political conspiracies like
9/11 require a lot of effort, and are used strategically.
Although 9/11 showed that these people arc capable of almost anything, that doesn't mean they can or will do everything. For instance,
I don't believe in chemtrails, because it doesn't make sense, and the contrails persist mostly on days when there are natural cirrus
clouds in the upper atmosphere. Manipulation is even more common than conspiracy. We all do it to get other people to do things.
Ulfkotte shows that mass media manipulation is business as usual. It is so prevalent that it starts to get into the realm of a matrix,
a wall-to-wall pseudo-reality. The spider army spins its web 24/7. Their thread is a mix of outrages and banalities, bread and circuses.
The formula is clear to see in the major German tabloid Bild. Its readers go for simplified and emotional narratives, like a cheap
novel with themes of love and hate: "The reader's attention is steered away from what's objective- ly important and diverted to what's
trivial." Yes, there IS a sucker bom every minute. We are still just creatures that go too much on impressions and emotions rather
than logic, and the media play on that with sensationalism and simplified images. Sure, our brain has amazing powers, but it can
only focus on one thing at a time. (Luckily, that's at least one more than machines, that have no awareness of anything.)
Simplification, love and hate, enemy images. Our bane as a nation is our bent for political correctness and demonization. We are
the heirs of the Puritans, who had a nasty habit of picking on little old ladies, demonizing them and then burning them at the stake.
Who were the real demons there? Or in the tragedies of Libya and Syria?? We never learn. Hitler with us is as immortal as Satan,
constantly recycled as the evil icon dictator of the day, sometimes complete with moustache. This is how they demonize populism.
Ulfkotte asks, why should populism be unpopular? Lincoln expounded populism when he spoke of a government by and for and of the people.
Each time you spend a $5 greenback with his icon on it, you distribute a piece of populist propaganda! Trump is right to use the
term "witch hunt" against the puritanical attack dogs of impeachment. He wouldn't have needed to ask favors of foreign potentates
if the MSM, the mainstream media, were doing their job and investigating the Bidens. The pot calling the kettle black, because it
sees itself on the politically correct moral high ground. More important, without die color revolution launched by the MSM and the
Obama regime, Ukraine wouldn't have sunk into this cesspool of corruption. Even Trump won't say what die Bidens were really up to:
stirring up war in East Ukraine so they could get their hands on the oil shale fields of the Donbass, or that they are investors
in the illegal occupation of oil fields in the Golan Heights. Can't remember anyone ever fishing in more troubled waters. What about
the suspicions that the Clintons have murdered people, such as Seth Rich, those are just conspiracy theories and not to be investigated
either. Did the DNC kill this whistleblower and blame Putin instead for losing the election? The Mueller report won't say. But people
do get killed. Like JFK, RFK, MLK.
These are not minor matters they are getting away with behind the protective mask of the media which "covers" the news. Surveys
do reflect declining public faith in die mainstream media - except among Democrats. Tell people what they want to hear: a basic marketing
principle. You may have heard of Operation Mockingbird and how the CLA plays our domestic media like a Wurlitzer. Ulfkotte explains
how in Germany, CIA media operations started with the postwar occupation. It's part of the declared intention (most infamously but
not only by Winston Churchill) to destroy the German people, the German identity. Control of the global media is the firm foundation
of the Anglo-American-Zionist empire.
In his parting shot, "What should we do," Ulfkotte sees one simple ray of hope. "Everyone reading this book has the ultimate power
over the journalism I have described here. All we have to do is stop giving our money and our attention to these 'leading media.'
When enough of us stop buying the products offered by these media houses, when we no longer click on their Internet articles and
we switch off their television or radio programs - at some point, these journalists will have to start producing something of value
for their fellow citizens, or they're going to be out of a job. It's that simple." Instead, we can patronize sources like
https://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/honest-news-sites .
They note that, according to Business Insider, 90% of US media are owned by just six corporations, a similar
problem of lockstep media as in Germany. They recommend these "Honest News Sites Way Better Than Mainstream Media."
The Corbett Report
Moon of Alabama
The Anti-Media
Global Research
We Are Change
ProgressivePress.com,
Consortium News
StormCloudsGathering
Truth In Media
Media Roots
21st Century Wire
And The OffOuardian, which incidentally was one of the strongest voices for publishing this suppressed book.
"... The adjectives used in the FAZ to describe Putin had overwhelmingly negative connotations, including: threatening, rough, aggressive, confrontational, anti-westem, power-political, untruthful, cool, calculated, cynical, harsh, abrasive, non-substantive (arguments) and implausible (arguments). ..."
"... The words used to describe Obama had a completely different tone: committed, fanatically welcomed, enthusiastic, conciliatory, praised, hopeful and resolute ..."
"... The former FAZ Washington correspondent Matthias Rub wrote the adulation to US President Bush cited above shortly before the Iraq War began in 2003, in violation of international law. One year later he received the Arthur F. Bums Award for a different article. The Arthur F. Bums Award is presented by Germany's Foreign Minister. So, who selects the winners today? ..."
An interesting undergraduate thesis from Munich put together a list of the adjectives and
adverbs used in select articles about Obama (USA) and Putin (Russia) in the Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung between 2000 and 2012.
The words selected were ones that implied a value judgement in their description of Obama or
Putin. The adjectives used in the FAZ to describe Putin had overwhelmingly negative
connotations, including: threatening, rough, aggressive, confrontational, anti-westem,
power-political, untruthful, cool, calculated, cynical, harsh, abrasive, non-substantive
(arguments) and implausible (arguments).
The words used to describe Obama had a completely different tone: committed, fanatically
welcomed, enthusiastic, conciliatory, praised, hopeful and resolute :' In plain language:
The reporting in the once renowned FAZ newspaper is definitely not neutral, independent,
unbiased nor objective these days. So where is this bias coming from? Does this style of
reporting possibly have anything to do with the closeness that the FAZ's writers have to
certain elites and powerful circles? In the following chapters, we won't only be considering
the FAZ when it comes to this question. We will also look into why the mainstream media doesn't
even want you to imply that they're close to the elite.
Chapter one, scene two: A few years ago, the reporter Thomas Leif painted a rather
conspiratorial picture in the ARD television documentary Strippenzieher und Hinterzimmer
(Puppet Masters and Back Rooms). In it, journalists, ministers and party officials appeared to
all be sitting in the same boat, isolated from the common folk and getting along like
gangbustcrs. Viewers got to see how politics is made in secret meetings behind the scenes. The
film was about a corrupt world of cozy connections.4 What was being shown, however, wasn't a
conspiracy theory.
The film was controversial, because die people being shown in it were the perpetrators. They
thought that this form of corruption was completely normal. The journalists portrayed in the
documentary took it as an affront when they were simply asked about these secret networks
operating in the background.
... ... ...
The manipulation of the readers has been noticeable at the FAZ for many years. Dr. Heinz
Loquai gave a famous speech in 2003 where he said the following about the FAZ:
We learn from the FAZ's Washington correspondents that, among other things, Bush
studies the bible every day, prays regularly and bases his actions on the question, "What
would Jesus do?" The president is a "paragon of modesty and close to his people." There may
be "an arrogant bone or two in Bush's body," but he is "a man of love." His "portion of
missionary fervor" is "softened by statesmanlike prudence," through "patient waiting," the
"natural political talent's decision" has been "expressed." Although Bush may know that he is
not an intellectual, he can rely on "his political instinct, his wisdom and his natural
wit."
So (...) lectured, we can continue to count on the judgement and objectivity of leading
German daily and weekly newspapers' America correspondents! Embedded with the allied troops,
embedded in the political-media network in Washington - what's the difference? 16
The former FAZ Washington correspondent Matthias Rub wrote the adulation to US President
Bush cited above shortly before the Iraq War began in 2003, in violation of international law.
One year later he received the Arthur F. Bums Award for a different article. The Arthur F. Bums
Award is presented by Germany's Foreign Minister. So, who selects the winners today? The
jury includes, for example, the journalists Sabine Christiansen and Stefan Kornclius
(Sflddeutsche Zeitung).17 Keep these names in the mind. We will come across them and their
interesting connections quite often.
" Reporters uncritically echo intel agencies' election claims. Did they learn nothing from
the Iraq war?" that a wrong question to ask. In reality presstitutes are controlled by their
pimps from intelligence agencies. Like was the case in the USSR he MSM has generally abandoned
journalism and became propaganda arm of the State Department and CIA if we are talking about
foreign policy. .
By no stretch of the imagination can NPR or NYT any longer be called a news organizations.
They are propaganda outlets. The book, "Legacy of Ashes," is a good place to start to learn
something about CIA. And
Presstitutes Embedded in the Pay of the CIA by Dr. Udo Ulfkotte describes how CIA controls
journalists.
Notable quotes:
"... Some of our guys told us stuff. We won’t tell you who or why you should trust them, and we won’t show you any evidence that backs them up. The intelligence community is making a bold appeal to its own authority — an authority of which journalists have good reason to be skeptical. ..."
"... Organizations like the Central Intelligence Agency have a history of propagating disinformation to media outlets. Their biases are obvious: They exist not to report the truth but to disrupt foreign adversaries and, at least in theory, to further American interests. Formally they answer to the president and are overseen by Congress, but they also protect their parochial interests like all bureaucracies. ..."
"... Mr. Rall is a political cartoonist, columnist and author of "The Stringer," a graphic novel forthcoming in April. ..."
Reporters uncritically echo intel agencies' election claims. Did they learn nothing from the
Iraq war?
If your mother says she loves you, check it out, goes an old reporter’s saying. What
if the intelligence community says so?
On March 15 the National Intelligence Council declassified an “intelligence community
assessment” titled “Foreign Threats to the 2020 Federal Election.” From a
journalistic standpoint, the section titled “sources of information” is of
interest. It says only that “we considered intelligence reporting and other information
made available to the Intelligence Community as of 31 December 2020.”
To put that in layman’s terms: Some of our guys told us stuff. We won’t tell
you who or why you should trust them, and we won’t show you any evidence that backs them
up. The intelligence community is making a bold appeal to its own authority — an
authority of which journalists have good reason to be skeptical.
Organizations like the Central Intelligence Agency have a history of propagating
disinformation to media outlets. Their biases are obvious: They exist not to report the truth
but to disrupt foreign adversaries and, at least in theory, to further American interests.
Formally they answer to the president and are overseen by Congress, but they also protect their
parochial interests like all bureaucracies. (Speaking of bias, I draw cartoons for Sputnik
News and frequently appear on their radio programs. I have many other clients as well. That may
affect how seriously you take this article.)
Yet many in the media greeted the report with utter credulity. NPR aired a story March 17
titled “Russia’s Efforts at Information Warfare Against the West
Continue”—not “Intelligence Agencies Claim . . .” Reporters Mary Louise
Kelly and Greg Myre framed the report’s election-interference claims as straightforward
fact, analyzed the political implications, and discussed what the U.S. might do to retaliate.
“But the bigger question, Mary Louise, is how can the U.S. stop these major breaches
being carried out by Russia?” Mr. Myre said.
The segment ignored the possibility that the report’s claims might be false or
mistaken. It failed to mention the lack of documented evidence and the anonymous sourcing. NPR
interviewed a single expert: Glenn Gerstell, a former general counsel of the National Security
Agency, identified only as an “official,” who took the report at face value.
Other media outlets were careful to use proper journalistic form, such as “report
says” and “report alleges.” Yet they too presented unsourced allegations as
fact. CNN said the report “confirms what was largely assumed” and called it
“a wholesale repudiation of many false narratives that were pushed by right-wing news
outlets.” CNN didn’t address the questions of anonymous sourcing or
reliability.
While the New York Times allowed that “the declassified report did not explain how the
intelligence community had reached its conclusions,” it bent over backward to give the
benefit of the doubt to the intelligence community: “The officials said they had high
confidence in their conclusions about Mr. Putin’s involvement, suggesting that the
intelligence agencies have developed new ways of gathering information after the extraction of
one of their best Kremlin sources in 2017.”
In May 2004 the Times’s editors published a 1,200-word letter to readers apologizing
for their coverage of Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. “We
have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have
been,” they wrote. “In some cases, information that was controversial then, and
seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking
back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence
emerged—or failed to emerge.”
You’d think they’d have learned something from the mother of all
intelligence—and journalistic—failures.
Mr. Rall is a political cartoonist, columnist and author of "The Stringer," a graphic
novel forthcoming in April.
Appeared in the April 2, 2021, print edition.
Douglas Wolf
From the 50's on to the fall of the Soviet Union (which the "intelligence agencies
completely missed) the assessments of the Soviet military was WAY overexaggerated to justify
huge budgets for themselves and the military-industrial establishment. When the SU crumbled,
new boogie men had to found! Oh and they missed the plot that became 9-11. WMD's in Iraq
-nope. The list is long of the screwups and politically motivated reports. I say this as
someone who has a long friendship with a CIA officer
Bryan Smith
Asking the media if they have any ethics,, is like asking the executioner why he is an
hatchet man? Because the money is good!
Robert Bridges
50 Intelligence officers, including Brennan, said the Hunter Biden story was Russian
misinformation before the election. They were wrong. Of course, they, and you, won't
apologize to the American people for that blatant attempt to affect the election.
Michael Bomya
Mr. Rall reminds us of the WMD ploy that was the premise for the Iraq war, however he
misses entirely the more recent 2016 Russian collusion narrative. The alleged journalists are
simply extending their Russia story into a tome as thick as Tolstoy's "War and Peace". I
might take the recent intel report to mean that Russia spent $75K on faceyspacey ads in the
run up to the 2020 election, a 25% increase over their spending to install a sleeper agent,
Donald Trump, into the White House.
No Mr. Rall, there are many "news" articles that I stop reading halfway through due to
anonymous sources, a dearth of facts and its' alignment with a Dem narrative. I am not easily
morphed into a consumer of fiction, when I wish to read the news.
David Everson
As long as their agendas coincide they will cooperate. The rest of us are left to sort out
the epistemological sewage we live in.
Bill Schmaltz
"I'm from the government, I'm here to help you". (Be afraid)
"We're the FBI, we're here to pursue justice" (Not always)
"We're the intelligence community, you can trust us". (No, you can't)
Michael Kwedar
Sadly the question "Cui Bono" addresses a lot of what Mr. Rall declaims.
Richard Taylor
The author gives the "journalists" too much credit for being anything other than the
political hacks they are. The intelligence information coincides with their political views
and hence it is gospel. No need for any further review.
Richard Bolin
The issue of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was not a failure of the intelligence
community at large. That assessment was made by a rogue intelligence component that had the
White House's ear. I was a senior intelligence officer at the time and when I asked my staff
if they were still seeing evidence that Iraq still had a weapons of mass destruction program
the unanimous answer was no.
Marc Jones
Yet the Director of the CIA still went forward, declaring "Slam Dunk!" Was it not his
responsibility to vet the information he was passing on to ensure its accuracy, or was he one
of the rogues? Where do you want to start with these rogue operations and elements? The 1950s
in Latin America and Iran? The 1960s domestically? The 1970s in Asia? The 1980s and 1990s in
the Middle East and again in Latin America? The record is long, ugly and it has a cause.
There is a difference between gathering information and conducting clandestine foreign
intervention.
The former is necessary and relatively benign. The latter leads to embarrassing and
dangerous rogue operations. The United States has a military, Constitutionally established
and maintained for the purpose of conducting violence in the country's behalf. It was the
intent of the founders that would only happen after the members of Congress debated and
agreed there was a need to do so. We need to return to that standard.
Kenneth Wilson
The "journalists" cited all intend to propagate the Democratic Party narrative that it's
only "The Russians" who interfere in US presidential elections. You will not hear anything
about China's involvement from "the intelligence community" or these same journalists.
Also you can be sure that "the intelligence community" won't say publicly anything about
Dominion voting systems. One member of the intel community, former Trump cybersecurity chief
Chris Krebs (who had been fired by Trump) testified to the Senate Homeland security committee
that in no way were the voting machines connected to the Internet. Until Senator Ron Johnson
showed evidence that yes, the machines are in fact connected to the Internet. Thus the vote
counts can be manipulated from anywhere, including from servers abroad.
Madison Bagney
As Reagan famously said, "Trust but verify." Sadly advice that most Americans fail to
do.
ugghhhh the propaganda channel – thesaker – continues unabated
"Putin single-handedly "resurrected" Russia in an amazingly short time"
just LOL @ single-handedly
" Putin turned Russia into the strongest military power on the planet and he completely reshaped the Russian perception
of themselves and of Russia"
strongest? zvezda channel posting youtube videos doesn't make you the strongest military power
completely reshaped? so much that still all the young Russians want to emigrate
"the country which created the best vaccine on the planet "
the best vaccine? only 4% of Russians got vaccinated, that's 6 million out of 144 millions
so much about Russians trusting Putin, LOL
-- -- -
Andrei Raevsky, do you even re-read what BS you write?!
you aren't fooling anyone but a handful of braindead followers you got there on your blog
in the real world – no one gives a shyt about Putin
the West doesn't hate Putin, they just want to loot Russia or get a cut from the loot of Russia.
Russian oligarchs want to loot Russia for themselves without giving a cut/tribute to Western oligarchs.
Putin is a non-issue, a nobody, he just follows orders of the Russian oligarchs.
But there is a real hate @ Putin – that because he is a fake, only a carefully prepared media
image. And you Andrei Raevsky are part of that propaganda effort. Putin is no savior, Putin
is not working for the betterment of Russians or humanity as a whole. He is just a facade for
Russian oligarchs. And that is what we hate . And the more you and the likes of you push
that fake image of Putin, the more the pushback and hate from us.
So go on – continue.
I was a believer in Putin. Then I saw the light. Now I would have no quarrel putting a bullet in
Putin's head. Analyze this!
In truth, the West has a very long list of reasons for which to hate Putin and everything
Russian, but I believe that there is one reason which trumps them all: the western leaders
sincerely believed that they had defeated the USSR in the Cold War (even medals were
made to commemorate this event) and following the collapse of the former superpower and the
coming to power of a clueless, alcoholic puppet, the triumph of the West was total. At least in
appearance. The reality, as always, was much more complicated.
The causes and mechanisms of the collapse of the Soviet Union are not our topic today, so I
will just indicate that I believe that the USSR never "collapsed" but that it was deliberately
destroyed by the CPSU apparatus which decided to break up the country in order for the Party
and Nomenklatura to remain in power, not at the helm of the USSR, but at the helm of the
various ex-Soviet republics. Weak leaders and ideologies which nobody really believes in do not
inspire people to fight for their rulers. This is why the Russian monarchy collapsed, this is
why the masonic democracy of Kerenskii collapsed and this is why the Soviet Union collapsed
(this is also one of the most likely reasons for the final collapse of the US as a state).
Putin, who was not very well known in the West or, for that matter, in Russia, came to power
and immediately reversed Russia's course towards the abyss. First, he dealt with the two most
urgent threats, the oligarchs and the Wahabi insurrection in the Caucasus. Many Russians,
including myself, were absolutely amazed at the speed and determination of his actions. As a
result, Putin suddenly found himself one of the most popular leaders in Russian history.
Initially, the West went into a kind of shock, then through a process reminiscent of the
so-called " Kübler-Ross model " and,
finally, the West settled into a russophobic frenzy not seen since the Nazi regime in Germany
during WWII.
In this sequence, Russia committed two very different types of "crimes" (from the
AngloZionist point of view, of course):
The minor crime of doing what Russia actually did
and The much bigger crime of never asking the Empire for the permission to do so
The West likes to treat the rest of the planet like some kind of junior partner, with very
limited autonomy and almost no real agency (the best example is what the USA did to countries
like Poland or Bulgaria). If and when any such "junior" country wants to do something in its
foreign policy, it absolutely has to ask for permission from its AngloZionist Big Brother. Not
doing so is something akin to sedition and revolt. In the past, many countries were "punished"
for daring to have an opinion or, even more so, for daring to act on it.
It would not be inaccurate to summarize it all by saying that Putin flipped his finger to
the Empire and its leaders. That "crime of crimes" was what really triggered the current
anti-Russian hysteria. Soon, however, the (mostly clueless) leaders of the Empire ran into an
extremely frustrating problem: while the russophobic hysteria did get a lot of traction in the
West, in Russia it created a very powerful blowback because of a typical Putin "judo" move: far
from trying to suppress the anti-Russian propaganda of the West, the Kremlin used its power to
make it widely available (in Russian!) through the Russian media (I wrote about this in some
detail here and here ).
The direct result of this was two fold: first, the CIA/MI6 run "opposition" began to be
strongly associated with the russophobic enemies of Russia and, second, the Russian general
public further rallied around Putin and his unyielding stance. In other words, calling Putin a
dictator and, of course, a "new Hitler", the western PSYOPs gained some limited advantage in
the western public opinion, but totally shot itself in the leg with the Russian public.
I refer to this stage as the " phase one anti-Putin strategic PSYOP ". As for the
outcome of this PSYOP, I would not only say that it almost completely failed, but I think that
it had the exact opposite intended effect inside Russia.
A change of course was urgently needed.
The redirection of US PSYOPs against Putin and Russia
I have to admit that I have a very low opinion of the US intelligence community, including
its analysts. But even the rather dull US "Russia area specialist" eventually figured out that
telling the Russian public opinion that Putin was a "dictator" or a "killer of dissidents" or a
"chemical poisoner of exiles" resulted in a typically Russian mix of laughter and support for
the Kremlin. Something had to be done.
So some smart ass somewhere in some basement came up with the following idea: it makes no
sense to accuse Putin of things which make him popular at home, so let's come up with a new
list of accusations carefully tailored to the Russian public.
Let's call this a " phase two anti-Putin PSYOP operation ".
And this is how the "Putin is in cahoots with" thing began. Specifically, these accusations
were deployed by the US PSYOPs and those in its pay:
Putin is disarming Syria Putin will
sell out the Donbass Putin is a puppet of Israel and, specifically, Netanyahu Putin is a
corrupt traitor to the Russian national interests Putin is allowing Israel to bomb Syria (see
here )
Putin is selling the Siberian riches to China and/or Putin is subjugating Russia to China Putin
is corrupt, weak and even cowardly Putin was defeated by Erdogan in the Nagorno-Karabakh war
The above are the main talking points immediately endorsed and executed by the US strategic
PSYOPs against Russia.
Was it effective?
Yes, to some degree. For one thing, these "anti-Russian PSYOPS reloaded" were immediately
picked up by at least part of what one could call the "internal patriotic opposition" (much of
it very sincerely and without any awareness of being skillfully manipulated). Even more toxic
was the emergence of a rather loud neo-Communist (or, as Ruslan Ostashko often calls them
"emo-Marxist") movement (I personally refer to as a sixth
column ) which began an internal anti-Kremlin propaganda campaign centered on the
following themes:
"All is lost" (
всепропальщики
): that is thesis which says that nothing in Russia is right, everything is either wrong or
evil, the country is collapsing, so is its economy, its science, its military, etc. etc. etc.
This is just a garden variety of defeatism, nothing more. "Nothing was achieved since Putin
came to power": this is a weird one, since it takes an absolutely spectacular amount of mental
gymnastics to not see that Putin literally saved Russia from total destruction. This stance
also completely fails to explain why Putin is so hated by the Empire (if Putin did everything
wrong, like, say Eltsin did, he would be adored in the West, not hated!). All the elections in
Russia were stolen. Here the 5th (CIA/MI6 run) column and 6th column have to agree: according
to both of them, there is absolutely no way most Russians supported Putin for so many years and
there is no way they support him now. And nevermind the fact that the vast majority of polls
show that Putin was, and still is, the most popular political figure in Russia.
Finally, the big SNAFU with the pension reform definitely did not help Putin's ratings, so
he had to take action: he "softened" some of the worst provisions of this reform and,
eventually, he successfully sidelined some of the worst Atlantic Integrationists, including
Medvedev himself.
Sadly, some putatively pro-Russian websites, blogs and individuals showed their true face
when they jumped on the bandwagon of this 2nd strategic PSYOP campaign, probably with the hope
to either become more noticed, or get some funding, or both. Hence, all the nonsense about
Russia and Israel working together or Putin "selling out" we have seen so many times recently.
The worst thing here is that these websites, blogs and individuals have seriously misled and
distressed some of the best real friends of Russia in the West.
None of these guys ever address a very simple question: if Putin is such a sellout, and if
all is lost, why does the AngloZionist Empire hate Putin so much? In almost 1000 years of
warfare (spiritual, cultural, political, economic and military) against Russia, the leaders of
the West have always hated real Russian patriots and they have always loved the (alas, many)
traitors to Russia. And now, they hate Putin because he is such a terrible leader?
This makes absolutely no sense.
Conclusion: is a war inevitable now?
The US/NATO don't engage in strategic PYSOPs just because they like or dislike somebody. The
main purpose of such PSYOPs is to break the other side's will to resist . This was also
the main objective of both (phase one and phase two) anti-Putin PSYOPs. I am happy to report
that both phases of these PYSOPs failed. The danger here is that these failures have failed to
convince the leaders of the Empire of the need to urgently change course and accept the
"Russian reality", even if they don't like it.
Ever since "Biden" (the "collective Biden", of course, not the potted plant) Administration
(illegally) seized power, what we saw was a sharp escalation of anti-Russian statements. Hence,
the latest " uhu, he is a killer " -- this was no mistake by a senile mind, this was a
carefully prepared
declaration. Even worse, the Empire has not limited itself to just words, it also did some
important "body moves" to signal its determination to seek even further confrontation with
Russia:
There has been a lot of sabre-rattling coming from the West, mostly some rather
ill-advsied (or even outright stupid) military maneuvers near/along the Russian border. As I
have explained it a billion times, these maneuvers are self-defeating from a military point of
view (the closer to the Russian border, the more dangerous for the western military
force). Politically, however, they are extremely provocative and, therefore, dangerous. The
vast majority of Russian analysts do not believe that the US/NATO will openly attack Russia, if
only because that would be suicidal (the current military balance in Europe is strongly in
Russia's favor, even without using hypersonic weapons). What many of them now fear is that
"Biden" will unleash the Ukronazi forces against the Donbass, thereby "punishing" both the
Ukraine and Russia (the former for its role in the US presidential campaign). I tend to agree
with both of these statements.
At the end of the day, the AngloZionist Empire was always racist at its core, and that
empire is still racist : for its leaders, the Ukrainian people are just cannon fodder, an
irrelevant third rate nation with no agency which has outlived its utility (US analysts do
understand that the US plan for the Ukraine has ended in yet another spectacular faceplant such
delusional plans always end up with, even if they don't say so publicly). So why not launch
these people into a suicidal war against not only the LDNR but also Russia herself? Sure,
Russia will quickly and decisively win the military war, but politically it will be a PR
disaster for Russia as the "democratic West" will always blame Russia, even when she clearly
did not attack first (as was the case in 08.08.08, most recently).
