"... Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way. ..."
"... And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. ..."
"... Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him. But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map where I live. ..."
I was raised by Democrats, and used to vote for them. But these days, I think heck would
freeze over before I'd vote Democrat again. From my point of view, Bernie tried to pull them
back to sanity. But the hard core Clinton-corporate-corrupt Democrats have declared war on
any movement for reform within the Democratic Party. And there is no way that I'm voting for
any of these corrupt-corporate Democrats ever again.
Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been
around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way
forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way.
We saw the way the corrupt-corporate Democrats colluded and rigged the last Presidential
Primaries so that Corrupt-Corporate-Clinton was guaranteed the corrupt-corporate Democrat
nomination. That's a loud and clear message to anyone who thinks they can achieve change
within the corrupt-corporate-colluding-rigged Democratic Party.
Since I've always been anti-war, I've been forced to follow what anti-war movement there
is over to the Republicans. And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the
Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous
primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. That never happened, and by 2012 I was
convinced that even the fake-reformers within the corrupt-corporate Democrats were fakes who
only wanted fund-raising but didn't really fight for reform.
Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to
voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the
only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the
Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the
loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him.
But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in
primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map
where I live.
Neither party is on our side. The establishment in both parties is crooked and corrupt.
Someone needs to fight them. And I sure as heck won't vote for the corrupt and the crooked.
Since the Democrats are doubling down on corrupt and crooked and telling such big lies that
even Goebbels would blush, it doesn't look like I'll ever vote Dem0crat again.
Was it intelligence operation run by US and GB agencies with Harward economists as
puppets?
Notable quotes:
"... Just look at what the West did to Iraq. Like Stiglitz I think it is more incompetence and ideology than a sinister plan to destroy Iraq and Russia. And we are reaping the results of that incompetence. ..."
PGL puts the blame on Yeltsin and this is what Stiglitz writes:
"I believe what we are confronting is partly the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus
that shaped Russia's transition. This framework's influences was reflected in the tremendous
emphasis reformers placed on privatization, no matter how it was done, with speed taking
precedence over everything else, including creating the institutional infrastructure needed
to make a market economy work."
Larry Summers and Jeffrey Sachs were involved in this. It would be nice if they wrote mea
culpas.
"Many in Russia believe that the US Treasury pushed Washington Consensus policies to
weaken their country. The deep corruption of the Harvard University team chosen to "help"
Russia in its transition, described in a detailed account published in 2006 by Institutional
Investor, reinforced these beliefs.
I believe the explanation was less sinister: flawed ideas, even with the best of
intentions, can have serious consequences. And the opportunities for self-interested greed
offered by Russia were simply too great for some to resist. Clearly, democratization in
Russia required efforts aimed at ensuring shared prosperity, not policies that led to the
creation of an oligarchy."
Just look at what the West did to Iraq. Like Stiglitz I think it is more incompetence
and ideology than a sinister plan to destroy Iraq and Russia. And we are reaping the results
of that incompetence.
2008 was also incompetence, greed and ideology not some plot to push through "shock
doctrines."
If the one percent were smart they would slowly cook the frog in the pot, where the frog
doesn't notice, instead of having these crises which backfire.
"... I believe what we are confronting is partly the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that shaped Russia's transition. ..."
"... This framework's influences was reflected in the tremendous emphasis reformers placed on privatization, no matter how it was done, with speed taking precedence over everything else, including creating the institutional infrastructure needed to make a market economy work.... ..."
"... Once one of the world's two superpowers, Russia's GDP is now about 40% of Germany's and just over 50% of France's. Life expectancy at birth ranks 153rd in the world, just behind Honduras and Kazakhstan. ..."
"... My impression is that Andrei Shleifer was a marionette, a low level pawn in a big game. The fact that he was a greedy academic scum, who tried to amass a fortune in Russia probably under influence of his wife (his wife, a hedge fund manager, was GS alumnae and was introduced to him by Summers) is peripheral to the actual role he played. ..."
"... Jeffey Sacks also played highly negative role being the architect of "shock therapy": the sudden release of price and currency controls, withdrawal of state subsidies, and immediate trade liberalization within a country, usually also including large-scale privatization of previously public-owned assets. ..."
"... In other words "shock therapy" = "economic rape" ..."
"... "Many in Russia believe that the US Treasury pushed Washington Consensus policies to weaken their country. The deep corruption of the Harvard University team chosen to "help" Russia in its transition, described in a detailed account published in 2006 by Institutional Investor, reinforced these beliefs." ..."
"... This was not a corruption. This was the intent on Clinton administration. I would think about it as a planned operation. ..."
"... The key was that the gangster capitalism model was enforced by the Western "Washington consensus" (of which IMF was an integral part) -- really predatory set of behaviors designed to colonize Russia and make is US satellite much like Germany became after WWII but without the benefit of Marshall plan. ..."
"... My impression is that Clinton was and is a criminal. And he really proved to be a very capable mass murderer. And his entourage had found willing sociopaths within Russian society (as well as in other xUUSR republics; Ukraine actually fared worse then Russia as for the level of plunder) who implemented neoliberal policies. Yegor Gaidar was instrumental in enforcing Harvard-designed "shock therapy" on Russian people. He also create the main neoliberal party in Russia -- the Democratic Choice of Russia - United Democrats. Later in 1990s, it became the Union of Right Forces. ..."
"... Questionable figures from the West flowed into Russia and tried to exploit still weak law system by raiding the companies. Some of them were successful and amassed huge fortunes. Some ended being shot. Soros tried, but was threatened to be shot by Berezovsky and choose to leave for the good. ..."
"... It may eventually prove to be generous to describe Russia's misfortune as "the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that shaped Russia's transition" according to Stiglitz. It may prove rather to be "the legacy of *intentionally* flawed consensus". ..."
"... It was done according to the "expert" advice of deregulatin' Larry's gang from Harvard. ..."
"... Does deregulatin' Larry still have a job? Why? ..."
"... Yes PGL blames Yeltsin but it was the Western advisers who forced disastrous shock therapy on Russia. See the IMF, Europe and Greece for another example. No doubt PGL blames the Greeks. He always blames the victims. ..."
"... Suppose though the matter with privatization is not so much speed but not understanding what should not be subject to privatizing, such as soft and hard infrastructure. ..."
"... The persuasiveness of the Washington Consensus approach to development strikes me as especially well illustrated by the repeated, decades-long insistence by Western economists that Chinese development is about to come to a crashing end. The insistence continues with an almost daily repetition in the likes of The Economist or Financial Times. ..."
I believe what we are confronting is partly the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that shaped Russia's transition.
This framework's influences was reflected in the tremendous emphasis reformers placed on privatization, no matter how it was
done, with speed taking precedence over everything else, including creating the institutional infrastructure needed to make a market
economy work....
... ... ...
Once one of the world's two superpowers, Russia's GDP is now about 40% of Germany's and just over 50% of France's. Life expectancy
at birth ranks 153rd in the world, just behind Honduras and Kazakhstan.
Stiglitz returns to the issue of why post Soviet Union Russia has done so poorly in terms of economics:
"In terms of per capita income, Russia now ranks 73rd (in terms of purchasing power parity) – well below the Soviet Union's
former satellites in Central and Eastern Europe. The country has deindustrialized: the vast majority of its exports now come from
natural resources. It has not evolved into a "normal" market economy, but rather into a peculiar form of crony-state capitalism
. Many had much higher hopes for Russia, and the former Soviet Union more broadly, when the Iron Curtain fell. After seven decades
of Communism, the transition to a democratic market economy would not be easy. But, given the obvious advantages of democratic
market capitalism to the system that had just fallen apart, it was assumed that the economy would flourish and citizens would
demand a greater voice. What went wrong? Who, if anyone, is to blame? Could Russia's post-communist transition have been managed
better? We can never answer such questions definitively: history cannot be re-run. But I believe what we are confronting is partly
the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that shaped Russia's transition. This framework's influences was reflected in the
tremendous emphasis reformers placed on privatization, no matter how it was done, with speed taking precedence over everything
else, including creating the institutional infrastructure needed to make a market economy work. Fifteen years ago, when I wrote
Globalization and its Discontents, I argued that this "shock therapy" approach to economic reform was a dismal failure. But defenders
of that doctrine cautioned patience: one could make such judgments only with a longer-run perspective. Today, more than a quarter-century
since the onset of transition, those earlier results have been confirmed, and those who argued that private property rights, once
created, would give rise to broader demands for the rule of law have been proven wrong. Russia and many of the other transition
countries are lagging further behind the advanced economies than ever. GDP in some transition countries is below its level at
the beginning of the transition."
Stiglitz is not saying markets cannot work if the rules are properly constructed. He is saying that the Yeltsin rules were
not as they were crony capitalism at their worse. And it seems the Putin rules are not much better. He mentions his 1997 book
which featured as chapter 5 "Who Lost Russia". It still represents an excellent read.
"Shleifer also met his mentor and professor, Lawrence Summers, during his undergraduate education at Harvard. The two went on
to be co-authors, joint grant recipients, and faculty colleagues.[5]
During the early 1990s, Andrei Shleifer headed a Harvard project under the auspices of the Harvard Institute for International
Development (HIID) that invested U.S. government funds in the development of Russia's economy.
Schleifer was also a direct advisor to Anatoly Chubais, then vice-premier of Russia, who managed the Rosimushchestvo (Committee
for the Management of State Property) portfolio and was a primary engineer of Russian privatization. Shleifer was also tasked
with establishing a stock market for Russia that would be a world-class capital market.[14]
In 1996 complaints about the Harvard project led Congress to launch a General Accounting Office investigation, which stated
that the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID) was given "substantial control of the U.S. assistance program."[15]
In 1997, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) canceled most of its funding for the Harvard project after investigations
showed that top HIID officials Andre Schleifer and Johnathan Hay had used their positions and insider information to profit from
investments in the Russian securities markets. Among other things, the Institute for a Law Based Economy (ILBE) was used to assist
Schleifer's wife, Nancy Zimmerman, who operated a hedge fund which speculated in Russian bonds.[14]
In August 2005, Harvard University, Shleifer and the Department of Justice reached an agreement under which the university
paid $26.5 million to settle the five-year-old lawsuit. Shleifer was also responsible for paying $2 million worth of damages,
though he did not admit any wrongdoing
"He has held a tenured position in the Department of Economics at Harvard University since 1991 and was, from 2001 through
2006, the Whipple V. N. Jones Professor of Economics."
My impression is that Andrei Shleifer was a marionette, a low level pawn in a big game. The fact that he was a greedy academic
scum, who tried to amass a fortune in Russia probably under influence of his wife (his wife, a hedge fund manager, was GS alumnae
and was introduced to him by Summers) is peripheral to the actual role he played.
Jeffey Sacks also played highly negative
role being the architect of "shock therapy": the sudden release of price and currency controls, withdrawal of state subsidies,
and immediate trade liberalization within a country, usually also including large-scale privatization of previously public-owned
assets.
In other words "shock therapy" = "economic rape"
As Anne Williamson said: "Instead, after robbing the Russian people of the only capital they had to participate in the
new market – the nation's household savings – by freeing prices in what was a monopolistic economy and which delivered a 2500%
inflation in 1992, America's "brave, young Russian reformers" ginned-up a development theory of "Big Capitalism" based on Karl
Marx's mistaken edict that capitalism requires the "primitive accumulation of capital". Big capitalists would appear instantly,
they said, and a broadly-based market economy shortly thereafter if only the pockets of pre-selected members of their own ex-Komsomol
circle were properly stuffed. Those who hankered for a public reputation were to secure the government perches from which they
would pass state assets to their brethren in the nascent business community, happy in the knowledge that they too would be kicked
back a significant cut of the swag. The US-led West accommodated the reformers' cockeyed theory by designing a rapid and easily
manipulated voucher privatization program that was really only a transfer of title and which was funded with $325 million US taxpayers'
dollars. "
"Many in Russia believe that the US Treasury pushed Washington Consensus policies to weaken their country. The deep
corruption of the Harvard University team chosen to "help" Russia in its transition, described in a detailed account published
in 2006 by Institutional Investor, reinforced these beliefs."
This was not a corruption. This was the intent on Clinton administration. I would think about it as a planned operation.
The key was that the gangster capitalism model was enforced by the Western "Washington consensus" (of which IMF was an
integral part) -- really predatory set of behaviors designed to colonize Russia and make is US satellite much like Germany became
after WWII but without the benefit of Marshall plan.
Clinton consciously chose this criminal policy among alternatives: kick the lying body. So after Russian people get rid of
corrupt and degraded Communist regime, they got under the iron hill of US gangsters from Clinton administration.
My impression is that Clinton was and is a criminal. And he really proved to be a very capable mass murderer. And his entourage
had found willing sociopaths within Russian society (as well as in other xUUSR republics; Ukraine actually fared worse then Russia
as for the level of plunder) who implemented neoliberal policies. Yegor Gaidar was instrumental in enforcing Harvard-designed
"shock therapy" on Russian people. He also create the main neoliberal party in Russia -- the Democratic Choice of Russia - United
Democrats. Later in 1990s, it became the Union of Right Forces.
Before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services of the United States House of Representatives
September 21, 1999
In the matter before us – the question of the many billions in capital that fled Russia to Western shores via the Bank of New
York and other Western banks – we have had a window thrown open on what the financial affairs of a country without property rights,
without banks, without the certainty of contract, without an accountable government or a leadership decent enough to be concerned
with the national interest or its own citizens' well-being looks like. It's not a pretty picture, is it? But let there be no mistake,
in Russia the West has truly been the author of its own misery. And there is no mistake as to who the victims are, i.e. Western,
principally U.S., taxpayers and Russian citizens' whose national legacy was stolen only to be squandered and/or invested in Western
real estate and equities markets
... ... ...
== end of quote ==
A lot of people, especially pensioners, died because of Clinton's gangster policies in xUUSR space.
I am wondering how Russian managed to survive as an independent country. The USA put tremendous efforts and resources in destruction
of Russian economy and colonizing its by creating "fifth column" on neoliberal globaliozation.
all those criminal oligarchs hold moved their capitals to the West as soon as they can because they were afraid of the future.
Nobody persecuted them and Western banks helped to extract money from Russia to the extent that some of their methods were clearly
criminals.
Economic devastation was comparable with caused by Nazi armies, although amount of dead was less, but also in millions.
Questionable figures from the West flowed into Russia and tried to exploit still weak law system by raiding the companies.
Some of them were successful and amassed huge fortunes. Some ended being shot. Soros tried, but was threatened to be shot by Berezovsky
and choose to leave for the good.
Especially hard hit was military industrial complex, which was oversized in any case, but which was an integral part of Soviet
economy and employed many highly qualified specialists. Many of whom later emigrated to the West. At some point it was difficult
to find physics department in the US university without at least a single person from xUSSR space (not necessary a Russian)
But I would conjecture the Deng path trumps the Yeltsin path
[ Really? Would the conjecture rest on growth of real Gross Domestic Product in China averaging 9.6% yearly while growth of
real per capita GDP averaged 8.6% yearly these last 40 years? ]
But I would conjecture the Deng Xiaoping path trumps the Boris Yeltsin path
[ What then is the point of such a conjecture when real per capita GDP in Russia grew a mere 15.8% from 1990 through 2015 while
in China real per capita grew by a remarkable 789.1%?
Total factor productivity in Russia decreased by 16.9% from 1990 through 2014, while in China total factor productivity increased
by 76.4%.
The inability to understand what China has accomplished is shocking to me. Possibly, rethinking fairly is in order. ]
It may eventually prove to be generous to describe Russia's misfortune as "the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that
shaped Russia's transition" according to Stiglitz. It may prove rather to be "the legacy of *intentionally* flawed consensus".
The term Washington Consensus was coined in 1989 by English economist John Williamson to refer to a set of 10 relatively specific
economic policy prescriptions that he considered constituted the "standard" reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing
countries by Washington, D.C.–based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and the US Treasury
Department. The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect
to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.
Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
Redirection of public spending from subsidies toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary
education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
Competitive exchange rates;
Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing,
etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
Privatization of state enterprises;
Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety,
environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
"It was done according to the "expert" advice of deregulatin' Larry's gang from Harvard."
Yes PGL blames Yeltsin but it was the Western advisers who forced disastrous shock therapy on Russia. See the IMF, Europe
and Greece for another example. No doubt PGL blames the Greeks. He always blames the victims.
PGL blames Yeltsin but even Stiglitz writes that it was the Washington Consensus which was to blame for the poor transition and
disastrous collapse of Russia. Now we are reaping the consequences. Just like with Syria, ISIL and Iraq.
Suppose though the matter with privatization is not so much speed but not understanding what should not be subject to privatizing,
such as soft and hard infrastructure.
That a Washington Consensus approach to Russian development proved obviously faulty is important because I would argue the approach
has repeatedly proved faulty from Brazil to South Africa to the Philippines... When the consensus has been turned away from as
in Brazil for several years the development results have dramatically changed but turning from the approach which allows for severe
concentrations of wealth has proved politically difficult as we find now in Brazil.
The range in real per capita GDP growth from 1990 to 2015 extends from 15.8% to 19.8% to 41.1% to 223.1% to 789.1%. This range
needs to be thoroughly analyzed in terms of reflective policy.
The range in total factor productivity growth or decline from 1990 to 2014 extends from a decline of - 16.9% to - 12.2% to - 5.1%
to growth of 40.9% and 76.4%. Again, this range needs to be thoroughly analyzed in terms of reflective policy.
The persuasiveness of the Washington Consensus approach to development strikes me as especially well illustrated by the repeated,
decades-long insistence by Western economists that Chinese development is about to come to a crashing end. The insistence continues
with an almost daily repetition in the likes of The Economist or Financial Times.
I would suggest the success of China thoroughly studied provides us with remarkable policy prescriptions.
"... I got to thinking today about how neocon and neoliberal are becoming interchangeable terms. ..."
"... As neoconservatism developed, that is with Iraq and Afghanistan, the neocons even came to embrace nation building which had always been anathema to traditional conservatism. Neocons sold this primarily by casting nation building in military terms, the creation and training of police and security forces in the target country. ..."
"... 9/11 too was critical. It vastly increased the scope of the neocon project in spawning the Global War on Terror. It increased the stage of neocon operations to the entire planet. ..."
"... Politically, neoconservatism has become the bipartisan foreign policy consensus. Democrats are every bit as neocon in their views as Republicans. Only a few libertarians on the right and progressives on the left reject it. ..."
"... The roots of neoliberalism are the roots of kleptocracy. Both begin under Carter. Neoliberalism also known at various times and places as the Washington Consensus (under Clinton) and the Chicago School is the political expression for public consumption of the kleptocratic economic philosophy, just as libertarian and neoclassical economics (both fresh and salt water varieties) are its academic and governmental face. The central tenets of neoliberalism are deregulation, free markets, and free trade. If neoliberalism had a prophet or a patron saint, it was Milton Friedman. ..."
"... Again just as neoconservatism and kleptocracy or bipartisan so too is neoliberalism. There really is no daylight between Reaganism/supply side economics/trickledown on the Republican side and Clinton's Washington Consensus or Team Obama on the other. ..."
"... The distinctions between neoconservatism and neoliberalism are being increasingly lost, perhaps because most of our political classes are practitioners of both. ..."
"... At the same time, neoliberalism went from domestic to global, and here I am not just thinking about neoliberal experiments, like Pinochet's Chile or post-Soviet Russia, but the financialization of the world economy and the adoption of kleptocracy as the world economic model. ..."
"... I'm now under the opinion that you can't talk about any of the "neo-isms" without talking about the corporate state. ..."
"... With neocons, it manifests itself through the military-industrial complex (Boeing, Raytheon, etc.), and with neolibs it manifests itself through finance and industrial policy. ..."
"... But each leg has two components, a statist component and a corporate component. ..."
"... It also explains why economic/financial interests (neolib) are now considered national security interests (neocon). The viability of the state is now tied to the viability of the corporation. ..."
"... Corporate/statist (not sure "corporate" captures the looting/rentier aspect though). We see it everywhere, for example in the revolving door. ..."
"... I think you could also make the argument that Obama is perhaps the most ideal combination of neolib & neocon. ..."
"... A reading of the classical liberal economists puts some breaks on the markets, corporations, etc. Neoliberalism goes to the illogical extremes of market theory and iirc, has some influence from the Austrian school ... which gives up on any pretense of scientific exposition of economics or rationality at the micro level, assuming that irrationality will magically become rational behavior in aggregate. ..."
"... Therefore, US conservatives post Eisenhower but especially post Reagan are almost certainly economic neoliberals. Since Clinton, liberals/Democrats have been too (at least the elected ones). You nailed neoconservative and both parties are in foreign policy since at least Clinton ... though here lets not forget to go back as far as JFK and his extreme anti-Communism that led to all sorts of covert operations, The Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Remember, the Soviets put the missiles in Cuba because we put missiles in Turkey and they backed down from Cuba because we agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey; Nikita was nice enough not to talk about that so that Kennedy didn't lose face. ..."
"... Perhaps it should be pointed out that the Clintons became fabulously wealthy just after Bill left office, mostly on the strength of his speaking engagements for the financial sector that he'd just deregulated. ..."
"... The unfortunate fact of the matter is that at that level of politics, the levers of money and power work equally well on both party's nomenklatura. They flock to it like moths to porch light. ..."
"... "Don't believe them, don't fear them, don't ask anything of them" - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ..."
I got to thinking today about how neocon and neoliberal are becoming interchangeable terms. They did not start out that
way. My understanding is they are ways of rationalizing breaks with traditional conservatism and liberalism. Standard conservatism
was fairly isolationist. Conservatism's embrace of the Cold War put it at odds with this tendency. This was partially resolved by
accepting the Cold War as a military necessity despite its international commitments but limiting civilian programs like foreign
aid outside this context and rejecting the concept of nation building altogether.
With the end of the Cold War conservative internationalism needed a new rationale, and this was supplied by the neoconservatives.
They advocated the adoption of conservatism's Cold War military centered internationalism as the model for America's post-Cold War
international relations. After all, why drop a winning strategy? America had won the Cold War against a much more formidable opponent
than any left on the planet. What could go wrong?
America's ability not simply to project but its willingness to use military power was equated with its power more generally. If
America did not do this, it was weak and in decline. However, the frequent use of military power showed that America was great and
remained the world's hegemon. In particular, the neocons focused on the Middle East. This sales pitch gained them the backing of
both supporters of Israel (because neoconservatism was unabashedly pro-Israel) and the oil companies. The military industrial complex
was also on board because the neocon agenda effectively countered calls to reduce military spending. But neoconservatism was not
just confined to these groups. It appealed to both believers in American exceptionalism and backers of humanitarian interventions
(of which I once was one).
As neoconservatism developed, that is with Iraq and Afghanistan, the neocons even came to embrace nation building which had always
been anathema to traditional conservatism. Neocons sold this primarily by casting nation building in military terms, the creation
and training of police and security forces in the target country.
9/11 too was critical. It vastly increased the scope of the neocon project in spawning the Global War on Terror. It increased
the stage of neocon operations to the entire planet. It effectively erased the distinction between the use of military force against
countries and individuals. Individuals more than countries became targets for military, not police, action. And unlike traditional
wars or the Cold War itself, this one would never be over. Neoconservatism now had a permanent raison d'être.
Politically, neoconservatism has become the bipartisan foreign policy consensus. Democrats are every bit as neocon in their views
as Republicans. Only a few libertarians on the right and progressives on the left reject it.
Neoliberalism, for its part, came about to address the concern of liberals, especially Democrats, that they were too anti-business
and too pro-union, and that this was hurting them at the polls. It was sold to the rubiat as pragmatism.
The roots of neoliberalism are the roots of kleptocracy. Both begin under Carter. Neoliberalism also known at various times and
places as the Washington Consensus (under Clinton) and the Chicago School is the political expression for public consumption of the
kleptocratic economic philosophy, just as libertarian and neoclassical economics (both fresh and salt water varieties) are its academic
and governmental face. The central tenets of neoliberalism are deregulation, free markets, and free trade. If neoliberalism had a
prophet or a patron saint, it was Milton Friedman.
Again just as neoconservatism and kleptocracy or bipartisan so too is neoliberalism. There really is no daylight between Reaganism/supply
side economics/trickledown on the Republican side and Clinton's Washington Consensus or Team Obama on the other.
And just as we saw with neoconservatism, neoliberalism expanded from its core premises and effortlessly transitioned into globalization,
which can also be understood as global kleptocracy.
The distinctions between neoconservatism and neoliberalism are being increasingly lost, perhaps because most of our political
classes are practitioners of both. But initially at least neoconservatism was focused on foreign policy and neoliberalism on
domestic economic policy. As the War on Terror expanded, however, neoconservatism came back home with the creation and expansion
of the surveillance state.
At the same time, neoliberalism went from domestic to global, and here I am not just thinking about neoliberal experiments,
like Pinochet's Chile or post-Soviet Russia, but the financialization of the world economy and the adoption of kleptocracy as the
world economic model.
jest on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 5:55am
I'm now under the opinion that you can't talk about any of the "neo-isms" without talking about the corporate state.
That's really the tie that binds the two things you are speaking of.
With neocons, it manifests itself through the military-industrial complex (Boeing, Raytheon, etc.), and with neolibs it
manifests itself through finance and industrial policy.
For example, you need the US gov't to bomb Iraq (Raytheon) in order to secure oil (Halliburton), which is priced & financed
in US dollars (Goldman Sachs). It's like a 3-legged stool; if you remove one of these legs, the whole thing comes down. But
each leg has two components, a statist component and a corporate component.
The entity that enables all of this is the corporate state.
It also explains why economic/financial interests (neolib) are now considered national security interests (neocon). The viability
of the state is now tied to the viability of the corporation.
lambert on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 9:18am
Corporate/statist (not sure "corporate" captures the looting/rentier aspect though). We see it everywhere, for example in the
revolving door.
I think the stool has more legs and is also more dynamic; more like Ikea furniture. For example, the press is surely critical
in organizing the war.
But the yin/yang of neo-lib/neo-con is nice: It's as if the neo-cons handle the kinetic aspects (guns, torture) and the neo-libs
handle the mental aspects (money, mindfuckery) but both merge (like Negronponte being on the board of Americans Select) over time
as margins fall and decorative aspects like democratic institutions and academic freedom get stripped away. The state and the
corporation have always been tied to each other but now the ties are open and visible (for example, fines are just a cost of doing
business, a rent on open corruption.)
And then there's the concept of "human resource," that abstracts all aspects of humanity away except those that are exploitable.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
jest on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 1:37pm
I like the term much better than Fascist, as it is 1) more accurate, 2) avoids the Godwin's law issue, and 3) makes them sound
totalitarianist.
Yes, I would agree that additional legs make sense. The media aspect is essential, as it neutralizes the freedom of the press,
without changing the constitution. It dovetails pretty well with the notion of Inverted Totalitarianism.
I think you could also make the argument that Obama is perhaps the most ideal combination of neolib & neocon. The
two sides of him flow together so seamlessly, no one seems to notice. But that's in part because he is so corporate.
Lex on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 8:28am
Actually, neoliberalism is an economic term. An economic liberal in the UK and EU is for open markets, capitalism, etc. You're
right that neoliberalism comes heavily from the University of Chicago, but it has little to do with American political liberalism.
A reading of the classical liberal economists puts some breaks on the markets, corporations, etc. Neoliberalism goes to the
illogical extremes of market theory and iirc, has some influence from the Austrian school ... which gives up on any pretense of
scientific exposition of economics or rationality at the micro level, assuming that irrationality will magically become rational
behavior in aggregate.
Therefore, US conservatives post Eisenhower but especially post Reagan are almost certainly economic neoliberals. Since Clinton,
liberals/Democrats have been too (at least the elected ones). You nailed neoconservative and both parties are in foreign policy
since at least Clinton ... though here lets not forget to go back as far as JFK and his extreme anti-Communism that led to all
sorts of covert operations, The Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Remember, the Soviets put the missiles in
Cuba because we put missiles in Turkey and they backed down from Cuba because we agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey; Nikita
was nice enough not to talk about that so that Kennedy didn't lose face.
"Don't believe them, don't fear them, don't ask anything of them" - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Hugh on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 3:57pm
I agree that neoconservatism and neoliberalism are two facets of corporatism/kleptocracy. I like the kinetic vs. white collar
distinction.
The roots of neoliberalism go back to the 1940s and the Austrians, but in the US it really only comes into currency with Clinton
as a deliberate shift of the Democratic/liberal platform away from labor and ordinary Americans to make it more accommodating
to big business and big money. I had never heard of neoliberalism before Bill Clinton but it is easy to see how those tendencies
were at work under Carter, but not under Johnson.
This was a rough and ready sketch. I guess I should also have mentioned PNAC or the Project to Find a New Mission for the MIC.
Hugh on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 10:44pm
I have never understood this love of Clinton that some Democrats have just as I have never understood the attraction of Reagan
for Republicans. There is no Clinton faction. There is no Obama faction. Hillary Clinton is Obama's frigging Secretary of State.
Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, both of whom served as Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary, were Obama's top financial and economic
advisors. Timothy Geithner was their protégé. Leon Panetta Obama's Director of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense was Clinton's
Director of OMB and then Chief of Staff.
The Democrats as a party are neoconservative and neoliberal as are Obama and the Clintons. As are Republicans.
What does corporations need regulation mean? It is rather like saying that the best way to deal with cancer is to find a cure
for it. Sounds nice but there is no content to it. Worse in the real world, the rich own the corporations, the politicians, and
the regulators. So even if you come up with good ideas for regulation they aren't going to happen.
What you are suggesting looks a whole lot another iteration of lesser evilism meets Einstein's definition of insanity. How
is it any different from any other instance of Democratic tribalism?
Lex on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 11:49pm
Perhaps it should be pointed out that the Clintons became fabulously wealthy just after Bill left office, mostly on the strength
of his speaking engagements for the financial sector that he'd just deregulated. Both he and Hillary hew to a pretty damned neoconservative
foreign policy ... with that dash of "humanitarian interventionism" that makes war palatable to liberals.
But your deeper point is that there isn't enough of a difference between Obama and Bill Clinton to really draw a distinction,
not in terms of ideology. What a theoretical Hillary Clinton presidency would have looked like is irrelevant, because both Bill
and Obama talked a lot different than they walked. Any projection of a Hillary Clinton administration is just that and requires
arguing that it would have been different than Bill's administration and policies.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that at that level of politics, the levers of money and power work equally well on
both party's nomenklatura. They flock to it like moths to porch light.
That the money chose Obama over Clinton doesn't say all that much, because there's no evidence suggesting that the money didn't
like Clinton or that it would have chosen McCain over Clinton. It's not as if Clinton's campaign was driven into the ground by
lack of funds.
Regardless, that to be a Democrat i would kind of have to chose between two factions that are utterly distasteful to me just
proves that i have no business being a Democrat. And since i wouldn't vote for either of those names, i guess i'll just stick
to third parties and exit the political tribalism loop for good.
"Don't believe them, don't fear them, don't ask anything of them" - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Looks like Browder was connected to MI6. That means that intellignece agances participated in economic rape of Russia That's explains a lot, including his change of citizenship from US to UK. He wanted better
protection.
Notable quotes:
"... The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S. Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called the first shot in the New Cold War. ..."
"... Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale. ..."
"... Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky – rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme. ..."
"... Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part, brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy. ..."
"... That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along. ..."
"... By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump's son. ..."
"... But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post. ..."
"... There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations in the past. ..."
"... Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams, the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen." ..."
"... So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War. ..."
"... Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets eagerly awaiting algorithms that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false." ..."
"... First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue. ..."
"... From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was. I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available. ..."
"... Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you. ..."
"... Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the Russian financial crisis. ..."
"... Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes. ..."
"... Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it. ..."
"... I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and 1984 not so distant. ..."
"... Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews. I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into accurately reporting it. ..."
"... Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars. The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial, at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years. ..."
"... Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary film product. ..."
"... "[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row? ..."
"... "The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement. ..."
"... "The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic. The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD. ..."
"... Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern about Canada following the Cold War without examination. ..."
"... Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution (in name yes, but in fact not). ..."
"... I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could (with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a stop to them. ..."
"... backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All the plunder flowed into the Western Countries. ..."
"... I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of the crooks looting Russia. ..."
"... I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart. I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it up. ..."
"... The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/ ..."
Exclusive: A documentary debunking the Magnitsky myth, which was an opening salvo in the New Cold War, was largely blocked from
viewing in the West but has now become a factor in Russia-gate, reports Robert Parry.
Near the center of the current furor over Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 is a documentary that
almost no one in the West has been allowed to see, a film that flips the script on the story of the late Sergei Magnitsky and his
employer, hedge-fund operator William Browder.
The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented
a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death
in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S.
Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called
the first shot in the New Cold War.
According to Browder's narrative, companies ostensibly under his control had been hijacked by corrupt Russian officials in furtherance
of a $230 million tax-fraud scheme; he then dispatched his "lawyer" Magnitsky to investigate and – after supposedly uncovering evidence
of the fraud – Magnitsky blew the whistle only to be arrested by the same corrupt officials who then had him locked up in prison
where he died of heart failure from physical abuse.
Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became
a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of
President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov
even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale.
However, the project took an unexpected
turn when Nekrasov's research kept turning up contradictions to Browder's storyline, which began to look more and more like a
corporate cover story. Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky
– rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme.
So, the planned docudrama suddenly was transformed into a documentary with a dramatic reversal as Nekrasov struggles with what
he knows will be a dangerous decision to confront Browder with what appear to be deceptions. In the film, you see Browder go from
a friendly collaborator into an angry adversary who tries to bully Nekrasov into backing down.
Blocked Premiere
Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for
a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats
– the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part,
brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy.
Film director Andrei Nekrasov, who produced "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes."
As a lawyer defending Prevezon, a real-estate company registered in Cyprus, on a money-laundering charge, she
was dealing with U.S. prosecutors in New York City and, in that role, became an advocate for lifting the U.S. sanctions, The
Washington Post reported.
That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the
sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian
government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump
campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along.
By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky
Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One
source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump
Tower with Trump's son.
But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's
blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post.
There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the
Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm
the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations
in the past.
Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams,
the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen."
In an article about the controversy in June 2016, The New York Times
added that "A screening at the Newseum is especially controversial because it could attract lawmakers or their aides." Heaven
forbid!
One-Time Showing
So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion
moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially
shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment
of the New Cold War.
Financier William Browder (right) with Magnitsky's widow and son, along with European parliamentarians.
After the Newseum presentation,
a Washington Post editorial branded Nekrasov's documentary Russian "agit-prop" and sought to discredit Nekrasov without addressing
his many documented examples of Browder's misrepresenting both big and small facts in the case. Instead, the Post accused Nekrasov
of using "facts highly selectively" and insinuated that he was merely a pawn in the Kremlin's "campaign to discredit Mr. Browder
and the Magnitsky Act."
The Post also misrepresented the structure of the film by noting that it mixed fictional scenes with real-life interviews and
action, a point that was technically true but willfully misleading because the fictional scenes were from Nekrasov's original idea
for a docu-drama that he shows as part of explaining his evolution from a believer in Browder's self-exculpatory story to a skeptic.
But the Post's deception is something that almost no American would realize because almost no one got to see the film.
The Post concluded smugly: "The film won't grab a wide audience, but it offers yet another example of the Kremlin's increasingly
sophisticated efforts to spread its illiberal values and mind-set abroad. In the European Parliament and on French and German television
networks, showings were put off recently after questions were raised about the accuracy of the film, including by Magnitsky's family.
"We don't worry that Mr. Nekrasov's film was screened here, in an open society. But it is important that such slick spin be fully
exposed for its twisted story and sly deceptions."
The Post's gleeful editorial had the feel of something you
might read in a totalitarian
society where the public only hears about dissent when the Official Organs of the State denounce some almost unknown person for
saying something that almost no one heard.
New Paradigm
The Post's satisfaction that Nekrasov's documentary would not draw a large audience represents what is becoming a new paradigm
in U.S. mainstream journalism, the idea that it is the media's duty to protect the American people from seeing divergent narratives
on sensitive geopolitical issues.
Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about
"Russian propaganda" and "fake
news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets
eagerly awaiting algorithms
that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false."
First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such
as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of
Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue.
In the meantime, there is the ad hoc approach that was applied to Nekrasov's documentary. Having missed the Newseum showing, I
was only able to view the film because I was given a special password to an online version.
From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was.
I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
But the Post's editors were right in their expectation that "The film won't grab a wide audience." Instead, it has become a good
example of how political and legal pressure can effectively black out what we used to call "the other side of the story." The film
now, however, has unexpectedly become a factor in the larger drama of Russia-gate and the drive to remove Donald Trump Sr. from the
White House.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't
Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You
did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give
us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you.