I have already written about
the absolutely disastrous situation of the Ukraine three weeks ago so I won't repeat it
all here, I will just say that since that day things have gotten even much worse: suffice to
say that the Ukraine has moved a lot of heavy armor to the line of contact while the regime in
Kiev has now banned the import of Russian toilet paper (which tells you what the ruling gang
thinks of as important and much needed measures). While it is true that the Ukraine has become
a totally failed state since the Neo-Nazi coup, there is now a clear acceleration of the
collapse of not only the regime or state, but of the country as a whole. Ukraine is falling
apart so fast that one could start an entire website tracking only all this developing horror,
not day by day, but, hour by hour. Suffice to say that "Ze" has turned out to be even worse
than Poroshenko. The only thing Poroshenko did which "Ze" has not (yet!) is to start a war.
Other than that, the rest of what he did (by action or inaction) can only be qualified as "more
of the same, only worse".
Can a war be prevented?
I don't know. Putin gave the Ukronazis a very stern warning (" grave consequences for Ukraine's statehood as such ").
I don't believe for one second that anybody in power in Kiev gives a damn about the Ukraine or
the Ukrainian statehood, but they are smart enough to realize that a Russian counter-attack in
defense of the LDNR and, even more so, Crimea, might include precision "counter-leadership"
strikes with advanced missiles. The Ukronazi leaders would be well-advised to realize that they
all have a crosshair painted on their heads. They might also think about this: what happened to
every single Wahabi gang leader in Chechnya since the end of the 2nd Chechen war? (hint: they
were all found and executed). Will that be enough to stop them?
Maybe. Let's hope so.
But we must now keep in mind that for the foreseeable future there are only two options left
for the Ukraine: " a horrible ending or a horror without end " (Russian
expression).
The best scenario for the people of the Ukraine would be a (hopefully
relatively peaceful) breakup of the country
into manageable parts . The worst option would definitely be a full-scale war against
Russia.
Judging by the rhetoric coming out of Kiev these days, most Ukrainian politicians are firmly
behind option #2, especially since that is also the only option acceptable to their overseas
masters. The Ukrainians have also adopted a new military doctrine (they call it a "military
security strategy of Ukraine") which declares Russia the aggressor state and military adversary
of the Ukraine (see here for a machine translation of the official text).
This might be the reason why Merkel and Macron recently had a videoconference with Putin
("Ze" was not invited): Putin might be trying to convince Merkel and Macron that such a war
would be a disaster for Europe. In the meantime, Russia is rapidly reinforcing her forces along
the Ukrainian border, including in Crimea.
But all these measures can only deter a regime which has no agency. The outcome shall be
decided in Washington DC, not Kiev. I am afraid that the traditional sense of total impunity of
US political leaders will, once again, give them a sense of very little risk (for them
personally or for the USA) in triggering a war in the Ukraine. The latest news on the
US-Ukrainian front is the delivery by the USN of 350 tonnes of military equipment in Odessa.
Not enough to be militarily significant, but more than enough to further egg on the regime in
Kiev to an attack on the Donbass and/or Crimea.
In fact, I would not even put it past "Biden" to launch an attack on Iran while the world
watches the Ukraine and Russia go to war. After all, the other country whose geostrategic
position has been severely degraded since Russia moved her forces to Syria is Israel, the one
country which all US politicians will serve faithfully and irrespective of any costs (including
human costs for the USA). The Israelis have been demanding a war on Iran since at least 2007,
and it would be very naive to hope that they won't eventually get their way. Last, but not
least, there is the crisis which Blinken's condescending chutzpah triggered with China which,
so far, has resulted in an economic war only, but which might also escalate at any moment,
especially considering all the many recent anti-Chinese provocations by the US Navy.
Right now the weather in the eastern Ukraine is not conducive to offensive military
operations. The snow is still melting, creating very difficult and muddy road conditions
(called " rasputitsa " in Russian) which greatly inhibit the movement of forces and
troops. These conditions will, however, change with the warmer season coming, at which point
the Ukronazi forces will be ideally poised for an attack.
In other words, barring some major development, we might be only weeks away from a major
war.
We must not forget President Putin's outrageous opinion piece in the New York Times of
September 11th 2013: delivered at the same time as he had the impertinence to propose
the voluntary relinquishment of all chemical weapons by Syria -- thwarting the traditional
wholesale bombing campaign that the "Allies" were working up to. This was an unforgivable
affront to the USA -- and to Obama in particular; who had only just invoked his "red line".
It made him look ridiculous -- and a man in his position can't afford to look ridiculous.
This behaviour by Mr. Putin has never been forgotten or forgiven and it will be quite a
while before the New York Times prints another oped by him.
Russia was "back": in 2013 Russia stopped the planned US/NATO attack on Syria (the
pretext here was Syrian chemical weapons). In 2014 Russia gave her support to the
Novorussian uprising against the Ukronazi regime in Kiev and, in the same year, Russia also
used her military to make it possible for the local population to vote on a referendum to
join Russia. Finally, in 2015, Russia stunned the West with an extremely effective military
intervention in Syria.
Don't forget what Russia did the Georgia's American trained and supplied military in
2009.
This was an unforgivable affront to the USA -- and to Obama in particular; who had only
just invoked his "red line". It made him look ridiculous -- and a man in his position can't
afford to look ridiculous.
Excellent observation.
To deal with contemporary western elites is, to a great extent, to deal with Satan
himself. The devil- and presumably, his minions- does not mind confrontation or opposition
anywhere as much as he hates being the object of derision.
"The devil the prowde spirite cannot endure to be mocked." -- St. Thomas More
"why does the AngloZionist Empire hate Putin so much?"
I have an explanation, but that would tend to get me labelled a "sixth columnist".
It is obvious to anyone who does not believe that Putin is the Saviour Of Russia, but just
a neoliberal politician who is moderately better than Yeltsin, and whose real alternatives,
not Quislings like Navalny but real alternatives, are all far more nationalist and not
beholden to international capital than he is. Since the 90s are now over, and the attempt to
destroy Russia has failed, how does one ensure that the country does not become even stronger
and, crucially, more assertive?
One possible answer is interesting: keep demonising the man in power, *even though you
know that demonising him hardens support behind him*. Especially since it hardens support
behind him. As long as you keep attacking him, the Russian people support him more, making it
less likely for someone who would be more nationalist and less neoliberal to take charge.
I've come to think that the whole "Putin the Devil" thing is pushed so hard by the
corporate-communist-left (aside: I do struggle these days with what to call them) mostly as a
distraction. "Hey! Look over there! A BAD MAN!" (and pay no mind to what I'm doing over here,
flooding the country with replacements, thrashing the constitution, coming up with vaccine
passports and enabling a totalitarian technocracy).
In fact, it's a necessary hallmark of ALL totalitarian leftist regimes to have a huge
"outside enemy" who threatens the very existence of the state and is used to distract from
domestic troubles. Try to find a single totalitarian state without one.
So the U.S. has everything to gain and little to lose (Biden gov thinks anyways) by
goading Ukraine into "taking back Crimea." The U.S. is committed to fight that war down the
very last Ukrainian.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba announced this week that the country's National
Security and Defense Council had approved a strategy that is aimed at retaking Crimea and
reintegrating the strategically important peninsula.
Christopher Caldwell delivered what I thought was a good assessment of Putin in 2017, and
this excellent piece by The Saker complements and updates it for me. I think Putin is even
more reviled than ever by the U.S. Dems, because Putin = a national-sovereignty proponent =
Trump.
I play online chess -- speedy games, and so I have a lot of experience with players from
Russia and Ukraine. They tend to favor what chess players call "quiet moves." Is this a
manner of thought, a philosophy, that can be extrapolated to government? (U.S. players, by
contrast, tend to be more impetuous and impulsive in their chess style.)
Apparently it was "You pissed on my rug!". I guess if they update that book and article,
they'll include Trump characterizing Justin as "weak and dishonest" - which I would say,
based on his 7 years as PM, is blunt but accurate.
I think you're right that any US concessions are just a reprieve. That
non-agreement-capable thing. Freeland and Justin don't care, they're looking forward to
getting rich after leaving office, like the Clintons, Obama, etc. as a reward for their
service to plutocracy.
William Gruff @19, Hoarsewhisperer @16, agreed. That, it seems to me is the root of the
problem. Our politicians are for sale to the highest bidders. It's no longer democracy, but
full-fledged plutocracy with a veneer of "democracy" that's visibly cracked and flaking off
to anyone but the willfully blind.
solo @38, good point. Saudi Arabia also sided with China on Xinjiang:
Importantly, the Crown Prince said Saudi Arabia 'firmly supports China's legitimate
position on the issues related to Xinjiang and Hong Kong, opposes interfering in China's
internal affairs under any pretext, and rejects the attempt by certain parties to sow
dissension between China and the Islamic world.'
Plainly put, Saudi Arabia has undercut the current US campaign against China regarding
Xinjiang. It is a snub to the Biden administration.
One thing which separates Russia and China from Western 'thinking' is that the People's
Government in each country has rules in place to prevent Billionaires from buying/owning
politicians.
Meanwhile Biden's son Hunter, the "smartest guy" his father knows, has his feet firmly in
his mouth in excerpts from an interview this Sunday about his 💻 that was full of
underage porn & business dealings involving his father when VPOTUS.
THOMAS QUICK SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago I doubt it. Vaccination doesn't cure chronic grifters.
Like thumb_up 1 Reply reply Share link Report
flag
N N Z SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago "Medical science is making such remarkable progress that soon
none of us will be well.'' ---Aldous Huxley
Written by Steven Lee Myers, the NYT 's bureau chief in Beijing, the piece is
full of false and unsupported assertions. It changes explicit Chinese statements in support
of democracy and human rights into the opposite. It is also untruthful about the sources of
its quotes:
China hopes to position itself as the main challenger to an international order, led by the
United States, that is generally guided by principles of democracy, respect for human
rights and adherence to rule of law.
Such a system "does not represent the will of the international community," China's
foreign minister, Wang Yi, told Russia's, Sergey V. Lavrov, when they met in the southern
Chinese city of Guilin.
In a joint statement, they accused the United States of bullying
and interference and urged it to "reflect on the damage it has done to global peace and
development in recent years."
There is no evidence and no quote in the piece to support the assertion that the
unilateral "international order, led by the United States" is in fact "guided by principles
of democracy, respect for human rights and adherence to rule of law." The wars the U.S. and
its allies have waged and wage in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and other countries are, in fact,
not in adherence to the rule of international law nor are they executed with respect for
human rights or the principles of democracy.
The Wang Yi quote in the second paragraph is taken completely out of context. By placing
it after his false assertions the author insinuates that Wang Yi rejected the "principles of
democracy, respect for human rights and adherence to rule of law."
Wang Yi did not do that at all. He did in fact the opposite.
Here is the original
quote from the report of Wang Yi's meeting with Russia's foreign minister Sergei
Lavrov:
Wang Yi said, the so-called "rules-based international order" by a few countries is not
clear in its meaning , as it reflects the rules of a few countries and does not represent
the will of the international community . We should uphold the universally recognized
international law.
The there is the
Joint Statement from the Lavrov-Wang Yi meeting which contradicts the New York
Times insinuation:
The world has entered a period of high turbulence and rapid change. In this context, we
call on the international community to put aside any differences and strengthen mutual
understanding and build up cooperation in the interests of global security and geopolitical
stability, to contribute to the establishment of a fairer, more democratic and rational
multipolar world order.
All human rights are universal, indivisible and interrelated. ...
Democracy is one of the achievements of humanity. ...
International law is an important condition for the further development of humanity.
...
In promoting multilateral cooperation, the international community must adhere to
principles such as openness and equality, and a non-ideological approach. ...
The Chinese Foreign Ministry report
about the issuance of the above Four Point Statement quotes Wang Yi as saying:
Today, we will issue a joint statement on several issues of current global governance,
expounding the essence of major concepts such as human rights, democracy, international
order, and multilateralism, reflecting the collective demands of the international
community, especially developing countries. We call on all countries to participate in and
improve global governance in the spirit of openness, inclusiveness and equality, abandon
zero-sum mentality and ideological prejudice, stop interfering in the internal affairs of
any country, enhance the well-being of people of all countries through dialogue and
cooperation, and jointly build a community with a shared future for mankind.
In no way has China rejected human rights, democracy or the rule of law. The New York
Times author simply construed that.
The third NYT paragraph quoted above is likewise false. The
Joint Statement did not urge the U.S. to "reflect on the damage it has done to global
peace and development in recent years." There is nothing in there that could be construed as
such. The U.S. is not even mentioned in the Joint Statement.
The quote the NYT author uses is not from the official Joint Statement, as
falsely claimed, but from a Chinese State TV's summarization of a
press conference :
Both foreign ministers said that the international community believes that the United
States should reflect on the damage it has done to global peace and development in recent
years , stop unilateral bullying, stop interfering in other countries' internal affairs,
and stop pulling "small circles" to engage in group confrontation.
Unsupported assertions about the motives of the "U.S. led" order, out of context quotes
that turn the actual statements by the Chinese foreign minister into their opposite and
missattribution of a news summary as a diplomatic statement is something that one would not
expect from a news outlet but from a propaganda organ.
That is then, obviously, what the Times has become.
Thanks b, for bringing this to light.
Without your posts, most of us - even those of us that try to dig into things more than
most people - would not be aware of these things.
Western mainstream media will, of course, never inform the public of those important
excerpts from the Lavrov-Wang Joint Statement and the Chinese Foreign Ministry that you
brought to our attention.
In our so-called "democracies", the electorates are not just deliberately kept in the
dark, but in fact shaped, not into informed voters, but disinformed voters.
-
Again to translate from the Orwellianism/Newspeak of our Western establishment news media,
when they say "international order" what they really mean is the "Western
deep-state-run order" or "Western neocon-run order."
"Generally guided by principles of democracy, respect for human rights and adherence to
rule of law" can be translated to "generally guided by hypocrisy, Orwellianism, special
interests, gangsterism, treachery, and mockery of rule of law."
fallacia non causae ut causae
Eristische Dialektik: Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten / Arthur Schopenhauer 1831
[The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument]
Steven Lee Myers, the NYT's bureau
chief in Beijing just use a really classical and poor way to manipulate.
"an international order, led by the United States, that is generally guided by principles of
democracy, respect for human rights and adherence to rule of law."
International order is not international law. LED by USA not by law. Generally (... No
comment), principe of... (again)
Yes. Really pure Propagandastaffel.
But a good news. Why is NYT in a need to manipulate?
...On a different note, i believe Steven Myers is just milling for a free ticket home and
a promotion which he'll surely get once he's expelled from China for fabricating fake
news.
Even during the worst of the cold war there were some respect and integrity on reporting
facts. MSM of today is fully weaponized and had gone full goebbels.
"that is generally guided by principles of democracy, respect for human rights and
adherence to rule of law"...
I haven't decided yet to either cry about the existence of such idiocies and such
propaganda driven Idiots and what it says about the human condition or scream because the
hypocrisy displayed continuously without shame and any twinge of self-awareness' becomes
unbearable.
Okay, then what can we infer from this lie-filed screed? I suggest that the NY Times and
its manipulators are against all the highlighted portions of this point b highlighted from
the 4 Point Joint Statement:
"Today, we will issue a joint statement on several issues of current global governance,
expounding the essence of major concepts such as human rights, democracy, international
order, and multilateralism, reflecting the collective demands of the international community,
especially developing countries . We call on all countries to participate in and
improve global governance in the spirit of openness, inclusiveness and equality, abandon
zero-sum mentality and ideological prejudice, stop interfering in the internal affairs of any
country, enhance the well-being of people of all countries through dialogue and cooperation,
and jointly build a community with a shared future for mankind ."
All the bolded text is what the Outlaw US Empire, its vassals and its propaganda organs
are against, as in opposed in a very proactive manner up to and including physical war waged
on nations that try to promote any of those bolded items. The one main feature the Outlaw US
Empire is dead set against occurring is the construction of a global community aimed at
promoting a shared, equitable future for humanity for that's a Win-Win outcome, not a
Zero-sum last man standing, winner take all outcome Neoliberalism demands. In other words,
the NY Times is serving as a sort of American Pravda by detailing what its actual
policies are without actually declaring them to be policies.
Ever notice that within US culture there's not one sport or game that has a shared outcome
between several different participants, that there's only one winner (team or individual) and
that its entire political-economy is modeled on that concept? That equality of outcomes is
always subsumed by equality of participation? That if there's not going to be any equality
overseas then there won't be any equality at home? And I can list many more. That all such
arrangements are promoting a domineering authoritarian ethos never seems to dawn on far too
many--I'm the head of the household so you must do as I say. We don't care if 80% of the
public demand universal single payer health insurance, an end to forever wars, clean water
for our communities, clean air to breathe, freedom from mass shootings, freedom from police
riots, and so forth and so on. The NY Times and its controllers don't want anything of the
sort for the US public or for anyone else on the planet. And that's the message it delivers
every time it publishes an article filled with lies, falsehoods, innuendo, fabrications,
etc., which is daily.
The NY Times ought to be called The Projector and sold with the tabloids.
Thanks b, when you wrote: "The New York Times author simply construed that."
I would change to: "The New York Times author maliciously construed that."
The "Five Eyes" countries, who just happen to all be Spawn of Perfidious Albion, seem to
be more and more infected with the virus of Orwellianism (itself an idea of Anglo culture).
Perhaps parallel to the out-of-control "Five Eyes" apparatus, or as a subset of it, there is
an unspoken out-of-control "Five Mouths" apparatus, of which the NYT is a key outlet ...
Let's hope other countries do everything they can keep that virus out of their systems,
and inoculate themselves and their populations well.
Steven Lee Myers used to work as a NYT correspondent in Moscow and Baghdad. He is the
author of the tome "The New Tsar: the Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin", the title of which
alerts you to the tone of the garbage that wasted an entire plantation of pine trees.
"Our Nairobi chief has a tremendous opportunity to dive into news and opportunity
across a wide range of countries, from the deserts of Sudan to the pirate seas of Somalia,
down through the forests of the Congo and the shores of Tanzania. It is an enormous patch of
vibrant, intense and strategically important territory with many vital story lines, including
terrorism, the scramble for resources, the global contest with China and the constant
push-and-pull of democracy versus authoritarianism.
The ideal candidate should enjoy jumping on news, be willing to cover conflict, and
also be drawn to investigative stories. There is also the chance to delight our readers with
stories of hope and the changing rhythms of life in a rapidly evolving region."
Myers certainly knows how to jump on propaganda often and hard enough to turn into
something faintly resembling ... news.
"... Steve moved to Beijing in 2016 and quickly built a portfolio that was as powerful as
it was eclectic. His old world combined with his new one when he explored Russia's fury
over China's hunger for timber. He detailed Beijing's spreading crackdown on Islam,
analyzed China's exploration of the far side of the moon and reported on Hengdian World
Studios, an outdoor movie and television lot scattered over 2,500 acres in eastern China.
He also landed a rare interview with the Chinese actress Fan Bingbing after she was
embroiled in a tax scandal.
At each stop along his journey, he has taken to heart the advice of the former executive
editor Joe Lelyveld, devouring the local literature of his new home, not just the books by
foreign correspondents. Lately, he has been reading Yan Lianke, the author of "The Day the
Sun Died," and "Lenin's Kisses." He has an equally voracious appetite for Chinese cuisine,
which he is offsetting by training for his eighth marathon ..."
And here's our own Chris Buckley who joined Myers on his arduous tour of duty in
Beijing:
"... Chris [Buckley] is our resident China expert, having spent the past 20 years reporting
on the country. He went into journalism essentially as an excuse to hang around China.
Born in Australia, he decided to abandon a law degree and went to Beijing to study
Communist Party history at the People's University of China. After a half-hearted attempt
to start an academic career, his odd jobs in teaching and translating turned into
occasional fixer work for journalists, eventually in our own Beijing bureau.
He worked for Erik Eckholm and Elisabeth Rosenthal covering corruption scandals,
political infighting, the SARS crisis and the outbreak of an AIDS epidemic in rural China.
When they left, he worked for a while under a couple of obscure correspondents, Joe Kahn
and Jim Yardley.
After a seven-year stint as a correspondent at Reuters, he returned to The Times in
2012. He spent the first three years waiting in Hong Kong for a visa, camping out at the
Harbour Plaza Hotel for reasons that are unknown. From that perch, he wrote about the rise
of Xi Jinping, his corruption campaign, his directive declaring war on liberal values, as
well as the Umbrella Revolution. Since returning to the mainland, he has been a force
behind our coverage of the crackdown on the Uighurs in Xinjiang and the country's shift
toward authoritarianism, while also taking on a more personal quest about Sichuan
food."
Do you get the impression that these fellows jumped onto these cushy jobs for the food
junkets?
"... international order, led by the United States, that is generally guided by principles of
democracy, respect for human rights and adherence to rule of law.
Such a system "does not represent the will of the international community," according to the
Chinese.
We throw this statement into spectroscope to check if there is any weasel content, phrases
that sound nice but are capacious enough to cover not so nice meaning. Would it be even
better if the much tutted "international order" was not BASED on principles, rather than
GUIDED BY principles, and even weaker, GENERALLY GUIDED? Going further on that path we can be
INSPIRED by principles, GENERALLY INSPIRED, and then we can make a bold step to VAGELY
INSPIRED. Going further, OCCASIONALLY VAGUELY INSPIRED.
Not ashamed to manipulate stuff from CCTV about migrant work in Xinjiang into "forced
labour" and "BBC findings". Typical for western "journalists" in China, mostly sitting in
their apartments quaffing cheap liquor or going to the .. erm barber shops for a da feiji
(打飞机) ..
I will bring up a "human right" that rarely is discussed in the MSM: the right to relieve
one's bladder & bowels when traveling in public places. In many cities in the U.S., there
are NO public restrooms, not even in the railway stations and bus depots! Oh, sure -- all the
airports have them because they cater to the well heeled.
Here in the two biggest California cities SF and LA, one has to find a restaurant (good
luck during the pandemic) or supermarket or else a secluded spot. I live next to an alley
where the homeless people frequently dump, and we the neighbors have to clean it up because
the city won't bother.
The authorities claim that setting out Porta-potties can't be done because homeless
addicts would use them. WTF -- those people would do drugs in their own place if they had
one. But this isn't just an issue about homelessness, which is an enormous violation of human
rights in itself, but more broadly one of DECENCY that barely exists in this society.
The authorities claim that setting out Porta-potties can't be done because homeless addicts
would use them. WTF -- those people would do drugs in their own place if they had one. But
this isn't just an issue about homelessness, which is an enormous violation of human rights
in itself, but more broadly one of DECENCY that barely exists in this society.
CHOLERA is gonna get ya.
It is sad but what has happened to the USA through neoliberal economic rules based society
is the abdication of memory and learning over centuries.
TL;DR- Citadel and friends have shorted the treasury bond market to oblivion using the
repo market. Citadel owns a company called Palafox Trading and uses them to EXCLUSIVELY short
& trade treasury securities. Palafox manages one fund for Citadel - the Citadel Global
Fixed Income Master Fund LTD. Total assets over $123 BILLION and 80% are owned by offshore
investors in the Cayman Islands. Their reverse repo agreements are ENTIRELY rehypothecated
and they CANNOT pay off their own repo agreements until someone pays them, first. The ENTIRE
global financial economy is modeled after a fractional reserve system that is beginning to
experience THE MOTHER OF ALL MARGIN CALLS.
THIS is why the DTC and FICC are requiring an increase in SLR deposits. The madness has
officially come full circle.
tnorth 4 hours ago
another month of completely rigged 'markets'
mtl4 4 hours ago remove link
Music is still playing, make sure you have a chair when it stops
this_circus_is_no_fun 1 hour ago remove link
Consider these two points:
Treasuries are claimed to be backed by the "full faith and credit of the United
States".
In Q1, Treasuries suffer their biggest loss in 40 years.
y_arrow
Kreditanstalt 1 hour ago (Edited)
I've always wondered why seemingly contradictory and uncorrelated assets and asset classes
alternately "soar" and "plunge" on different days, usually in random conjunction with
others...
It seems so counterintuitively...MECHANICAL...or theory-driven, rather than rational
"investing".
The "Russia question" appears to have surfaced in response to a March 16 US
intelligence
community assessment
that "Russian President Putin authorized, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted,
influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden's candidacy, and the Democratic Party."
The 15-page public document is fluff. We heard it all before in December 2020, when fifty former intelligence officials
denounced news reports of Hunter Biden's corrupt ties to Ukrainian oligarchs as Russian disinformation.
The
New
York Post
claimed to have gotten hold of a laptop with smoking-gun emails to and from Biden's son. The voters never were
allowed to consider the evidence, because the rest of the media suppressed the report and Twitter blocked reposting of the
Post
expose.
In a December 4 column, I called this the "
Treason
of the spooks
."
By way of tying up loose ends, the intelligence community has now delivered an "assessment" claiming that "a key element of
Moscow's strategy was its use of people linked to Russian intelligence to launder influence narratives -- including misleading or
unsubstantiated allegations against President Biden -- through US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US
individuals, some of whom were close to former President Trump and his administration."
Those are weasel words. The Post published the text of Hunter Biden emails that, strictly speaking, were "unsubstantiated" to
the extent that the geek squad had not proven their provenance and the younger Biden hadn't owned up to their authenticity.
But that does not prove they were false, much less justify employing extraordinary means to suppress the reports.
Source:
New York Post
Apart from Biden's ABC interview, the nomination of Victoria Nuland as undersecretary of state for political affairs has sent
an unmistakable signal to Moscow and, more importantly, to America's European allies.
In early 2014 Nuland was taped on a cell phone call with America's ambassador to the Ukraine ordering the composition of the
next Ukrainian government after the Maidan coup, in the tone of a colonial viceroy.
Told that there might be
some difficulties, Nuland explained that the UN was being enlisted in support and said, "That would be great, I think, and
help glue this thing." She added, "And, you know,
fuck
the EU."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the time denounced the remark as "unacceptable." That sort of faux pas
normally would rate being assigned a diplomatic mission to the South Pole, but such is Washington's ideological fervor that
Nuland survived and resurfaced.
Nuland is a neoconservative, a former deputy national security adviser to then-vice president Dick Cheney, as well as the
spouse of Robert Kagan, one of the most persistent advocates of global transformation via the projection of American power.
"... It is natural for bullshitters to think the world runs on bullshit. In a away, that capsulizes the entire problem that the US' establishment is having now. They have been relying on bullshit for so long that they think that's all there is. ..."
"... It is natural for bullshitters to think the world runs on bullshit. In a away, that capsulizes the entire problem that the US' establishment is having now. They have been relying on bullshit for so long that they think that's all there is. ..."
“ I wish I could summon a strong argument against it, but I can find none.”
It is natural for bullshitters to think the world runs on bullshit. In a away, that
capsulizes the entire problem that the US' establishment is having now. They have been relying
on bullshit for so long that they think that's all there is.
The truth is we have no way to know what underlies our "reality", if anything. We don't have
the tools, the senses, yet. At the limits everything dissolves into probability mush, or the
lack of time for anything to get from there to here at the speed of light, or complexity we
have no way to impose order on.
If they want to go live in the computer, I say good riddance.