Rob Roy , July 13, 2017 at 2:45 pm
Parry isn't keeping the film viewing a secret. He was given a private password and perhaps can get permission to let the readers
here have it. It isn't up to Parry himself but rather to the person(s) who have the rights to the password. I've come across this
problem before.
ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 4:01 pm
Parry wrote: I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
Any link?? I am willing to buy it.
Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:28 pm
This may not be of much help, as the film is dubbed in Russian. If you want to look for the Russian versions on the internet,
search for: "????? ?????? ????????? "????? ???????????. ?? ????????"
Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain
in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the
Russian financial crisis.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes.
incontinent reader , July 13, 2017 at 6:24 pm
Well stated.
Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 2:38 pm
Mr. Parry,
Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding
Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the
film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it.
Is there any chance you can share information regarding a means of accessing the forbidden film?
I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding
back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America
and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and
1984 not so distant.
Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews.
I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into
accurately reporting it.
Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars.
The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial,
at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years.
Demonizing other countries is bad enough, but wilfully ignoring the potential for a nuclear war to end not only war, but life
as we know it, is appalling.
"After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson "
Am I the only one who thinks that Max Boot should have been institutionalized for some time already? He is not well.
Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 9:41 pm
Anna,
Perhaps Max can share a suite with John McCain. Sadly, the illness is widespread and sometimes seems to be in the majority. Neo
con/lib both are adamant in finding enemies and imposing punishment.
Finding splinters, ignoring beams. Changing regimes everywhere. Making the world safe for Democracy. Unless a man they don't
like get elected
Max Boot parents are Russain Jews who seemingly instilled in him a rabid hatred for everything Russian. The same is with Aperovitch,
the CrowdStrike fraudster. The first Soviet (Bolshevik) government was 85% Jewish. Considering what happened to Russia under Bolsheviks,
it seems that Russians are supremely tolerant people.
Anna, Anti-Semitism will get you NOWHERE, and you should be ashamed of yourself for injecting such HATRED into the rational
discussion here.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:03 pm
Dear orwell
re Anna
Its not anti Semitic if its true .and its true he is a Russian Jew and its very obvious he hates Russia–as does the whole Jewish
Zionist crowd in the US.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:02 am
orwell, I wonder why the truth always turns out to be so anti-semitic!?
Taras77 , July 13, 2017 at 11:17 pm
I hope you caught the preceding tucker interview with Ralph Peters, who says he is a retired us army LTC. He came off as completely
deranged and hysterical. The two interviews back to back struck me as neo con desperation and panic. My respect for Tucker
just went up for taking on these two wackos.
Zachary Smith , July 13, 2017 at 2:51 pm
The fact that the film is being suppressed by everybody is significant to me. I don't know a thing about the "facts" of the
Magnitsky case, and a quick look at the results of a Google search suggests this film isn't going to be available to me unless
I shell out some unknown amount of money.
If the producers want the film to be seen, perhaps they ought to release it for download to any interested parties for a nominal
sum. This will mean they won't make any profit, but on the other hand they will be able to spit in the eyes of the censors.
Dan Mason , July 13, 2017 at 6:42 pm
I went searching the net for access to this film and found that I was blocked at every turn. I did find a few links which all
seemed to go to the same destination which claimed to provide access once I registered with their site. I decided to avoid that
route. I don't really have that much interest in the Magnitsky affair, but I do wonder why we are being denied access to information.
Who has this kind of influence, and why are they so fearful. I'm really afraid that we already live in a largely hidden Orwellian
world. Now where did I put that tin foil hat?
The Orwellian World is NOT HIDDEN, it is clearly visible.
Drew Hunkins , July 13, 2017 at 2:53 pm
Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and
took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary
film product.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Drew – good comment. It's very hard to "turn", isn't it? I wonder if many people appreciate what it takes to do this. Easier
to justify, turn a blind eye, but to actually stop, question, think, and then follow where the story leads you takes courage and
strength.
Especially when your bucking an aggressive billionaire.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:49 am
BannanaBoat – that too!
Zim , July 13, 2017 at 3:11 pm
This is interesting:
"In December 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that Hillary Clinton opposed the Magnitsky Act while serving as secretary
of state. Her opposition coincided with Bill Clinton giving a speech in Moscow for Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank!
for which he was paid $500,000.
"Mr. Clinton also received a substantial payout in 2010 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank whose executives
were at risk of being hurt by possible U.S. sanctions tied to a complex and controversial case of alleged corruption in Russia.
Members of Congress wrote to Mrs. Clinton in 2010 seeking to deny visas to people who had been implicated by Russian accountant
Sergei Magnitsky, who was jailed and died in prison after he uncovered evidence of a large tax-refund fraud. William Browder,
a foreign investor in Russia who had hired Mr. Magnitsky, alleged that the accountant had turned up evidence that Renaissance
officials, among others, participated in the fraud."
The State Department opposed the sanctions bill at the time, as did the Russian government. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov pushed Hillary Clinton to oppose the legislation during a meeting in St. Petersburg in June 2012, citing that U.S.-Russia
relations would suffer as a result."
"[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some
past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row?
Now I remember that Post editorial. I was one of only 20 commenters before they shut down comments. It was some heavy pearl
clutching.
afterthought couldn't the film be shown on RT America?
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:11 am
Would that not enable Bowder's employees online to claim that this documentary is Russian state propaganda, which it obviously
is not because it would have been made available for free everywhere already just like RT. I believe that Nekrasov does not like
RT and RT probably still does not like Nekrasov. The point of RT has never been the truth then the alternative point of view,
as they advertised: Audi alteram partem.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 3:41 pm
"The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical
blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein
and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a
body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better
indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement.
Moreover, when one reflects on the fact much of this 'body of reporting' was shoehorned after the fact into an analytical
premise predicated on a single source of foreign-provided intelligence, that statement suddenly loses much of its impact.
"The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of
Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic.
The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and
decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed
in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD.
'President Putin has repeatedly and vociferously denied any Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Those
who cite the findings of the Russia NIA as indisputable proof to the contrary, however, dismiss this denial out of hand. And yet
nowhere in the Russia NIA is there any evidence that those who prepared it conducted anything remotely resembling the kind of
'analysis of alternatives' mandated by the ODNI when it comes to analytic standards used to prepare intelligence community assessments
and estimates. Nor is there any evidence that the CIA's vaunted 'Red Cell' was approached to provide counterintuitive assessments
of premises such as 'What if President Putin is telling the truth?'
'Throughout its history, the NIC has dealt with sources of information that far exceeded any sensitivity that might attach
to Brennan's foreign intelligence source. The NIC had two experts that it could have turned to oversee a project like the Russia
NIA!the NIO for Cyber Issues, and the Mission Manager of the Russian and Eurasia Mission Center; logic dictates that both should
have been called upon, given the subject matter overlap between cyber intrusion and Russian intent.
'The excuse that Brennan's source was simply too sensitive to be shared with these individuals, and the analysts assigned to
them, is ludicrous!both the NIO for cyber issues and the CIA's mission manager for Russia and Eurasia are cleared to receive the
most highly classified intelligence and, moreover, are specifically mandated to oversee projects such as an investigation into
Russian meddling in the American electoral process.
'President Trump has come under repeated criticism for his perceived slighting of the U.S. intelligence community in repeatedly
citing the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction intelligence failure when downplaying intelligence reports, including the Russia
NIA, about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Adding insult to injury, the president's most recent comments were made
on foreign soil (Poland), on the eve of his first meeting with President Putin, at the G-20 Conference in Hamburg, Germany, where
the issue of Russian meddling was the first topic on the agenda.
"The politics of the wisdom of the timing and location of such observations aside, the specific content of the president's
statements appear factually sound."
Thanks Abe once again, for providing us with news which will never be printed or aired in our MSM. Brennan may ignore the NIC,
as Congress and the Executive Branch constantly avoid paying attention to the GAO. Why even have these agencies, if our leaders
aren't going to listen them?
Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 6:16 pm
Abe, I'm always amazed at how much you know. Thank you for sharing. If you have your comments in article form or on a site
where they can be shared, I'd really like to know about it. I've tried, but I garble the many points you make when trying to explain
historical events you've told us about.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 9:08 am
Thanks Abe. You are a real asset to us here at CN.
John V. Walsh , July 13, 2017 at 3:54 pm
Very good article! The entire Magnitsky saga has become so convoluted and mired in controversy and propaganda that it is very
hard to understand. I remember vaguely the controversy surrounding the showing of the film at the Newseum. it is especially impressive
that Nekrasov changed his opinion as fcts unfolded.
I will now try to get the docudrama and watch it.
If anyone has suggestions on how to do this, please let me know via a response. here.
Thanks.
A 'Magnitsky Act' in Canada was approved by the (appointed) Senate several months ago and is now undergoing fine tuning in
the House of Commons prior to a third and final vote of approval. The proposed law has the unanimous support of the parties in
Parliament.
A column in today's Globe and Mail daily by the newspaper's 'chief political writer' tiptoes around the Magnitsky story, never
once daring to admit that a contrary narrative exists to that of Bill Browder.
Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern
about Canada following the Cold War without examination.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Roger Annis – just little lemmings following the leader. Disgusting. I hope you posted a comment at the Globe and Mail, Roger,
with a link to this article.
Britton , July 13, 2017 at 4:05 pm
Browder is a Communist Jew, his father has a Communist past according to his background so I know I can't trust anything he
says. Hes just one of many shady interests undermining Putin I've seen over the years. His book Red Notice is just as shady. Good
reporting Consortium News. Fox News promotes Browder like crazy every chance they get especially Fox Business channel.
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:06 pm
"Browder is a Communist " Hedge Fund managers are hardly Communist – that's an oxymoron.
ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 6:02 pm
Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also
a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state
assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution
(in name yes, but in fact not).
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 6:34 pm
ToivoS,
thank you for this background information.
My main intention had been to straighten out the blurring of calling a hedge fund manager communist. Nowadays everything gets
blurred by people misrepresenting political concepts. Either the people have been dumbed-down by misinformation or misrepresenting
is done in order to keep neo-liberalism the dominant economical model. On many occasions I had read comments of people seemingly
believing that Nationalsocialism had been some variant of socialism. Even the ideas of Bernie Sanders had been misrepresented
as socialist instead of social democratic ones.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 6:21 pm
Joe Average – Dave P. mentioned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book entitled "Two Hundred Years Together" the other day. I've been
reading a long synopsis of this book. What Britton says appears to be quite true. I don't know about Browder, but from what I've
read the Jews were instrumental in the communist party, in the deaths of so many Russians. It wasn't just the Jews, but they played
a big part. It's no wonder Solzhenitsyn's book has been "lost in translation", at least into English, for so many years.
I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could
(with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is
getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a
stop to them.
Dave P. , July 13, 2017 at 7:37 pm
backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and
construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial
institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work
place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going
on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All
the plunder flowed into the Western Countries.
In recent history, no country went through this kind of plunder on a scale Russia went through during ten or fifteen years
starting in 1992. Russia was a very badly ravaged country when Putin took over. Means of production, finance, all came to halt,
and society itself had completely broken down. It appears that the West has all the intentions to do it again.
I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of
the crooks looting Russia. Then he got to John McCain with all his lies and bullshit and was responsible for the sanctions
on Russia. All the comments aboutBrowders grandfather andCommunist party are all true but hardly important. Except that it probably
was how Browder was able to get his fingers on the pie in Russia. And he sure did get his fingers in the pie BIG TIME.
I am a Canadian and am aware of Maginsky Act in Canada. Our Minister Chrystal Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a
few months ago both of these two you could say are not fans of Putin, I certainly don't know what they spoke about but other than
lies from Browder there is no reason she should have been talking with him. I have made comments on other forums regarding these
two meeting. Read Browders book and hopefully see the documentary that this article is about. When I read his book I knew instantly
that he was a crook a charloten and a liar. Just the kind of folk John McCain and a lot of other folks in US politics love. You
all have a nice Peacefull day
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:38 am
Joe Average – "I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further
rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's."
No, it doesn't put the blame entirely on the Jews; it just spells out that they did play a large part. As one Jewish scholar
said, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was too much of an academic, too intelligent to ever put the blame entirely on one group. But something
like 40 – 60 million died – shot, taken out on boats with rocks around their necks and thrown overboard, starved, gassed in rail
cars, poisoned, worked to death, froze, you name it. Every other human slaughter pales in comparison. Good old man, so civilized
(sarc)!
But someone(s) has been instrumental in keeping this book from being translated into English (or so I've read many places online).
Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and his other books have been translated, but not this one. (Although I just found one site
that has almost all of the chapters translated, but not all). Several people ordered the book off Amazon, only to find out that
it was in the Russian language. LOL
Solzhenitsyn does say at one point in the book: "Communist rebellions in Germany post-WWI was a big reason for the revival
of anti-Semitism (as there was no serious anti-Semitism in the imperial [Kaiser] Germany of 1870 – 1918)."
Lots of Jewish people made it into the upper levels of the Soviet government, academia, etc. (and lots of them were murdered
too). I might skip reading these types of books until I get older. Too bleak. Hard enough reading about the day-to-day stuff here
without going back in time for more fun!
I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart.
I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia
was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it
up.
Keep smiling, Joe.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:58 am
Dave P. – I told you, you are a wealth of information, a walking encyclopedia. Interesting about your co-worker. Sounds like
it was a free-for-all in Russia. Yes, I totally agree that Putin has done and is doing all he can to bring his country back up.
Very difficult job he is doing, and I hope he is successful at keeping the West out as much as he can, at least until Russia is
strong and sure enough to invite them in on their own terms.
Now go and tell your wife what I said about you being a "walking encyclopedia". She'll probably have a good laugh. (Not that
you're not, but you know what she'll say: "Okay, smartie, now go and do the dishes.")
Chucky LeRoi , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 am
Just some small scale, local color kind of stuff, but living in the USA, west coast specifically, it was quite noticeable in
the mid to late '90's how many Russians with money were suddenly appearing. No apparent skills or 'jobs', but seemingly able to
pay for stuff. Expensive stuff.
A neighbor invited us to her 'place in the mountains', which turned out to be where a lumber company had almost terra-formed
an area and was selling off the results. Her advice: When you go to the lake (i.e., the low area now gathering runoff, paddle
boats rentals, concession stand) you will see a lot of men with huge stomachs and tiny Speedos. They will be very rude, pushy,
confrontational. Ignore them, DO NOT comment on their rudeness or try to deal with their manners. They are Russians, and the amount
of trouble it will stir up – and probable repercussions – are simply not worth it.
Back in town, the anecdotes start piling up quickly. I am talking crowbars through windows (for a perceived insult). A beating
where the victim – who was probably trying something shady – was so pulped the emergency room staff couldn't tell if the implement
used was a 2X4 or a baseball bat. When found he had with $3k in his pocket: robbery was not the motive. More traffic accidents
involving guys with very nice cars and serious attitude problems. I could go on. More and more often somewhere in the relating
of these incidents the phrase " this Russian guy " would come up. It was the increased use of this phrase that was so noticeable.
And now the disclaimer.
Before anybody goes off, I am not anti-Russian, Russo-phobic, what have you. I studied the Russian language in high school
and college (admittedly decades ago). My tax guy is Russian. I love him. My day to day interactions have led me to this pop psychology
observation: the extreme conditions that produced that people and culture produced extremes. When they are of the good, loving
, caring, cultured, helpful sort, you could ask for no better friends. The generosity can be embarrassing. When they are of the
materialistic, evil, self-centered don't f**k with me I am THE BADDEST ASS ON THE PLANET sort, the level of mania and self-importance
is impossible to deal with, just get as far away as possible. It's worked for me.
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 8:10 pm
backwardsevolution,
thanks for the info. I'll add the book to the list of books onto my to-read list. As far as I know a Kibbutz could be described
as a Communist microcosm. The whole idea of Communism itself is based on Marx (a Jew by birth). A while ago I had started reading
"Mein Kampf". I've got to finish the book, in order to see if my assumption is correct. I guess that this book puts blame for
Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's.
The most known Russian Oligarchs that I've heard of are mainly of Jewish origin, but as far as I know they had been too young
to be commissars at the time of the demise of the USSR. At least one aspect I've read of many times is that a lot of them built
their fortunes with the help of quite shady business dealings.
With regard to President Putin I've read that he made a deal with the oligarchs: they should pay their taxes, keep/invest their
money in Russia and keep out of politics. In return he wouldn't dig too deep into their past. Right at the moment everybody in
the West is against President Putin, because he stopped the looting of his country and its citizens and that's something our Western
oligarchs and financial institutions don't like.
On a side note: Several years ago I had started to read several volumes about German history. Back then I didn't notice an
important aspect that should attract my attention a few years later when reading about the rise of John D. Rockefeller. Charlemagne
(Charles the Great) took over power from the Merovingians. Prior to becoming King of the Franks he had been Hausmeier (Mayor of
the Palace) for the Merovingians. Mayor of the Palace was the title of the manager of the household, which seems to be similar
to a procurator and/or accountant (bookkeeper). The similarity of the beginnings of both careers struck me. John D. Rockefeller
started as a bookkeeper. If you look at Bill Gates you'll realize that he was smart enough to buy an operating system for a few
dollars, improved it and sold it to IBM on a large scale. The widely celebrated Steve Jobs was basically the marketing guy, whilst
the real brain behind (the product) Apple had been Steve Wozniak.
Another side note: If we're going down the path of neo-liberalism it will lead us straight back to feudalism – at least if
the economy doesn't blow up (PCR, Michael Hudson, Mike Whitney, Mike Maloney, Jim Rogers, Richard D. Wolff, and many more economists
make excellent points that our present Western economy can't go on forever and is kept alive artificially).
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:50 am
Joe Average – somehow my reply to you ended up above your post. What? How did that happen? You can find it there. Thanks for
the interesting info about John D. Rockefeller, Gates, Jobs and Wozniak. Some are good managers, others good at sales, while others
are the creative inventors.
Yes, Joe, I totally agree that we are headed back to feudalism. I don't think we'll have much choice as the oil is running
out. We'll probably be okay, but our children? I worry about them. They'll notice a big change in their lifetimes. The discovery
and capture of oil pulled forward a large population. As we scale back, we could be in trouble, food-wise. Or at least it looks
that way.
Thanks, Joe.
Miranda Keefe , July 14, 2017 at 5:48 am
Charlemagne did not take over from the Merovingians. The Mayor of the Palace was not an accountant.
During the 7th Century the Mayor of the Place more and more became the actual ruler of the Franks. The office had existed for
over a century and was basically the "prime minister" to the king. By the time Pepin of Herstal, a scion of a powerful Frankish
family, took the position in 680, the king was ceremonial leader doing ritual and the Mayor ruled- like the relationship of the
Emperor and the Shogun in Japan. In 687 Pepin's Austrasia conquered Neustria and Burgundy and he added "Duke of the Franks" to
his titles. The office became hereditary.
When Pepin died in 714 there was some unrest as nobles from various parts of the joint kingdoms attempted to get different
ones of his heirs in the office until his son Charles Martel took the reins in 718. This is the famous Charles Martel who defeated
the Moors at Tours in 732. But that was not his only accomplishment as he basically extended the Frankish kingdom to include Saxony.
Charles not only ruled but when the king died he picked which possible heir would become king. Finally near the end of his reign
he didn't even bother replacing the king and the throne was empty.
When Charles Martel died in 741 he followed Frankish custom and divided his kingdom among his sons. By 747 his younger son,
Pepin the Short, had consolidated his rule and with the support of the Pope, deposed the last Merovingian King and became the
first Carolingian King in 751- the dynasty taking its name from Charles Martel. Thus Pepin reunited the two aspects of the Frankish
ruler, combining the rule of the Mayor with the ceremonial reign of the King into the new Kingship.
Pepin expanded the kingdom beyond the Frankish lands even more and his son, Charlemagne, continued that. Charlemagne was 8
when his father took the title of King. Charlemagne never was the Mayor of the Palace, but grew up as the prince. He became King
of the Franks in 768 ruling with his brother, sole King in 781, and then started becoming King of other countries until he united
it all in 800 as the restored Western Roman Emperor.
When he died in 814 the Empire was divided into three Kingdoms and they never reunited again. The western one evolved into
France. The eastern one evolved in the Holy Roman Empire and eventually Germany. The middle one never solidified but became the
Low Countries, Switzerland, and the Italian states.
The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock
together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian
Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/
Since the inti-Russian tenor of the Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland is in accord with the US ziocons anti-Russian policies
(never mind all this fuss about WWII Jewish mass graves in Ukraine), "Chrysta" is totally approved by the US government.
Joe Average , July 14, 2017 at 11:32 pm
I'll reply to myself in order to send a response to backwardsevolution and Miranda Keefe.
For a change I'll be so bold to ignore gentleman style and reply in the order of the posts – instead of Ladies first.
backwardsevolution,
in my first paragraph I failed to make a clear distinction. I started with the remark that I'm adding the book "Two Hundred
Years Together" to my to-read list and then mentioned that I'm right now reading "Mein Kampf". All remarks after mentioning the
latter book are directed at this one – and not the one of Solzhenitsyn.
Miranda Keefe,
I'm aware that accountant isn't an exact characterization of the concept of a Mayor of the Palace. As a precaution I had added
the phrase "seems to be similar". You're correct with the statement that Charlemagne was descendant Karl Martel. At first I intended
to write that Karolinger (Carolings) took over from Merowinger (Merovingians), because those details are irrelevant to the point
that I wanted to make. It would've been an information overload. My main point was the power of accountants and related fields
such as sales and marketing. Neither John D. Rockefeller, Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs actually created their products from scratch.
Many of those who are listed as billionaires haven't been creators / inventors themselves. Completely decoupled from actual
production is banking. Warren Buffet is started as an investment salesman, later stock broker and investor. Oversimplified you
could describe this activity as accounting or sales. It's the same with George Soros and Carl Icahn. Without proper supervision
money managers (or accountants) had and still do screw those who had hired them. One of those victims is former billionaire heiress
Madeleine Schickedanz ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz
). Generalized you could also say that BlackRock is your money manager accountant. If you've got some investment (that dates
back before 2008), which promises you a higher interest rate after a term of lets say 20 years, the company with which you have
the contract with may have invested your money with BlackRock. The financial crisis of 2008 has shown that finance (accountants
/ money managers) are taking over. Aren't investment bankers the ones who get paid large bonuses in case of success and don't
face hardly any consequences in case of failure? Well, whatever turn future might take, one thing is for sure: whenever SHTF even
the most colorful printed pieces of paper will not taste very well.
Cal , July 13, 2017 at 10:13 pm
History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks on
History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks . EVER SINCE THE Emperor Constantine established the legal
position of the church in the
Many Bolsheviks fled to Germany , taking with them some loot that enabled them to get established in Germany. Lots of invaluable
art work also.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 am
Cal – read about "History's Greatest Heist" on Amazon. Sounds interesting. Was one of the main reasons for the Czar's overthrow
to steal and then flee? It's got to have been on some minds. A lot of people got killed, and they would have had wedding rings,
gold, etc. That doesn't even include the wealth that could be stolen from the Czar. Was the theft just one of those things that
happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow in the first place, get some dough and run with
it?
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:22 pm
@ backwards
" Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow"'
imo some of both. I am sure when they were selling off Russian valuables to finance their revolution a lot of them set aside
some loot for themselves.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:09 pm
Cal – thank you. Good books like this get us closer and closer to the truth. Thank goodness for these people.
Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 11:45 am
An autocratic oligarch would probably be a better description. He probably believes like other Synarchist financiers that they
should rightfully rule the World, and see democratic processes as heresy against "The Natural Order for human society", or some
such belief.
Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 12:13 pm
Looking up "A short definition of Synarchism (a Post-Napoleonic social phenomenon) by Lyndon LaRouche" would give much insight
into what's going on. People from the intelligence community made sure a copy of a 1940 army intelligence dossier labelled something
like "Synarchism:NAZI/Communist" got into Lyndon's hands. It speaks of the the Synarchist method of attacking a targeted society
from both extreme (Right-Left) ends of the political spectrum. I guess this is dialectics? I suppose the existence of the one
extreme legitimizes the harsh, anti-democratic/anti-human measures taken to exterminate it by the other extreme, actually destroying
the targeted society in the process. America, USSR, and (Sun Yat Sen's old Republic of) China were the targeted societies in the
pre-WWII/WWII yearsfor their "sins" of championing We The People against Oligarchy. FDR knew the Synarchist threat and sided with
Russia and China against Germany and Japan. He knew that, after dealing with the battlefield NAZIs, the "Boardroom" NAZIs would
have to be dealt with Post-War. That all changed with his death.The Synarchists are still at it today, hence all the rabid Russo-phobia,
the Pacific Pivot, and the drive towards war. This is all being foiled with Trump's friendly, cooperative approach towards Russia
and China.
mike k , July 13, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Big Brother at work – always protecting us from upsetting information. How nice of him to insure our comfort. No need for us
to bother with all of this confusing stuff, he can do all that for us. The mainstream media will tell us all we need to know ..
(Virginia – please notice my use of irony.)
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Do you remember mike K when porn was censored, and there were two sides to every issue as compromise was always on the table?
Now porn is accessible on cable TV, and there is only one side to every issue, and that's I'm right about everything and your
not, what compromise with you?
Don't get me wrong, I don't really care how we deal with porn, but I am very concerned to why censorship is showing up whereas
we can't see certain things, for certain reasons we know nothing about. Also, I find it unnerving that we as a society continue
to stay so undivided. Sure, we can't all see the same things the same way, but maybe it's me, and I'm getting older by the minute,
but where is our cooperation to at least try and work with each other?
Always like reading your comments mike K Joe
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:09 pm
Joe,
when it comes to the choice of watching porn and bodies torn apart (real war pictures), I prefer the first one, although we
in the West should be confronted with the horrible pictures of what we're assisting/doing.
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 5:27 pm
This is where the Two Joe's are alike.
mike k , July 13, 2017 at 6:07 pm
I do remember those days Joe. I am 86 now, so a lot has changed since 1931. With the 'greed is good' philosophy in vogue now,
those who seek compromise are seen as suckers for the more single minded to take advantage of. Respect for rules of decency is
just about gone, especially at the top of the wealth pyramid.
Distraction from critical thinking, excellent observation ( please forget the NeoCon Demos they are responsible for half of
the nightmare USA society has become.
ranney , July 13, 2017 at 4:37 pm
Wow Robert, what a fascinating article! And how complicated things become "when first we practice to deceive".
Abe thank you for the link to Ritter's article; that's a really good one too!
John , July 13, 2017 at 4:40 pm
If we get into a shooting war with Russia and the human race somehow survives it Robert Parry' s name will one day appear in
the history books as the person who most thoroughly documented the events leading up to that war. He will be considered to be
a top historian as well as a top journalist.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:01 pm
"Browder, who abjured his American citizenship in 1998 to become a British subject, reveals more about his own selective advocacy
of democratic principles than about the film itself. He might recall that in his former homeland freedom of the press remains
a cherished value."
Abe – "never driven by the money". No, he would never be that type of guy (sarc)!
"It's hard to know what Browder will do next. He rules out any government ambitions, instead saying he can achieve more by
lobbying it.
This summer, he says he met "big Hollywood players" in a bid to turn his book into a major film.
"The most important next step in the campaign is to adapt the book into a Hollywood feature film," he says. "I have been approached
by many film-makers and spent part of the summer in LA meeting with screenwriters, producers and directors to figure out what
the best constellation of players will be on this.
"There are a lot of people looking at it. It's still difficult to say who we will end up choosing. There are many interesting
options, but I'm not going to name any names."
What the ..? I can see it now, George Clooney in the lead role, Mr. White Helmets himself, with his twins in tow.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:56 am
Is it not impressive how money buys out reality in the modern world? This is why one can safely assume that whatever is told
in the MSM is completely opposite to the truth. Would MSM have to push it if it were the truth? You may call this Kiza's Law if
you like (modestly): " The truth is always opposite to what MSM say! " The 0.1% of situations where this is not the case
is the margin of error.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:39 pm
"no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based hedge fund manager Bill
Browder [ ]
"there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment operation of the publishing
billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated
British soldier, then helped in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia.
He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.
"The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel,
to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis. Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection
come about? Was it through Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?
"When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era St. Petersburg art museum,
though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz, the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how
Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a
partner but also a mentor and friend.
"Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main backer of Israel's Shas party,
the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University,
the Weizmann Institute and much more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising
that none of it gets mentioned.
"It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance of the inarticulateness that
seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."
Abe – what a web. Money makes money, doesn't it? It's often what club you belong to and who you know. I remember a millionaire
in my area long ago who went bankrupt. The wealthy simply chipped in, gave him some start-up money, and he was off to the races
again. Simple as that. And I would think that the Jews are an even tighter group who invest with each other, are privy to inside
information, get laws changed in favor of each other, pay people off when one gets in trouble. Browder seems a shifty sort. As
the article says, he leaves a lot out.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 11:37 pm
In 1988, Stanton Wheeler (Yale University – Law School), David L. Weisburd (Hebrew University of Jerusalem; George Mason University
– The Department of Criminology, Law & Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem – Faculty of Law). Elin Waring (Yale University
– Law School), and Nancy Bode (Government of the State of Minnesota) published a major study on white collar crime in America.
Part of a larger program of research on white-collar crime supported by a grant from the United States Department of Justice's
National Institute of Justice, the study included "the more special forms associated with the abuse of political power [ ] or
abuse of financial power". The study was also published as a Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research Paper
The research team noted that Jews were over-represented relative to their share of the U.S. population:
"With respect to religion, there is one clear finding. Although many in both white collar and common crime categories do not
claim a particular religious faith [ ] It would be a fair summary of our. data to say that, demographically speaking, white collar
offenders are predominantly middle-aged white males with an over-representation of Jews."
In 1991, David L. Weisburd published his study of Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts,
Weisburd found that although Jews comprised only around 2% of the United States population, they contributed at least 9% of lower
category white-collar crimes (bank embezzlement, tax fraud and bank fraud), at least 15% of moderate category white-collar crimes
(mail fraud, false claims, and bribery), and at least 33% of high category white-collar crimes (antitrust and securities fraud).
Weisburg showed greater frequency of Jewish offenders at the top of the hierarchy of white collar crime. In Weisbug's sample of
financial crime in America, Jews were responsible for 23.9%.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:26 am
What I find most interesting is how Putin handles the Jews.
It is obvious that he is the one who saved the country of Russia from the looting of the 90s by the Russian-American Jewish
mafia. This is the most direct explanation for his demonisation in the West, his feat will never be forgiven, not even in history
books (a demon forever). Even to this day, for example in Syria, Putin's main confrontation is not against US then against the
Zionist Jews, whose principal tool is US. Yet, there is not a single anti-Semitic sentence that Putin ever uttered. Also, Putin
let the Jewish oligarchs who plundered Russia keep their money if they accepted the authority of the Russian state, kept employing
Russians and paying Russian taxes. But he openly confronted those who refused (Berezovsky, Khodorovsky etc). Furthermore, Putin
lets Israel bomb Syria under his protection to abandon. Finally, Putin is known in Russia as a great supporter of Jews and Israel,
almost a good friend of Nutty Yahoo.
Therefore, it appears to me that the Putin's principal strategy is to appeal to the honest Jewish majority to restrain the
criminal Jewish minority (including the criminally insane), to divide them instead of confronting them all as a group, which is
what the anti-Semitic Europeans have traditionally been doing. His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews.
I still do not know if his strategy will succeed in the long run, but it certainly is an interesting new approach (unless I do
not know history enough) to an ancient problem. It is almost funny how so many US people think that the problem with the nefarious
Jewish money power started with US, if they are even aware of it.
Cal , July 16, 2017 at 5:41 am
" His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. "
The Jews have no power without their uber Jew money men, most of whom are ardent Zionist.
And because they get some benefits from the lobbying heft of the Zionist control of congress they arent going to go against them.
In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying arms to the Ukrainians
and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".
The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad.
Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the
Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various
publications in Russia.
Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor Yushenko and his partner-rival
Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs. During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave
one of the last interviews with the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris
Berezovsky, Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.
In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She
was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice
of America.
HIDE BEHIND , July 13, 2017 at 7:43 pm
Gramps was decended from an old Irish New England Yankee lineage and in my youth he always dragged me along when the town meetings
were held, so my ideas of American DEmocracy stem from that background, one of open participation.
The local newspapers had more social chit chat than political news of international or for that mstter State or Federal shenanigansbut
everu member in that far flung settled communit read them from front to back; ss a child I got to read the funny and sports pages
until Gramps got finidhed reading the "News Section, always the news first yhen the lesser BS when time allowed,this habit instilled
in me the sence of
priority.
Aftrr I had read his dection of paper he would talk with me,even being a yonker, in a serious but opinionated manner, of the Editorial
section which had local commentary letterd to the editor as large as somtimes too pages.
I wonder today at which section of papersf at all, is read by american public, and at how manyadults discuss importsn news worthy
tppics with their children.
At advent of TV we still had trustworthy journalist to finally be seen after years of but reading their columns or listening on
radios,almost tottaly all males but men of honesty and character, and worthy of trust.
They wrre a part of all social stratas, had lived real lives and yes most eere well educated but not the elitist thinking jrrks
who are no more than parrots repeating whatevrr a teleprompter or bias of their employers say to write.
Wrll back to Gramps and hid home spun wisdom: He alwsys ,and shoeed by example at those old and somrtimes boistrous town Halls,
that first you askef a question, thought about the answer, and then questioned the answer.
This made the one being question responsible for the words he spoke.
So those who have doubts by a presumed independent journalist, damn right they should question his motives, which in reality begin
to answer our unspoken questions we can no longer ask those boobs for bombs and political sychophants and their paymasters of
popular media outlets.
As one who likes effeciency in prodution one monitors data to spot trends and sny aberations bring questions so yes I note this
journalist deviation from the norms as well.
I can only question the why, by looking at data from surrounding trends in order to later be able to question his answers.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:07 am
Hide Behind – sounds like you had a smart grandpa, and someone who cared enough about you to talk things over with you (even
though he was opinionated). I try to talk things over with my kids, sometimes too much. They're known on occasion to say, "Okay,
enough. We're full." I wait a few days, and then fill them up some more! Ha.
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 10:53 pm
Here's a thought; will letting go of Trump Jr's infraction cancel out a guilty verdict of Hillary Clinton's transgressions?
I keep hearing Hillary references while people defend Donald Trump Jr over his meeting with Russian Natalia Veselnitskaya.
My thinking started over how I keep hearing pundits speak to Trump Jr's 'intent'. Didn't Comey find Hillary impossible to prosecute
due to her lack of 'intent'? Actually I always thought that to be prosecuted under espionage charges, the law didn't need to prove
intent, but then again we are talking about Hillary here.
The more I keep hearing Trump defenders make mention of Hillary's deliberate mistakes, and the more I keep hearing Democrates
point to Donald Jr's opportunistic failures, the more similarity I see between the two rivals, and the more I see an agreed upon
truce ending up in a tie. Remember we live in a one party system with two wings.
Am I going down the wrong road here, or could forgiving Trump Jr allow Hillary to get a free get out of jail card?
F. G. Sanford , July 14, 2017 at 12:42 am
I've been saying all along, our government is just a big can of worms, and neither side can expose the other without opening
it. But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers like it's a game of chicken. My guess is, everybody is gonna get
a free pass. I read somewhere that Preet Bharara had the goods on a whole bunch of bankers, but he sat on it clear up to the election.
Then, he got fired. So much for draining the swamp. If they prosecute Hillary, it looks like a grudge match. If they prosecute
Junior, it looks like revenge. If they prosecute Lynch, it looks like racism. When you deal with a government this corrupt, everybody
looks innocent by comparison. I'm still betting nobody goes to jail, as long as the "deep state" thinks they have Trump under
control.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 1:29 am
It's like we are sitting on the top of a hill looking down at a bunch of little armies attacking each other, or something.
I'm really screwy, I have contemplated to if Petraues dropped a dime on himself for having a extra martial affair, just to
get out of the Benghazi mess. Just thought I'd tell you that for full disclosure.
When it comes to Hillary, does anyone remember how in the beginning of her email investigation she pointed to Colin Powell
setting precedent to use a private computer? That little snitch Hillary is always the one when caught to start pointing the finger
.she would never have lasted in the Mafia, but she's smart enough to know what works best in Washington DC.
I'm just starting to see the magic; get the goods on Trump Jr then make a deal with the new FBI director.
Okay go ahead and laugh, but before you do pass the popcorn, and let's see how this all plays out.