@ maahaa | Mar 24 2021 17:46 utc | 5:
“ I wish I could summon a strong argument against it, but I can find
none.”
It is natural for bullshitters to think the world runs on bullshit. In a away, that
capsulizes the entire problem that the US' establishment is having now. They have been
relying on bullshit for so long that they think that's all there is.
The truth is we have no way to know what underlies our "reality", if anything. We don't
have the tools, the senses, yet. At the limits everything dissolves into probability mush, or
the lack of time for anything to get from there to here at the speed of light, or complexity
we have no way to impose order on.
If they want to go live in the computer, I say good riddance.
"... It is natural for bullshitters to think the world runs on bullshit. In a away, that capsulizes the entire problem that the US' establishment is having now. They have been relying on bullshit for so long that they think that's all there is. ..."
"... It is natural for bullshitters to think the world runs on bullshit. In a away, that capsulizes the entire problem that the US' establishment is having now. They have been relying on bullshit for so long that they think that's all there is. ..."
"High-profile proponents of what's known as the "simulation hypothesis" include SpaceX
chief Elon Musk, who recently expounded on the idea during an interview for a popular
podcast.
"If you assume any rate of improvement at all, games will eventually be indistinguishable
from reality," Musk said before concluding, "We're most likely in a simulation."
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson agrees, giving "better than 50 -- 50 odds" that the
simulation hypothesis is correct. " I wish I could summon a strong argument against it, but I
can find none."
I guess that is one way for Musk to avoid the guilt over those people his coup in Bolivia
killed. They didn't really die because it is all just make-believe; a simulation.
“ I wish I could summon a strong argument against it, but I can find none.”
It is natural for bullshitters to think the world runs on bullshit. In a away, that
capsulizes the entire problem that the US' establishment is having now. They have been relying
on bullshit for so long that they think that's all there is.
The truth is we have no way to know what underlies our "reality", if anything. We don't have
the tools, the senses, yet. At the limits everything dissolves into probability mush, or the
lack of time for anything to get from there to here at the speed of light, or complexity we
have no way to impose order on.
If they want to go live in the computer, I say good riddance.
@ maahaa | Mar 24 2021 17:46 utc | 5:
“ I wish I could summon a strong argument against it, but I can find
none.”
It is natural for bullshitters to think the world runs on bullshit. In a away, that
capsulizes the entire problem that the US' establishment is having now. They have been
relying on bullshit for so long that they think that's all there is.
The truth is we have no way to know what underlies our "reality", if anything. We don't
have the tools, the senses, yet. At the limits everything dissolves into probability mush, or
the lack of time for anything to get from there to here at the speed of light, or complexity
we have no way to impose order on.
If they want to go live in the computer, I say good riddance.
According to the Austfailian media, it was a triumph. I kid you not. They will lie and lie
and lie again about Biden's dementia, until the bitter end, and at his stage, once the meds
lose their effectiveness, the end can come quickly. Perhaps he'll rip off his nappy and fling
faeces at the fawning presstitutes. Dream on. Or, as in the comedy, Bidet will mutter 'I'm
going to the toilet. I mean, I'm going to the toilet NOW!'.
Even before the targets in Yemen had been "legally" designated as
a Foreign Terrorist Organization Obama used cluster bombs to shred
dozens of women and children in a failed attempt to hit members of
"al Qaida in Yemen (AQY)".
.
The war crime immediately became a dirty Obama secret, covered up
with the help of the MSM, in particular ABC.
.
An enthusiastic White House had leaked to their contacts at ABC that
Obama had escalated the War on Terror, taking it to another country,
Yemen. This was December 17, 2009 only days after Obama had returned
from his ceremony in Oslo where he proudly accepted the Nobel Peace
Prize.
.
ABC was thrilled with their scoop and in manly voices announced
the escalation in the War on Terror.
.
The very next day ABC went silent forever about it, joining the cover up
of a war crime.
.
Hillary Clinton, by the way, committed her own act of cover up.
Covering her butt by backdating a memo.
.
The designation of a organization as a FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization)
is not official nor legal until it is published in the Federal Register.
An oversight? Obama attacked Yemen before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
had done the paperwork to make the killing legal?
.
The designation was not published until a month later, January 19, 2010.
Hillary Clinton back dated the memo she published in the Register with the date of
December 14, 2009, to somewhat cover her butt.
.
Obama's acceptance speech in Oslo for the Nobel Peace Prize was December 10th.
.
Yemen leaders agreed to participate in Obama's coverup saying it was their
own Yemen forces that had accidentally shredded dozens of women and children.
.
Obama was grateful to the Yemen leaders. The Yemen leaders were not
honored in Oslo. But, ironically, Obama ended his speech honoring women
and children, days before he ordered their slaughter.
.
Obama in Oslo, December 10, 2009:
.
"Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty
still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what
few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she
believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's
dreams.
.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will
always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the
intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed,
we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace.
We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the
.
hope
.
of all the world; and at this moment of challenge,
that must be our work here on Earth.
.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
.
One week later Obama shredded dozens of women and children in Yemen
and covered it up.
.
Here is ABC's Brian Ross using his most masculine voice to boast about Obama's attack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHcg3TNSRPs
.
Wikileaks cable corroborates evidence of US airstrikes in Yemen (Amnesty Intl)
https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2010/12/wikileaks-cable-corroborates-evidence-us-airstrikes-yemen/
.
Actual cable at Wikileaks: https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/10SANAA4_a.html
.
More at ABC [12/18/2009]: https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236 https://web.archive.org/web/20190624203826/https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236
">https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236">https://web.archive.org/web/20190624203826/https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236 https://web.archive.org/web/20190725171012/https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cr
">https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cr">https://web.archive.org/web/20190725171012/https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cr
Stefani
Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images
This story is part of a group of stories called
Finding the best ways to do good.
One of the greatest challenges facing democratic societies in the 21st century is the loss of faith in public
institutions.
The internet has been a marvelous invention in lots of ways, but it has also unleashed a tsunami of misinformation and
destabilized political systems across the globe. Martin Gurri, a former media analyst at the CIA and the author of the
2014 book
The
Revolt of the Public
, was way ahead of the curve on this problem.
Gurri spent years surveying the global information landscape. Around the turn of the century, he noticed a trend: As the
internet gave rise to an explosion of information, there was a concurrent spike in political instability. The reason, he
surmised, was that governments lost their monopoly on information and with it their ability to control the public
conversation.
One of the many consequences of this is what Gurri calls a "crisis of authority." As people were exposed to more
information, their trust in major institutions -- like the government or newspapers -- began to collapse.
Gurri's book became something of a cult favorite among Silicon Valley types when it was released and its insights have
only become more salient since. Indeed,
I've
been thinking more and more about his thesis in the aftermath of the 2020 election and the
assault
on the US Capitol
on January 6. There are lots of reasons why the insurrection happened, but one of them is the
reality that millions of Americans believed -- really believed -- that the presidential election was stolen, despite a
complete lack of evidence. A Politico poll conducted shortly after the election found that
70
percent
of Republicans thought the election was fraudulent.
That's what a "crisis of authority" looks like in the real world.
And it's crucial to distinguish this crisis from what's often called the "epistemic crisis" or the "post-truth" problem.
If Gurri's right, the issue isn't just
that
truth suddenly became less important; it's that people stopped believing in the institutions charged with communicating
the truth. To put it a little differently, the gatekeeping institutions lost their power to decide what passes as truth
in the mind of the public.
I reached out to Gurri to explore the implications of his thesis. We talk about what it means for our society if
millions of people reject every claim that comes from a mainstream institution, why a
phenomenon
like QAnon
is fundamentally a "pose of rejection," and why he thinks we'll have to "reconfigure" our democratic
institutions for the digital world we now inhabit.
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Sean Illing
Have elites -- politicians, corporate actors, media and cultural elites --
lost
control of the world?
Martin Gurri
Yes and no. It's a wishy-washy answer, but it's a reality.
They would have completely lost control of the world if the public in revolt had a clear program or an organization or
leadership. If they were more like the Bolsheviks and less like QAnon, they'd take over the Capitol building. They'd
start passing laws. They would topple the regime.
But what we have is this collision between a public that is in repudiation mode and these elites who have lost control
to the degree that they can't hoist these utopian promises upon us anymore because no one believes it, but they're still
acting like zombie elites in zombie institutions. They still have power. They can still take us to war. They can still
throw the police out there, and the police could shoot us, but they have no authority or legitimacy. They're stumbling
around like zombies.
Sean Illing
You like to say that governments have lost the ability to dictate the stories a society tells about itself, mostly
because the media environment is too fragmented. Why is that so significant?
Martin Gurri
When you analyze the institutions that we have inherited from the 20th century, you find that they are very top-down,
like pyramids. And the legitimacy of that model absolutely depends on having a semi-monopoly over information in every
domain, which they had in the 20th century. There was no internet and there was a fairly limited number of information
sources for the public. So our ruling institutions had authority because they had a very valuable commodity:
information.
So I was an analyst at the CIA looking around the world at open information, at the global media. And I can tell you, it
was like a trickle compared to today. If a president, here or somewhere else, was giving a speech, the coverage of it
was confined to major outlets or television stations. But when the tsunami of information hit around the turn of the
century, the legitimacy of that model instantly went into crisis because you now had the opposite effect. You had an
overabundance of information, and that created a lot of confusion and anarchy.
Sean Illing
I'm curious how you weigh the significance of material factors in this story. It's not just that there's more
information, we've also seen a litany of failures in the 21st century -- from Hurricane Katrina to the forever wars to
the financial crisis and on and on. Basically, a decade of institutions failing and misleading citizens, in addition to
the deepening inequality, the deaths of despair, the fact that this generation of Americans is doing materially worse
than previous ones.
How big a role has this backdrop of failures played in the collapse of trust?
Martin Gurri
I would say that what matters is less the material factors you mention than the public's perception of these factors.
Empirically, under nearly every measure, we are better off today than in the 20th century, yet the public is much
angrier and more distrustful of government institutions and the elites who manage them. That difference in perception
arises directly from the radical changes in the information landscape between the last century and our own.
With few exceptions, most market democracies have recovered from the 2008 financial crisis. But the public has not
recovered from the shock of watching supposed experts and politicians, the people who posed as the wise pilots of our
prosperity, sound and act totally clueless while the economy burned. In the past, when the elites controlled the flow of
information, the financial collapse might have been portrayed as a sort of natural disaster, a tragedy we should unify
around our leadership to overcome. By 2008, that was already impossible. The networked public perceived the crisis
(rightly, I think) as a failure of government and of the expert elites.
It should be a truism that material conditions matter much less than expectations. That was true during the Great
Depression and it's true today. The rhetoric of the rant on the web feeds off extreme expectations -- any imperfection in
the economy will be treated as a crisis and a true crisis will be seen as the Apocalypse.
Take the example of Chile. For 40 years, it had high economic growth, rising into the ranks of the wealthiest nations.
During this time, Chile enjoyed a healthy democracy, in which political parties of left and right alternated in office.
Everyone benefited. Yet in 2019, with many deaths and much material destruction, the Chilean public took to the streets
in revolt against the established order. Its material expectations had been deeply frustrated, despite the country's
economic and political successes.
Sean Illing
Just to be clear, when you talk about this "tsunami" of information in the digital age, you're not talking about more
truth, right?
Martin Gurri
As
Nassim
Taleb
pointed out, when you have a gigantic explosion of information, what's exploding is noise, not signal, so
there's that.
As for truth, that's a tricky subject, because a lot of elites believe, and a lot of people believe, that truth is some
kind of Platonic form. We can't see it, but we know it's there. And often we know it because the science says so.
But that's not really how truth works. Truth is essentially an act of trust, an act of faith in some authority that is
telling you something that you could not possibly come to realize yourself. What's a
quark
?
You believe that there are quarks in the universe, probably because you've been told by people who probably know what
they're talking about that there are quarks. You believe the physicists. But you've never seen a quark. I've never seen
a quark. We accept this as truth because we've accepted the authority of the people who told us it's true.
Sean Illing
I'm starting to hate the phrase
"post-truth"
because
it implies there was some period in which we lived in truth or in which truth was predominant. But that's misleading.
The difference is that elite gatekeeping institutions can't place borders on the public conversation and that means
they've lost the ability to determine what passes as truth, so now we're in the Wild West.
Martin Gurri
That's a very good way to put it. I would say, though, that there was a shining moment when we all had truth. They are
correct about that. If truth is really a function of authority, and if in the 20th century these institutions really had
authority, then we did have something like truth. But if we had the information back then that we have today, if we had
all the noise that we have today, nothing would've seemed quite as true because we would've lacked faith in the
institutions that tried to tell us.
Sean Illing
What does it mean for our society if an "official narrative" isn't possible? Because that's where we're at, right?
Millions of people will never believe any story or account that comes from the government or a mainstream institution.
Martin Gurri
As long as our institutions remain as they are, nothing much will change. What that means is more of the same -- more
instability, more turbulence, more conspiracy theories, more distrust of authorities. But there's no iron law of history
that says we have to keep these institutions the way they are. Many of our institutions were built around the turn of
the 20th century. They weren't that egalitarian or democratic. They were like great, big pyramids.
But we can take our constitutional framework and reconfigure it. We've done it once already, and we could do it again
with the digital realm in mind, understanding the distance we once had between those in power and ordinary citizens is
gone forever. It's just gone. So we need people in power who are comfortable in proximity to the public, which many of
our elites are not.
Sean Illing
I do want to at least point to an apparent paradox here. As you've said, because of the internet, there are now more
voices and more perspectives than ever before, and yet at the same time there's a massive "herding effect," as a result
of which we have more people talking about fewer subjects. And that partly explains how you get millions of people
converging on something like QAnon.
Martin Gurri
Yeah, and that's very mysterious to me. I would not have expected that outcome. I thought we were headed to ever more
dispersed information islands and that that would create a fragmentation in individual beliefs. But instead, I've
noticed a trend toward conformism and a crystallizing of very few topics. Some of this is just an unwillingness to say
certain things because you know if you said them, the internet was going to come after you.
But I think Trump had a lot to do with it. The amount of attention he got was absolutely unprecedented. Everything was
about him. People were either against him or for him, but he was always the subject. Then came the pandemic and he
simply lost the capacity to absorb and manipulate attention. The pandemic just moved him completely off-kilter. He never
recovered.
Sean Illing
But we're in a situation in which ideas, whether it's QAnon stuff or anything else, are getting more hollow and more
viral at the same time -- and that seems really bad moving forward.
Martin Gurri
I'm not quite that pessimistic. You can find all kinds of wonderful stuff being written about practically every aspect
of society today by people who are seeing things clearly and sanely. But yeah, they're surrounded by a mountain of viral
crap. And yet we're in the early days of this transformation. We have no idea how this is going to play out.
There has always been a lot of viral crap going around, and there have always been people who believe crazy stuff,
particularly crazy stuff that doesn't impact their immediate lives. Flat earthers still get on airplanes, right? If
you're a flat earther, you're not a flat earther enough to not get in an airplane and disrupt your personal life. It's
not really a belief, it's basically giving the finger to the establishment.
Sean Illing
It's a pose.
Martin Gurri
Yeah, it's a pose of rejection. QAnon is a pose of rejection. There are very many flavors of it, but what they have in
common is they're saying all these ideas you have and all the facts you're cramming in my face -- it's all a prop for the
powerful and I'm rejecting it.
Sean Illing
It's an important point because a lot of us treat QAnon like it's some kind of epistemological problem, but it's not
really that at all. It's actually much more difficult than that. And even if we set aside QAnon, the fact that the vast
majority of Republicans still believe the 2020 election was fraudulent speaks to the breadth of the problem.
Martin Gurri
Right, it's a problem of authority. When people don't trust those charged with conveying the truth, they won't accept
it. And at some point, like I said, we'll have to reconfigure our democracy. Our politicians and institutions are going
to have to adjust to the new world in which the public can't be walled off or controlled. Leaders can't stand at the top
of pyramids anymore and talk down to people. The digital revolution flattened everything. We've got to accept that.
I really do have hope that this will happen. The boomers who grew up in the old world and can't move beyond it are going
to die out, and younger people are going to take their place. That will raise other questions and challenges, of course,
but there will be a changing of the guard and we should welcome it.
Millions of people rely on Future Perfect to understand the most effective ways to create a better world. We focus on
what's important but not necessarily new -- things like the future of meat, artificial intelligence, morality, and
threats to society, including pandemics. Financial contributions from our readers help support our journalism and
enable our staff to continue to offer our articles, podcasts, and newsletters for free.
Please
consider making a contribution to Vox today from as little as $3
.
The West is declining because the elite production system has failed. The worst type of
mediocre grinders are pulling the levers of power. The plebes are revolting because
immigration, taxes, inflation and the tenuous over-complication of society (fragility) has
positioned a great deal of people in precarious positions. Might as well loot Target.
I don't agree with it. Violence is the inverse of the type of impulse control necessary
for a functioning society.
But impulse control is gone from our overlords as well. So long noblesse oblige. The
plebes loot Target while the gentry loots the treasury. Race blindness is a courtesy for
civilized people. Ignore the social implications because the enemy has no race. They are
global elites with no homes and no loyalty. They may not be sending their best but our worst
are sending out the invitations.
We can't go on ignoring the class violence hollowing out the West. The elites today are
actively trying to make everyone poorer. Not themselves, obviously. How is that going to
induce cops out of the donut shops? The culture wars are making me a retarded Marxist.
Marxist in the class conflict sense. Retarded in the spergy libertarian view that economics
and politics are intertwined to create the type of society that, as Menken says, we deserve
good and hard.
It is always helpful to remember the words of "Arthur Jensen": "You are an old man who
thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are
no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only
one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate,
multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks,
rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which
determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things
today."
"... Apparently Biden was either too senile or too inherently stupid to realize what gangrenous filth the subhuman Clintonite scum Stephanopoulis is, was and always will be. And put his stupid senile foot into Stephanopoulis's clever little bear trap. ..."
"... Pretty sure this was exactly the message Biden's people wanted to send, whether because they really think this sort of thing will "work" on the world stage or because they've gunned up the Russia nonsense so hyperbolically for so long that their domestic audience now demands it. ..."
Apparently Biden was either too senile or too inherently stupid to realize what gangrenous
filth the subhuman Clintonite scum Stephanopoulis is, was and always will be. And put his
stupid senile foot into Stephanopoulis's clever little bear trap.
Well, those are hardly trick questions or subtle ones. And Biden temporizes perfectly well
when he wants to. He didn't want to. I'd be mildly surprised if he hadn't been told to expect
these particular questions. Stephanopolous has form for lobbing cooperative softballs at the
right sort of democrats.
Pretty sure this was exactly the message Biden's people wanted to send, whether because
they really think this sort of thing will "work" on the world stage or because they've gunned
up the Russia nonsense so hyperbolically for so long that their domestic audience now demands
it.
If your interpretation of "what Stephie-poo was thinking" and what Biden was expecting are
correct, then Biden is indeed the same sort of Clintonite filth that Stephanopoulous himself
is.
And that would be very unfortunate. It means that Biden is just as war-risky with Russia
as Clinton would have been. And yes, the massed millions of "Putin stole the election" Pink
Kitty Kap Klintonites want, need and demand this sort of agitprop. They and their precious
spokes-creeps like that anti-Russianitic MSNBC news show hostess whose name I absolutely
cannot remember just now.
And do you remember who her mentor was? Roger Aisles. Yeah, him. And after an extensive
education, including a Rhodes scholarship, she sells her integrity out on her program for
about $30,000 a day now-
Maybe she never had any integrity to begin with. Maybe she was always and only about
working the media rackets, just like her reciprocal one-schtik-phoney opposite number Tucker
Carlson over at Fox.
Let's start with comic relief: the "leader of the free world" has pledged to prevent China
from becoming the "leading" nation on the planet. And to fulfill such an exceptional mission,
his "expectation" is to run again for president in 2024. Not as a hologram. And fielding the
same running mate.
It goes back to The Democrat Run Mainstream Media's narrative that Black men can only be
the poor helpless victims and NEVER the apex predators.
Which is why they only say that Black men are murdered by guns but NEVER that Black men
are murdered by other Black men. The only time they do not blame the guns is in the much less
common man bites dog White male on Black male murders.
You know the perpetrator is a Black male and not a White male when the headline is a gun
all by itself murdered a Black man!
"... This whole process was intended to be for seriously delinquent kids/parents, but, you know bureaucracy – gotta check the boxes rather than just have a 30 second phone call "please email Mrs. ABC when your kids have been absent." ..."
If underfunded means you have to use old textbooks from the 1950s through the 1970s and have no tablets or computers on class,
I'd choose an underfunded school for a better education.
@Jonathan Mason on an attendance remediation plan. The first words out of my mouth were "so this is where my tax money goes."
It went on for 15 minutes, signing forms and shit. This whole process was intended to be for seriously delinquent kids/parents,
but, you know bureaucracy – gotta check the boxes rather than just have a 30 second phone call "please email Mrs. ABC when your
kids have been absent."
After that BS, we got another certified letter, so I went to the school. "I thought we had this thing settled. What do we have
to do now?" "Oh, nah, we just sent one to everybody. It was easier that way. You're fine." How much do certified letters cost
now, Jonathan? Oh, it's free though, right?
They've got plenty of money, all of them. Wait until the SHTF. Then we'll see some frugality and some legitimate complaints.
California public schools get their funding according to the number of students present. So if your kid is a half hour late,
you get an urgent call from the attendance office. Every kid is worth money to them. Maybe something like that is driving the
overreaction you describe.
I can see why this is unfinished work, with lots more research required, requiring quite a bit more grant money. It's hard
work getting around the simple truth. Steve here had a good handle on the reasons for the big uptick in violent crime half a year
ago, without even hitting the taxpayers up for a lot of grant money. It's just that his was not the answer that the Establishment
was looking for. Try harder, Steve.
"... How convinced should anyone be when dismissing the message of metrics like these? To be sure, both the market and economy are in uncharted waters. It's possible -- perhaps likely -- that old standards don't apply when something as random as a virus is behind the stress. At the same time, many a portfolio has been squandered through complacency. Market veterans always warn of fortunes lost by investors who became seduced by talk of new rules and paradigms. ..."
"... At 35, the CAPE is at its highest since the early 2000s. ..."
"... Another indicator raising eyebrows is called Tobin's Q. The ratio -- which was developed in 1969 by Nobel Prize-winning economist James Tobin -- compares market value to the adjusted net worth of companies. It's showing a reading just shy of a peak reached in 2000. T ..."
"... the signal sent by the "Buffett Indicator," a ratio of the total market capitalization of U.S. stocks divided by gross domestic product. ..."
"... Still, it's hard to ignore the risks to underlying assumptions. While rock-bottom rates underpin many of the arguments, this year has shown that the Fed still is willing to let longer-term interest rates run higher. And betting on huge upside earnings surprises is risky too -- it's rare to see a 16% beat historically. Before last year, earnings had exceeded estimates by an average 3% a quarter since 2015. ..."
"... "This happens in every bubble," said Bill Callahan, an investment strategist at Schroders. "It's: 'Don't think about the traditional value metrics, we have a new one.' It's: 'Imagine if everyone did XYZ, how big this company could be.'" ..."
"... To Scott Knapp, chief market strategist of CUNA Mutual Group, abandoning standard valuation measures because the environment has changed places investors in "pretty sketchy territory." Talk of watershed moments rendering traditional metric irrelevant as a signal, he says. "That's usually an indication we're trying to justify something," he said. ..."
Shiller P/E. Tobin's Q. Buffett Indicator. Ignore them all?
It's 'usually an indication we're trying to justify something'
Everywhere you look, there's a valuation lens that makes stocks look frothy. Also everywhere you look is someone
saying don't worry about it.
The so-called
Buffett
Indicator
. Tobin's Q. The S&P 500's forward P/E. These and others show the market at stretched levels, sometimes
extremely so. Yet many market-watchers argue they can be ignored, because this time really is different. The
rationale? Everything from Federal Reserve largesse to vaccines promising a quick recovery.
How convinced should anyone be when dismissing the message of metrics like these? To be sure, both the market and
economy are in uncharted waters. It's possible -- perhaps likely -- that old standards don't apply when something as
random as a virus is behind the stress. At the same time, many a portfolio has been squandered through complacency.
Market veterans always warn of fortunes lost by investors who became seduced by talk of new rules and paradigms.
"Every time markets hit new highs, every time markets get frothy, there are always some talking heads that argue:
'It's different,'" said Don Calcagni, chief investment officer of Mercer
Advisors
.
"We just know from centuries of market history that that can't happen in perpetuity. It's just the delusion of
crowds, people get excited. We want to believe."
Source: Robert Shiller's website
Robert Shiller is no apologist. The Yale University professor is famous in investing circles for unpopular valuation
warnings that came true during the dot-com and housing bubbles. One tool on which he based the calls is his
cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio that includes the last 10 years of earnings.
While it's flashing warnings again, not even Shiller is sure he buys it. At 35, the CAPE is at its highest since the
early 2000s. If that period of exuberance is excluded, it clocks in at its highest-ever reading. Yet in a recent
post
,
Shiller wrote that "with interest rates low and likely to stay there, equities will continue to look attractive,
particularly when compared to bonds."
Another indicator raising eyebrows is called Tobin's Q. The ratio -- which was
developed
in
1969 by Nobel Prize-winning economist James Tobin -- compares market value to the adjusted net worth of companies.
It's showing a reading just shy of a peak reached in 2000. To Ned Davis, it's a valuation chart worth being wary
about. Still, while the indicator is roughly 40% above its long-term trend, "there may be an upward bias on the ratio
from technological change in the economy," wrote the Wall Street veteran who founded his namesake firm.
Persuasive arguments also exist for discounting the signal sent by the "Buffett Indicator," a ratio of the total
market capitalization of U.S. stocks divided by gross domestic product. While it recently reached its highest-ever
reading above its long-term trend, the methodology fails to take into consideration that companies are more
profitable than they've ever been, according to Jeff Schulze, investment strategist at ClearBridge Investments.
"It's looked extended really for the past decade, yet you've had one of the best bull markets in U.S. history," he
said. "That's going to continue to be a metric that does not adequately capture the market's potential."
At Goldman Sachs Group Inc., strategists argue that however high P/Es are, the absence of significant leverage
outside the private sector or a late-cycle economic boom points to low risk of an imminent bubble burst. While people
are shoveling money into stocks at rates that have signaled exuberance in the past, risk appetite is rebounding after
a prolonged period of aversion, according to the strategists, who also cite low interest rates.
"Today is a very different situation -- I don't think we've got a broad bubble," Peter Oppenheimer, chief global
equity strategist at the firm, said in a recent interview on Bloomberg Television. "Given the level of real rates,
where they are, it's still likely to be broadly supportive for equities versus bonds."
Another rationale employed to dismiss certain valuation metrics is the earnings cycle. Corporate America is just
emerging from a recession, with profits forecast to stage a strong comeback. The strong outlook for profits is why
many investors are giving similarly stretched valuations the benefit of the doubt. Trading at 32 times reported
earnings, the S&P 500 looks quite expensive, but with income forecast to jump 24% to $173 a share this year, the
multiple drops to about 23.