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
Joe
Lisa , July 14, 2017 at 4:22 am
"Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see."
Joe, where does this quote originate? Or is it a paraphrase?
I once had an American lecturer (political science) at the university, and he stressed the idea that we should not believe anything
we read or hear and only half of what we see. This was l-o-o-ng ago, in the 60's.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 10:59 am
The first time I ever heard that line, 'believe nothing of what you see', was a friend of mine said it after we watched Roberto
Clemente throw a third base runner out going towards home plate, as Robert threw the ball without a bounce to the catcher who
was standing up, from the deep right field corner of the field .oh those were the days.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 9:12 pm
JT,
Clemente had an unbelievable arm! The consummate baseball player I have family in western PA, an uncle your age in fact who remembers
Clemente well. Roberto also happened to be a great human being.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm
I got loss at Forbes Field. I was seven years old, it was 1957. I got separated from my older cousin, we got in for 50 cents
to sit in the left field bleachers. Like I said I loss my older cousin so I walked, and walked, and just about the time I wanted
my mum the most I saw daylight. I followed the daylight out of the big garage door, and I was standing within a foot of this long
white foul line. All of a sudden this Black guy started yelling at me in somekind of broken English to, 'get off the field, get
out of here'. Then I felt a field ushers hand grab my shoulder, and as I turned I saw my cousin standing on the fan side of the
right field side of the field. The usher picked me up and threw me over to my cousin, with a warning for him to keep his eye on
me. That Black baseball player was a young rookie who was recently just drafted from the then Brooklyn Dodgers .#21 Roberto Clemente.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:12 pm
You were a charmed boy and now you are a charmed man. Great story life is a Field of Dreams sometimes.
Zachary Smith , July 15, 2017 at 9:00 pm
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
My introduction to this had the wording the other way around:
"Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."
This was because the workplace was saturated with rumors, and unfortunately there was a practice of management and union representatives
"play-acting" for their audience. So what you "saw" was as likely as not a little theatrical production with no real meaning whatever.
The two fellows shouting at each other might well be laughing about it over a cup of coffee an hour later.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 am
Sanford – "But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers " That's funny writing.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:20 pm
yessir, love it
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:41 am
Absolutely, one of the best political metaphors ever (unfortunately works in English language only).
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:19 pm
BTW, they are flashing at each other not only can openers then also jail cells and grassy knolls these days. But the can openers
would still be most scary.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 2:13 am
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries, like binary options,
have been allowed to flourish here.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish
members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not
suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation
claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's
Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years
was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive
computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed
the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that for Russian Jewish oligarchs,
criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 3:00 am
Abe – wow, what a story. I guess it's lucrative to "never forget"! Bandits.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
NCJRS Abstract
The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the
NCJRS Abstracts Database. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary
loans, or in a local library.
NCJ Number: NCJ 006180
Title: CRIMINALITY AMONG JEWS – AN OVERVIEW
United States of America
Journal: ISSUES IN CRIMINOLOGY Volume:6 Issue:2 Dated:(SUMMER 1971) Pages:1-39
Date Published: 1971
Page Count: 15
.
Abstract: THE CONCLUSION OF MOST STUDIES IS THAT JEWS HAVE A LOW CRIME RATE. IT IS LOWER THAN THAT OF NON-JEWS TAKEN AS A WHOLE,
LOWER THAN THAT OF OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS,
HOWEVER, THE JEWISH CRIME RATE TENDS TO BE HIGHER THAN THAT OF NONJEWS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS FOR WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES,
THAT IS, COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCIALLY RELATED CRIMES, SUCH AS FRAUD, FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY, AND EMBEZZLEMENT.
Index Term(s): Behavioral and Social Sciences ; Adult offenders ; Minorities ; Behavioral science research ; Offender classification
Country: United States of America
Language: English
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Cal – that does not surprise me at all. Of course they would be where the money is, and once you have money, you get nothing
but the best defense. "I've got time and money on my side. Go ahead and take me to court. I'll string this thing along and it'll
cost you a fortune. So let's deal. I'm good with a fine."
A rap on the knuckles, a fine, and no court case, no discovery of the truth that the people can see. Of course they'd be there.
That IS the only place to be if you want to be a true criminal.
Skip Scott , July 15, 2017 at 1:57 pm
Thanks again Abe, you are a wealth of information. I think you have to allow for anyone to make a mistake, and Bharara has
done a lot of good.
Longtime Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz and his team have directed their grievance at Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior
White House adviser.
Citing a person familiar with Trump's legal team, The Times said Kasowitz has bristled at Kushner's "whispering in the president's
ear" about stories on the Russia investigation without telling Kasowitz and his team.
The Times' source said the attorneys, who were hired as private counsel to Trump in light of the Russia investigation, view Kushner
"as an obstacle and a freelancer" motivated to protect himself over over Trump. The lawyers reportedly told colleagues the work
environment among Trump's inner circle was untenable, The Times said, suggesting Kasowitz could resign
Second
Who thinks Jared works for Trump? I don't.
Jared works for his father Charles Kushner, the former jail bird who hired prostitutes to blackmail his brother in law into not
testifying against him. Jared spent every weekend his father was in prison visiting him.,,they are inseparable.
Third
So what is Jared doing in his WH position to help his father and his failing RE empire?
Trying to get loans from China, Russia, Qatar,Qatar
And why Is Robert Mueller Probing Jared Kushner's Finances?
Because of this no doubt:..seeking a loan for the Kushners from a Russian bank.
The White House and the bank have offered differing accounts of the Kushner-Gorkov sit-down. While the White House said Kushner
met Gorkov and other foreign representatives as a transition official to "help advance the president's foreign policy goals."
Vnesheconombank, also known as VEB, said it was part of talks with business leaders about the bank's development strategy.
It said Kushner was representing Kushner companies, his family real estate empire.
Jared Kushner 'tried and failed to get a $500m loan from Qatar before http://www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas › US politics
2 days ago –
Jared Kushner tried and failed to secure a $500m loan from one of Qatar's richest businessmen, before pushing his father-in-law
to toe a hard line with the country, it has been alleged. This intersection between Mr Kushner's real estate dealings and his
father-in-law's
The Kushners are about to lose their shirts..unless one of those foreign country's banks gives them the money.
At Kushners' Flagship Building, Mounting Debt and a Foundered Deal https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/nyregion/kushner-companies-666-fifth-avenue.html
The Fifth Avenue skyscraper was supposed to be the Kushner Companies' flagship in the heart of Manhattan -- a record-setting $1.8
billion souvenir proclaiming that the New Jersey developers Charles Kushner and his son Jared were playing in the big leagues.
And while it has been a visible symbol of their status, it has also it has also been a financial headache almost from the start.
On Wednesday, the Kushners announced that talks had broken off with a Chinese financial conglomerate for a deal worth billions
to redevelop the 41-story tower, at 666 Fifth Avenue, into a flashy 80-story ultraluxury skyscraper comprising a chic retail mall,
a hotel and high-priced condominiums"
Get these cockroaches out of the WH please.,,,Jared and his sister are running around the world trying to get money in exchange
for giving them something from the Trump WH.
The NYC skyline displays 666 in really really really HUGE !!!! numbers. Perhaps the USA government as Cheney announced has
gone to the very very very DARK side.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Yea 666 probably isn't a coincidence .lol
Chris Kinder , July 14, 2017 at 12:15 am
What I think most comments overlook here is the following: the US is the primary imperialist aggressor in the world today,
and Russia, though it is an imperialist competitor, is much weaker and is generally losing ground. Early on, the US promised that
NATO would not be extended into Eastern Europe, but now look at what's happened: not only does the US have NATO allies and and
missiles in Eastern Europe, but it also engineered a coup against a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, and is now trying to drive
Russia out of Eastern Ukraine, as in Crimea and the Donbass and other areas of Eastern Ukraine, which are basically Russian going
back more than a century. Putin is pretty mild compered to the US' aggressive stance. That's number one.
Number two is that the current anti-Russian hysteria in the US is all about maintaining the same war-mongering stance against
Russia that existed in the cold war, and also about washing clean the Democratic Party leadership's crimes in the last election.
Did the Russians hack the election? Maybe they tried, but the point is that what was exposed–the emails etc–were true information!
They show that the DNC worked to deprive Bernie Sanders of the nomination, and hide crimes of the Clintons'! These exposures,
not any Russian connection to the exposures, are what really lost Hillary the election.
So, what is going on here? The Democrats are trying to hide their many transgressions behind an anti-Russian scare, why? Because
it is working, and because it fits in with US imperialist anti-Russian aims which span the entire post-war period, and continue
today. And because it might help get Trump impeached. I would not mind that result one bit, but the Democrats are no alternative:
that has been shown to be true over and over again.
This is all part of the US attempt to be the dominant imperialist power in the world–something which it has pursued since the
end of the last world war, and something which both Democrats and Republicans–ie, the US ruling class behind them–are committed
to. Revolutionaries say: the main enemy is at home, and that is what I say now. That is no endorsement of Russian imperialism,
but a rejection of all imperialism and the capitalist exploitative system that gives rise to it.
Thanks for your attention -- Chris Kinder
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:58 am
Chris – good post. Thanks.
mike k , July 14, 2017 at 11:35 am
Chris, I think most commenters here are aware of everything you summarized above, but we just don't put all that in each individual
post.
Paranam Kid , July 14, 2017 at 6:40 am
It is ironic that Browder on his website describes himself as running a battle against corporate corruption in Russia, and
there is a quote by Walter Isaacson: "Bill Browder is an amazing moral crusader".
http://www.billbrowder.com/bio
HIDE BEHIND , July 14, 2017 at 10:02 am
One cannot talk of Russian monry laundering in US without exposing the Jewish Israeli and many AIPAC connections.
I studied not so much the Jewish Orthodoxy but mainly the evolution of noth their outlook upon G.. but also how those who do not
believe in a G.. and still keep their cultural cohesiveness
The largest money laundering group in US is
both Jewish and Israeli, and while helping those of their cultural similarities, their ecpertise goes. Very deep in Eastern U.S.
politics and especially strong in all commercial real estate, funding, setting up bribes to permitting officials,contractors and
owners of construvtion firms.
Financials some quite large are within this Jew/Israel connections, as all they who offshore need those proper connections to
do so. take bribes need the funding cleaned and
flow out through very large tax free Jewish Charity Orgd, the largest ones are those of Orthodox.
GOV Christie years ago headed the largest sting operation to try and uproot what at that time he believed was just statewide tax
fraud and laundering operations, many odd cash flows into political party hacks running for evrry gov position electefd or appointed.
Catchng a member of one of the most influential Orthofox familys mrmbers, that member rolled on many many indivifuals of his own
culture.
It was only when Vhristies investigative team began turning up far larger cases of laundering and political donations thst msinly
centered in NY Stste and City, fid he then find out howuch power this grouping had.
Soon darn near every AIPAC aided elected politico from city state and rspecially Congress was warning him to end investigation.
Which he did.
His reward was for his fat ass to be funded for a run towards US Presidency, without any visibly open opposition by that cultural
grouping.
No it is not odd for Jewery to charge goyim usury or to aid in political schemes that advance their groups aims.
One thing to remenber by the Bible thumpers who delay any talks of Israel ; Christian Zionist, is that to be of their culture
one does not have to believe in G.
There are a few excellent books written about early days Jewish immigrant Pre Irish andblre Sicilian mafias.
The Jewish one remainst to this day but are as well orgNized as the untold history of what is known as "The Southern mafia.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Hide Behind – fascinating! I guess if we ever knew half of what goes on behind the scenes, we'd be shocked. We only ever know
things like this exist when people like you enlighten us, or when there's a blockbuster movie about it. Thanks.
Deborah Andrew , July 14, 2017 at 10:03 am
With great respect and appreciation for your writing about the current unsubstantiated conversations/writing about 'Russia-gate'
I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts. Analysis and opinions,
that include the facts, may differ. However, it is the readers who will evaluate the varied analysis and opinions when they include
all the facts known. I raise this question, as it seems to me that we have a binary approach to our thinking and decision making.
Something is either good or bad, this or that. Sides are taken. Labels are added (such as conservative and progressive). Would
we not be wiser and would our decision making not be wiser if it were based on a set of principles? My own preference: the precautionary
principle and the principle of do no harm. I am suggesting that we abandon the phrase and notion of the 'other side of the story'
and replace it with: based on the facts now known, or, based on all the facts revealed to date or, until more facts are revealed
it appears
I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts.
Replying to a question with another question isn't really good form, but given my knowledge level of this case I can see no
alternative.
How do you propose to determine the "facts" when virtually none of the characters involved in the affair appear trustworthy?
Also, there is a lot of evidence (displayed by Mr. Parry) that another set of "characters" we call the Mainstream Media are
extremely biased and one-sided with their coverage of the story.
Again – Where am I going to find those "facts" you speak of?
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:52 am
Spot on.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:02 pm
Deborah Andrew – good comment, but the problem is that we never seem to get "the other side of the story" from the MSM. You
are right in pointing out that "the other side of the story" probably isn't ALL there is (as nothing is completely black and white),
but at least it's something. The only way we can ever get to the truth is to put the facts together and question them, but how
are you going to do that when the facts are kept away from us?
It can be very frustrating, can't it, Deborah? Cheers.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:52 pm
Nice comment.
None of us can know the exact truth of anything we ourselves haven't seen or been involved in. The best we can do is try to
find trusted sources, be objective, analytical and compare different stories and known the backgrounds and possible agendas of
the people involved in a issue or story.
We can use some clues to help us cull thru what we hear and read.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of
the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players,
or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public
figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the
topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors
and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially
well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can
associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which
can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the
opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy
them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real
issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though
other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal',
'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and
so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before
an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments
where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation
or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal
agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon'
and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely
why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have
any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for
maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility,
someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should
the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt
with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can
usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues
-- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess'
with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it
all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later,
and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner
sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players
and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose
interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which
forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which
works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions
in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion
with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well
with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more
key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them
into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat
less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses
the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what
material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for
the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed
or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically
deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made
by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations
-- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies
for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and
effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to
be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful
evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the
matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be
used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to
forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you
must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted
media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution
so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction
of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging
their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to
avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these.
In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000 – formerly SEVEN Traits)
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references
or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their
authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators
supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. .
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior
record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the
topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally
in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved.
Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute
opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe
JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a
single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone
on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior
motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and
persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment,
ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will
deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms
of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek
to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really
knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep
within.
8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Wth respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen
to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players
can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE
READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum
of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get
permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay
– the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important
with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
Michael Kenny , July 14, 2017 at 11:22 am
I don't really see Mr Parry's point. The banning of Nekrasov's film isn't proof of the accuracy of its contents and even less
does it prove that anything that runs counter to Nekrasov's argument is false. Nor does proving that a mainstream meida story
is false prove that an internet story saying the opposite is true. "A calls B a liar. B proves that A is a liar. That proves that
B is truthful." Not very logical! What seems to be established is that the lawyer in question represents a Russian-owned company,
a money-laundering prosecution against which was settled last May on the basis of what the company called a "surprise" offer from
prosecutors that was "too good to refuse". This "Russian government attorney" (dixit Goldstone) had information concerning illegal
campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr jumped at it and it makes no difference whether he was tricked
or even whether he actually got anything, his intent was clear. In addition DNC "dirt" did indeed appear on the internet via Wikileaks,
just as "dirt" appeared in the French election. MacronLeaks proves Russiagate and "Juniorgate" confirms MacronLeaks. The question
now is did Trump, as president, intervene to bring about this "too good to refuse" offer? That question cannot just be written
off with the "no evidence" argument.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm
God, you are persistent if nothing else. Keep repeating the same lie until it is taken as true, just like the MSM. You say
that Russia-gate, Macron leaks, etc can't be written off with the "no evidence" argument (how is that logical?), and then you
trash a film you haven't even seen because it doesn't fit your narrative. Maybe some evidence is provided in the film, did you
consider that possibility? That fact that Nekrasov started out to make a pro Broder film, and then switched sides, leads me to
believe he found some disturbing evidence. And if you look into Nekrasov you will find that he is no fan of Putin, so one has
to wonder what his motive is if he is lying.
I am wondering if you ever look back at previous posts, because you never reply to a rebuttal. If you did, you would see that
you are almost universally seen by the commenters here as a troll. If you are being paid, I suppose it might not matter much to
you. However, your employer should look for someone with more intelligent arguments. He is wasting his money on you.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 9:27 pm
Propaganda trolls attempt to trash the information space by dismissing, distracting, diverting, denying, deceiving and distorting
the facts.
The trolls aim at confusing rather than convincing the audience.
The tag team troll performance of "Michael Kenny" and "David" is accompanied by loud declarations that they have "logic" on
their side and "evidence" somewhere. Then they shriek that they're being "censored".
Propaganda trolls target the comments section of independent investigative journalism sites like Consortium News, typically
showing up when articles discuss the West's "regime change" wars and deception operations.
Pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda trolls also strive to discredit websites, articles, and videos critical of Israel and Zionism.
Hasbara smear tactics have intensified due to increasing Israeli threats of military aggression, Israeli collusion with the United
States in "regime change" projects from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, and Israeli links to international organized crime
and terrorism in Syria.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:04 am
Gee Abe, you are a magician (and I thought that you only quote excellent articles). Short and sharp.
Abe , July 15, 2017 at 4:15 pm
When they have a hard time selling that they're being "censored" (after more than a dozen comments), trolls complain that they're
being "dismissed" and "invalidated" by "hostile voices".
exiled off mainstreet , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons
to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier against Trump later used by Comey to help gin up the Russian influence conspiracy
theory. In the article, it is true the GPS connection may have involved her lobbying efforts to overturn the Magnitsky law, not
the dossier, but it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton democrats. Though
it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something
they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative.
mike k , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 pm
I think as you say Skip that most on this blog have seen through Michael Kenny's stuff. Nobody's buying it. He's harmless.
If he's here on his own dime, if we don't feed him, he will get bored and go away. If he's being payed, he may persist, but so
what. Sometimes I check the MSM just to see what the propaganda line is. Kenny is like that; his shallow arguments tell me what
we must counter to wake people up.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Yeah mike k, I know you're right. I don't know why I let the guy get under my skin. Perhaps it's because he never responds
to a rebuttal.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:14 am
Then you would have to waste more time rebutting the (equally empty) rebuttal.