The valuation case becomes more favorable should business leaders continue to blow past expectations. For instance,
if this year's earnings come in at 16% above analyst estimates, as they did for the previous quarter, that'd imply a
price-earnings ratio of less than 20. While that exceeds the five-year average of 18, Ed Yardeni is not troubled by
what he calls "the New Abnormal."
"Valuation multiples are likely to remain elevated around current elevated levels because fiscal and monetary
policies continue to flood the financial markets with so much free money," said the founder of Yardeni Research Inc.
He predicts the S&P 500 will finish the year at 4,300, about an 8% gain from current levels.
Still, it's hard to ignore the risks to underlying assumptions. While rock-bottom rates underpin many of the arguments, this year
has shown that the Fed still is willing to let longer-term interest rates run higher. And betting on huge upside earnings
surprises is risky too -- it's rare to see a 16% beat historically. Before last year, earnings had exceeded estimates by an
average 3% a quarter since 2015.
"This happens in every bubble," said Bill Callahan, an investment strategist at Schroders. "It's: 'Don't think about the
traditional value metrics, we have a new one.' It's: 'Imagine if everyone did XYZ, how big this company could be.'"
Returns of 2%
Valuations are never useful market-timing tools because expensive stocks can get more expensive, as was the case during the
Internet bubble. Yet viewed through a long-term lens, valuations do matter. That is, the more over-valued the market is, the
lower the future returns. According to a study by Bank of America strategists led by Savita Subramanian, things like
price-earnings ratios could explain 80% of the S&P 500's returns during the subsequent 10 years. The current valuation framework
implies an increase of just 2% a year over the next decade, their model shows.
To Scott Knapp, chief market strategist of CUNA Mutual Group, abandoning standard valuation measures because the environment has
changed places investors in "pretty sketchy territory." Talk of watershed moments rendering traditional metric irrelevant as a
signal, he says.
"That's usually an indication we're trying to justify something," he said.
"In a community where the primary concern is making money, one of the necessary rules is to
live and let live. To speak out against madness may be to ruin those who have succumbed to it.
So the wise in Wall Street are nearly always silent. The foolish thus have the field to
themselves."
John Kenneth Galbraith, The Great Crash of 1929
"Foolishness is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against
evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within
itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense
of unease.
In conversation with them, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person,
but with slogans, catchwords and the like that have taken possession of them. They are under a
spell, blinded, misused, and abused in their very being."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Prisoner for God: Letters and Papers from Prison
"The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated
communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no
longer exists."
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
"When we trade the effort of doubt and debate for the ease of blind faith, we become
gullible and exposed, passive and irresponsible observers of our own lives. Worse still, we
leave ourselves wide open to those who profit by influencing our behavior, our thinking, and
our choices. At that moment, our agency in our own lives is in jeopardy."
Margaret Heffernan
Today was a general wash and rinse in the markets.
Wax on, wax off.
If you look at the charts you will see the deep plunges in the early trading hours in stocks
and the metals, especially silver.
Simply put, it is called running the stops.
This is not 'the government' doing this.
These are the monstrous financial entities that we have allowed lax regulation and years of
propagandizing to create, in the biggest Banks and hedge funds.
Most will run back to the familiar sources of their ideological addiction, the so-called
'news sites' that thrive on the internet and alternative radio funded by the oligarchs.
If you are one of those who cannot wait to run back to your familiar ideological watering
hole to relieve the tension of thought, you might just be one of the willfully blind and
lost.
Truth is more palatable to the sick at heart when it has been twisted out of shape.
The good news perhaps is that a cleaning out like this often proceeds a resumption of a move
higher.
First they kick off the riff raff. Oh, certainly that does not include you, but those
others, right?
Or not. It is not easy to think like a criminal when you are not privy to the same jealously
guarded information and perverse perspective on life.
On the lighter side I have experienced no side effects from the first dose of the
Coronavirus vaccine which I had the other day.
Let's see if the second shot has the same results.
The whole experience reminded me of 'Sabin Oral Sunday' back in 1960. I don't recall any
anti-vaxxer or ideologically driven whack-a-doodlism back then, but I was too young to
care. And polio shots were no fun. But it beat doing time in an iron lung.
For example, Google has a simulator of "News". Many users are happy to get all the news
they need in one source! I must admit that for a while I was a happy user. But now the
simulation is quite decrepit when you stray away from the scenery selected by Google. Try
Ukraine. Several Google-worthy items per week, in roughly equal parts from Atlantic Council,
Radio FE/Sloboda and occasional items authored (I guess) in Ukraine. On April 11 there will
be a runoff election in Ecuador, and no news at all for the last month!
@anonymous ay. A play to gain advantage, to publicly make the Chins look weak, subject
them to a media diplomatic humiliation, and as usual control the narrative."
It is talked about in Chinese Internet that before Chinese diplomats attending the meeting,
they went through 20 (or so) different scenarios of what the other side would say or do, and
practiced the responses accordingly. So it is not a surprise they could handle this rather
obvious case easily.
You think US would do such preparation? Probably not. They probably didn't even bother to
look up basic things like Yang and Wang's backgrounds.
Like what Sun Tzu says, know yourself and know your enemy
So, according to
Facebook and the Atlantic Council , I am now a "dangerous individual," you know, like a
"terrorist," or a "serial murderer," or "human trafficker," or some other kind of "criminal."
Or I've been praising "dangerous individuals," or disseminating their symbols, or otherwise
attempting to "sow dissension" and cause "offline harm."
Actually, I'm not really clear what I'm guilty of, but I'm definitely some sort of horrible
person you want absolutely nothing to do with, whose columns you do not want to read, whose
books you do not want to purchase, and the sharing of whose Facebook posts might get your
account immediately suspended. Or, at the very least, you'll be issued this warning:
Now, hold on, don't click away just yet. You're already on whatever website you're reading
this "dangerous," "terrorist" column on (or you're reading it in an email, probably on your
phone), which means you are already on the official "Readers of Mass-Murdering Content"
watch-list. So you might as well take the whole ride at this point.
Also, don't worry, I'm not going to just whine about how Facebook was mean to me for 2,000
words well, all right, I'm going to do that a little, but mostly I wanted to demonstrate how
"reality" is manufactured and policed by global corporations like Facebook, Twitter, Google,
the corporate media, of course, crowdfunding platforms like Patreon and PayPal, and "think
tanks" like the Atlantic Council and its Digital Forensic
Research Lab ("DFRLab").
First, though, let me tell you my Facebook story.
What happened was, I made a Facebook post, and a lot of people tried to share it, so
Facebook and the DFRLab suspended or disabled their accounts, or just prevented them from
sharing it, and sent them the above warning. Facebook didn't suspend my account, or censor the
post on my account, or contact me to let me know that they have officially deemed me a
"dangerous individual." Instead, they punished anyone who tried to "boost" my "dangerous" post,
a tactic anyone who has been through boot camp or in prison (or has watched this classic scene fromFull Metal Jacket ) will be
familiar with.
Here's the "dangerous" post in question. (If you're particularly sensitive to "terrorist"
content, you may want to put on your "anti-terrorism" glasses, or take some other type of
prophylactic measures to protect yourself from "offline harm," before you venture any
further.)
The photo, which I stole from Gunnar Kaiser , is of an art exhibit in
Düsseldorf, Germany . My commentary is self-explanatory. As you can see, it is
extremely "dangerous." It literally radiates "offline harm."
OK, before you write to inform me how this was just the work of a dumb Facebook algorithm,
think about what I described above. If an algorithm was preventing sharing and suspending
people's accounts based on keyword spotting, it would have censored my original post, and
presumably suspended my account. Or, if Facebook has an algorithm that recognizes certain
"dangerous" phrases, and then censors or suspends the accounts of people who share a post
including those phrases, but doesn't censor the original post or suspend the account of the
author of the post well, that's kind of strange, isn't it?
In any event, shortly after I posted it, I started seeing reports like this on
Facebook:
Those are just a few examples, but I think you get the general idea.
The point is, apparently, the Corporatocracy feel sufficiently threatened by random people
on Facebook that they are conducting these COINTELPRO-type ops. Seriously, think about that for
a minute. I am not Stephen King or Margaret Atwood. I'm not even Glenn Greenwald or Matt
Taibbi. I'm a midlist-level author of unusual literature , and a
political satirist, and a blogger, basically, and yet Facebook, and their partners at the
Atlantic Council, and AstraZeneca, and Pfizer, and Moderna, and who knows which other global
corporations and transnational, non-governmental entities like the WEF and WHO, consider
someone of my lowly status enough of a threat to their "New Normal" narrative to warrant the
attention of the Reality Police.
Now, let me be clear about who I'm talking about when I'm talking about the "Reality
Police." Facebook's partnership with the Atlantic Council is only one example, but it is a
rather good one. Here's a quick profile of the Atlantic Council
"The Atlantic Council of the United States was founded in 1961 as a think tank and
anticommunist public relations organization to prop up support within the US for NATO in the
post-World War II era [its] current, honorary and lifetime directors list reads like a
bipartisan rogues gallery of American war-criminals, including Henry Kissinger, George P.
Shultz, Frank Carlucci, James A. Baker, R. James Woolsey, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell,
Robert Gates and Leon Panetta. Among the former Atlantic Council chairman have been Obama
administration officials James L. Jones, (national security advisor) and Chuck Hagel
(secretary of defense). The chairman of the council is Brent Scowcroft, the retired US Air
Force officer who held national security and intelligence positions in the Nixon, Bush I and
Bush II administrations. [It] is funded by substantial government and corporate interests
from the financial, defense and petroleum industries. Its 2017 annual report documents
substantial contributions from HSBC, Chevron, The Blackstone Group, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin
and Ford Motor Company, among many others. Also listed is Google Inc. in the $100,000 to
$250,000 donor category. Among the largest council contributors are the US State Department,
The Foreign & Commonwealth Office of the UK, and the United Arab Emirates. Other
contributors include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Boeing, BP, Exxon and the US Army, Navy, Air Force
and Marines." -- Kevin Reed, World Socialist
Website
These are the folks that are policing "reality" (the "reality" they have manufactured, and
are manufacturing moment by moment), deciding what officially
happened , and didn't happen , and what
it means, and who qualifies as an "authoritative news source," and "fact-checking" everything
we see on the Internet. It's not a bunch of pimply-faced IT nerds writing sloppy code in Menlo
Park. It's GloboCap and the Military-Industrial Complex.
If you're one of my "New Normal" ex-friends and colleagues (or one of my Facebook or Twitter
trolls) who, for some unknown reason, is still reading this column, perhaps on your way to get
experimentally "vaccinated" or report one of your neighbors for not wearing a mask or being
outdoors without a valid reason, this is who has manufactured your "reality" and the so-called
"science" you claim I am "denying," even as reality stares you in the face
This did not begin with the "New Normal," of course. Every system of power manufactures its
own "reality" (totalitarian systems more fanatically than others). No, I've been writing about
the
manufacturing of "normality," and the War on Dissent and Populism that
GloboCap has been relentlessly waging on anyone and everyone opposing its hegemony or refusing
to conform to its ideology, since back when I was still writing heretical
columns like this for CounterPunch before the editors saw which way the wind was blowing
and ideologically purged its roster to get back into the good graces of GloboCap (following
which ideological purge, Google restored it to the ranks of "real news").
And that is how reality-policing works. It's a bullying operation, basically. The entire
"cancel culture" phenomenon is. "Cancel culture" is a silly name for it. We are talking about a
global empire imposing total ideological conformity (or, in simpler terms, its version of
"reality") on the entire planet through fear and force. The Nazis referred to this process as
Gleichschaltung .
Global capitalism has reached the stage where it no longer needs to tolerate dissent (any
kind of dissent, from any quarter) to maintain the illusion of "freedom and democracy," because
there is no alternative to global capitalism. It is everywhere. There is nowhere to run or
hide. When the Reality Police find you, and threaten to "cancel" you, you have two choices obey
or be vaporized.
If you're a Palestinian, a Syrian, a Yemeni, the president of an uncooperative African
country, or some other type of non-Western person, you might very well be physically vaporized.
For Westerners, vaporization is less dramatic and final. You will simply be disappeared from
the Internet, fired from your job, socially ostracized, deemed a "dangerous individual," a
"racist," an "anti-Semite," a "conspiracy theorist," a "white supremacist," a "domestic
terrorist," an "anti-vaxxer," a "Covid denier."
Or have a look at this "warning" you get on Twitter if you attempt to read anything
published by OffGuardian
I could go on and on with this, and I'm sure I will in future columns. It's kind of the only
story at the moment, the changeover from simulated democracy to pathologized-totalitarianism as
the governing structure of global capitalism. For now, I'll just leave you with one more image
in this already overly pictorial column. Don't worry, it's been thoroughly "fact-checked," so
there's no need to read or question the fine print (even though I have a feeling you will)
Do watch out for those "unrelated coincidences." Some of them, I hear, can be rather
nasty.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing,
Inc. His dystopian novel,Zone 23, is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. Volumes I and II of hisConsent Factory
Essaysare published by Consent Factory Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Amalgamated Content, Inc. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
That Tweet would make a nice Plakat to start pasting around Berlin and other cities maybe
CJ can find a printer who 1) is still open; and 2) will take the business.
Article pretty much says it all. There's no longer any need to engineer consent, they can
just use outright coercion along with financial reward to jerk the masses of peasants around.
It's clear that the billionaire and corporate classes march in lockstep and control the US
government as well as media, educational system, etc. The rage against Russia seems to be
that they are a barrier to total world domination by GloboCap which, as part of its intrinsic
structure, needs to constantly expand. What's more, a certain part of the population are
wannabe commissars, wannabe Pavel Morozovs, wannabe willing executioners for the
dictatorship. The billionaires should go and fight their own next wars but no, there'll be
enough unemployed types willing to take a chance for a paycheck. The little people think the
US is a country; the people actually running it consider it to be an economic empire, their
empire that is.
These rich and millennial Facebook woke employees are like the young Khmer Rouge or Red
Guard monsters, full of woke rage and gleeful that they have the power to destroy
everyone.
Based on Facebook's 'community standards' (see above), it has banned all posts praising
the US in written or pictorial form for the following reasons –
1. Has created and/or funded terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, paramilitary groups like
Blackwater, death squads in El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc.;
2. Creates, trains and funds a vast military system to threaten and/or bomb countries and
overthrow governments;
3. Has conducted and prosecuted wars and military actions around the world every single day
for the past twenty years;
4. Kidnaps and abducts private citizens in foreign countries and imprisons them in secret
bases like Guantanamo;
5. Employs corporate institutions to impose financial embargoes destroying nations' economic
infrastructure and citizens' livelihood.
The point is, apparently, the Corporatocracy feel sufficiently threatened by random
people on Facebook that they are conducting these COINTELPRO-type ops.
This really seems to be a thing. The elite are supposedly into the occult including things
like clairvoyants. Have their soothsayers seen a future rebel that will take them down? Or
are they just insecure, criminally insane dopes that irrationally fear independent thinking?
Whatever the reason, they are extremely paranoid.
I have written of the decline of the US likening it to a malignant tumour yet the recent
gaffs with Russia and China make it likely the hospitalisation of the patient may be more
urgent. Regarding sanctions and thier use on poor countries .
Goya and Sanctions: with some satirical nudity. Satire is a bellweather indicator of the
sophistication and progress of a civilization. When satire and humor dies history teaches us
so will that civilization. Sadly I don't expect this video to be allowed on US youtube.
Not the OP, but I'll answer. American expat here. I spent years trying to get people to at
least talk with me on issues. They just wanted to watch TV and eat fast food and let the
plutocrats run things into the ground. So I left, 10 years ago, to seek meaning and adventure
elsewhere. Haven't looked back.
I settled into a "third world anti-freedom authoritarian regime", where I enjoyed all the
freedoms I hadn't realized I had not known in America, and built a life for myself. When
I'd talk to people back home they'd tell me I was crazy for wanting to stay in an
"authoritarian nation", and ask wasn't I afraid? They didn't understand why I didn't want to
come back home. I haven't visited America in ages. I can no longer relate to America's
Afro-centric, virus-mania culture. Turning on American MSM shows is like watching the news from
Mars.
Would I leave the life I've created for myself to go back to the place I grew up and help
save the people there if I thought there was enough of them willing to fight? Maybe, if I could
do it without jeopardizing my family here. A part of me would like to.
But the sad reality is, the people in the United States do not want to be saved .
They're comfortable . Half the people I talk to back there brag to me about the vaccine
they got. I just talked to one who boasted how it "wasn't available to the masses yet" and she
had to trick her way into getting an mRNA shot. 130 million doses have been administered in the
US already, to a nation of 330 million. That doesn't seem like something "unavailable to the
masses."
So, do I want to go back to the US, to stand there screaming at people on the street like
some homeless bum as they line up to get their COVID shots, as armies of them march with
#BlackLiveMatters signs, surrounded by police protection, as the idiots on the left scream
about Russia and the idiots on the right scream about China, while nobody talks about the #1
foreign influencer of American public policy by far, because to mention its name is to have
one's life destroyed? I have better things to do with the precious few years I get on this
Earth.
When enough of the people wake up, when they are ready to be led, I may yet answer the call
to leadership when that call seriously goes out, 15 or 20 or 25 years from now. But at the
present moment, the American people are still so far from wanting anything other than football,
fast food, and racial equality that it really is not a place I have any interest in being, nor
one I have anything much to offer.
@Anonymous that a strong American military and national security posture is the best
guarantor of peace and the survival of our values and civilization.
Stavridis has been at the forefront of the mass slaughter known as the implementation of the
Oded Yinon Plan for Eretz Israel:
From 2002 to 2004, Stavridis commanded Enterprise Carrier Strike Group, conducting combat
operations in the Persian Gulf in support of both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom.
Stavridis "oversaw operations in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria." In short, this prominent
racketeer is dripping with the blood of hundreds of thousands of the victims.
Listen to this article 6 minutes 00:00 / 06:06 1x Earnings, valuation and rampant speculation have all played a role in the extraordinary bull market that began a year ago this week. The latest combination of the three has a troubling reliance on the speculative element. A broad framework for thinking about stocks can be derived from the late economist Hyman Minsky's three stages of debt. In the first stage, borrowers take on only what they can afford to repay in full from their earnings by the time the debt matures; a standard mortgage works like this. Earnings, valuation and rampant speculation have all played a role in the extraordinary bull market that began a year ago this week. The latest combination of the three has a troubling reliance on the speculative element. A broad framework for thinking about stocks can be derived from the late economist Hyman Minsky's three stages of debt. In the first stage, borrowers take on only what they can afford to repay in full from their earnings by the time the debt matures; a standard mortgage works like this. A broad framework for thinking about stocks can be derived from the late economist Hyman Minsky's three stages of debt. In the first stage, borrowers take on only what they can afford to repay in full from their earnings by the time the debt matures; a standard mortgage works like this. A broad framework for thinking about stocks can be derived from the late economist Hyman Minsky's three stages of debt. In the first stage, borrowers take on only what they can afford to repay in full from their earnings by the time the debt matures; a standard mortgage works like this. U.S. 10-year Treasury yield Source: Tullett Prebon As of March 24 % Pre-pandemic peak of S&P 500 2020 '21 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 S&P 500 forward price/earnings ratio Source: Refinitiv Note: Weekly data S&P 500 peak 2020 '21 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 The parallel in the stock market is stocks going up when earnings -- or rather the expectation of earnings, since the market looks ahead -- go up. There is a risk of course, just as there is with debt: The earnings might not appear, and the stock goes back down. But earnings offer the least risky form of gains, and one that we should welcome as obviously justified. From the low in the summer, 2020 earnings forecasts jumped more than 10%, and expectations for this year rose more than 8%. Stocks responded. In Minsky's second stage, borrowers plan only to repay the interest, and refinance when the main debt is due to be repaid; much company debt works like this. It is taken out with a plan to roll it over indefinitely. Interest rates matter a lot: If they go down when the company needs to refinance, it will pay less. The equity parallel is to gains in valuation due to lower long-term rates. As with corporate debt, this is entirely justified and sustainable so long as rates stay low, because future earnings are now more appealing. The danger is that rates rise, in which case the stock might be hit no matter how earnings pan out. A big chunk of the gains in stocks in the past year came from the sharply lower rates in the first response to the pandemic when the Federal Reserve flooded the system with money. Price-to-forward-earnings multiples soared. From the S&P 500's low on March 23 to the end of June, the market went from 14 to more than 21 times estimated earnings 12 months ahead, even as those estimated earnings fell amid lockdown gloom. The yield on the 10-year Treasury, already down sharply from mid-February's high, fell further as stocks rebounded. In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the The parallel in the stock market is stocks going up when earnings -- or rather the expectation of earnings, since the market looks ahead -- go up. There is a risk of course, just as there is with debt: The earnings might not appear, and the stock goes back down. But earnings offer the least risky form of gains, and one that we should welcome as obviously justified. From the low in the summer, 2020 earnings forecasts jumped more than 10%, and expectations for this year rose more than 8%. Stocks responded. In Minsky's second stage, borrowers plan only to repay the interest, and refinance when the main debt is due to be repaid; much company debt works like this. It is taken out with a plan to roll it over indefinitely. Interest rates matter a lot: If they go down when the company needs to refinance, it will pay less. The equity parallel is to gains in valuation due to lower long-term rates. As with corporate debt, this is entirely justified and sustainable so long as rates stay low, because future earnings are now more appealing. The danger is that rates rise, in which case the stock might be hit no matter how earnings pan out. A big chunk of the gains in stocks in the past year came from the sharply lower rates in the first response to the pandemic when the Federal Reserve flooded the system with money. Price-to-forward-earnings multiples soared. From the S&P 500's low on March 23 to the end of June, the market went from 14 to more than 21 times estimated earnings 12 months ahead, even as those estimated earnings fell amid lockdown gloom. The yield on the 10-year Treasury, already down sharply from mid-February's high, fell further as stocks rebounded. In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the In Minsky's second stage, borrowers plan only to repay the interest, and refinance when the main debt is due to be repaid; much company debt works like this. It is taken out with a plan to roll it over indefinitely. Interest rates matter a lot: If they go down when the company needs to refinance, it will pay less. The equity parallel is to gains in valuation due to lower long-term rates. As with corporate debt, this is entirely justified and sustainable so long as rates stay low, because future earnings are now more appealing. The danger is that rates rise, in which case the stock might be hit no matter how earnings pan out. A big chunk of the gains in stocks in the past year came from the sharply lower rates in the first response to the pandemic when the Federal Reserve flooded the system with money. Price-to-forward-earnings multiples soared. From the S&P 500's low on March 23 to the end of June, the market went from 14 to more than 21 times estimated earnings 12 months ahead, even as those estimated earnings fell amid lockdown gloom. The yield on the 10-year Treasury, already down sharply from mid-February's high, fell further as stocks rebounded. In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the In Minsky's second stage, borrowers plan only to repay the interest, and refinance when the main debt is due to be repaid; much company debt works like this. It is taken out with a plan to roll it over indefinitely. Interest rates matter a lot: If they go down when the company needs to refinance, it will pay less. The equity parallel is to gains in valuation due to lower long-term rates. As with corporate debt, this is entirely justified and sustainable so long as rates stay low, because future earnings are now more appealing. The danger is that rates rise, in which case the stock might be hit no matter how earnings pan out. A big chunk of the gains in stocks in the past year came from the sharply lower rates in the first response to the pandemic when the Federal Reserve flooded the system with money. Price-to-forward-earnings multiples soared. From the S&P 500's low on March 23 to the end of June, the market went from 14 to more than 21 times estimated earnings 12 months ahead, even as those estimated earnings fell amid lockdown gloom. The yield on the 10-year Treasury, already down sharply from mid-February's high, fell further as stocks rebounded. In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the The equity parallel is to gains in valuation due to lower long-term rates. As with corporate debt, this is entirely justified and sustainable so long as rates stay low, because future earnings are now more appealing. The danger is that rates rise, in which case the stock might be hit no matter how earnings pan out. A big chunk of the gains in stocks in the past year came from the sharply lower rates in the first response to the pandemic when the Federal Reserve flooded the system with money. Price-to-forward-earnings multiples soared. From the S&P 500's low on March 23 to the end of June, the market went from 14 to more than 21 times estimated earnings 12 months ahead, even as those estimated earnings fell amid lockdown gloom. The yield on the 10-year Treasury, already down sharply from mid-February's high, fell further as stocks rebounded. In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the The equity parallel is to gains in valuation due to lower long-term rates. As with corporate debt, this is entirely justified and sustainable so long as rates stay low, because future earnings are now more appealing. The danger is that rates rise, in which case the stock might be hit no matter how earnings pan out. A big chunk of the gains in stocks in the past year came from the sharply lower rates in the first response to the pandemic when the Federal Reserve flooded the system with money. Price-to-forward-earnings multiples soared. From the S&P 500's low on March 23 to the end of June, the market went from 14 to more than 21 times estimated earnings 12 months ahead, even as those estimated earnings fell amid lockdown gloom. The yield on the 10-year Treasury, already down sharply from mid-February's high, fell further as stocks rebounded. In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the A big chunk of the gains in stocks in the past year came from the sharply lower rates in the first response to the pandemic when the Federal Reserve flooded the system with money. Price-to-forward-earnings multiples soared. From the S&P 500's low on March 23 to the end of June, the market went from 14 to more than 21 times estimated earnings 12 months ahead, even as those estimated earnings fell amid lockdown gloom. The yield on the 10-year Treasury, already down sharply from mid-February's high, fell further as stocks rebounded. In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the A big chunk of the gains in stocks in the past year came from the sharply lower rates in the first response to the pandemic when the Federal Reserve flooded the system with money. Price-to-forward-earnings multiples soared. From the S&P 500's low on March 23 to the end of June, the market went from 14 to more than 21 times estimated earnings 12 months ahead, even as those estimated earnings fell amid lockdown gloom. The yield on the 10-year Treasury, already down sharply from mid-February's high, fell further as stocks rebounded. In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. The parallel in the stock market is the The parallel in the stock market is the The parallel in the stock market is the hunt for the greater fool . Sure, GameStop < shares bear no relation to the reality < of the company, but I can make money from buying an overpriced stock if I can find someone willing to pay even more because they "like the stock." Wild bets became obvious this year, as newcomers armed with stimulus, or "stimmy," checks Wild bets became obvious this year, as newcomers armed with stimulus, or "stimmy," checks Wild bets became obvious this year, as newcomers armed with stimulus, or "stimmy," checks drove up the price of many tiny stocks, penny shares and those popular on Reddit discussion boards. Speculative bets such as the solar and ARK ETFs rallied up until mid-February, long after growth stocks peaked in August Price performance Source: FactSet *Russell 1000 indexes As of March 25, 7:02 p.m. ET % Invesco Solar Value* ARK Innovation Growth* Sept. 2020 '21 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 The concern for investors: How much of the market's gain is thanks to this pure speculation, and how much to the justifiable gains of the improving economy and low rates? If too much comes from speculation, the danger is that we run out of greater fools and prices quickly drop back. The concern for investors: How much of the market's gain is thanks to this pure speculation, and how much to the justifiable gains of the improving economy and low rates? If too much comes from speculation, the danger is that we run out of greater fools and prices quickly drop back. me title= A look at how stocks moved through the pandemic suggests earnings and bond yields are still much more important than the gambling element for the market as a whole, but is still troubling. From the S&P peak in mid-February to the end of June, the story was of cratering earnings partly offset by higher valuations. The S&P was down 8%. Earnings forecasts for 12 months ahead fell 20%, while with 10-year yields down almost a full percentage point, valuations were up from a precrisis high of 19 times forecast earnings (itself the highest since the aftermath of the dot-com bubble) to 21 times. Growth stocks -- based on the Russell 1000 index of larger companies -- were slightly up, because they benefit most from falling bond yields, having more of their earnings far in the future. Cheap value stocks, which benefit less, were down 18%. A look at how stocks moved through the pandemic suggests earnings and bond yields are still much more important than the gambling element for the market as a whole, but is still troubling. From the S&P peak in mid-February to the end of June, the story was of cratering earnings partly offset by higher valuations. The S&P was down 8%. Earnings forecasts for 12 months ahead fell 20%, while with 10-year yields down almost a full percentage point, valuations were up from a precrisis high of 19 times forecast earnings (itself the highest since the aftermath of the dot-com bubble) to 21 times. Growth stocks -- based on the Russell 1000 index of larger companies -- were slightly up, because they benefit most from falling bond yields, having more of their earnings far in the future. Cheap value stocks, which benefit less, were down 18%. A look at how stocks moved through the pandemic suggests earnings and bond yields are still much more important than the gambling element for the market as a whole, but is still troubling. From the S&P peak in mid-February to the end of June, the story was of cratering earnings partly offset by higher valuations. The S&P was down 8%. Earnings forecasts for 12 months ahead fell 20%, while with 10-year yields down almost a full percentage point, valuations were up from a precrisis high of 19 times forecast earnings (itself the highest since the aftermath of the dot-com bubble) to 21 times. Growth stocks -- based on the Russell 1000 index of larger companies -- were slightly up, because they benefit most from falling bond yields, having more of their earnings far in the future. Cheap value stocks, which benefit less, were down 18%. From the S&P peak in mid-February to the end of June, the story was of cratering earnings partly offset by higher valuations. The S&P was down 8%. Earnings forecasts for 12 months ahead fell 20%, while with 10-year yields down almost a full percentage point, valuations were up from a precrisis high of 19 times forecast earnings (itself the highest since the aftermath of the dot-com bubble) to 21 times. Growth stocks -- based on the Russell 1000 index of larger companies -- were slightly up, because they benefit most from falling bond yields, having more of their earnings far in the future. Cheap value stocks, which benefit less, were down 18%. From the S&P peak in mid-February to the end of June, the story was of cratering earnings partly offset by higher valuations. The S&P was down 8%. Earnings forecasts for 12 months ahead fell 20%, while with 10-year yields down almost a full percentage point, valuations were up from a precrisis high of 19 times forecast earnings (itself the highest since the aftermath of the dot-com bubble) to 21 times. Growth stocks -- based on the Russell 1000 index of larger companies -- were slightly up, because they benefit most from falling bond yields, having more of their earnings far in the future. Cheap value stocks, which benefit less, were down 18%. Growth stocks -- based on the Russell 1000 index of larger companies -- were slightly up, because they benefit most from falling bond yields, having more of their earnings far in the future. Cheap value stocks, which benefit less, were down 18%. Growth stocks -- based on the Russell 1000 index of larger companies -- were slightly up, because they benefit most from falling bond yields, having more of their earnings far in the future. Cheap value stocks, which benefit less, were down 18%. NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
A pre-markets primer packed with news, trends and ideas. Plus, up-to-the-minute market
data.
PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBE
Since June the story has reversed. Earnings forecasts have soared, and this year's earnings predictions are now
back up to match where 2020 earnings were expected to be before the recession. The bond yield has leapt almost
a full percentage point, and is higher than it was last February.
Yet, since June, the market's overall valuation is slightly up, and growth stocks are up 23%. Sure, cheap value
stocks responded as expected, rising almost a third and beating growth stocks. But if a lower bond yield
justified the rise in valuations, a higher bond yield ought to mean lower valuations, and probably outright
lower prices for growth stocks.
This is concerning but, directionally at least, is explained by the oddity of August, when bond yields rose
alongside valuation multiples and
the
biggest technology stocks leapt in price
. Measure it from the end of August, instead of the end of June,
and valuations have dropped a bit as bond yields have risen.
But the fall isn't enough to provide much comfort, and worse is that the highly speculative stocks popular with
many individual traders bucked the trend. Notable themes including electric cars, hydrogen, SPACs and wind and
solar power went into ludicrous mode until the middle of February this year, when the rise in bond yields
accelerated and the speculative stocks fell back some.
Share prices propelled more by earnings expectations than bond yields is healthy, while speculation is -- by its
nature -- fickle, and so a poor basis for holding on to a stock for long. My hope is that the contribution of pure
gambling to the overall level of the market is relatively small. But it is hard to explain why stocks should be
so much higher than before the pandemic panic when the earnings outlook is worse and bond yields are back to
where they were.
US "intelligence" i.e the people who leak made up BS via anonymous sources to their media
mouthpieces
sbin 2 hours ago
Funny
I can not think of anything intelligent they have ever done.
If a list was drawn up of all the threats to Americans the MIC and Intelligence agencies
would be at the top.
joethegorilla 2 hours ago (Edited)
The US Intelligence used to be under the military chain of command. Dulles talked
Eisenhower into letting him start the CIA as a civilian agency. Everyone warned this domestic
political meddling would happen and guess what? They did it anyway. Spying on Americans is a
feature, not a bug.
Five_Black_Eyes_Intel_Agency 2 hours ago (Edited) remove link
israel-firsters and the CIA love to milk their sugar daddy, meanwhile people are all
choked up about the Left and Right charade
Weihan 59 minutes ago remove link
Great article from Greenwald! And remember: by "domestic terrorists" and "violent
extremists," they're referring to anyone who still believes a country should have a
recognizable and enforceable border.
1.(CFR) includes George Bush, Bill Clinton, all modern CIA Directors, most modern Joint
Chiefs of Staff, most modern Cabinet and top Executive Branch appointed officeholders,
etc.
2. The Trilateral Commission: Zbignew Brzezinski, John D. Rockefeller, Alan Greenspan,
Anthony Lake, John Glenn, David Packard, David Gergen, Diane Feinstein, Jimmy Carter, Adm.
William Crowe, etc.
3. The Bilderberg Group: Prince Hans-Adam of Liechtenstein, Prince Bernhard of
Netherlands, Bill Clinton, Lloyd Bentsen, etc.
4. (NSC), the military and intelligence policy-making and control group for national and
international security, which reports directly to the President, its secret 5412 Committee
(which directs black [covert] operations), and its PI-40 Subcommittee
5. (JCS)'s Special Operations compartment, the operations directorate which implements the
orders of the NSC's 5412 Committee, utilizing the U.S. Special Forces Command.
6. (NPO), which operates the Continuity of Government Project (COG), an ongoing secret
project to maintain command, control, communication and intelligence executive centers during
an extreme National Emergency by operating clandestine, secure, underground cities staffed by
surrogates for above ground national leaders.
7. FEMA's black projects compartment, which operates federal preventive-detention camps
[often located on military bases or Federal Bureau of Land Management lands], secure
underground shelters for the elite during cataclysms, etc.
1. (NSA), monitors and screens all telephone, telegraph, computer modem, radio,
television, cellular, microwave, and satellite communications, and electromagnetic fields "of
interest" around the world, and orchestrates information-control and cover-up activities
related to UFO secrecy and surveillance of extra-terrestrial operations, Fort Meade, MD.
2. National Reconnaissance Office. ... controls and collects information from global spy
satellites...
3. (CIA), commands, often controls, and sometimes coordinates, the gathering of secret
overseas information gathered by spies (HUMINT), electronic surveillance (SIGINT), and other
means; carries out covert unconstitutional paramilitary counterinsurgency operations and
preemptive political pacification projects in violation of international law, as well as
counter-intelligence sting operations against foreign agents; engages in domestic
surveillance, and manipulation of the U.S. political process, "in the National interest" in
direct violation of its congressional charter; operates proprietary "false front" companies
for profit; conducts a major share of international trans-shipment of illegal drugs, using
National Security cover and immunity; and cooperates with NSA's UFO cover-up operations,
Langley, VA, and worldwide branches.
4. (FBI) The branch which investigates, surveilles and neutralizes foreign Intelligence
agents operating within the U.S....
5. (DOE-INTEL), which conducts internal security checks and external security threat
countermeasures, often through its contract civilian instrumentality, the Wackenhut
Corporation
6. (INSCOM) whose assignments include psychological and psychotronic warfare (PSYOPS),
para-psychological intelligence (PSYINT), and electromagnetic intelligence (ELMINT), Ft.
Meade, MD. - U.S Army Intelligence and Security Command
7. (ONI), which gathers intelligence affecting naval operations, and has a compartmented
units, Office of Navy Intelligence......................
8. AFOSI), which gathers intelligence affecting aerospace operations, and has a
compartmented unit involved in investigating IAC [Identified Alien Craft] surveillance, and
coordination with NRO interdiction operations, Bolling Air Force Base, MD.
9. (DIA), which coordinates the intelligence data gathered from the various Armed Services
intelligence branches (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard and Special Forces), and
provides counter-threat measures, (which include providing security at ultra-classified
installations by the deployment of U.S. "Thought Police".
10. NASA: Which gathers intelligence data relating to space flights, sabotage threats,
astronaut and reconnaissance satellite encounters with UFOs and ETs, and coordinates the
transfer of alien technology to U.S. and allies' aerospace operations.
11. Which is an NSA/USAF joint intelligence operations unit dealing with possible threats
to aerospace operations from foreign powers, terrestrial or otherwise.
12. (DISCO), which conducts intelligence operations within and on behalf of the civilian
defense contractor corporations engaged in classified research, development, and production,
Defense Industry Security Command
13. (DIS), which conducts investigations into people and situations deemed a possible
threat to any operation of the Department of Defense, Defense Investigative Service
14. Which conducts surveillance and interdiction of threats to the security of Air Force
electronic transmissions and telemetry, and to the integrity of electronic countermeasure
(ECM) warfare equipment, Air Force Electronic Security Command.
15. DEA: Which conducts surveillance and interdiction of drug smuggling operations, unless
exempted under "National Security" waivers .
16. Federal Police Agency Intelligence: Which coordinates intelligence relating to threats
against federal property and personnel.
17. Defense Electronic Security Command: Which coordinates intelligence surveillance and
countermeasures against threats to the integrity of military electronic equipment and
electronic battlefield operations, Fort Worth, TX.
18. Naval Investigative Services: (NIS), which conducts investigations against threats to
Naval operations.
JGResearch 1 hour ago
Part 3:
War Department: Military industrial Complex
1. CIA's Directorate for Science and Technology :
Which gathers information with promise for scientific and technological developments which
present a superiority advantage for, or a threat against, the National Security.
2. Strategic Defense Initiative Office(SDIO) and Ballistic Missile Defense Org.(BMDO)
Which coordinates research, development and deployment of ... advanced technology
aerospace weapons.
3. Department of Energy :
(DOE) which, besides its cover story of researching cleaner-burning coal and gasoline and
more solar power, is principally involved in research and development of: more specialized
nuclear weapons; compact, self-sustaining, fusion powered, particle and wave weapons,
including electromagnetic pulse, gravitational/anti-gravitational, laser, particle beam and
plasmoid applied weapons research; high energy invisibility "cloaking" technology, etc.
4. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories Sandia National Laboratories-West
(SNL-W):
Which are involved in nuclear warhead "refinements", development of new transuranic
elements for weapons and energy applications, development of anti-matter weapons (the Teller
Bomb: 10,000 times the force of a hydrogen bomb), laser/maser technology applications, and,
reportedly, successful teleportation experiments, among other projects, at this Russian
nicknamed "City of Death", Livermore, CA.
5. Idaho National Engineering Laboratories : (INEL), which houses numerous underground
facilities in an immense desert installations complex larger than Rhode Island, has security
provided by its own secret Navy Base, is involved in nuclear, high energy electromagnetic,
and other research, and includes Argonne National Laboratory, West), Arco, ID
6. Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) Phillips Air Force Laboratory:
Which are sequestered on Kirtland Air Force Base/Sandia Military Reservation, and conduct
the translation of theoretical and experimental nuclear and Star Wars weapons research done
at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories into practical, working weapons,
Albuquerque, NM.
7. Haystack (Buttes) USAF Laboratory, Edwards AFB, CA : A 30 levels deep, extreme security
facility reportedly engaged in alien technology retro-engineering.
8. Area 51, Groom Lake, (USAF/DOE/CIA) Base) and S-4 (Papoose Lake Base)
Ultra-secure "non-existent" deployment bases where extremely classified aerospace vehicles
are tested and operationally flown, including the Aurora hypersonic spyplane, the Black Manta
[TR-3A] stealth fighter follow-on to the F-117A, the Pumpkinseed hyper-speed unmanned
aerospace reconnaissance vehicle, and several variants of anti-gravitational craft
(U.S.-UFOs).
9. Los Alamos National Laboratories : The premier research lab for nuclear, subatomic
particles, high magnetic field, exometallurgical, exobiological and other exotic technologies
research, Los Alamos County, NM.
10. U.S. Special Forces Command: Hurlburt Field, Mary Esther, Fl, along with its Western
U.S. Headquarters, Special Forces Command, Beale AFB, Marysville, CA, coordinating:
U.S. Army Delta Forces (Green Berets)
U.S. Navy SEALs (Black Berets), Coronado, CA.
USAF Blue Light (Red Berets) Strike Force
JGResearch 1 hour ago (Edited)
Part 4:
11. (DARPA), which coordinates the application of latest scientific findings to the
development of new generations of weapons.
12. The Jason Group: Elite weapons application scientists, developing cutting-edge science
weapons for DARPA, and operating under the cover of the Mitre Corporation.
13. Aquarius Group: Technology application scientists, reportedly working under the
guidance of the Dolphin Society, an elite group of scientists privy to extremely classified
science and technology findings.
14. Defense Science Board: Which serves as the Defense Department's intermediary between
weapons needs and the physical sciences.
15. Defense Nuclear Agency: Currently concentrating on fusion powered, high energy
particle beam, X-ray laser, and EM forcefield weapons development and deployment.
16. U.S. Space Command : Space War Headquarters for operating "the next war, which will be
fought and won in space", Falcon AFB, CO
17. (NORAD), operating the nuclear survivable space surveillance and war command center
deep inside Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado Springs, CO.
18. Air Force Office of Space Systems: Which coordinates the development of future
technology for operating and fighting in space.
19. NASA's Ames Research Center : SDI weapons research - Classified
20. Project MILSTAR: Development and deployment of WWIII [space war] command, control,
communication and intelligence satellites.
P Paul Avila SUBSCRIBER 8 hours ago U.S. stocks edged higher Wednesday as investors
awaited more testimony from Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.
Good grief. Is there any way his subordinates could prevent that? Perhaps lock him in a
supply closet until the market closes? Every time he opens his pie hole, I lose money.
W Will Bee SUBSCRIBER 8 hours ago Actually I suspect we are waiting for all the FED and
Treasury "people" to stop jawboning us so Markets can assimilate their irrelevance
"The strategic stealth bomber will be able to deliver conventional and thermonuclear
weapons to enemy targets anywhere and anytime in the world. It will be able to destroy any
target, anywhere".
Once it gets there, anyway – which at presumably subsonic speed may take a long,
long time.
So basically this will cost a huge amount of money to do what ICBMs have been able to do
for 60 years, and what Burevestnik can do with a lot more flexibility and stealth.
"Afghanistan is a great base from which to invade Central Asia and threaten Russia from
the south. The country has been occupied by the US for 20 years "
If Russia, China, Pakistan, Kazakhstan and Iran got together and supported the Taliban,
they could get the Americans out of Afghanistan double quick.
I am slightly puzzled that they haven't done so long ago.
Unless they prefer to keep the Americans tied up and bleeding in Central Asia. Keep your
enemies closer, etc.
This uncomfortable thought came to me while listening to Joe Biden talking about "soulless
killer" Vladimir Putin. Smaller insults have sparked off wars. The "Footless, yellow
earth-worm" slur moved Kaa the Rock Python to devour Bandar Log. Luckily, easy-going Putin
replied with a smile. He said that in his
childhood, kids responded with "I am rubber, you are glue; bounces off me and sticks to you";
he only wished good health for the American president and proposed to debate him online, so
that Americans and Russians, as well as the whole world, could form their own opinion. Biden
evaded the challenge. It's not clear he remembered who Putin is. An empty suit with a
teleprompter, called him Donald Trump Jr . Biden
said Putin meddled in the US elections and he will pay a price for it. Alas, Putin couldn't
influence the US dead, and they swung the elections as they voted for Biden by whole
cemeteries. Yes, Biden is a senile dummy that couldn't even board Air Force One without
stumbling thrice
the next day, but there is somebody who operates the teleprompter, and that is the problem.
The Russians were visibly furious. When US leaders drop such invective, it's like pirates
passing a 'black spot' in Treasure Island .
It's a signal that the foreign leader has to be deposed or killed outright. That's how they
spoke of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi; both were killed and their 'rogue states'
devastated. It was clearly a show of hostile intentions, not just from Biden but also from the
US establishment speaking like ventriloquist through the current White House tenant.
Afghanistan is a great base from which to invade Central Asia and threaten Russia from the
south. The country has been occupied by the US for 20 years, and Trump was determined to pull
out the troops. Biden has already hinted that the US will renege on its agreement with the
Taliban to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. The withdrawal was supposed to be completed by
May 2021; it will be "tough" for the United States to withdraw forces from Afghanistan in six
weeks, he said. Biden has also scrapped Trump's plan to withdraw forces from Germany, and with
good reason. His administration wants Germans to drop the Nord Stream II project, and it is
easier to convince a country if you have forty military bases there.
Fighting against Iran never stopped. When the US isn't doing it her best friend Israel is
acting. It has emerged that during the last two years, Israeli frogmen sabotaged 12 Iranian
tankers, reported the Wall
Street Journal . But it all backfired. On February 16, the entire Mediterranean coast of
Israel was covered with sticky black mess.
... ... ...
The blow to Israel was terrible – animals, plants and fish died; for a long time it
will be impossible to swim and sunbathe on the oily shores. Only now the sad truth has begun to
leak out: 'the worst pollution of the century' had been done by Israelis. The first to speak
about the source of the pollution was Israeli Minister of the Environment Gila Gamliel. She
said the oil was released by the Iranian tanker Emerald carrying a cargo of
US-sanctioned oil products to Syria. This is Iranian eco-terrorism, she said. But Gila was
quickly gagged – the Israeli military censorship forbade discussion of this topic, except
in the most general terms. It appears Gila Gamliel was right – up to a point. The Israeli
dissident
Richard Silverstein wrote about it:
It was a deliberate attack by Israel on the Iranian vessel. Israel's naval commando unit,
Flotilla 13 covertly attached a mine to the Emerald . The intent was to cause minor
damage that would send a message to Iran that its own attacks on Gulf shipping would bring a
cost. This Times of London
report written by Haaretz columnist Anshel Pfeiffer confirms my source. However, the
commandos didn't realize that the Emerald was a rusty old hulk in desperately
ill-repair. The Israeli mine, which was supposed to cause minor damage, actually ripped a
hole so big that much of the contents of the ship's hold leaked into the Mediterranean. This
is what caused the Israeli environmental disaster: Israel itself.
Biden voted for Gulf War Two. Why? Because as he admits, he is a Zionist. Zionists are
traitors, terrorists and murderers. Yet Biden the terrorist accuses Putin of being a
killer?
The illusion of a US president having any actual authority is pretty much being dispelled by
this ventriloquist's dummy Biden signing whatever is placed in front of him and parroting
whatever is on the teleprompter. A stupid egotist his entire life, his mental decline isn't as
apparent as it might be quite yet because he's been carefully stage managed so far. They're
being extremely careful not to let the cat out of the bag in letting people get a glimpse of
what he's really like. And it's downhill from here.
The virus hysteria has been a test case lab in assessing what works, what doesn't, how to
improve on herding and suppressing the population, etc. Insofar as dead foreign leaders goes,
who really knows?
When tens of millions of dollars are available lots of people in some leader's circle might
be tempted to expose the target to some form of poisoning or lethal radiation. Hugo Chavez
expressed suspicion at how he and other leaders opposed to US diktat seemed to come down with
cancer.
The US itself has claimed some of it's diplomats were possibly targeted by mystery rays in
Cuba so the idea of something like this is not far-fetched; it's just a case of projection,
accusing others of what one is guilty of.
LOL, you don't know how many times, since his campaign and now as (fake) POTUS that Biden
has reminded me of Chauncey Gardiner. It's the perfect comparison.
(But, Jobotomy Xiden will be gone soon and then the bi-racial, sociopathic Hillary 2.0 will
be inaugurated. Excuse me while I go hurl.)
Think of the hysteria and histrionic nation wide wailing and teeth gnashing over Trump
calling it "the China virus" and the dead silence when Biden calls Putin:
A soulless killer. .
I wish Putin would take revenge and pull a Soleimani on Biden & Co. but perhaps he
laughs & chalks it up to the senile, demented ramblings of a clown.
Is this more theater?
To add to the insanity, the embrace and total absolution of the pathological liar, war
criminal and mass torturer and murderer, George W. Bush leaves me .stunned:
Bush on Putin, 2001:
"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We
had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul ; a man deeply
committed to his country and the best interests of his country."
Biden is a sociopath, one of limited intelligence. But a sociopath nevertheless.
If he is instructed by his controllers to initiate a nuclear war, he will do so
unhesitatingly.
I would not be surprised if both Joe and Hunter were somehow benefiting from drug traffic
across the border. Actually, I expect that is largely what is behind Biden's open border
policy.
It's impossible for normal people to understand sociopathic behavior. The American political
class has been selected for sociopathy now for generations.
"Americans should write a letter of apology to Putin, apologizing for our rude and senile
leader (and the degenerate lunatics that surround him) and ask for President Putin's
understanding and patience. "
Not a bad idea at all. I would formulate some things differently though, the idea is that
the letter should also circulate, so mind the crude tone, show that even Americans can be
tactful gentle-man. Even that would impress the whole world.
Thanatopia's attacks on Putin differ vastly from its deranged Sinophobia. Thanatopians want
Putin gone, replaced by a New Yeltsin, and Russia vivisected for further pillage. But they
don't want Russians dead, because this 'Free Russia' will be needed for the Great Purpose-the
destruction of China.
The truly Evil campaign to entirely falsely accuse China of genocide in Xinjiang, is a call
not just to war, but to genocide. A China devastated would still rise again, even if the USA
and its villainous stooges succeed in breaking it up, again, as was nearly achieved in the 19th
and 20th centuries.
The USA and the Western vassals promote, train and finance separatists in Xinjiang, Tibet,
'South' Mongolia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, even 'Manchuria'. Such civil discord would cause millions
of deaths, but it gets worse.
The Imperial hatemongers never cease to vilify the CCP. The 'New Nazis', 'It is 1939 again,
and 'appeasement' is treason', human organ harvesters etc. All lies, all the crudest
projection. But the CCP is 100 million strong, and the Chinese CCP Government enjoys 95%
satisfied or highly satisfied rating from the populace, according to the latest Harvard poll.
So the entire population is complicit, 'Xi's willing executioners' etc, and must be punished.
SARS CoV2 was obviously meant to kill millions of Chinese and devastate the economy, but the
'blowback' has been cosmic retribution, and that has only made the Western genocidists even
more enraged.
The Western oligarchy does not do mass high kultur. Kultur is a commodity and a venue for
narcissistic display and mass kultur is base, exploitative and mind-destroying, keeping the
plebs permanently obtunded, morally, intellectually and spiritually. 'Feed 'em muck' as Nellie
Melba recommended.
Worldometer/coronavirus today: Tanzania population >60 million; CV19 cases <600. Dear
Scott, that cannot be correct! (If all the brainwashing serves me right.)
RIP President Magufuli, the man who busted WHO with their fraud -- or scientific
incompetence. Ha. This story could have been the lead paragraph, and no stone should be left
unturned to find out if Magufuli was murdered. This especially includes death by a deadly viral
infection, ala Operation Zyphr ?
Minor correction: Biden does not represent the American people. Those who think they support
him are unaware of their Stockholm syndrome.
Now, let's arrest our schadenfreude about Israel's acts of sabotage spoiling their own
coastline. Our fragile seas are too precious for that sort of vindictive spirit. Nevertheless,
it is okay be encouraged about this colossal blunder, because it proves the controllers are
really not in control at all. And they damn well know it.
Finally, forget not Shere Khan totally trumps Kaa. But as fate would have it even he loses
in the end.
Unless neocons are insane, I don't think that they want to start a war with Russia and much
less China. The U.S. can't even win a war against goat herders with homemade explosives. The
U.S. military is more concerned about having black transgender soldiers than about being
efficient.
Also, China practically owns the U.S. and Canada at this point.
This is probably just another distraction to keep people from noticing that they are
(again!) being fleeced and raped.
It now appears the Russians and Chinese are using our woke BS against us like a deflector
shield.
Putin's speech of the US projecting its own psychology on others, mentioning BLM and racism
plus the Chinese mentioning the US "persecution of blacks".
They inflict this woke shit on us but didn't realize it could also be used by their
enemies.
Ultimate blow back for the dumb fuckers in Washington. Totally hilarious.
Of course semi-demented Biden was lured into this provocation by neocon Stephanopoulos. This
evil gnome with connections to Epstein. That was an easy trap to avoid, but he got into it with
both legs.
Comments to the article are interesting. Fro example H. Trsgget display the same level of Neo-McCarthyism as
Biden has. Of course, ABC has specific audience and commenters but still...
Asked what he would tell Biden in response to his remarks, Putin said: "I would tell him:
'Be well.' I wish him health, and I say that without any irony or joking."
He noted that Russia would still cooperate with the United States where and when it
supports Moscow's interests, adding that "a lot of honest and decent people in the U.S. want
to have peace and friendship with Russia."
"I know that the U.S. and its leadership is generally inclined to have certain
relations with us, but only on issues that are of interest to the U.S. and on its
conditions," Putin said. "But we know how to defend our own interests, and we will work with
them only in the areas we are interested in and on conditions we see as beneficial to
ourselves. And they will have to reckon with it."
Speaking in separate comments later Thursday, Putin said he would ask the Foreign Ministry
to arrange a call with Biden in the next few days to discuss the coronavirus pandemic,
regional conflicts and other issues.
"We must continue our relations," he noted. "Last time, President Biden initiated a call
and now I would like to offer President Biden to continue our discussions. It would be in the
interest of both the Russian and U.S. people and other countries, bearing in mind that we
bear a special responsibility for global security as the largest nuclear powers."
Other Russian officials and lawmakers were less diplomatic.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy head of Russia's Security Council who served as president in
2008-2012 when Putin had to shift into the premier's job because of term limits, said that
"time hasn't spared" the 78-year-old Biden and cited Sigmund Freud as saying, "Nothing costs
so much in life as illness and stupidity."
And Andrei Turchak, the leader of the main pro-Kremlin United Russia party, described
Biden's remarks as a reflection of "the U.S. political marasmus and its leader's
dementia."
It's interesting to observe how liberal fascism develops and operates in the modern
environment.
It seems that the next natural step should be to ban unsanctioned publishing on the
internal networks and erect a border-firewall. To prevent all this malicious meddling and
disinformation, y'know. To slay, like St George the dragon, all the racists, misogynists,
homophobes, disunity-fomenters, and other enemies.
And then, if necessary, censoring of the private communications. This could get tricky,
though. So, only monitoring, perhaps.
"Holy cow: 42% of Americans report undesired weight gain during Covid 19. The average weight
gain is 29 lbs. And 41 lbs for Millennials! "
Individuals are limited to one donut, but the offer can be redeemed once per day. Meaning
anybody who receives the COVID vaccine can swing by for a free glazed doughnut every day between
now and the end of the year.
Let's hope Krispy Kreme is working on a vaccine for diabetes, because it's latest
promotion isn't exactly a net-positive for the public welfare.
The donut-maker has announced that, starting Monday, anybody who presents proof of
vaccination at any Krispy Kreme location can receive one free glazed donut per visit.
"Krispy Kreme is finding ways to be sweet as the U.S. continues to scale COVID-19
vaccinations. To show our support for those who choose to get vaccinated, starting Monday,
3/22, anyone who shows their COVID-19 Vaccination Record Card will receive a free Original
Glazed® doughnut."
... ... ...
play_arrow
Ideology in Practice 4 hours ago
If you get vaccinated over a free donut, you deserve everything you get.
Donut included.
StuffyourVAXX 5 hours ago
Today, show your vaxx card to get a free donut.
Tomorrow, show your vaxx card to buy basic groceries.
Next week, show your vaxx card to keep your kids from getting taken away from you, you
@#$@ing super spreader.
reddpill 4 hours ago (Edited)
1939: "Work Sets You Free"
2019: "Vaccination Sets You Free"
Average weight gain 29 lbs ???? 41 for millenials ????
WTF??? That isn't trivial, that is huge. This a far bigger health risk than the wuphlu
!!!!
espirit 4 hours ago
Welcome to the Gates of Hell.
Have a free donut...
neocons on meathooks 4 hours ago
One of the reasons the new feudalism has such a bright future is that the serfs are
allowed to feast like kings and queens on rich animal-based, fiberless and highly processed
foods 21 times (or more) a week -- and they have the gout, heart disease, strokes,
diabetes, cancers and medical bills to prove it. Once you're woke you'll understand the
sexism of thinking obesity and sickness shouldn't be accepted. But exercise, weight loss
programs and public education (a la smoking cessation) aren't nearly as profitable as
injecting Bill Gates's poison into 7 billion customers and tracking and controlling human
movement. Sorry to cause dissension but I just got my paycheck from Vlad.
Automatic Choke PREMIUM 5 hours ago
Lemme know when the Heart-Attack-Grill starts offering free
quadruple-bacon-chili-burgers free for the jab.
Rockatanski 5 hours ago
as Mussolinil said, the fusing of goverenment and corporate give you full facism and
that is what we are seeing now.
It's a FOX World why does their stupidity bother me so much?
They develop the talking point first and then alter the 'facts' to support it. How can a
brain survive on such a diet?
FOX on the U.S. meeting w/China in Alaska re-visited the consensus from all of the
dimwitted hosts is that it was a dark day for the U.S. because ...
1. China insulted us because Biden is weak.
2. China insulted us because the Democrats have torn down our country for 4yrs
3. China insulted us because the Democrats helped BLM burn down our country
4. China insulted us because the Democrats emboldened them ! ! !
There is actually a much, much, more straightforward explanation that never occurs to
these dimbulbs, China insulted us because we insulted them for 10 minutes. We
accused them of aggression, genocide, crushing democracy and being evildoers. Only a Neocon
slaps someone in the face and expects them to smile back at you.
Old neocon still is dreaming about imperial greatness and full spectrum Dominance, when the
country is significantly and irreversibly crippled by neoliberalism and its accumulation by
dispossession which eliminated a large swats of well paid workers and professionals. It is now
the country where the Congress is now hiding from people behind barbed wall.
It is difficult to teach old dog new tricks. Intimidation of the opponent replaced diplomacy.
Semi-Dementia mixed with arrogance in action. "White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden
would continue to look to cooperate on efforts to stem Iran's nuclear program and, more broadly,
nuclear nonproliferation. But she said Biden did not regret referring to Putin as a killer and
pushed back against suggestions that the rhetoric was unhelpful."
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Director of National Intelligence came out with a report today saying
that Vladimir Putin authorized operations during the election to under -- denigrate you,
support President Trump, undermine our elections, divide our society. What price must he
pay?
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: He will pay a price. I, we had a long talk, he and I, when we -- I know
him relatively well. And I-- the conversation started off, I said, "I know you and you know me.
If I establish this occurred, then be prepared."
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You said you know he doesn't have a soul.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I did say that to him, yes. And -- and his response was, "We understand
one another." It was-- I wasn't being a wise guy. I was alone with him in his office. And that
-- that's how it came about. It was when President Bush had said, "I looked in his eyes and saw
his soul."
I said, "Looked in your eyes and I don't think you have a soul." And looked back and he
said, "We understand each other." Look, most important thing dealing with foreign leaders in my
experience, and I've dealt with an awful lot of 'em over my career, is just know the other guy.
Don't expect somethin' that you're-- that -- don't expect him to-- or her to-- voluntarily
appear in the second editions of Profiles in Courage.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So you know Vladimir Putin. You think he's a killer?
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Uh-huh. I do.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So what price must he pay?
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: The price he's gonna pay we'll-- you'll see shortly. I'm not gonna--
there's-- by the way, we oughta be able that ol' -- that trite expression "walk and chew gum at
the same time," there're places where it's in our mutual interest to work together.
That's why I renewed the start agreement with him. That occurred while he's doin' this. But
that's overwhelmingly in the interest of humanity, that we diminish the prospect of a nuclear
exchange. But that and SolarWinds as well. He's been -- they've done some mischievous things,
to say the least. And so we're gonna have -- I'm not gonna announce what I'm doing, but he's
gonna understand that --
Vladimir Putin issues new 'kill list' - and six of the targets live in Britain
EXCLUSIVE: The warning of a deadly post-pandemic campaign comes from same spy who alerted
that Salisbury novichok victim Sergei Skripal was earmarked for assassination
Biden does seem to be keeping one promise he made from the campaign, namely that "nothing
will fundamentally change", he is basically continuing all of Trump's terrible foreign
policies (Iran, China, Russia, Syria & Venezuela). In many ways he's being even more
hawkish, issuing clownish threats to both Russia and China and even to the steadfast US
vassal Germany over Nord Stream 2. One has to ask the question, just how much of Trumps
foreign policy was his own. Afghanistan and Suria I think yes; Israel and Saudi Arabia maybe;
China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela and Germany; I think the interagency consensus (aka the "Deep
State") is setting those policies and will push it into overdrive under the Biden/Harris
Regime.
With Respect to Biden, I saw that Max Keiser is already comparing Joe Biden to Borris
Yeltsin as a President who presided over the near breakup of the State and the rise of a
economic oligarchy.
recently installed "president" who can't make it up a flight of stairs or give a press
conference, who has the nuclear football following him around 24/.7. <- Posted by:
Perimetr | Mar 19 2021 22:55 utc | 54
History of American presidency had worse falls as we are reminded by New
York Post .
"President Biden's wince-inducing series of stumbles while boarding Air Force One on
Friday calls to mind Gerald Ford's 1975 fall on the same stairs -- a minor tumble that
forever tarred him as a clumsy oaf.
Chevy Chase pilloried Ford in a series of ruthless and hilarious "Saturday Night Live"
skits -- even though the object of his ridicule was just 62 years old, and an ex-University
of Michigan football star who avidly skied and golfed."
It was the very athletic ability of Gerald Ford that magnified his fall, all the way down.
When Biden started cautiously and kept his hand on the rail at all times, Ford climbed "with
a spring in his step", but, alas, he missed one step.
I'm slightly curious: if the USA insists that there is a "rules-based international order"
then - by definition - there must exist a rule-book i.e. a compendium of those rules.
That is axiomatic, because how else would anyone know if they are a rule-breaker, or when
they are in compliance with the rules.
Otherwise this isn't a "rules-based" system at all, it is merely a world based upon US
dictates.
Has any reptile of the press ever asked a State Department flunky for a copy of "the
rules"?
Wouldn't it be nice if the CPC starts backing the CPUSA with the kinds of resources that
the US backs their regime change operations through NED and USAID? That would be a game
changer.
I suspect Blinken/Sullivan/Biden need to show that they are "tough" to the Chinese in
public because otherwise, they will be roasted by the 78 millions Trump supporters for being
"weak" to China compared with Trump. Behind the close door, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi
characterized the talks to be NOT "very tense." I believe Biden actually is quite keen to get
some "achievements" from the Chinese side, probably not realistically in this meeting, but
hopefully in the near future.
Ha, but the weather is cold, the hotel is shoddy, and the Chinese delegate had to have
instant noodle for lunch - that sounds like a very low budget "Hongmen Banquet" by the
Americans. Maybe they are still waiting for their 1.9 trillion stimulus check?
"China and the US are two major world powers. No matter how many disputes they have, the
two countries should not impulsively break their relations. Coexistence and cooperation are
the only options for China and the US. Whether we like it or not, the two countries should
learn to patiently explore mutual compromises and pursue strategic win-win cooperation ."
[My Emphasis]
The big question: Does the Outlaw US Empire possess enough wisdom to act in that
manner.
contrived moulded whatever the case I leave this excerpt. I feel it hits the head.
Here's what journalist Joe Bageant wrote in 2007:
Much of the ongoing battle for America's soul is about healing the souls of these
Americans and rousing them from the stupefying glut of commodity and spectacle. It is about
making sure that they -- and we -- refuse to accept torture as the act of "heroes" and babies
deformed by depleted uranium as the "price of freedom." Caught up in the great
self-referential hologram of imperial America, force-fed goods and hubris like fattened
steers, working people like World Championship Wrestling and Confederate flags and
flat-screen televisions and the idea of an American empire. ("American Empire! I like the
sound of that!" they think to themselves, without even the slightest idea what it means
historically.) "The people" doing our hardest work and fighting our wars are not altruistic
and probably never were. They don't give a rat's bunghole about the world's poor or the
planet or animals or anything else. Not really. "The people" like cheap gas. They like
chasing post-Thanksgiving Day Christmas sales. And if fascism comes, they will like that too
if the cost of gas isn't too high and Comcast comes through with a twenty-four-hour NFL
channel.
That is the American hologram. That is the peculiar illusion we live within, the illusion
that holds us together, makes us alike, yet tells each of us we are unique. And it will
remain in force until the whole shiteree comes down around our heads. Working people do not
deny reality. They create it from the depths of their perverse ignorance, even as the
so-called left speaks in non sequiturs and wonders why it cannot gain any political traction.
Meanwhile, for the people, it is football and NASCAR and a republic free from married queers
and trigger locks on guns. That's what they voted for -- an armed and moral republic. And
that's what we get when we stand by and watch the humanity get hammered out of our fellow
citizens, letting them be worked cheap and farmed like a human crop for profit.
Genuine moral values have jack to do with politics. But in an obsessively religious
nation, values remain the most effective smoke screen for larceny by the rich and hatred and
fear by the rest. What Christians and so many quiet, ordinary Americans were voting for in
the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 was fear of human beings culturally unlike
themselves, particularly gays and lesbians and Muslims and other non-Christians. That's why
in eleven states Republicans got constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage on the
ballot. In nine of them the bill passed easily. It was always about fearing and, in the worst
cases, hating "the other."
Being a southerner, I have hated in my lifetime. I can remember schoolyard discussions of
supposed "nigger knifing" of white boys at night and such. And like most people over fifty,
it shows in my face, because by that age we have the faces we deserve. Likewise I have seen
hate in others and know it when I see it. And I am seeing more of it now than ever before in
my lifetime, which is saying something considering that I grew up down here during the Jim
Crow era. Fanned and nurtured by neoconservative elements, the hate is every bit equal to the
kind I saw in my people during those violent years. Irrational. Deeply rooted. Based on
inchoate fears.
The fear is particularly prevalent in the middle and upper-middle classes here, the very
ones most openly vehement about being against using the words nigger and fuck. They are what
passes for educated people in a place like Winchester. You can smell their fear. Fear of
losing their advantages and money. Fear there won't be enough time to grab and stash enough
geet to keep themselves and their offspring in Chardonnay and farting through silk for the
next fifty years.
So they keep the lie machinery and the smoke generators cranking full blast as long as
possible, hoping to elect another one of their own kind to the White House -- Democratic or
Republican, it doesn't matter so long as they keep the scam going. The Laurita Barrs speak in
knowing, authoritative tones, and the inwardly fearful house painter and single-mom forklift
driver listen and nod. Why take a chance on voting for a party that would let homos be scout
masters?
(Dear Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War, chapter 2)
That's a lovely little compilation about Putin and his family, thanks.
The narrative says that Putin's mother survived the siege of Leningrad, but it doesn't go
into the details. You can get the story from one of the several Russian documentaries about
Putin - I forget which one but I could dig for it if pressed.
Putin's father came back from the front, wounded and on crutches. He showed up just as
medics were taking his wife out to whatever transport they were using to clean up the dead
bodies - she was practically dead, and the witness to this says she was "washed up". Putin's
father fought the medics away with his crutches and took his wife back into their home, and
nursed her back to life.
Thus runs the story, and this is the woman who later gave birth to Putin, already with two
brothers dead that he never knew. It sounds exaggerated when I write out the story like that,
but I never disbelieved it when I heard it, and I still don't.
So this is the depth of the man who heads the Russian Federation. Personally touched by
war, personally grieving for the losses of Russia, personally committed to the safety of
civilians and to minimal death in general.
~~
While I'm on the subject, two other stories occur to me. One was when he first took
command of Russia and addressed the war in the Caucasus - his famous episode with his
military commanders in the tent, when he said they would not drink to success until they had
achieved it (I paraphrase), and put his glass down untouched. To drink prematurely, he said,
would be to dishonor all those who had already died in this war. First, to stop the
dying.
But the story I wanted to say about that was that he also forcefully told his generals to
be very careful how they conducted operations: they were entering places where civilians
lived - old people, those who had fought in the Great Patriotic War, those to whom everyone
present owed their lives. He was very serious about taking great care not to harm those most
honorable people.
The second story is when the Berlin Wall went down, and crowds surged to invade the Stasi
building, ripping its secrets into the open. They also came to the KGB building. The chief of
that bureau fled, leaving by the back way. That left Putin as next in command. He went down
to address the crowd. He stood in front of them and they asked who he was and he lied and
said that he was "the interpreter". He said that this building was the property of the USSR.
In his gun he had twelve bullets, he said, eleven for those whom he faced and the last for
himself. The crowd understood that this building was not East Germany but the Soviet Union,
and that this officer would defend it with his life. Whatever they thought, they turned away
and left the building unmolested.
~~
I'm impressed with the character and caliber of this human being called Putin, for good
reasons, I find. There's a heroic scale to him that comes from Russia itself and the
experiences that Putin was born into and from. And yet he personally is a naturally modest
man. He bears that heroic dimension of scale with the grace that comes from ordinariness. He
loves ordinary people. He renews his own mental health from being in their company. The
security state of Russia chose the best person it could find, in a last-ditch attempt to save
their country. It worked.
[D]ifficult, dramatic, and bloody events abound in the history of every nation and every
state. But when we evaluate other people, or even other states and nations, we are always
facing a mirror, we always see ourselves in the reflection, because we project our inner
selves onto the other person.
You know, I remember when we were children and played in the yard, we had arguments
occasionally and we used to say: whatever you call me is what you are called yourself.
This is no coincidence or just a kids' saying or joke. It has a very deep psychological
undercurrent. We always see ourselves in another person and think that he or she is just
like us, and evaluate the other person's actions based on our own outlook on life.
There is an additional passage of interest which sets out rules for future talks that I
have not seen reported in 'western' media:
I know that the United States and its leaders are determined to maintain certain
relations with us, but on matters that are of interest to the United States and on its
terms. Even though they believe we are just like them, we are different. We have a
different genetic, cultural and moral code. But we know how to uphold our interests. We
will work with the United States, but in the areas that we are interested in and on terms
that we believe are beneficial to us. They will have to reckon with it despite their
attempts to stop our development, despite the sanctions and insults. They will have to
reckon with this.
We, with our national interests in mind, will promote our relations with all
countries, including the United States.
The 'takes one to know one' quote is not a direct quote from Putin, it is a claim by
Biden.
Here is the Daily Beast's take on it. (Yeah, I know it's a ridiculous source, but it
was the first source I found that correctly attributed that quote to Biden.)
Biden recalled: "We had a long talk, he and I, when we... I know him relatively well. And
the conversation started off, I said, 'I know you and you know me. If I establish this
occurred, then be prepared.'"
The president also confirmed that, some years ago, he was alone with Putin in his
office and he brought up the topic of Putin's lack of a human soul. "I said, 'I looked in
your eyes and I don't think you have a soul,' and he looked back and said, 'We understand
each other.' The most important thing of dealing with foreign leaders... is just know the
other guy."
The Guardian's translation of "it takes one to know one," which has been amplified by
western media and social media, is absolutely incorrect. It implies that Putin is
admitting that he is a 'killer,' which he absolutely does not do. Anybody that has a
working knowledge of Russian will be able to translate the saying that Putin uses to mean
that he is suggesting that Biden is projecting. In fact, Putin provides context for this
statement by referring to US History.
I say bullshit. "It takes one to know one" - suggests some equivalence for the two
people. That meaning is not in Kremlin transcript of Putin's words. Putin is saying "you
are projecting (your own problem)".
I understand that this is just semantics, but something as widespread as this has become
in western media can have a big impact on perception of lazy westerners if the
interpretation is incorrect. This should be obvious, regardless of the supposed "elegance"
of the phrase.
"Takes one to know one" does not imply projection, it rather implies hypocrisy. Putin is
not accusing Biden of hypocrisy, he is accusing Biden of projection. "Takes one to know
one" gives a western audience the suggestion that Putin qualifies an admission of being a
killer with an accusation that Biden is also a killer. Putin, in fact, does not do
this. He only suggests that Biden is projecting and only projecting.
Minister Lavrov today confirmed Putin's words,
saying " [We] will be ready to cooperate only in those areas that are of interest to
us, and only on terms that are beneficial to us ".
In my opinion, the Chinese representatives gave a good answer to the American side,
although this answer will obviously not be heard.
The Americans have completely lost the culture of negotiation. If there are no elementary
human manners, then what kind of agreements can we talk about?
A sad picture. And dangerous. A madman with nuclear weapons (and chemical weapons, by the
way) is not the best option for a reliable negotiating partner.
"In a desperate bid to thwart the strategic partnership between Russia and Europe,
Washington is resorting to ever-more frantic threats of sanctions and other disruptive
measures. Biden is playing the personal insult card in a gambit for blowing up bilateral
relations with Russia as a way to sabotage Nord Stream 2.
"It's a pathetic move, one that actually speaks more of America's historic enfeeblement
rather than pretensions of power. Russia would do well to stay calm and let the Americans
make fools of themselves."
It seems Russia's doing just that--attending to the vital business of developing its
nation and peoples. Russia's geared for numerous patriotic celebrations throughout the
year, and Biden's comments were made on the eve of Crimean reunification with Russia, which
only served to cement Russians closer and hold Putin in even greater esteem. Talk about an
Own Goal!
Outlaw US Empire Nord Stream policy is close to being the same as literally torpedoing
it, making it an act of war against the EU and Russia. Somehow, I don't think Blinken
understands that fundamental fact.
"I know that the United States and its leaders are determined to maintain certain
relations with us, but on matters that are of interest to the United States and on its
terms. Even though they believe we are just like them, we are different. We have a
different genetic, cultural and moral code. But we know how to uphold our interests. We
will work with the United States, but in the areas that we are interested in and on terms
that we believe are beneficial to us. They will have to reckon with it despite their
attempts to stop our development, despite the sanctions and insults. They will have to
reckon with this."
This statement is a positive, that is the mark of a government that adheres to real
values, beneficial to the growth of humanity, and not just for the enrichment of a greedy
minority of it's citizens.
The most peculiar aspect of Biden's outburst is its timing.
If there was one moment in time when it would be ill advised for even the most brass
necked, cynical American exceptionalist not to restrain himself from accusing anyone of
murder, it would have to be that moment in which the bulkiest object in the "Out" tray on
the Presidential desk happened to be a crude coffin like box containing the butchered
remains of the Washington Post journalist and long established CIA asset Adnan
Khashoggi.
Now there was the victim of a killer, the Crown Prince, acting with the permission of
the US government and in the spirit of the Deep State which put Joe Biden in office.
Joe was perhaps thinking of Khashoggi-a beltway denizen he must have run into in one of
the cocktail parties or brothels on the circuit- when he murmured admiringly, to himself,
blissfully unaware of the presence of George Stephanopolous- one of the grande horizontales
of American culture- and the TV camera, "That guy, whatsisname, the one from whatsitcalled,
Russia, is a killer."
Putin fell into a trap. He should have not said a damn thing after Biden spouted off
about him being a killer. The western MSM on both sides of the Pond are now running with
the incorrect translation and narrative that Putin admitted to being a killer. The western
MSM is now also claiming that Putin's wishing Biden good health means he's threatening to
poison him.
Putin should have heeded Mark Twain's wise words:
"Don't wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."
The western media was captured many years ago and serves only its propaganda business
model.
America is number one instigator and developer of conflict across the entire planet and is
increasingly unworthy of anyones trust or respect.
The US media has degenerated into a slave to the propaganda business model that it has
chosen to adopt.
The US is the Number One instigator and manipulator of conflict across the planet and is
unworthy of anyones trust or respect. The American way defines all that is devious and
corrupt.
None of this is new. There was some disruption for a few years recently, but now that all
obstacles are permanently neutered the destruction of the future for personal gain can get
back into top gear once again.
@Boogity | Mar 20 2021 19:42 utc | 141, and others Barflies...
Putin don't wrestle with the pig.
1) as b., and thanks for his Job, all of us must go to the original and extensive
version. MSM and chats are narrative tools reducing and calibrating our souls.
2) with regards to China and Russia stay tune about context
3) be careful about "translation".
To Biden as an old man, Putin just wish him Good health.
"I would say "stay healthy." [... ] I am saying this without irony or tongue in
cheek."
But "secondly, taking a broader approach to this matter" "to the US establishment, the ruling class – not the American people who are
mostly honest, decent and sincere people who want to live in peace and friendship with
us", he said something like [you are not qualified to speak to Russia from a position
of strength]
their mindset [of US ruling class] was formed in rather challenging circumstances which
we are all aware of. After all, the colonisation of the American continent by the
Europeans went hand-in-hand with the extermination of the local people, the genocide, as
they say today, outright genocide of the Indian tribes followed by a very tough, long
and difficult period of slavery , a very cruel period. All of that has been part of
life in America throughout the history of the United States to this day. Otherwise,
where would the Black Lives Matter movement come from? To this day, African Americans
face injustice and even extermination.
The ruling class of the United States tends to address domestic and foreign policy
issues based on these assumptions. After all, the United States is the only country to
have used nuclear weapons , mind you, against a non-nuclear state – Japan, in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WW II. There was absolutely no military need for the
bombing. It was nothing but the extermination of civilians.
I am bringing this up, because I know that the United States and its leaders are
determined to maintain certain relations with us, but on matters that are of interest to
the United States and on its terms. Even though they believe we are just like them, we
are different. We have a different genetic, cultural and moral code. But we know how to
uphold our interets .
[...]
despite their attempts to stop our development, despite the sanctions and insults. They
will have to reckon with this.
We, with our national interests in mind, will promote our relations with all
countries"
And he said that on March 18th, 7th anniversary of Crimea reuniting to Russia.
Yang Jiechi stated China's position at his opening remarks, saying China hopes this
dialogue is sincere and honest.
Opening remarks were for 8mn (4x2mn),
But after Yang Jiechi spoke Blinken broke protocole agrement, recall journalists in order
to show is strength. They came to 90mn press conference.
Strength was on chinese side:
"we thought the US would follow the necessary diplomatic protocol In front of the Chinese
side, the US side is not qualified to speak to China from a position of
strength"
"the US must focus on its own human rights issues -- like the Black Lives Matter
movement -- and not meddle in the country's internal affairs "
Putin's elaboration of the history and founding culture of the USA was brilliantly well
done, I thought. As an academic lesson it could hardly be more concise, nor more
penetrating and accurate.
He was speaking to his home constituency of Russia, but he was well aware that the whole
world would listen. The so-called Global South listens to these words for the same reason
we do, to know what has now been said out loud and thus can now be referenced in future
discussions and in future geopolitical positions and stances.
In this sense, all of these words, and words like them, are strength to the backbone of
the world. It clarifies what Russia is now prepared to say out loud, and it suggests very
clearly where a lesser nation might stand, perhaps, and even solicit the support of Russia
- at the UN or in diplomacy at least, if not with S-400s.
And so as these words are sent out into the real world as things that can now be
"noticed", to use the judicial sense of the word, the growing world alliance coheres around
these words, and the world changes in its global attitude.
Those who believe that none of this matters - and this would obviously include the
ruling class of the US, described so perfectly by Putin - are in for a shock.
I can't easily demonstrate how greatly these words matter, other than to remind us how
things used to look half a dozen years ago, when the US was such an ogre, and how things
look now, when the US is more literally a dotard than ever before, and when the fear of
challenging the US is beginning to disappear from the world, overcome by disgust.
These are dangerous times - for the US. Being described accurately is a small step from
being in someone's cross-hairs.
Just as every racist incident is waived away by the right, Empire apologists/deniers
wave away any notion of Deep State operatives.
The Empire apologists/deniers want us to believe that there is no political
manipulation, no media manipulation, and no organization to achieve Empire-level
objectives. Some apologists/deniers will admit that money is very important in politics but
the extent of that influence is only traced to amorphous oligarchs and business interests
NEVER to Deep State Empire managers. Others blame "Zionism" despite its being more than a
symptom than a cause.
... the real Deep State, which consists of a consensus view on running the country
that is held by nearly all of the elements that together make up the American
Establishment, with its political power focused in Washington and its financial center in
New York City....