The second thing is that many trolls suffer from DID, that is the Dissociative Identity Disorder, aka sock puppetry. There
is a bit of similarity in argument between David and Michael and HAWKINS, only one of them rebuts quite often.
Another excellent article! I wrote a very detailed
blog post
in which I methodically take apart the latest "revelation" about Donald Trump Jr.'s emails. I talk a lot about the Magnitsky
Act, which is very relevant to this whole story.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm
I always like reading your articles Philippe, you have a real talent. Maybe read what I wrote above, but I'm sensing this Trump
Jr affair will help Hillary more than anything, to give her a reprieve from any further FBI investigations. I mean somehow, I'm
sure by Hillary's standards and desires, that this whole crazy investigation thing has to end. So, would it not seem reasonable
to believe that by allowing Donald Jr to be taken off the hook, that Hillary likewise will enjoy the taste of forgiveness?
Tell me if you think this Donald Trump Jr scandal could lead to this Joe
PS if so this could be a good next article to write there I go telling the band what to play, but seriously if this Russian
conclusion episode goes on much longer, could you not see a grand bargain and a deal being made?
Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad you like the blog. I wasn't under the impression that Clinton was under any particular
danger from the Justice Department, but even if she was, she doesn't have the power to stop this Trump/Russia collusion nonsense
because it's pushed by a lot of people that have nothing to do with her except for the fact that they would have preferred her
to win.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 6:48 pm
Excellent summary and analysis, Philippe. Key observation:
"as even the New York Times admits, there is no evidence that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr., Jared
Kushner and Paul Manafort for 20-30 minutes on 9 June 2016, provided any such information during that meeting. Donald Trump Jr.
said that, although he asked her about it, she didn't give them anything on Clinton, but talked to him about the Magnitsky Act
and Russia's decision to block adoption by American couples in retaliation. Of course, if we just had his word, we'd have no particularly
good reason to believe him. But the fact remains that no documents of the sort described in Goldstone's ridiculous email ever
surfaced during the campaign, which makes what he is saying about how the meeting went down pretty convincing, at least on this
specific point. It should be noted that Donald Trump Jr. has offered to testify under oath about anything related to this meeting.
Moreover, he also said during the interview he gave to Sean Hannity that there was no follow-up to this meeting, which is unlikely
to be a lie since he must know that, given the hysteria about this meeting, it would come out. He may not be the brightest guy
in the world, but surely he or at least the people who advised him before that interview are not that stupid."
Your own necpluribus article was one of the best I've seen summarising the whole controversy, and your exhaustive responses
to the pro-deep state critics was edifying. I am now convinced that your view of Veselnitskaya's role in the affair and the nature
her connections to the dossier drafting company GPS being based on their unrelated work on the magnitsky law is accurate.
"Bill Browder, born into a notable Jewish family in Chicago, is the grandson of Earl Browder, the former leader of the Communist
Party USA,[2] and the son of Eva (Tislowitz) and Felix Browder, a mathematician. He grew up in Chicago, Illinois, and attended
the University of Chicago where he studied economics. He received an MBA from Stanford Business School[3] in 1989 where his classmates
included Gary Kremen and Rich Kelley. In 1998, Browder gave up his US citizenship and became a British citizen.[4] Prior to setting
up Hermitage, Browder worked in the Eastern European practice of the Boston Consulting Group[5] in London and managed the Russian
proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers.[6]"
Rake , July 15, 2017 at 9:13 am
Successfully keeping a salient argument from being heard is scary, given the social media and alternative media players who
are all ripe to uncover a bombshell. Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks.
"Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks."
Agree.
P. Clark , July 15, 2017 at 12:01 pm
When Trump suggested that a Mexican-American judge might be biased because of this ethnicity the media said this was racist.
Yet these same outlets like the New York Times are now routinely questioning Russian-American loyalty because of their ethnicity.
As usual a ridiculous double standard. Basically the assumption is all Russians are bad. We didn't even have this during the cold
war.
Cal , July 15, 2017 at 8:10 pm
Yes indeed P. Clark .that kind or hypocrisy makes my head explode!
MichaelAngeloRaphaelo , July 15, 2017 at 12:17 pm
Enough's Enough
STOP DNC/DEMs
#CryBabyFakeNewsBS
Support Duly ELECTED
@POTUS @realDonaldTrump
#BoycottFakeNewsSponsors
#DrainTheSwamp
#MAGA
Wow, I just learned via this article that in US Nekrasov is labeled as "pro-Kremlin" by WaPo. That's just too funny. He's in
a relationship with a Finnish MEP Heidi Hautala, who is very well known for her anti-Russia mentality. Nekrasov is defenetly anti-Kremlin
if something. He was supposed to make an anti-Kremlin documentary, but the facts turned out to be different than he thought, but
still finished his documentary.
The lengths to which the Neo Conservative War Cabal will go to destroy freedom of speech and access to alternative news sources
underscores that the United States is becoming an Orwellian agitation-propaganda police state equally dedicated to igniting World
War III for Netanyahu, the Central Banks, our Wahhabic Petrodollar Partners, and a pipeline consortium or two. The Old American
Republic is dead.
Roy G Biv , July 15, 2017 at 4:38 pm
Interesting to note that each and everyone of David's comments were bleached from this page. Looks like he was right about
the censorship. Sad.
Duly noted Abe. But you should adhere to the first part of the statement that you somehow forgot to include:
From Editor Robert Parry: At Consortiumnews, we welcome substantive comments about our articles, but comments should avoid
abusive language toward other commenters or our writers, racial or religious slurs (including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia),
and allegations that are unsupported by facts.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:06 pm
My favorite was David's claim that he contributed to this zine whilst it was publishing articles not to his liking (/sarc).
I kindly reminded him that people pay much more money to have publishing the way they like it – for example how much Bezos paid
for Washington Post, or Omidyar to establish The Intercept.
Except for such funny component, David's comments were totally substance free and useless. Nothing lost with bleaching.
Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:44 am
You're practicing disinformation. He actually said he contributed early on and had problems with the recent course of the CN
trajectory. Censorship is cowardly.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm
Consortium News welcomes substantive comments.
"David" was presenting allegations unsupported by facts and disrupting on-topic discussion.
Violations of CN comment policy are taken down by the moderator. Period. It has nothing to do with "censorship".
Stop practicing disinformation and spin, "Roy G Biv".
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:57 pm
I stopped contributing after the unintellectual dismissal of scientific 911 truthers. And it's easy for you to paint over my
comments as they have been scrubbed. There was plenty of useful substance, it just ran against the tide. Sorry you didn't appreciate
it the contrary viewpoint or have the curiosity to read the backstory.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 5:02 pm
The cowardly claim of "censorship".
The typical troll whine is that their "contrary viewpoint" was "dismissed" merely because it "ran against the tide".
No. Your allegations were unsupported by facts. They still are.
Martyrdom is just another troll tactic.
dub , July 15, 2017 at 9:44 pm
torrent for the film?
Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:56 am
Here is the pdf of the legal brief about the Magnitsky film submitted by Senator Grassly to Homeland Security Chief. Interesting
read and casts doubt on the claims made in the film, refutes several claims actually. Skip past Chuck Grassly's first two page
intro to get to the meat of it. If you are serious about a debate on the merits of the case, this is essential reading.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the brief.
But forget the spin from "Roy G Biv" because the brief actually refutes nothing about Andrei Nekrasov's film.
It simply notes that the Russian government was understandably concerned about "unscrupulous swindler" and "sleazy crook" William
Browder.
After your finished reading the brief, try to remember any time when Congress dared to examine a lobbying campaign undertaken
on behalf of Israeli (which is to say, predominantly Russian Jewish) interests, the circumstances surrounding a pro-Israel lobbying
effort and the potential FARA violations involved. or the background of a Jewish "Russian immigrant".
Note on page 3 of the cover letter the CC to The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary. Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman in San Francisco, to Betty (née Rosenburg), a former model, and Leon Goldman,
a surgeon. Feinstein's paternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Poland. Her maternal grandparents, the Rosenburg family,
were from Saint Petersburg, Russia. While they were of German-Jewish ancestry, they practiced the Russian Orthodox faith as was
required for Jews residing in Saint Petersburg.
In 1980, Feinstein married Richard C. Blum, an investment banker. In 2003, Feinstein was ranked the fifth-wealthiest senator,
with an estimated net worth of US$26 million. By 2005 her net worth had increased to between US$43 million and US$99 million.
Like the rest of Congress, Feinstein knows the "right way" to vote.
David , July 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm
So you're saying because a Jew Senator was CC'd it invalidates the information? Read the first page again. The Chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee is obligated to CC these submissions to the ranking member of the Committee, Jew heritage or not.
Misinformation and disinformation from you Abe, or generously, maybe lazy reading. The italicized unscrupulous swindler and sleazy
crook comments were quoting the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after the Washington screening of Nekrasov's film and demonstrating
Russia's intentions to discredit Browder. You are practiced at the art of deception. Hopefully readers will simply look for themselves.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 2:11 pm
Ah, comrade "David". We see you're back muttering about "disinformation" using your "own name".
My statements about Senator Feinstein are entirely supported by facts. You really should look into that.
Also, please note that quotation marks are not italics.
And please note that the Russian Foreign Minister is legally authorized to present the view of the Russian government.
Browder is pretty effective at discrediting himself. He simply has to open his mouth.
I encourage readers to look for themselves, and not simply take the word of one Browder's sockpuppets.
David , July 16, 2017 at 2:55 pm
It won't last papushka. Every post and pended moderated post was scrubbed yesterday, to the cheers of you and your mean spirited
friends. But truth is truth and should be defended. So to the point, I reread the Judiciary Committee linked document, and the
items you specified are in italics, because the report is quoting Lavrov's comments to a Moscow news paper and "another paper"
as evidence of Russia's efforts to undermine the credibility and standing of Browder. This is hardly obscure. It's plain as day
if you just read it.
David , July 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm
Also Abe, before I get deleted again, I don't question any of you geneological description of Feinstein. I merely pointed out
that she is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and it is normal for the Chairman of the Committee (Republican)
to CC the ranking member. Unless of course it is Devin Nunes, then fairness and tradition goes out the window.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:01 pm
It's plain as day, "David" or whatever other name you're trolling under, that you're here to loudly "defend" the "credibility"
and "standing" of William Browder.
Sorry, but you're going to have to "defend" Browder with something other than your usual innuendo, blather about 9-11, and
slurs against RP.
Otherwise it will be recognized for what it is, repeated violation of CN comment policy, and taken down by the moderator again.
Good luck to any troll who wants to "defend" Browder's record.
But you're gonna have to earn your pay with something other than your signature unsupported allegations, 9-11 diversions, and
the "non-Jewish Russian haters gonna hate" propaganda shtick.
David , July 16, 2017 at 5:07 pm
I wish you would stop with the name calling. I am not a troll. I have been trying to make simple rational points. You respond
by calling me names and wholly ignoring and/or misrepresenting and obfuscating easily verifiable facts. I suspect you are the
moderator of this page, and if so am surprised by your consistent negative references to Jews. I'm not Jewish but you're really
over the top. Of course you have many friends here so you get little push back, but I really hope you are not Bob or Sam.
Anonymous , July 16, 2017 at 10:26 am
We can see that it was what can be considered to be a Complex situation, where it was said that someone had Dirt on Hillary
Clinton, but there was No collusion and there was No attempted collusion, but there was Patriotism and Concern for Others during
a Perplexing situation.
This is because of what is Known as Arkancide, and which is associated with some People who say they have Dirt on the Clintons.
The Obvious and Humane thing to do was to arrange to meet the Russian Lawyer, who it was Alleged to have Dirt on Hillary Clinton,
regardless of any possible Alleged Electoral advantage against Hillary Clinton, and until further information, there may have
been some National Security Concerns, because it was Known that Hillary Clinton committed Espionage with Top Secret Information
on her Unauthorized, Clandestine, Secret Email Server, and the Obvious cover up by the Department of Justice and the FBI, and
so it was with this background that this Complex situation had to be dealt with.
This is because there is Greater Protection for a Person who has Dirt or Alleged Dirt on the Clintons, if that Information
is share with other People.
This is because it is a Complete Waste of time to go to the Authorities, because they will Not do anything against Clinton
Crimes, and a former Haitian Government Official was found dead only days before he was to give Testimony regarding the Clinton
Foundation.
We saw this with Seth Rich, where the Police Videos has been withheld, and we have seen the Obstruction in investigating that
Crime.
The message to Leakers is that Seth Rich was taken to hospital and Treated and was on his way to Fully Recovering, but he died
in hospital, and those who were thinking of Leaking Understood the message from that.
There was Also concern for Rob Goldstone, who Alleged that the Russian Lawyer had Dirt on the Clintons.
We Know that is is said Goldstone that he did Not want to hear what was said at the meeting.
This is because Goldstone wanted associates of Candidate Donald Trump to Know that he did Not know what was said at that meeting.
We now Know that the meeting was a set up to Improperly obtain a FISA Warrant, which was Requested in June of 2016, and that
is same the month and the year as the meeting that the Russian Lawyer attended.
There was what was an Unusual granting of a Special Visa so that the Russian Lawyer could attend that set up, which was Improperly
Used to Request a FISA Warrant in order to Improperly Spy on an Opposition Political Candidate in order to Improperly gain an
Electoral advantage in an Undemocratic manner, because if anything wrong was intended by Associates of Candidate Donald Trump,
then there were enough People in that meeting who were the Equivalent of Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans,
because we Know that after that meeting, that the husband of the former Florida chair of the Trump campaign obtained a front row
seat to a June 2016 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing for the Russian Lawyer.
There are Americans who consider that the 2 Major Political Party Tyranny has Betrayed the Constitution and the Principles
of Democracy, because they oppose President Donald Trump's Election Integrity Commission, because they think that the Establishment
Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupted Puppets of the Shadow Regime.
We Know from Senator Sanders, that if Americans want a Political Revolution, then they will need their own Political Party.
There are Americans who think that a Group of Democratic Party Voters and Republican Party Voters who have No association with
the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and that they may be named The Guardians of American Democracy.
These Guardians of American Democracy would be a numerous Group of People, and they would ask Republican Voters to Vote for
the Democratic Party Representative instead of the Republican who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, in exchange for
Democratic Party Voters to Vote for the Republican Party Candidate instead of the Democrat who is in Congress and who is seeking
Reelection, and the same can be done for the Senate, because the American People have to Decide if it is they the Shadow Regime,
or if it is We the People, and the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupt Puppets
of the Shadow Regime, and there would be equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats replaced in this manner, and so it will Not
affect their numbers in the Congress or the Senate.
There could be People who think that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was Unacceptability Biased and Unacceptability Corrupt during
the Democratic Party Primaries, and that if she wants a Democratic Party Candidate to be Elected in her Congressional District,
then she Should announce that she will Not be contesting the next Election, and there could be People who think that Speaker Paul
Ryan was Unacceptability Disloyal by insufficiently endorse the Republican Presidential nominee, and with other matters, and that
if he wants a Republican Party Candidate to be Elected in his Congressional District, then he Should announce that he will Not
be contesting the next Election, and then the Guardians of American Democracy can look at other Dinos and Rinos, including those
in the Senate, because the Constitution says the words: We the People.
There are Many Americans who have Noticed that Criminal Elites escape Justice, and Corruption is the norm in American Politics.
There are those who Supported Senator Sanders who Realize that Senator Sanders would have been Impeached had he become President,
and they Know that they Need President Donald Trump to prepare the Political Landscape so that someone like Senator Sanders could
be President, without a Coup attempt that is being attempted on President Donald Trump, and while these People may not Vote for
the Republicans, they can Refuse to Vote for the Democratic Party, until the conditions are there for a Constitutional Republic
and a Constitutional Democracy, and they want the Illegal Mueller Team to recuse themselves from this pile of Vile and Putrid
McCarthyist Lies Invented by their Shadow Regime Puppet Masters,
There are Many Americans who want Voter Identification and Paper Ballots for Elections, and they have seen how several States
are Opposed to President Donald Trump's Commission on Election Integrity, because they want to Rig their Elections, and this is
Why there are Many Americans who want America to be a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy.
MillyBloom54 , July 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm
I just read this article in the Washington Monthly, and wish to read informed comments about this issue. There are suggestions
that organized crime from Russian was heavily involved. This is a complicated mess of money, greed, etc.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the article, which concludes:
"So, let's please stay focused on why this matters.
"And why was Preet Bharara fired again?"
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries have been allowed to
flourish in Israel.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish
members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not
suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation
claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's
Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years
was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive
computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed
the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Why was Bharara fired?
Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish corruption in the FIRE (Finance,
Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.
Ain't gonna happen.
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Remember Milly that essentially one of the first things Trump did when he came into office was fire Preet, and just days before
the long awaited trial. Then, Jeff Sessions settled the case for 6 million without any testimony on a 230 million dollar case,
days after. Spectacular and brazen, and structured to hide the identities of which properties were bought by which investors.
Hmmmm.
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
By the way Milly, great summary article you have linked and one that everyone who is championing the Nekrasov film should read.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm
The "great" article was not written by a journalist. It's an opinion piece written by Martin Longman, a blogger and Democratic
Party political consultant.
From 2012 to 2013, Longman worked for Democracy for America (DFA) a political action committee, headquartered in South Burlington,
Vermont, founded by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.
Since March 2014, political animal Longman has managed the The Washington Monthly website and online magazine.
Although it claims to be "an independent voice", the Washington Monthly is funded by the Ford Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation,
and well-heeled corporate entities http://washingtonmonthly.com/about/
Longman's credentials as a "progressive" alarmist are well established. Since 2005, he has been the publisher of Booman Tribune.
Longman admits that BooMan is related to the 'bogey man' (aka, bogy man, boogeyman), an evil imaginary character who harms children.
Vladimir Putin is the latest bogey man of the Democratic Party and its equally pro-Israel "opposition".
Neither party wants the conversation to involve Jewish Russian organized crime, because that leads to Israel and the pro-Israel
AIPAC lobby that funds both the Republican and Democratic parties.
To others: Even FB may gain some historical wisdom by reading Amy K.'s description of the Chicago School of Economics and
how Milton Friedman's economic "Shock Doctrine" was brought to S. America, Russia, Iraq, and other awe struck nations vulnerable
to the greedy Vampire Squid's insatiable appetite for money and unchallenged world power.
you must mean Naomi Klein, who wrote "Shock Doctrine". She's great and looks good too. Recently some British black woman interviewed
her and she was nicely poised and patient with the Dodo. Milton Friedman, whata guy, is he any relative of Thomas (alla'akbar
) Friedmin? (whata other f'n guy too.