The danger posed by the Deep State, or, if you choose, the Establishment, is that
it wields immense power but is unelected and unaccountable. Even though it does not
actually meet in secret, it does operate through relationships that are not
transparent and as the media is part of it, there is little chance that its activity will
be exposed . One notes that while the Deep State is mentioned frequently in the
national media there has been little effort to identify its components and how it
operates.
Viewed in that fashion, the argument that there exists a cohesive group of power
brokers who really run the country and are even able to coopt those who are
ostensibly dedicated to keeping the country safe becomes much more plausible ...
(emphasis is mine)
IMO when you see people that have been in very powerful positions for a long period of
time, you can assume that they are "Deep State". Possible examples: Bush family, Hillary
Clinton, John McCain (until he died), Robert Mueller, etc. And, IMO when you see someone
that pretends to oppose "the powers that be" but have deep connections to them, then you
can expect that they are controlled opposition. Possible examples: Bernie, Max B.
Many great observations tonight, but all, beg the question; How do we change a nation
state that has so thoroughly morphed into an advertising and marketing phony, aided and
abetted by so many deluded morons?
This is interesting. Apparently both the Russians and the Chinese have concluded that
Biden intends to use "CornPop" faux-macho posturing as his foreign policy, and they have both
decided that "f**k that, let's nip this in the bud".
Because it looks like they have decided they have had a gut-full of US "exceptionalism"
and are quite determined to say so. To anyone, but especially to the Americans.
Going to be a lot of very confused people at Foggy Bottom. They may never have experienced
this degree of contempt before.
I about fell on the floor when I read Blinken's words, my first thought being "this klutz
has zero knowledge of history since 1588 and just admitted as much. In China, Blinken would
never achieve any position of power.
The decadence of the Outlaw US Empire's government is like so many prions turning brain
tissue into a swiss-cheese-like mass and then boasting about how finely tuned are its
cognitive abilities. And when Harris is installed, we'll have a genuine novice in charge--The
Blind leading the Blind.
It's no wonder the Chinese sought an audience with Lavrov ASAP.
The Americans have completely lost the culture of negotiation. If there are no elementary
human manners, then what kind of agreements can we talk about? A sad picture. And
dangerous. A madman with nuclear weapons (and chemical weapons, by the way) is not the best
option for a reliable negotiating partner.
Just a theory, but maybe all of our newsrags' belligerent headlines aimed at China are a
necessary diversion to conjure enough faux-enmity to make it appear that our government is at
least making the attempt at stopping China from eating our economic lunch.
I'm sorry, but once again the thought that a dem admin, which is primarily funded by those
who prosper from our "relationship" with China ( here is
an oldie from 1996 re: China covertly funding the Dem Party) would bite the hand that feeds
is a little farfetched.
Occam's Razor holds that some type of token effort (lame headlines from lame sources
hardly any American reads and military maneuvers in the S. China Sea) is still needed to keep
the plebs from realizing how hitched at the hip Chinese and American elites realky are.
Take it from an American, b: it is far more the case for urban libs to froth at the mouth
at the mention of Russia then a deplorable to advocate going to war with China. Deplorables
are nationalist: revitalizing our domestic manufacturing would more butter our bread while
dems are internationalists, chomping at the bit for a round with Russia. We are more
Russophobic then than Sinophobic.
"... Since the CIA controls much of the European media and their ruling class it would take quite a lot for Europeans to drop their status as vassal states ..."
I notice a lot of accusations that Washington is "stupid" but that's not true. You have to
understand how Washington works before you make such statements. The Deep State knows that it
can control the minds of most Americans by inventing "truths" without any need to prove
anything. Since Washington is now in conflict with a goodly part of the public it sees that
creating foreign policy crises and enemies as an excellent course of action to shore up
support. Americans are always ready to react against enemies no matter how slender the proof
of the wrongdoing ascribed to the enemy. There is never a penalty to pay for lying in the US
if you are in the mainstream media or in the political arena.
Since the CIA controls much of the European media and their ruling class it would take
quite a lot for Europeans to drop their status as vassal states . Remember, Washington
can throw endless amounts of money around and fund everything from terrorism, crime waves,
sexual indiscretions a la Epstein (the CIA had it's own whorehouse which my father pointed
out to me decades ago--it was in Roslyn Virginia and it used underage girls and boys to
improve its soft-power). So far, no one has paid a penalty for lying or corrupt practices in
Washington if they were "made" men or women (Trump never got that far).
As long as Europe, Japan and some other countries continue to be vassal states the US can
and will get away with anything. Nordstream 2 is the issue that may change all that. Once
Germany rebels the rest may follow.
Is not that what we see now was always the true cost of "electing" (via cheating) the
greatest crook of them all plus a dementia sufferer? Both POTUS and the vice are completely
useless but highly manipulable. This why they were pushed forward and why the presidency was
delivered into their lap. But the main problem with manipulable is the inconsistency of the
manipulation usually due to the disagreement amongst the manipulators due to their differing
interests. Simply, the model of a dummy in the spotlight and the multiple string pullers in
the shadow is not a stable model. It is a model on the opposite extreme of the good
leadership, which is stable as long as the leader lasts (cough, cough ... Putin).
Regarding all the doomsayers on US who Martyanov joined lately and unoriginally (concept
sold long ago and much better by another Russian - Dimitry Orlov), they are not completely
wrong but wrongish. Whenever I read of some crap in the US, I think - was this the way it was
in the Chinese Empire, the seemingly endless corruption, depravity and complete and constant
lying? But look at China now. If US does not manage to destroy the World during its decline,
it will come back better and stronger. But one or two generations will suffer and many
contemporaries will run away, as they are running away from the cities right now. As things
get even worse they will start running away from the country en masse.
17 March Russia withdraws it's US Ambassador for consultations:
"Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov has been summoned to Moscow
for consultations in order to analyse what needs to be done in the context of relations
with the United States.
The new US administration took office about two months ago and the symbolic 100-day
mark is not too far away, which is a good occasion for trying to appraise what Joe
Biden's team has managed to do and where it was not very successful.
The most important thing for us is to identify ways of rectifying Russia-US
relations, which have been going through hard times as Washington has, as a matter of
fact, brought them to a blind alley.
We are interested in preventing an irreversible deterioration in relations, if the
Americans become aware of the risks associated with this."
Pres. Putin invite Pres. Biden for a live on-line public discussion of issues:
"I want to invite President Biden to continue our discussion, but on the condition that
we do this actually live, as they say, online. Without any delay, but directly in an
open, direct discussion. It seems to me that it would be interesting for the people of
Russia, for the people of the United States, and for many other countries", Putin said
on air on the Rossiya 24 broadcaster.
The talk to be tomorrow (Friday). If not, then Monday, as he is spending free time in
the Taiga (oblique reference to North Korea going up the sacred mountain to re-majorly
rethink policy). This also places a live face to face in Prime media time, avoiding the
dead news weekend.
Biden is an intelligent man, but can't appear on an unedited live TV show with Putin -
not because of his age-related related memory recall difficulty - this is normal - but
because it risks exposing the cartoon-like tropes, lies, racism, & duplicity of the US
Govt. approach.
Especially when compared and contrasted with the serious and adult approach of the
Russian President. Nearly 100 days in, USA Govt. has been given the chance, and it is
clear USA Govt aggression and attempts to interfere in Russian domestic policy will
continue. Should Russia abandon soft diplomacy and strategic patience with USA?
Perhaps it is all theatre, coordinated by the Presidential envoys.
Perhaps a 'crisis' is created, Ukraine creates a threat to Europe, climate must be
cooperatively addressed, the Middle East could explode at any moment, a new peace treaty
in the Gulf required, blah blah, blah.
A live face to face airs the issues from both sides publicly, done respectfully,
sensibly, no political point scoring or spittle-mouthed fabrications from the US Govt
side.
The Press filter is sidestepped - a Trump tactic. It would be intended as a circuit
breaker, and the start of a new course for USA Govt. Russia is ready, has been for years,
and repeated it over and over.
If the USA Govt fails to step up it will hardly be the end of the world. But it will
show what a lot of short-sighted, self-interested, careerist, and functionally useless
time-servers most of the US political class are.
They will identify themselves as impediments to the health and welfare of the American
people.
The president named the fight against the pandemic, regional conflict resolution, and
strategic stability issues as possible topics, noting that he would be ready to talk to
Biden on Friday or Monday in an "open" chat.
"I would like to suggest to President Biden that we continue our discussion, but on the
condition that we actually do it live, without any delays, directly in an open, live
discussion," Putin told the Russia 24 TV channel on Thursday. "I think it would be
interesting for the people of Russia and the people of the United States and many other
countries," he added.
It would be so delicious to actually witness such a debate. By asking for it to be
streamed live, Putin is subtly calling out Biden's lie that he "told Putin he had no soul"
(whereas it's unlikely that Biden actually had a 1:1 meeting with Putin during the Obama
administration) as well as making Biden look weaker when Crash Test Dummy doesn't respond to
the invite.
Biden"s time is limited. Cannot be trusted near a microphone, no matter how well prepared
or how thoroughly edted. Has trouble walking, begins to have trouble standing up.
Kamala is still very much a problem. First, no one likes her. Not the public, not her
peers. The public is not prepared for her accession. Her competence is possibly even lower
than Biden's. She may be better able to read a TelePrompter, she still annoys everyone when
she speaks. May turn out to have some aptitude for riding herd on the advisors, we shall see.
She may be able to function as some sort of ringmaster but will contribute nothing, she knows
nothing.
It shall be government by advisors and functionaries and hidden hands. The advisors and
functionaries are all steeped in hegemony and exceptionalism. They have no idea of anything
else. Anyone who ever had a thought in their head was weeded out of academia and out of
public life a long time ago. That leaves the hidden hands. We will never know much about
that. It does appear they are perhaps ready to close down the American project and move
on.
If those within the US government were so stupid as to swallow Russiagate's bullshit thus
resulting in a "deep hatred of Russia," why would Russia want to deal with such obtuse idiots
incapable of logic or critical thinking?
IMO, the current goal of Russia/China/Iran is to completely ice-out the Outlaw US Empire
from having any practical impact on global affairs. The new initiative to Re-ratify the UN
Charter is a case in point for such a policy. The not agreement capable nation now has a
figure head that can't be allowed to talk without minders, a fact Putin would like the entire
world to observe. The world has no way to deny that it sees a nation talking like a Gangster
and acting like a Gangster as its recent behavior's been very explicit and public. IMO, such
behavior hasn't been observed since 1938, but there'll be no appeasement or betrayal of
another nation this time. China's already invited Lavrov to Beijing once its diplomats return
from Alaska. Yet the Empire lies to itself when it says it has more tools to deal with
Russia. The reality is it has no more cards to play--not even its nukes.
Absolutely no difference in foreign policy?
B, I think you're pandering to your audience.
I wonder what President Putin would think- or perhaps "feel" about teamBiden versus
Trump?.
How would you like to be called a "killer, without a soul"? Not withstanding all the
theatrical bellicosity of Pompeo, Putin at least understood that Trump admired him as a
person. I contend this is a big difference.
Do you think the Dems want any comparison with the Trump administration? They are after
contradistinction.
The Dems, the internationalists and the Blairites imagine themselves to be on a roll. Putin
is in their crosshairs.
This time the belligerence is the real thing.
International Music Festival volunteer coordinator and representative of Crimea Federal
University Polina Bolbochan: Mr President, I have a somewhat personal question for you.
Yesterday, President Biden got quite tough in his interview, including with regard to you.
What would you say to him?
Vladimir Putin: With regard to my US colleague's remark, we have, indeed, as he said,
met in person. What would I tell him? I would say "stay healthy." I wish him good health. I
am saying this without irony or tongue in cheek. This is my first point.
Secondly, taking a broader approach to this matter, I would like to say that difficult,
dramatic, and bloody events abound in the history of every nation and every state.
But when we evaluate other people, or even other states and nations, we are always
facing a mirror, we always see ourselves in the reflection, because we project our inner
selves onto the other person.
You know, I remember when we were children and played in the yard, we had arguments
occasionally and we used to say: whatever you call me is what you are called yourself. This
is no coincidence or just a kids' saying or joke. It has a very deep psychological
undercurrent.
We always see ourselves in another person and think that he or she is just like us, and
evaluate the other person's actions based on our own outlook on life.
With regard to the US establishment, the ruling class – not the American people
who are mostly honest, decent and sincere people who want to live in peace and friendship
with us, something we are aware of and appreciate, and we will rely on them in the
future – their mindset was formed in rather challenging circumstances which we are
all aware of.
After all, the colonisation of the American continent by the Europeans went hand-in-hand
with the extermination of the local people, the genocide, as they say today, outright
genocide of the Indian tribes followed by a very tough, long and difficult period of
slavery, a very cruel period.
All of that has been part of life in America throughout the history of the United States
to this day. Otherwise, where would the Black Lives Matter movement come from? To this day,
African Americans face injustice and even extermination.
The ruling class of the United States tends to address domestic and foreign policy
issues based on these assumptions. After all, the United States is the only country to
have used nuclear weapons, mind you, against a non-nuclear state – Japan, in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WW II. There was absolutely no military need for the
bombing. It was nothing but the extermination of civilians.
I am bringing this up, because I know that the United States and its leaders are
determined to maintain certain relations with us, but on matters that are of interest to
the United States and on its terms.
Even though they believe we are just like them, we are different. We have a different
genetic, cultural and moral code .
But we know how to uphold our interests. We will work with the United States, but in
the areas that we are interested in and on terms that we believe are beneficial to
us.
They will have to reckon with it despite their attempts to stop our development,
despite the sanctions and insults.
They will have to reckon with this.
My bolds, to bring out the essence.
Essentially, he is saying 'We reject your posturing and rudeness, do what you want. We are
ready, and will go our own way. You are not worthy of our cooperation. It' over'.
So, the ball, once again, is in the USA Govt court.
Your editorial "The
Semiconductor Shortage" (March 13) is right that government action is not needed to correct
the short-term supply-demand imbalance causing the global chip shortage, but wrong that the
U.S. can "prod" its way to stronger domestic semiconductor production and more secure chip
supply chains in the long term. Global competitors haven't passed the U.S. as a location for
chip manufacturing by prodding. They've done it by funding ambitious government incentives to
lure semiconductor production to their shores.
As a result, only 12% of global manufacturing is now done in the U.S., down from 37% in
1990.
The problem with coronavirus vaccine is similar to the problem with flu vaccine: the virus
mutates and it is unclear how effective the vaccination will be against the next dominant
strain.
Did you know that "49 percent of GOP men say they won't get vaccinated"? It's true.
According to a recent article in The Hill:
"Nearly half of U.S. men who identify as Republicans said they have no plans to get the
coronavirus vaccine, according to a new PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll released Thursday.
The study, which surveyed 1,227 U.S. adults from March 3 to March 8, found that approximately
30 percent of Americans overall said they do not plan on getting vaccinated.
The poll found a higher amount of opposition among Republicans, with 41 percent saying
they would not get one of the three federally approved coronavirus vaccines and 49 percent of
Republican men saying the same. Fifty percent of GOP men said they would get the vaccine or
had already got it. One percent was unsure.
I believe that people who refuse to take the vaccine will be ridiculed, humiliated,
scapegoated, deprived and isolated. Judging from the COVID 19 situation we are already living
in fascist society where people are treated as the state property.
Once you you look at the vaccination statistics, it is clear that the psychopaths are
winning. There is no escape from them. Sooner or later they will come for people like me. I
am trying to prepare myself for a painful and slow death from starvation/disease/maltreatment
in a detention/concentration/reeducation camp.
My hat is off to Mr. Whitney for an excellent article. And thank God for a real human
being and American patriot as Gov. Kristi Noem. I thought there was no such thing in
politics. This woman should be our president not the fake and false "woman of color" standing
in the wings salivating. The media can't tell if she's African or from India. Does it matter
that she was the least favored candidate in the primaries? Not to to demoncrats. All they do
is pander to color and gender confusion. This should be an insult to any real person of color
like me and it most definitely is. When are people going to realize that they are being
exploited and manipulated? We are all citizens and those sincerely aspiring to be citizens.
Not pawns in a politica chess game that no one wins but the politicians...
Apparently Chuck Todd is a
climatologist and virologist . He doesn't ASK Fauci if climate change will cause more
pandemics - or how even soon that might happen - he simply states as fact that
it will happen. For his part, Fauci largely avoids the issue, responding as generically as
possible. LOL!
In this indirect way, Americans have now been put on notice: expect more pandemics and
continuing restrictions in the not-too-distant future.
Who says our media aren't informative?!?!/sarc
Expert Chuck Todd fails to note that the world was long overdue a pandemic. Chuckie also
fails to note that highly-paid health authorities - that planned for years for the next
pandemic - failed miserably in protecting us. What health authority questioned Trump's early
lies that SARS-COV-2 was no worse than the flu?
Of course Biden is senile, but from the speech it is clear that his clique is also far from
being the sharpest knifes in the drawer.
The problem with coronavirus vaccine is similar to the problem with flu vaccine: the virus
mutates and it is unclear how effective the vaccination will be against the next dominant
strain.
Also it is unclear whether for people, say, over 70 the danger of vaccine outweighs the
danger of the virus (especially if they live alone with no children in the household -- children
usually bring new infection into the family). Half of Covid-19 deaths are over age 80 (median age
of victims is 82). If you are over age 80 and live in a big city or in a family with children ,
you have elevated, probably a 1 in 6 chance of dying from Covid-19
And again big difference is whether you live in the large city like NYC or somewhere in the
suburbs, say 70 miles from the nearest large city. People in the city are in much higher danger
to get the infection.
"Trust the government", says Biden, and yet, in survey after survey, we see that trust in
government is lower now than any time in our 245-year history. And, for good reason: the public
health officials, the media, and their Democrat allies in the statehouses have consistently and
deliberately misled the public on nearly every aspect of the pandemic...
Take a look:
"When I came into office you may recall I set a goal that many of you said was kind of way
over the top. I said I intended to get 100 million shots in people's arms in my first 100
days in office . Tonight, I can say we're not only going to meet that goal, we're going
to beat that goal. Because we're actually on track to reach this goal of 100 million shots in
arms on my 60th day in office. No other country in the world has done this, none. And I want
to talk about the next steps we're thinking about.
"Tonight, I'm announcing that I will direct all states, tribes, and territories to make
all adults, people 18 and over, eligible to be vaccinated no later than May 1. Let me say
that again. All adult Americans will be eligible to get a vaccine no later than May 1. That's
much earlier than expected.
"And let me be clear. That doesn't mean everyone's going to have that shot immediately,
but it means you'll be able to get in line beginning May 1. Every adult will be eligible to
get their shot. And to do this, we're going to go from a million shots a day that I
promised in December before I was sworn in, to maintaining, beating our current pace of 2
million shots a day, outpacing the rest of the world "
What does that mean?
It means the virus is on its last legs . It means there is enough immunity in the
community that the rate of infection is falling like a stone . Viruses don't suddenly
decide to pack their bags and leave town. No. They run out of susceptible hosts to infect. And
the reason they run out of susceptible hosts to infect, is because more people have already had
the infection and either survived or died. Either way, the pool of susceptible hosts has shrunk
dramatically. This is a long way of saying that ' At present, there is no reason to get
vaccinated.' There is no reason to inject an experimental and potentially-lethal substance
into your bloodstream to counter an infection that is nearly kaput. Capisce?
Biden knows this, his speech writers know this, and the deep-pocket oligarchs who shoehorned
his sorry a** into the White House by dumping truckloads of mail-in ballots at voting stations
around the country in the wee-hours of the morning; they know it, too.
...
Of course, he knows it. He knows the whole thing is a fraud, but that won't stop him from
doing what he's been doing for the last 50 years; carrying water for corporate honchos and
billionaire busybodies who see vaccination as an essential steppingstone to their glorious new
order. Biden is merely the face-man for this sinister project; a pallid, inconsequential
cog that helps to move the machinery of tyranny forward. That's Biden in a nutshell. Here's
more from the speech:
"I need you, the American people. I need you. I need every American to do their part. I
need you to get vaccinated when it's your turn and when you can find an opportunity.
And to help your family, your friends, your neighbors get vaccinated as well. Because
here's the point.
"If we do all this, if we do our part, if we do this together, by July the 4, there's a
good chance you, your families and friends, will be able to get together in your backyard or
in your neighborhood and have a cookout or a barbecue and celebrate Independence Day."
Get it? In other words, either you get vaccinated or no 4th of July for you!
... Do these people have any idea how despicable they are? The government's job is to
provide accurate, well-researched, empirical information on matters of public interest, like
vaccines. The government has no right to employ private contractors to persuade,
indoctrinate or brainwash the American people in order to promote the cynical and
self-serving agenda of power-mad elites and money-grubbing corporations. That is a massive
"overreach".
Last spring, the New York Governor Andrew Cuomo ordered nursing homes to admit patients who
had recently been treated for Covid-19.
This led to a spike in Covid deaths inside nursing homes, which are filled with elderly
people in the highest risk category for serious Covid-19 cases.
When the State Health Department issued a report on the nursing home deaths, one of Cuomo's
aides rewrote it to remove the total count of 9,250 deaths related to the policy.
The reasoning was that the death count outpaced New Jersey's -- with the second highest
nursing home death rate in the county -- by almost 3,000.
The aide who rewrote the report with the intention to mislead the public worked as a
Professor of Government Ethics at NYU's law school, before joining the Cuomo administration in
"ethics and law enforcement matters."
"The aide who rewrote the report with the intention to mislead the public worked as a
Professor of Government Ethics at NYU's law school, before joining the Cuomo administration
in "ethics and law enforcement matters."
I worked in medical ethics for a decade, so I'm not surprised. Especially since he did
that work at a LAW SCHOOL . If we didn't already know it, the focus at law schools is on
teaching students that it is their professional duty to argue for any point of view they are
paid for. And it is the professional task of "ethics experts" to make the argument that the
course of action preferred by their bosses or their institutions is the most "ethical" among
alternatives. Never mind that it's generally the most profitable as well. Pointing out the
actual moral destitution of the chosen acts is NOT conducive to a long career. Trust me on
that one.
The short-cut through the verbiage is generally, if someone refers to "morality", they're
actually talking about what's Right or Wrong. When they mention "ethics", however, they're
discussing what you can get away with.
Cityzerosix 1 day ago
Ethics; underlying morality.
Ethical- relating to beliefs that are morally right or wrong
4
weeks ago I was just watching an NBA game and thought it would be so much more enjoyable if
there was more diversity on the court. Maybe they could lower the baskets so more whites and
Asians could play in the league.
Deep State Operator: "I'll have the staff start drawing up plans for that."
Trump: "I want them out NOW!"
Deep State Operator: "Ah... that's complicated. We can't just leave right away and
leave all of our stuff there."
Trump: "OK, then make those plans! Tell me why these plans were not prepared yet? You
knew that I wanted the troops home. That was one of my campaign promises."
Deep State Operator: "But you never asked us!"
[six months pass]
Trump: "So, how about those plans?"
Deep State Operator: "What plans?"
Trump: "The ones about withdrawing from Syria that I ordered you to have
ready."
Deep State Operator: "Oh, those plans. We have our best people working on them. I'll
find out their status and get back to you."
[three months later]
Trump: "The plans!"
Deep State Operator: "What plans?"
Trump: "Do you have brain damage or something? The ones about withdrawing from Syria!
You said you would look into their status and get back to me!"
Deep State Operator: "We're doing the best that we can! There have been some
complications, but we'll have them straightened out soon!"
[three more months pass]
Trump: "The plans."
Deep State Operator: "What plans?"
Trump: "To get out of Syria."
Deep State Operator: "Oh, those plans! You never filled out the necessary paperwork. We
cannot proceed without the orders in writing. You have to be specific about what you mean by
wanting the troops out. Which parts of Syria do you want them out of and which troops do you
want the operation to apply to? Like I said before, this is really complicated."
[incredulous look from Trump]
[six months later]
Trump: "The plans."
Deep State Operator: "What plans?"
Trump: "To get out of Syria."
Deep State Operator: "Oh, those plans! You wouldn't believe this but a dog ate the
orders that you gave us. We couldn't tell which troops to get out of where, so the plans have
been developing rather slowly."
Trump: "You are right. I don't believe you. You're fired!"
Deep State Operator: "You can't fire me! I am a civil servant!"
Trump: "I can't? OK then, you're promoted to cleaning toilets at McMurdo Station.
Bye."
[six months later]
Trump: "Those plan? Or do you want to join your predecessor at McMurdo
Station?"
New Deep State Operator: "You ask too much! It takes time to learn the intricacies of
this interdepartmental work! I've just started!"
[six months later]
Trump: "Plans!"
Deep State Operator: "Can I go to McMurdo Station?"
[and so on]
[after deep state/business elites frauded election]
Deep State Operator: "Welcome Mr President, and can I say how please I am at your
victory?"
Biden: "You can say whatever the hell you want, whoever the hell you are."
Deep State Operator: "I am your Deep State interdepartmental
facilitator and liaison."
Biden: "Ah, good. They want me to ask you to get the troops back in Syria."
Deep State Operator: "Right away sir. The plans are already prepared and troops will
begin moving before the end of the hour."
Everyone knows the Deep State works this way. Infinite resistance against what the Deep
State doesn't want and immediate action on what the Deep State desires.
Vladimir Putin, you may have noticed, is everywhere. He has soldiers in Ukraine and Syria,
troublemakers in the Baltics and Finland, and a hand in elections from the Czech Republic to
France to the United States. And he is in the media. Not a day goes by without a big new
article on "
Putin's Revenge ", " The Secret Source of
Putin's Evil ", or "10 Reasons Why Vladimir Putin Is a Terrible Human Being".
Putin's recent ubiquity has brought great prominence to the practice of Putinology. This
enterprise – the production of commentary and analysis about Putin and his motivations,
based on necessarily partial, incomplete and sometimes entirely false information – has
existed as a distinct intellectual industry for over a decade.
...At no time in history have more people with less knowledge, and greater outrage, opined
on the subject of Russia's president. You might say that the reports of Trump's golden showers
in a Moscow hotel room have consecrated a golden age – for Putinology.
...
Compared to the 40-year cycle of US deindustrialisation, during which only the rich gained
in wealth; the 25-year rightwing war on the Clintons; the eight-year-old Tea Party assault on
facts, immigration and taxes; a tepid, centrist campaign; and a supposed late-breaking
revelation from the director of the FBI about the dubious investigation of Clinton's use of a
private email server – well, compared to all those factors, the leaked DNC emails must
rank low on the list of reasons for Trump's victory. And yet, according to a recent report,
Hillary Clinton and her campaign still blame the Russians – and, by extension, Barack
Obama, who did not make a big issue of the hacks before November – for her electoral
debacle. In this instance, thinking about Putin helps not to think about everything else that
went wrong, and what needs to be done to fix it.
This evasion is the essence of Putinology, which seeks solace in the undeniable but faraway
badness of Putin at the expense of confronting the far more uncomfortable badness in front of
one's face. Putinology predates the 2016 election by a decade, and yet what we have seen in
connection to Trump these past few months has been its Platonic ideal.
Recent research using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) techniques is allowing us to peer into the connections, yet
shrouded in mystery, between local brain activity, cognitive processes, and partisan attachment. This developing body of
knowledge has revealed the profound importance of evolution in shaping the ways in which our brains process all kinds of
information, in particular political information. At the center of this evolutionary journey is the importance of groups -- of being
initiated and accepted into them, of aligning ourselves with them, of being loyal to them regardless of philosophical
considerations.
The social dynamics of group membership and participation are programmed
more deeply into our brains than is abstract philosophizing.
"In other words, people will go along with the group, even
if the ideas oppose their own ideologies --
belonging
may have more value than facts.
" Because we once moved from place to place as nomads, such groups are our homes even more
than any physical locations are.
We now have decades of research suggesting -- if not proving -- "
the
ubiquity of emotion‐biased motivated reasoning
," reasoning that is qualitatively different from the kind operating when
subjects are engaged in "cold reasoning," where the subjects lack a "strong emotional stake" in the subjects at issue. Coupled
with a growing literature on the startling character and extent of
political
ignorance
, the current state has dire implications for human freedom. The stakes are high: in
their
2018 study
of why and how partisanship impairs the brain's ability to process information objectively, NYU researchers Jay J.
Van Bavel and Andrea Pereira note that
"partisanship can alter memory, implicit
evaluation, and even perceptual judgments."
One recent study, published last fall by a team from Berkeley, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins, set out to better understand how
partisan biases develop in the brain. The researchers had subjects watch a series of videos, using fMRI to explore the "neural
mechanisms that underlie the biased processing of real‐world political content." The results showed that partisan team members
process identical information in highly biased and motivated ways. The
researchers
locate this neural polarization
in the part of the brain known as the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, a region associated with
understanding and formulating narratives. The study also found, perhaps unsurprisingly, that to the extent a given participant's
brain activity during the videos
aligned with that of the "average liberal" or "average
conservative," the participant was more likely to take up that group's position
.
The study accords with years of
previous
research
showing that partisans' opinions on important social, political, and economic issues are
affected
by subconscious brain processes -- processes of which they're neither aware nor in control
. This ought to be deeply
concerning to everyone who belongs to a political team: processes are taking place in your brain, underneath or beyond the level
of direct awareness, that are informing your conclusions about important social and political issues. To reflect on this for even
a moment should fill anyone who aspires to critical thinking or rationality with a kind of dread, for
loyalty
to the team seems to be overriding the higher faculties of the mind
.
But, the authors are careful to note, it's important not to interpret these results as pointing to some kind of determinism,
whereby we can't choose how to think or what we believe. As one of of the
study's
authors,
Stanford psychologist Jamil Zaki, says, "Critically, these differences do not imply that people are hardwired to disagree."
Rather,
these neural pathways seem to be carved largely by the kinds and sources of the
media we consume
. From the data yielded by such research, among many other similar studies,
a picture
begins to emerge of partisanship as a kind of mind poisoning
, an infection that leads to serious and, importantly,
measurable
cognitive impairment
. Evidence suggests that, under the influence of
partisanship, we can't even understand our own thoughts and opinions.
In another important, recent experiment, researchers wanted to understand the relative accuracy of participants' introspective
constructs. The researchers set out to gauge people's ability to understand their own choices, to see clearly "the elements of
internal argumentation that lead to [their] choices." In particular, the researchers wanted to know how subjects would deal with
choices that had been manipulated -- that is, whether subjects would "notice mismatches between their intended choice and the
outcome they are presented with." Would subjects recognize that something was off? If they failed to notice the manipulation,
would they offer justifications for choices they had not even made? The assumption is that subjects who fail to notice the
mismatches must not really understand the reasons for their choices or "the internal processes leading to a moral or political
judgment."
The results revealed
a conspicuous "introspective blindness to the internal processes
leading to a moral or political judgment."
People didn't seem to understand why they had made the decisions they'd made
(or had not made), though some exhibited what the researchers call "
unconscious
detection of self‐deception
" -- these subjects were unable to detect the manipulations of their answers, but they did register
lower confidence in the manipulated choices, which the authors suggest points to "the existence of a neural mechanism
unconsciously monitoring our own thoughts."
Once one has chosen and joined a team, she has very little control over her own thoughts. When they are introduced, new data are
distorted, misinterpreted, or discarded based on their consistency with what we may describe as a program running in the
background:
partisanship leads the team member into a cognitive position of unconscious
self‐deception
. Few of us, if fully understanding this phenomenon, would choose it for themselves -- at least that's the
hope of many who study this area. As the authors observe,
"reflecting on our beliefs may
help to develop free societies."
They suggest that if citizens better understood the brain mechanics of the cognitive
impairment and self‐deception brought on by partisanship, they'd be positioned to make better decisions. Research has shown that
"
reflecting
on how we make decisions leads to better decisions
."
Similar research on self‐deception
in politics has also confirmed the presence of the
Dunning‐Kruger
effect
(to summarize, people think they know a lot more than they actually do). Further, the effect is exaggerated within the
context of politics, with
low‐knowledge participants describing themselves as
even
more
knowledgeable than usual once partisanship is made a conspicuous factor
.
Vitor
Geraldi Haase and Isabella Starling‐Alves posit
that the kind of self‐deception that is such "a major characteristic of
political partisanship probably evolved as an evolutionary adaptive strategy to deal with the intragroup‐extragroup dynamics of
human evolution." Objective truth, meaning roughly an accurate model of reality, is not important, at least not anywhere near as
important, as conformity and indeed submission, which we may associate with
social
reality
.
Whatever its flaws
, evolutionary psychology offers us several promising leads on the question of just why the brain isn't
able to perform on partisanship. This notion of social reality is an important clue. At this juncture, it is important to
underline the fact that when we speak of partisanship, we are not speaking of ideology; the relationship between partisan
identification and political ideology is complicated, the connection between the two not particularly strong. Ideologues tend to
think systematically, and the philosophical
contents
of their beliefs are deeply
important to them. What is important to the partisan is not
what
she believes, but that
she aligns her beliefs with those of her team or in-group -- or else, as may be the case, that she is loyal to and supportive of the
party group despite any real or perceived ideological nonconcurrences.
Americans tend to vastly
overestimate
the differences
in political ideology and policy preferences between Democrats and Republicans. In fact,
most
Americans are not at all ideological
, can't describe ideologies accurately (
as
their proponents would describe them
), and have almost no information on either the history of ideas or the empirical
evidence that bears on particular political or policy questions. Interestingly, partisanship doesn't necessarily seem to be about
politics in the normative or philosophical sense, as "people place party loyalty
over
policy, and even over truth
." There are actually
relatively
weak correlations
between partisan identity and concrete policy preferences. "[P]artisan affect is inconsistently (and
perhaps artifactually) founded in policy attitudes."
Indeed, strong partisanship is necessarily an impediment to ideological thinking insofar as ideology is predicated on an
integrated and consistent approach to policy questions, as against the blind, team‐rooting approach associated in the literature
with partisanship.
Ideological people, whatever their flaws, hold political actors and
government bodies to account.
Partisans change positions readily and shamelessly, depending on anything from who is
living in the White House, to the vagaries of party leaders, to what is perceived as popular at the moment. Further, individual
Americans' political opinions are remarkably unstable over time, vacillating between glaring contradictions, relying on
a confused amalgam of elite opinions. Partisanship as we know it rather seems to be
a holdover
from humankind's history of tribal loyalty
, with "
selective
pressures hav[ing] sculpted human minds to be tribal
." That is, evolution selected for just the kinds of cognitive biases we
find in partisans on both sides today (importantly, neither "team" is immune).
Partisanship quite literally makes one dumb -- or is it that dumb people are just more likely
to be committed partisans?
Zmigrod is careful to point out that the study can't give us the answer to that question,
that we would need longitudinal studies in order to better understand the causal direction and causal phenomena at play. As soon
as partisanship is introduced, as soon as a question mentions a politician or political party,
subjects
are unable to accurately assess basic facts
. Indeed, remarkably, tinging a question with a political shade renders many
subjects
unable to answer a simple question
even when they are given the answer
. Relatedly,
studies have shown that one's political affiliations
even
affect her ability to perform basic math
: given an operation that yields a statistic contradicting a subject's partisan view,
the subject will tend to question the result rather than updating based on the evidence or attempting to reconcile the new
information with her politics.
In a groundbreaking
study
published last summer
, a team of researchers led by the University of Exeter's Darren Schreiber attempted to address the lack
of brain imaging research specifically aimed at better understanding
nonpartisans
,
a group that has been neglected as almost all such research has focused on the differences between the brains of partisans of the
left and right. The study found that nonpartisans' brains are different from those of their brainwashed brethren, particularly in
"
regions
that are typically involved in social cognition.
"
It may be that the next stage in human evolution will involve rewiring our brains to accept the fact that current groups are
artificially and arbitrarily defined -- that all human beings are one people. For just as there is harmful, toxic tribalism, there
is also socially beneficial, cooperative, cosmopolitanism. As social policy expert
Elizabeth
A. Segal writes
, "Ultimately our goal should be to build the tribe we all belong to: that of humanity." Libertarians take
this lesson quite seriously, for we tend to see ourselves as part of a common global community of connected individuals who are
perfectly capable of dealing with one another through peaceful and mutually‐beneficial interactions. We celebrate social,
cultural, religious, and linguistic differences as the spice of life rather than see them as dividing lines or impediments to
willing collaboration. If we can understand and think clearly through partisanship, we can begin to build a freer world based not
on arbitrary divisions and compromised reasoning, but on mutual respect and renewed emphasis on rigorous critical thinking.
Disposable people are indispensable. Who else would fight the wars? Who would preach? Who
would short derivatives? Who would go to court and argue both sides? Who would legislate? Who
would sell red hots at the old ball game?
For too long disposable people have been misrepresented as destitute, homeless, unemployed,
or at best precariously employed. True, the destitute, the homeless, the unemployed and the
precarious are indeed treated as disposable but most disposable people pursue respectable
professions, wear fashionable clothes, reside in nice houses, and keep up with the Jones.
Disposable people are defined by what they do not produce. They do not grow food. They do
not build shelters. They do not make clothes. They also do not make the tractors used to grow
food, the tools to build shelters or the equipment to make clothes.
Although disposable people do not produce necessities what they do is not unnecessary. It is
simply that the services they provide are not spontaneously demanded as soon as one acquires a
bit of additional income. One is unlikely, however, to engage the services or purchase the
goods produced by disposable people unless one is in possession of disposable income.
Disposable income is the basis of disposable people. Conversely, disposable people are the
foundation of disposable income.
The PropOrNot stuff has been floating around think tanks over the years. A report on
Russian social media influence by RAND Corp in 2018 briefly mentions Naked Capitalism. The
reason why this humble blog is on that blacklist is because it's in Zero Hedge's referral
network according to RAND.
Just downloaded the report. Steeling myself for more prose like "-Better tell the US,
NATO, and EU story." Arrrrrrgh. With bonus pseudo-sophistication points for unnecessarily
using full names AND abbreviations for the latter two organizations in the original. But no
full name for the US. Do these think-tank folks get paid by the word?
The summary is quite a stew of management-speak and Owellian prose.
Why is "block" in quotes in the bit on blocking RT? Is it a euphemism for discrediting
them? Perhaps the full report will illuminate me.
I was joking about Biden being reanimated, but judging from campaign videos etc. he has
troubles with longer answers to questions, looses track and temper and prattles, and he react
badly to some trigger words. That said, like Trump, he cannot be an attentive boss, so
whoever made that leak, clearance from the top was not necessary...
This is a rare article that clearly despibes the level of corruption of ordinary people in
the USA. Which explain the level of support of foreign wars.
Notable quotes:
"... CaitlinJohnstone.com ..."
"... NBC's Meet The Press ..."
"... Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone ..."
"... Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers ..."
"... This article was re-published with permission. ..."
"... The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News. ..."
The idea that China or Russia pose a threat to you is so self-evidently ridiculous, so
transparently absurd, that the only way to make you believe it would be to propagandize you,
writes Caitlin Johnstone.
Detail of World War II propaganda poster. (Carl Paulson/US Treasury Dept.)
A new Gallup
poll finds that Americans' opinion of Russia and China have plummeted to historic lows this
year, with 79 percent of the population now reporting an unfavorable view of China and 77
percent reporting an unfavorable view of Russia.
The hate predictably falls along partisan lines, with Republicans showing more disfavor
toward China and Democrats reserving more of theirs for Russia, but there is plenty of overlap.
China is only seen positively by 10 percent of Republicans compared to 27 percent of Democrats,
while only sixteen percent of Dem voters view Russia in a positive light compared to 25 percent
of Republicans. Unfavorable opinions of both nations dominate across the board no matter how
you slice it.
"Last year, American military
planners advised that the U.S. should step up its campaign of psychological warfare
against Beijing, including sponsoring authors and artists to create anti-China propaganda.
The Pentagon's budget
request for 2021 makes clear that the United States is retooling for a potential
intercontinental war with China or Russia. It asks for $705 billion to 'shift focus from the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a greater emphasis on the types of weapons that could be
used to confront nuclear giants like Russia and China,' noting that it requires 'more
advanced high-end weapon systems, which provide increased standoff, enhanced lethality and
autonomous targeting for employment against near-peer threats in a more contested
environment.'
Russia, meanwhile, has been the focus of Democratic Party ire since their defeat in the
2016 election. Prominent Democrats have accused Vladimir Putin of being behind the rise of
Bernie
Sanders ,
paying Afghans to kill American soldiers, and of
helping spark the January 6 insurrection on the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.
RussiaGate -- the belief that Moscow managed to hack the 2016 election, swinging the result
for Trump -- has hardened liberal attitudes towards the country and drastically increased
suspicion and fear of Russians. This was crystallized by former Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper's comments on NBC's Meet The Press , where he claimed
that Russians are 'typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor.' As
with China, the U.S. government has attempted to score diplomatic points, taking up the case
of imprisoned politician Alexey Navalny."
And, I mean, of course. Of course this is the case. There is no rational reason for anyone
to hold particularly negative views of either of those countries based on actual facts in
evidence, and there is certainly no rational reason to perceive them as a threat. The idea that
China or Russia pose a threat to you is so self-evidently ridiculous, so transparently absurd,
that the only way to make you believe it would be to propagandize you. And if you do believe
it, that's exactly what has happened.
You can expand this principle to include the entirety of U.S. foreign policy on the global
stage today. No ordinary American benefits from the U.S. having troops in Syria, sanctioning
Venezuelans to death, supporting Saudi Arabia while it rapes Yemen, circling the planet with
military bases and working to destroy any nation which refuses to bow to its dictates. The only
way to get Americans to consent to any of these agendas is to propagandize them into doing
so.
Indeed, you can also expand this principle to include our entire
financial/economic/political system as a whole. Ordinary people would not accept as normal a
system in which they have to toil long hours just to feed themselves while parasitic middlemen
hoard all the profits and use their immense wealth to shape the political paradigm. The only
way to get them to accept this exploitative, oppressive and intrinsically unjust system as
normal would be to propagandize them.
And that's precisely what is happening. That's the only reason our world is ordered in the
way that it is.
Propaganda is the single most overlooked and under-emphasized aspect of our society, bar
none. It's so pervasive that most of us don't even notice it, like that old joke about the two
fish who are asked "How's the water?" and then turn to each other and say "What's water?"
Vast fortunes are poured into buying up media outlets, paying media bribes in the form of
advertising, funding think tanks, manipulating online algorithms, buying the loyalty of
influential politicians, and other forms of narrative control. Immense resources are dumped
year after year after year into manipulating the way the majority of people think, act, and
vote, and yet hardly anyone ever talks about this extremely important fact.
Seriously, think about that for a second. How often do you hear your average citizens
discussing the fact that billionaires own the mass media which is
consistently used to manufacture
consent for the agendas of the plutocratic class, compared to how often you'll hear them
talking about, say, the next presidential election? Even among the well-read and relatively
aware people you know, how often do you hear them discussing the fact that public perception is
being continually manipulated against the interests of the public? Probably not too frequently
compared to other issues.
Even among leftists (by which I mean anti-imperialist socialists) this is a severely
under-discussed issue, when it should be the most discussed, because leftist agendas
will necessarily be incapable of advancing as long as the majority of the working class are
being manipulated at mass scale into consenting to the agendas of plutocrats and warmongers.
All socialists and anti-imperialists worth their salt are at least somewhat aware of the fact
that the mass media are propaganda operations, but directly discussing this absolutely
foundational problem occupies only a very small slice of overall leftist discourse. This will
necessarily have to change if there is to be any meaningful leftward movement in our
society.
"The idea that China or Russia pose a threat to you is so self-evidently ridiculous, so
transparently absurd, that the only way to make you believe it would be to propagandize you.
And if you do believe it, that's exactly what has happened."
Until fighting the empire's
propaganda engine becomes the agenda the left focuses the bulk of its energy on, none of
its other agendas will ever come to pass. People will never rise up and revolt as long as they
are being successfully propagandized not to. They won't even vote for anyone with sufficient
numbers if their words diverge too sharply from the consensus worldview they've been
manipulated into espousing as true. It doesn't seem to matter how badly the people's material
conditions deteriorate, because they can always be manipulated into blaming someone else and
consenting to the status quo anyway.
How do we do this? We just do it. We begin focusing our efforts, for the first time ever, on
drawing public attention to the fact that the mass media have been deceiving them. For the
first time ever, we begin in sufficient numbers to prioritize above all else the disruption of
public trust in the plutocratic media and the imperial narrative management scams which keep
everyone from clearly seeing what's wrong with the world. We seize control of the
narrative.
This has never been tried before. Whenever I bring up prioritizing a grassroots media
rebellion I'll get a few leftists telling me "We're already doing that!" No you're not. You've
never come anywhere close. At no time in the information age has killing trust in imperial
propaganda been the foremost priority of western leftists. At no time has it ever been our
collective priority to use our newfound ability to network and share information to weaken
public trust in the mass media and tell the public the truth about economic injustice and the
kleptocratic depravity that is western imperialism. Our energy has been spread all over a
variety of issues which have nothing to do with this far more crucial one.
Information has never been more democratized, and trust in the mass media has never been
more low. The opportunity to expand
awareness of what's really happening in our world has never been riper; all we need to do
is seize on this opportunity and wake the working class out of its propaganda-induced coma
before the window on that possibility closes on us forever.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
P. Michael Garber , March 7, 2021 at 21:53
Great article. However, convincing people they've been propagandized is, in my experience,
flat out impossible when that propaganda A: Tells them they are exceptional, B: Makes excuses
for their leaders' warmongering foreign policy, and C: Is being fed to them by the New York
Times, CNN, and the Washington Post. There doesn't seem to be any way of impugning the
reputation of these "elite" media sources, at least among Democrats. Pointing out how often
they've been wrong and how often they've been caught lying to advance their hostile agenda
has no effect. Their trusted sources are there telling them how good and true and righteous
they are and excusing all this warmaking. In my experience people prefer being lied to over
facing the ugly truth about their country.
evelync , March 7, 2021 at 19:11
After the 2016 election – discouraged that my candidate, Bernie Sanders, would have
won if he had not been couped by the DNC – I began to ask strangers in airports or at
hotels about the election. Many had voted for Trump but they were all sick at heart over the
horrific costly wars and the unfair policies of the GOP and DNC. They also didn't trust
Clinton or the establishment Dems. They did like Bernie.
Trump cleverly had adopted some of Bernie's mantras –
The D.C. DNC ignored it all and used the MICIMATT to spread the "Russia did it" bullshit to
distract people.
Too many Dems who were comfortable jumped on board with blinders on.
Moi , March 7, 2021 at 04:52
Propaganda can also have significant societal effects within that nation's borders.
It was reported this last week that over 100,000 Australian Chinese had been physically
threatened or attacked within the last year . That is a flat out disgusting – a
national disgrace probably on a par with domestic violence. The MsM amplifying government
messages are to blame and it adds insult to injury when Google and Facebook pay the producers
of this vile garbage for their output.
Citizen journalists don't stand a chance when the social media giants team up with MsM
giants or just add a further layer of censorship of their own. For example I read this last
week that Twitter blocked Russian users for criticising Nato.
The only defence is to read far and wide from as many sources as possible then form one's
own opinion. Propaganda works because most people nowadays are too lazy to think for
themselves – they just swallow hook, line and sinker anything that is dangled in front
of them.
Zhu , March 6, 2021 at 18:57
Working Americans rarely vote, not because of a "propaganda-induced coma" but because
paying for food and rent are so difficult and time-consuming. The streets are full of people
who have failed, and while most Americans tell themselve "it can't happen to me, I'm not like
them!", probably most also know that "yes, it can happen to me." Caring about politics is
pretty high up the hierarchy of needs. Food and shelter are basic.
saurabh , March 6, 2021 at 16:01
>No ordinary American benefits from the U.S. having troops in Syria, sanctioning
Venezuelans to death, supporting Saudi Arabia while it rapes Yemen, circling the planet with
military bases and working to destroy any nation which refuses to bow to its dictates.
I disagree with this profoundly. There is a reason that the "ordinary American", despite
living in relative poverty, still has access to resources and goods that most people around
the world do not, and the reason is because the American empire acts to the benefit of
individual Americans, depressing wages around the world by preventing development so that
Americans can benefit from their superior purchasing power. While it is true that the vast
majority of the benefit accrues to the American ruling class, there is simply *no other
explanation* for why the American schlub does so much better than, say, the inhabitant of a
favela in Sao Paulo or a tin shack in Mumbai. It certainly isn't our robust labor movement or
our responsible political class that deserves the credit.
I also think that Americans implicitly, with that deep-rooted instinct that truly governs
politics, understand this bargain: if they line up behind their military, and don't raise too
many questions about foreign adventures, squeezing this-or-that leftist government, CIA coups
and the like, the result is that they are guaranteed *something*, a small something, but more
than they have "over there", in the "shitholes" that Americans are bombing desperately.
It is the abandoning of this bargain (we support your military misadventures, you throw us
some bones from your carrion heap) that I think has caused a great anger in America, and why
Americans are desperate to "Make America Great Again", so they can get back to the kind of
empire that really "works" for them the way they are used to.
Tom Kath , March 6, 2021 at 20:23
Funny how these classical examples of "propagandized" people never see their own
"shitholes" as shitholes.
z , March 6, 2021 at 23:21
I fear it's true that many Americans not in the elite do enjoy warfare. If your a young
soldier/sailor, you get a fairly good wage, free medical care, free food, cheap shopping at
the PX. If yoou're stationed overseas, you can get lots of cheap sex without the annoyance of
a relationship. Most soldiers/sailors are never in combat. They are support troops. But it
gets old fast, if you have any moral sense or have any fellow feeling for the people you are
inflicted upon. Overall, only a few really profit.
Broompilot , March 7, 2021 at 00:57
And this is why we are heading for major war and why most will end up supporting it. No
matter how unjust the war will seem, the alternatives will seem worse (to both sides). My
guess is, it has always been that way. They know we know they are lying to us, and they dont
care and never really did.
Indian , March 7, 2021 at 04:13
So true.
The vast majority of Americans are accomplices of the Empire's crimes.
Propaganda appeases their conscience.
That's why Americans are despised around the world.
Manifold Destiny , March 7, 2021 at 06:06
While you bring up some interesting points, I believe you're making a few mistakes:
Americans don't have it better than the rest of the world. Comparing the average "American
schlub" to the extreme poverty found in the favelas or shantytowns of the Global South is a
bit of a straw man argument. Of course they're doing better, but so is the average South
Korean, or Canadian, or European -- countries that don't partake in military misadventures in
order to prop up their citizens.
You write that Americans "implicitly understand the (military) bargain". Of course, what
you're describing is Colonialism, or the new Imperialism, which has been around for at least
400 years and could be applied to any number of European powers of the past. What you seem to
be missing is just what makes this bargain "implicit". Could it be the notion of
"manufactured consent"? – which is really the whole point of Caitlin's essay. You are
mistaking "deep-rooted instincts" for a heavily propagandized and undereducated polity.
Finally, you then conclude that this instinctual bargain is the source of anger and the
consequent popularity of the MAGA ideology. This may be true for a small percentage of
right-wing followers, but that would be ignoring the overwhelming evidence that much of the
MAGA crowd anger derives from the self-perceived notion of the loss of white supremacy. The
sense of loss of control to the Other – whether gender or race -based – is the
underlying source of their anger. One which was (and will continue to be) exploited
mercilessly by demagoguery.
It is always problematic when making generalizations that the resultant analysis can
become monolithic. Be wary of them, my friend. No two people are alike, therefore reasons for
believing in an ideology, any ideology, are manifold. Manufacturing consent is a big reason
why Americans believe they live in an "exceptional" country with an outsized military that
represents a "force for good" in the world, much to their detriment.
Freedomlover , March 7, 2021 at 21:29
You hit the nail on the head. Great response
Antiwar7 , March 8, 2021 at 03:18
You're overthinking it. Most people in flyover country aren't doing well financially, and
they don't think the elites care. So they're unhappy. No implicit bargain needed.
An empire makes profits for a few, and its enormous expenses are borne by the many.
Propaganda aims to divert attention from that.
broompilot , March 8, 2021 at 03:48
Non-minority Whites have not lost anything and they are still the vast majority in this
country. They are the largest voting group by far and addressing them with stupid made up
names like "supremacists" to intentionally evoke images of Hitler is not going to change
that. In fact, it is becoming more and more obvious to non-minority Whites they would be
fools to think they will be better served by a governments consisting of a coalition of
minorities.
Sancho , March 7, 2021 at 20:24
Obama had us involved in seven wars to Bush and Cheney's three. Also under the Obama
administration, more arms were sold to foreign countries than under any other administration.
Trump "abandoned" this so-called bargain, and the economy took off, setting records. Your
theory does not make sense. PS where in your theory do you discuss the movement of American
factories and jobs to unregulated China, and how does 16 years of Bush and Obama moving jobs
and factories to China fit into any sort of imperialsm scheme?
Dave , March 8, 2021 at 15:50
Check out Alan Greenspan's financial engineering, and find out how rich MNC have got.
There is the reason why blue-collar jobs went to China, and the imperialism scheme.
Middle-class be damned.
Just imagine how differently the Epstein story would be covered by the media if Epstein
and Maxwell were ethnic Russians, and if Maxwell's father had received a State funeral in
Russia.
Oilman2 says: April 10, 2021 at 11:14 am
Ms No PREMIUM 2 hours ago
odb 2 hours ago
Peter Von Nessi SUBSCRIBER 29 minutes ago "A man of his age -- fearing that he may amount to nothing more than the great Obama's onetime sidekick -- is apt to react to the surprise of waking up in the White House by pandering to the flashiest ideas of the young people and their hero Bernie Sanders. Mr. Biden can, for a moment, forestall death if he veers way left and makes his mark, however chaotically."
Greg Caldwell SUBSCRIBER 58 minutes ago (Edited) Mr. Ferrara: Many people voted for Joe's ideas because he claimed to be more of a centrist while he was running for office. I know of quite a few people who voted for Joe (1) because he wasn't Trump, and; (2) he claimed he would govern from the middle-left.
Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images