I think Vampire Squid was a phrase that Taibbi started about Wall St. But haven't seen much of him lately.
That explains why after dissolution of the USSR organized crime reached such level: this is standard capitalism development scenario.
Notable quotes:
"... In fact, the evolution of the modern economy owes more than you might think to these outlaws. That's the theme of " Forging Capitalism: Rogues, Swindlers, Frauds, and the Rise of Modern Finance " by Ian Klaus. It's a history of financial crimes in the 19th and early 20th centuries that traces a recurring sequence: new markets, new ways to cheat, new ways to transact and secure trust. As Klaus says, criminals helped build modern capitalism. ..."
"... Cochrane, in a way, was convicted of conduct unbecoming a man of his position. Playing the markets, let alone cheating, was something a man of his status wasn't supposed to do. Trust resided in social standing. ..."
"... The stories are absorbing and the larger theme is important: "Forging Capitalism" is a fine book and I recommend it. But I have a couple of criticisms. The project presumably began as an academic dissertation, and especially at the start, before Klaus starts telling the stories, the academic gravity is crushing. ..."
"... Nonetheless, Klaus is right: Give the markets' ubiquitous and ingenious criminals their due. They helped build modern capitalism, and they aren't going away. Just ask Bernie Madoff. ..."
Whenever buyers and sellers get together, opportunities to fleece the other guy arise. The history of markets is, in part, the
history of lying, cheating and stealing -- and of the effort down the years to fight commercial crime.
In fact, the evolution of the modern economy owes more than you might think to these outlaws. That's the theme of "Forging
Capitalism: Rogues, Swindlers, Frauds, and the Rise of Modern Finance" by Ian Klaus. It's a history of financial crimes in the
19th and early 20th centuries that traces a recurring sequence: new markets, new ways to cheat, new ways to transact and secure trust.
As Klaus says, criminals helped build modern capitalism.
And what a cast of characters. Thomas Cochrane is my own favorite. (This is partly because he was the model for Jack Aubrey in
Patrick O'Brian's "Master and Commander" novels, which I've been reading and rereading for decades. Presumably Klaus isn't a fan:
He doesn't note the connection.)
Cochrane was an aristocrat and naval hero. At the height of his fame in 1814 he was put on trial for fraud. An associate had spread
false rumors of Napoleon's death, driving up the price of British government debt, and allowing Cochrane to avoid heavy losses on
his investments. Cochrane complained (with good reason, in fact) that the trial was rigged, but he was found guilty and sent to prison.
The story is fascinating in its own right, and the book points to its larger meaning. Cochrane, in a way, was convicted of
conduct unbecoming a man of his position. Playing the markets, let alone cheating, was something a man of his status wasn't supposed
to do. Trust resided in social standing.
As the turbulent century went on, capitalism moved its frontier outward in every sense: It found new opportunities overseas; financial
innovation accelerated; and buyers and sellers were ever more likely to be strangers, operating at a distance through intermediaries.
These new kinds of transaction required new ways of securing trust. Social status diminished as a guarantee of good faith. In its
place came, first, reputation (based on an established record of honest dealing) then verification (based on public and private records
that vouched for the parties' honesty).
Successive scams and scandals pushed this evolution of trust along. Gregor MacGregor and the mythical South American colony of
Poyais ("the quintessential fraud of Britain's first modern investment bubble," Klaus calls it); Beaumont Smith and an exchequer
bill forging operation of remarkable scope and duration; Walter Watts, insurance clerk, theatrical entrepreneur and fraudster; Harry
Marks, journalist, newspaper proprietor and puffer of worthless stocks. On and on, these notorious figures altered the way the public
thought about commercial trust, and spurred the changes that enabled the public to keep on trusting nonetheless.
The stories are absorbing and the larger theme is important: "Forging Capitalism" is a fine book and I recommend it. But I
have a couple of criticisms. The project presumably began as an academic dissertation, and especially at the start, before Klaus
starts telling the stories, the academic gravity is crushing.
Trust, to be simple with our definition, is an expectation of behavior built upon norms and cultural habits. It is often dependent
upon a shared set of ethics or values. It is also a process orchestrated through communities and institutions. In this sense,
it is a cultural event and thus a historical phenomenon.
No doubt, but after a first paragraph like that you aren't expecting a page-turner. Trust me, it gets better. When he applies
himself, Klaus can write. Describing the messenger who brought the false news of Napoleon's death, he says:
Removed from the dark of the street, the man could be seen by the light of two candles. He looked, a witness would later testify,
"like a stranger of some importance." A German sealskin cap, festooned with gold fringes, covered his head. A gray coat covered
his red uniform, upon which hung a star Neighbors and residents of the inn stirred and peered in as the visitor penned a note.
Tell me more.
My other objection is to the book's repeated suggestion that Adam Smith and other classical proponents of market economics naively
underestimated the human propensity to deceive and over-credited the market's ability to promote good behavior. Klaus doesn't examine
their claims at length or directly, but often says things such as:
The sociability in which Adam Smith had placed his hopes for harnessing self-interest was not a sufficient safeguard in the
sometimes criminal capitalism of the ruthless free market.
Of course it wasn't. Smith didn't believe that the market's civilizing tendencies, together with humans' instinct for cooperation,
were a sufficient safeguard against fraud or breach of contract or other commercial wrongs. He was nothing if not realistic
about human nature. And by the way, many of the subtle adaptations to the shifting risk of fraud that Klaus describes were private
undertakings, not government measures. Far from being surprised by them, Smith would have expected their development.
Nonetheless, Klaus is right: Give the markets' ubiquitous and ingenious criminals their due. They helped build modern capitalism,
and they aren't going away. Just ask Bernie Madoff.
To contact the author on this story: Clive Crook at [email protected]
"... Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history. ..."
"... An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky. ..."
"... One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise. ..."
"... The gist is that elite need a kill switch on their front men (and women). ..."
"... McCain's father connected with the infamous Board of Inquiry which cleared Israel in that state's attack on USS LIBERTY during Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights. ..."
"... Another stunning article in which the author makes reference to his recent acquisition of what he considers to be a reliably authentic audio file of POW McCain's broadcasts from captivity. Dynamite stuff. ..."
"... Also remarkable; fantastic. It's hard to believe, and a testament to the boldness of Washington dog-and-pony shows, because this must have been well-known in insider circles in Washington – anything so damning which was not ruthlessly and professionally suppressed and simply never allowed to become part of a national discussion would surely have been stumbled upon before now. Land of the Cover-Up. ..."
An interesting article on John McCain. I disagree with the contention that McCain hid knowledge that many American POWs were left
behind (undoubtedly some voluntarily choose to remain behind but not hundreds ). However, the article touched on some ideas that
rang true:
Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders
in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and
so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national
figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that
may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed
the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total
impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history.
An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin
soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky.
One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who
are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within
their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best
career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard
evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise.
The gist is that elite need a kill switch on their front men (and women).
Seems to be a series of pieces dealing with Vietnam POWs: the following linked item was interesting and provided a plausible explanation:
that the US failed to pay up agreed on reparations
Remarkable and shocking. Wheels within wheels – this is the first time I have ever seen McCain's father connected with the infamous
Board of Inquiry which cleared Israel in that state's attack on USS LIBERTY during Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights.
Another stunning article in which the author makes reference to his recent acquisition of what he considers to be a reliably authentic
audio file of POW McCain's broadcasts from captivity. Dynamite stuff. The conclusion regarding aspiring untenured historians is
quite downbeat:
Also remarkable; fantastic. It's hard to believe, and a testament to the boldness of Washington dog-and-pony shows, because this
must have been well-known in insider circles in Washington – anything so damning which was not ruthlessly and professionally suppressed
and simply never allowed to become part of a national discussion would surely have been stumbled upon before now. Land of the
Cover-Up.
"... "The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty,
painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary
period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since. ..."
"... According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed in the United
States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist countries in Eastern
Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark estimates, the wealth
held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable in magnitude to total
household financial assets held in Russia. ..."
"... For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western
people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it is not
the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel. ..."
"... And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts dismembering
the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the Western people have
with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without serious dying on our
side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience. ..."
The people who worked in int'l finance in the 90s (representing countries to the WB and IMF) knew about the criminal callousness
of these institutions when pushing 'austerity' or 'reform' policies. Local elites sometimes were complacent and profited (those
privatizations! those newly opened markets!), sometimes resisted, but the US and the multilateral system –financial or otherwise–
are ruthless and very hard to resist.
Many countries suffered, not because they were Russian or Brazilian or Mexican, but because the opportunity for gain was there.
There's some common ground between the reds and whites in that the reds tapped into nationalist sentiments, hence the wars of
national liberation around the world being supported by the communists: Korea, Vietnam, insurgencies in Latin America, Africa,
etc. The script has flipped with the western countries now being the 'godless' ones who are trying to destroy religion, the family
and traditional ways of life. The 1% were horrified that there was an ideology out there that advocated taking their loot away
so they used all their resources in combatting it, even being willing to take the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in
doing so. They'd take the world down with them rather than lose their positions of power and money. Now that the ideology is no
longer there it's just back to the business of robbing everyone weaker than them. All the hysteria about Putin is simply that
he's built up the Russian state to where they can resist and that he's not a fellow slaveholder like them.
The intervention in Syria has unhinged parts of the west where they thought they could rob and kill anywhere they pleased but
now have been successfully resisted. Political systems come and go but the people have endured for the past thousand years, something
the fat cats of the west are trying to destroy to enlarge their slave plantation.
" Russia has greater economic disparity than any other major global power. In 2016, Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Report found
that the wealthiest 10% of people in Russia controlled 89% of the country's wealth ..
"The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty,
painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary
period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since.
The headline findings: official Russian estimates drastically understate national inequality; Russia is as unequal as the USA
or even moreso; Russian inequality is more intense than the inequality in other post-Soviet states and in post-Deng China.
This paper combines national accounts, survey, wealth and fiscal data (including recently released tax data on high-income
taxpayers) in order to provide consistent series on the accumulation and distribution of income and wealth in Russia from the
Soviet period until the present day. We find that official survey-based measures vastly under-estimate the rise of inequality
since 1990. According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed
in the United States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist
countries in Eastern Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark
estimates, the wealth held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable
in magnitude to total household financial assets held in Russia.
From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia 1905-2016 [Filip Novokmet, Thomas Piketty, Gabriel Zucman/World
Wealth and Income Database]"
People used to stage revolutions in order to bring communism to their countries. Plenty of examples for that: Russia, China,
Cuba and many others. Of course, those people were deluded, right? Who would want to bring a system that preaches economic equality?
It must be someone who is out of their mind. Has there ever been a capitalist revolution where someone took up arms trying to
bring capitalism to their country? Must be because it's such a humane and desirable system. Also, a lot of people think that Islam
is a backward religion. Really? Then how come it tolerates socialism (communism), better than Christianity ever did? Libya, Iraq,
Syria, Afghanistan they were all socialist at some point. That's why the greatest democracy set their sights on them to destroy
them. Because, you see, by their calculations, no matter how extremist and backward the Islam gets, it's still more progressive
than socialism or communism. Helluva math there. The game has always been about preserving capitalism, and not the most benign
version either. Which is too bad, because capitalism has been known to tolerate dictatorship, fascism, Nazism, slavery – pretty
much the ugliest forms of government the sick human mind can come up with, but it can't tolerate little bit of socialism. Because
you see, socialism is worse than any of those lovely political systems. Democracy (capitalism) is too pure for that, such a fragile
and delicate thing that it is.
I am surprised Sweden hasn't been bombed yet, for their flirting with socialism, but the way the things are going over there,
they don't have to be bombed. They did themselves in by following someone's stupid ideas about multiculturalism – which of course
is also a form of socialism – racial one, instead the real deal – the economic socialism that the greatest democracy of them all
is so afraid of.
When the Serbians in different parts of Yugoslavia started being attacked by the West, I was constantly pointing out that in recent
times, since WW1, an attack on Serbia has been a kind of introduction to an attack on Russia. In other words, I had no doubt that
Russia was next.
But, there is one huge difference between Serbia and Russia. Whilst the Serbians killed very few of those Western Zionist military
mercenaries who were killing Serbians directly or using their Croat, Muslim and Albanian proxies, if attacked the Russian military
could kill hundreds of thousands of the Western mercenaries. This is why whilst the war on Serbia was real and bloody only on
Serbians and the Bosnian Muslim proxies, the war on Russia would be totally disastrous for the Anglozionist Empire. This is the
only reason a shooting war on Russia has not started already.
For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western
people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it
is not the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel.
And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts
dismembering the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the
Western people have with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without
serious dying on our side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience.
Well, what evidence have you for asserting that Putin is a thug? You saw through the media's false reporting earlier as you
admit, so how come you again swallow the load of marbles that they dish out?
And while Putin may or may not be feared by "near abroad" he certainly is feared by those who seek total dominance of the planet.
The thing is, he is not an easy pushover and that is what is behind the thug claims. Many thinking people admire his intellect,
statesmanship, and skill in dealing with major problems of our times. The media also hates him because he shows up the western
leaders for the clowns that they are.
A principled US Government would have dealt very differently with Russia and Putin. There is no inherent conflict of interest
with Russia once global dominance is discarded as the main policy objective.
{The only people that fear Putin is the near abroad, .}
Sure, if you say so, Bub.
Texas* is, of course, 'near aboard' .
[Russia has begun testing of its new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the RS-28 Sarmat. Sarmat can carry a payload
of up to ten tons of nukes. The missile system is set to enter service in 2018.
The RS-28 Sarmat is the first entirely new Russian ICBM in decades. The heavyweight missile weighs 100 tons and can boost 10 tons.
Russia claims the Sarmat can lift 10 heavyweight warheads, or 16 lighter ones, and Russian state media has described it as being
able to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France.]
_______________________
*
[Russia's New ICBM Could "Wipe Out Texas"]
Wow, this is the most refreshing and clear minded comment I've seen here in a while. Nice job WorkingClass, you've managed
to keep your mind clear and not buy into the BS. You've given me some hope Thank you.
The supposed leaders of the West are busy trying to replace or at the very least water down their own populations with a totally
different set of people from far away. Obviously these supposedly democratic leaders loathe what are supposed to be their own
people but rather see all those below them as just so many replaceable units of labor, the mark of a "slaveholder". Putin has
helped his people immensely. Life expectancies had plummeted into the 50′s and that's now been improved greatly as well as living
standards. He's popular because he's done much for the people he identifies with, unlike Western leaders who hold their noses
when anywhere near the citizenry. If the Russians like him then they must not be as worried about some issues as critics outside
the country appear to be.
It is hard to find people in the West who "hate the Russian people themselves"; but in place of hatred there is definitely
fear – fear of Russia's military strength.
Disagree. The enormous propagandistic effort to demonize Russia in the West, not only reveals fear. It also reveals hate, at
least on most of the elites. Most people are indifferent toward Russia but elites definitively have fear to the bear. You can
test some people by simply naming "Russia" and you will see on their eyes a quite irrationala mix of hate and fear. I think this
is result of an Orwellian propaganda effort aimed at injecting fear to "Eurasia".
This fear is exaggerated by the US military-industrial complex for its own purposes;
Given any two races or culture , what they are and what I think of them hardly matters. However pitted against each other it
will cultivate and create good conditions for the scum of both of them and embroil the rest in the conflict. It is an against
of chaos for a hostile order.
Right. Those were capitalist revolutions. You are bang on. Capitalism is one of the most tolerant systems of all kinds of extremism,
as I already mentioned. Capitalism has been known to tolerate monarchy, fascism, Nazism, various forms of dictatorships, slavery,
pretty much everything. But they draw the line at tolerating socialism, like it's the worst extremism they have ever tolerated.
My point is, capitalism is pretty robust system, it's not some delicate beauty that will fall apart if it comes in touch with
socialism. Democracy is only a window dressing, it has never been about democracy, it has always been about capitalism.
There's nothing easier nowadays than becoming a Kremlin (or any other kind of) Troll. Just start talking about things as they
are and you're half way through. Keep talking that way a bit longer, and you'll forever become another precious source of income
for the army of no-talent crooks with unlimited rights and zero oversee from those for whom they officially work. These guys are
simply used to build their entire careers and financial well-beings by adjusting reality to their needs. They've been doing it
for decades. Why not, as long as the true bosses are happy ? Why not, when the MSM will make population to swallow anything, no
matter how idiotic and illogical it is ?
The people who worked in int'l finance in the 90s (representing countries to the WB and IMF) knew about the criminal callousness
of these institutions when pushing 'austerity' or 'reform' policies. Local elites sometimes were complacent and profited (those
privatizations! those newly opened markets!), sometimes resisted, but the US and the multilateral system –financial or otherwise–
are ruthless and very hard to resist.
Many countries suffered, not because they were Russian or Brazilian or Mexican, but because the opportunity for gain was there.
There's some common ground between the reds and whites in that the reds tapped into nationalist sentiments, hence the wars of
national liberation around the world being supported by the communists: Korea, Vietnam, insurgencies in Latin America, Africa,
etc. The script has flipped with the western countries now being the 'godless' ones who are trying to destroy religion, the family
and traditional ways of life. The 1% were horrified that there was an ideology out there that advocated taking their loot away
so they used all their resources in combatting it, even being willing to take the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in
doing so. They'd take the world down with them rather than lose their positions of power and money. Now that the ideology is no
longer there it's just back to the business of robbing everyone weaker than them. All the hysteria about Putin is simply that
he's built up the Russian state to where they can resist and that he's not a fellow slaveholder like them.
The intervention in Syria has unhinged parts of the west where they thought they could rob and kill anywhere they pleased but
now have been successfully resisted. Political systems come and go but the people have endured for the past thousand years, something
the fat cats of the west are trying to destroy to enlarge their slave plantation.
" Russia has greater economic disparity than any other major global power. In 2016, Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Report found
that the wealthiest 10% of people in Russia controlled 89% of the country's wealth ..
"The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty,
painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary
period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since.
The headline findings: official Russian estimates drastically understate national inequality; Russia is as unequal as the USA
or even moreso; Russian inequality is more intense than the inequality in other post-Soviet states and in post-Deng China.
This paper combines national accounts, survey, wealth and fiscal data (including recently released tax data on high-income
taxpayers) in order to provide consistent series on the accumulation and distribution of income and wealth in Russia from the
Soviet period until the present day. We find that official survey-based measures vastly under-estimate the rise of inequality
since 1990. According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed
in the United States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist
countries in Eastern Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark
estimates, the wealth held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable
in magnitude to total household financial assets held in Russia.
From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia 1905-2016 [Filip Novokmet, Thomas Piketty, Gabriel Zucman/World
Wealth and Income Database]"
People used to stage revolutions in order to bring communism to their countries. Plenty of examples for that: Russia, China,
Cuba and many others. Of course, those people were deluded, right? Who would want to bring a system that preaches economic equality?
It must be someone who is out of their mind. Has there ever been a capitalist revolution where someone took up arms trying to
bring capitalism to their country? Must be because it's such a humane and desirable system. Also, a lot of people think that Islam
is a backward religion. Really? Then how come it tolerates socialism (communism), better than Christianity ever did? Libya, Iraq,
Syria, Afghanistan they were all socialist at some point. That's why the greatest democracy set their sights on them to destroy
them. Because, you see, by their calculations, no matter how extremist and backward the Islam gets, it's still more progressive
than socialism or communism. Helluva math there. The game has always been about preserving capitalism, and not the most benign
version either. Which is too bad, because capitalism has been known to tolerate dictatorship, fascism, Nazism, slavery – pretty
much the ugliest forms of government the sick human mind can come up with, but it can't tolerate little bit of socialism. Because
you see, socialism is worse than any of those lovely political systems. Democracy (capitalism) is too pure for that, such a fragile
and delicate thing that it is.
I am surprised Sweden hasn't been bombed yet, for their flirting with socialism, but the way the things are going over there,
they don't have to be bombed. They did themselves in by following someone's stupid ideas about multiculturalism – which of course
is also a form of socialism – racial one, instead the real deal – the economic socialism that the greatest democracy of them all
is so afraid of.
When the Serbians in different parts of Yugoslavia started being attacked by the West, I was constantly pointing out that in recent
times, since WW1, an attack on Serbia has been a kind of introduction to an attack on Russia. In other words, I had no doubt that
Russia was next.
But, there is one huge difference between Serbia and Russia. Whilst the Serbians killed very few of those Western Zionist military
mercenaries who were killing Serbians directly or using their Croat, Muslim and Albanian proxies, if attacked the Russian military
could kill hundreds of thousands of the Western mercenaries. This is why whilst the war on Serbia was real and bloody only on
Serbians and the Bosnian Muslim proxies, the war on Russia would be totally disastrous for the Anglozionist Empire. This is the
only reason a shooting war on Russia has not started already.
For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western
people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it
is not the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel.
And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts
dismembering the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the
Western people have with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without
serious dying on our side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience.
Well, what evidence have you for asserting that Putin is a thug? You saw through the media's false reporting earlier as you
admit, so how come you again swallow the load of marbles that they dish out?
And while Putin may or may not be feared by "near abroad" he certainly is feared by those who seek total dominance of the planet.
The thing is, he is not an easy pushover and that is what is behind the thug claims. Many thinking people admire his intellect,
statesmanship, and skill in dealing with major problems of our times. The media also hates him because he shows up the western
leaders for the clowns that they are.
A principled US Government would have dealt very differently with Russia and Putin. There is no inherent conflict of interest
with Russia once global dominance is discarded as the main policy objective.
{The only people that fear Putin is the near abroad, .}
Sure, if you say so, Bub.
Texas* is, of course, 'near aboard' .
[Russia has begun testing of its new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the RS-28 Sarmat. Sarmat can carry a payload
of up to ten tons of nukes. The missile system is set to enter service in 2018.
The RS-28 Sarmat is the first entirely new Russian ICBM in decades. The heavyweight missile weighs 100 tons and can boost 10 tons.
Russia claims the Sarmat can lift 10 heavyweight warheads, or 16 lighter ones, and Russian state media has described it as being
able to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France.]
_______________________
*
[Russia's New ICBM Could "Wipe Out Texas"]
Wow, this is the most refreshing and clear minded comment I've seen here in a while. Nice job WorkingClass, you've managed
to keep your mind clear and not buy into the BS. You've given me some hope Thank you.
The supposed leaders of the West are busy trying to replace or at the very least water down their own populations with a totally
different set of people from far away. Obviously these supposedly democratic leaders loathe what are supposed to be their own
people but rather see all those below them as just so many replaceable units of labor, the mark of a "slaveholder". Putin has
helped his people immensely. Life expectancies had plummeted into the 50′s and that's now been improved greatly as well as living
standards. He's popular because he's done much for the people he identifies with, unlike Western leaders who hold their noses
when anywhere near the citizenry. If the Russians like him then they must not be as worried about some issues as critics outside
the country appear to be.
It is hard to find people in the West who "hate the Russian people themselves"; but in place of hatred there is definitely
fear – fear of Russia's military strength.
Disagree. The enormous propagandistic effort to demonize Russia in the West, not only reveals fear. It also reveals hate, at
least on most of the elites. Most people are indifferent toward Russia but elites definitively have fear to the bear. You can
test some people by simply naming "Russia" and you will see on their eyes a quite irrationala mix of hate and fear. I think this
is result of an Orwellian propaganda effort aimed at injecting fear to "Eurasia".
This fear is exaggerated by the US military-industrial complex for its own purposes;
Given any two races or culture , what they are and what I think of them hardly matters. However pitted against each other it
will cultivate and create good conditions for the scum of both of them and embroil the rest in the conflict. It is an against
of chaos for a hostile order.
Right. Those were capitalist revolutions. You are bang on. Capitalism is one of the most tolerant systems of all kinds of extremism,
as I already mentioned. Capitalism has been known to tolerate monarchy, fascism, Nazism, various forms of dictatorships, slavery,
pretty much everything. But they draw the line at tolerating socialism, like it's the worst extremism they have ever tolerated.
My point is, capitalism is pretty robust system, it's not some delicate beauty that will fall apart if it comes in touch with
socialism. Democracy is only a window dressing, it has never been about democracy, it has always been about capitalism.
There's nothing easier nowadays than becoming a Kremlin (or any other kind of) Troll. Just start talking about things as they
are and you're half way through. Keep talking that way a bit longer, and you'll forever become another precious source of income
for the army of no-talent crooks with unlimited rights and zero oversee from those for whom they officially work. These guys are
simply used to build their entire careers and financial well-beings by adjusting reality to their needs. They've been doing it
for decades. Why not, as long as the true bosses are happy ? Why not, when the MSM will make population to swallow anything, no
matter how idiotic and illogical it is ?
The Soviet authorities had long listed me, and my entire family, as dangerous anti-Soviet activists and I, therefore, could not
travel to Russia until the fall of Communism in 1991 when I immediately caught the first available flight and got to Moscow while
the barricades built against the GKChP coup were still standing. Truly, by this fateful month of August 1991, I was a perfect anti-Soviet
activist and an anti-Communist hardliner. I even took a photo of myself standing next to the collapsed statue of Felix Derzhinsky
(the founder of the ChK – the first Soviet Secret police) with my boot pressed on his iron throat. That day I felt that my victory
was total. It was also short-lived.
Instead of bringing the long-suffering Russian people freedom, peace, and prosperity, the end of Communism in Russia only
brought chaos, poverty, violence, and abject exploitation by the worst class of scum the defunct Soviet system had produced. I was
horrified. Unlike so many other anti-Soviet activists who were also Russophobes, I never conflated my people and the regime which
oppressed them. So, while I rejoiced at the end of one horror, I was also appalled to see that another one had taken its place.
Even worse, it was undeniable that the West played an active role in every and all forms of anti-Russian activities, from the total
protection of Russian mobsters, on to the support of the Wahabi insurgents in Chechnya, and ending with the financing of a propaganda
machine which tried to turn the Russian people into mindless consumers to the presence of western "advisors" (yeah, right!) in all
the key ministries. The oligarchs were plundering Russia and causing immeasurable suffering, and the entire West, the so-called
"free world" not only did nothing to help but helped all the enemies of Russia with every resource it had. Soon the NATO forces attacked
Serbia, a historical ally of Russia, in total violation of the most sacred principles of international law. East Germany was not
only reunified but instantly incorporated into West Germany and NATO pushed as far East as possible. I could not pretend that all
this could be explained by some fear of the Soviet military or by a reaction to the Communist theory of world revolution. In truth,
it became clear to me that the western elites did not hate the Soviet system or ideology, but that they hated Russian people themselves
and the culture and civilization which they had created.
By the time the war against the Serbian nation in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo broke out, I was in a unique situation: all day long
I could read classified UNPROFOR and military reports about what was taking place in that region and, after work, I could read the
counter-factual anti-Serbian propaganda the western corporate Ziomedia was spewing out every day. I was horrified to see that literally
everything the media was saying was a total lie. Then came the false flags, first in Sarajevo, but later also in Kosovo. My illusions
about "Free World" and the "West" were crumbling. Fast.
Fate brought me to Russia in 1993 when I saw the carnage of meted out by the "democratic" Eltsin regime against thousands of Russians
in Moscow (many more than what the official press reported). I also saw the Red Flags and Stalin portraits around the parliament
building. My disgust by then was total. And when the Eltsin regime decided to bring Dudaev's Chechnia to heel triggering yet another
needless bloodbath, that disgust turned into despair. Then came the stolen elections of 1996 and the murder of General Lebed. At
that point, I remember thinking "Russia is dead."
So, when the entourage of Eltsin suddenly appointed an unknown nobody to acting President of Russia, I was rather dubious, to
put it mildly. The new guy was not a drunk or an arrogant oligarch, but he looked rather unimpressive. He was also ex-KGB which was
interesting: on one hand, the KGB had been my lifelong enemy but on the other hand, I knew that the part of the KGB which dealt with
foreign intelligence was staffed by the brightest of the brightest and that they had nothing to do with political repression, Gulags
and all the rest of the ugly stuff another Directorate of the KGB (the 5th) was tasked with (that department had been abolished in
1989). Putin came from the First Main Directorate of the KGB, the "PGU KGB." Still, my sympathies were more with the (far less political)
military intelligence service (GRU) than the very political PGU which, I was quite sure by then, had a thick dossier on my family
and me.
Then, two crucial things happened in parallel: both the "Free world" and Putin showed their true faces: the "Free world" as
an AngloZionist Empire hell-bent on aggression and oppression, and Vladimir Putin as a real patriot of Russia. In fact, Putin slowly
began looking like a hero to me: very gradually, in small incremental steps first, Putin began to turn Russia around, especially
in two crucial matters: he was trying to "re-sovereignize" the country (making it truly sovereign and independent again), and he
dared the unthinkable: he openly told the Empire that it was not only wrong, it was illegitimate (just read the transcript of Putin's
amazing 2007 "Munich Speech").
Putin inspired me to make a dramatic choice: will I stick to my lifelong prejudices or will I let reality prove my lifelong prejudices
wrong. The first option was far more comfortable to me, and all my friends would approve. The second one was far trickier, and it
would cost me the friendship of many people. But what was the better option for Russia? Could it be that it was the right thing for
a "White Russian" to join forces with the ex-KGB officer?
Thanks for that Steve, I had intended to search for it but got sidetracked by visits to the vet. What strikes me whenever I
read a transcript of Putin's speeches is the precision of his language, it's really impressive. It really isn't fair to compare
that to the loose waffle of GWB or the Trumpster but even WJC or BHO who were considered to be commendable orators just lack the
fine edge and the gravitas of Putin.
"... "In many ways the effect of the crash on embezzlement was more significant than on suicide. To the economist embezzlement is
the most interesting of crimes. Alone among the various forms of larceny it has a time parameter. Weeks, months or years may elapse
between the commission of the crime and its discovery. (This is a period, incidentally, when the embezzler has his gain and the man
who has been embezzled, oddly enough, feels no loss. There is a net increase in psychic wealth.) ..."
"... At any given time there exists an inventory of undiscovered embezzlement in – or more precisely not in – the country's business
and banks. ..."
"... This inventory – it should perhaps be called the bezzle – amounts at any moment to many millions [trillions!] of dollars. It
also varies in size with the business cycle. ..."
"... In good times people are relaxed, trusting, and money is plentiful. But even though money is plentiful, there are always many
people who need more. Under these circumstances the rate of embezzlement grows, the rate of discovery falls off, and the bezzle increases
rapidly. ..."
"... In depression all this is reversed. Money is watched with a narrow, suspicious eye. The man who handles it is assumed to be
dishonest until he proves himself otherwise. Audits are penetrating and meticulous. Commercial morality is enormously improved. The
bezzle shrinks ..."
John Kenneth Galbraith, from "The Great Crash 1929":
"In many ways the effect of the crash on embezzlement was more significant than on suicide. To the economist embezzlement
is the most interesting of crimes. Alone among the various forms of larceny it has a time parameter. Weeks, months or years
may elapse between the commission of the crime and its discovery. (This is a period, incidentally, when the embezzler has his
gain and the man who has been embezzled, oddly enough, feels no loss. There is a net increase in psychic wealth.)
At any given time there exists an inventory of undiscovered embezzlement in – or more precisely not in – the country's
business and banks.
This inventory – it should perhaps be called the bezzle – amounts at any moment to many millions [trillions!] of dollars.
It also varies in size with the business cycle.
In good times people are relaxed, trusting, and money is plentiful. But even though money is plentiful, there are always
many people who need more. Under these circumstances the rate of embezzlement grows, the rate of discovery falls off, and the
bezzle increases rapidly.
In depression all this is reversed. Money is watched with a narrow, suspicious eye. The man who handles it is assumed
to be dishonest until he proves himself otherwise. Audits are penetrating and meticulous. Commercial morality is enormously
improved. The bezzle shrinks."
For nearly a half a century, from 1947 to 1996, real GDP and real Net Worth of Households and Non-profit Organizations (in
2009 dollars) both increased at a compound annual rate of a bit over 3.5%. GDP growth, in fact, was just a smidgen faster -- 0.016%
-- than growth of Net Household Worth.
From 1996 to 2015, GDP grew at a compound annual rate of 2.3% while Net Worth increased at the rate of 3.6%....
The real home price index extends from 1890. From 1890 to 1996, the index increased slightly faster than inflation so that
the index was 100 in 1890 and 113 in 1996. However from 1996 the index advanced to levels far beyond any previously experienced,
reaching a high above 194 in 2006. Previously the index high had been just above 130.
Though the index fell from 2006, the level in 2016 is above 161, a level only reached when the housing bubble had formed in
late 2003-early 2004.
The Shiller 10-year price-earnings ratio is currently 29.34, so the inverse or the earnings rate is 3.41%. The dividend yield
is 1.93. So an expected yearly return over the coming 10 years would be 3.41 + 1.93 or 5.34% provided the price-earnings ratio
stays the same and before investment costs.
Against the 5.34% yearly expected return on stock over the coming 10 years, the current 10-year Treasury bond yield is 2.32%.
The risk premium for stocks is 5.34 - 2.32 or 3.02%:
What the robot-productivity paradox is puzzles me, other than since 2005 for all the focus on the productivity of robots and
on robots replacing labor there has been a dramatic, broad-spread slowing in productivity growth.
However what the changing relationship between the growth of GDP and net worth since 1996 show, is that asset valuations have
been increasing relative to GDP. Valuations of stocks and homes are at sustained levels that are higher than at any time in the
last 120 years. Bear markets in stocks and home prices have still left asset valuations at historically high levels. I have no
idea why this should be.
The paradox is that productivity statistics can't tell us anything about the effects of robots on employment because both the
numerator and the denominator are distorted by the effects of colossal Ponzi bubbles.
John Kenneth Galbraith used to call it "the bezzle." It is "that increment to wealth that occurs during the magic interval
when a confidence trickster knows he has the money he has appropriated but the victim does not yet understand that he has lost
it." The current size of the gross national bezzle (GNB) is approximately $24 trillion.
Ponzilocks and the Twenty-Four Trillion Dollar Question
Twenty-three and a half trillion, actually. But what's a few hundred billion? Here today, gone tomorrow, as they say.
At the beginning of 2007, net worth of households and non-profit organizations exceeded its 1947-1996 historical average, relative
to GDP, by some $16 trillion. It took 24 months to wipe out eighty percent, or $13 trillion, of that colossal but ephemeral slush
fund. In mid-2016, net worth stood at a multiple of 4.83 times GDP, compared with the multiple of 4.72 on the eve of the Great
Unworthing.
When I look at the ragged end of the chart I posted yesterday, it screams "Ponzi!" "Ponzi!" "Ponz..."
To make a long story short, let's think of wealth as capital. The value of capital is determined by the present value of an
expected future income stream. The value of capital fluctuates with changing expectations but when the nominal value of capital
diverges persistently and significantly from net revenues, something's got to give. Either economic growth is going to suddenly
gush forth "like nobody has ever seen before" or net worth is going to have to come back down to earth.
Somewhere between 20 and 30 TRILLION dollars of net worth will evaporate within the span of perhaps two years.
When will that happen? Who knows? There is one notable regularity in the data, though -- the one that screams "Ponzi!"
When the net worth bubble stops going up...
...it goes down.
John Kenneth Galbraith, from "The Great Crash 1929":
"In many ways the effect of the crash on embezzlement was more significant than on suicide. To the economist embezzlement
is the most interesting of crimes. Alone among the various forms of larceny it has a time parameter. Weeks, months or years
may elapse between the commission of the crime and its discovery. (This is a period, incidentally, when the embezzler has his
gain and the man who has been embezzled, oddly enough, feels no loss. There is a net increase in psychic wealth.)
At any given time there exists an inventory of undiscovered embezzlement in – or more precisely not in – the country's business
and banks.
This inventory – it should perhaps be called the bezzle – amounts at any moment to many millions [trillions!] of dollars.
It also varies in size with the business cycle.
In good times people are relaxed, trusting, and money is plentiful. But even though money is plentiful, there are always
many people who need more. Under these circumstances the rate of embezzlement grows, the rate of discovery falls off, and the
bezzle increases rapidly.
In depression all this is reversed. Money is watched with a narrow, suspicious eye.
The man who handles it is assumed to be dishonest until he proves himself otherwise. Audits are penetrating and meticulous.
Commercial morality is enormously improved. The bezzle shrinks."
For nearly a half a century, from 1947 to 1996, real GDP and real Net Worth of Households and Non-profit Organizations (in
2009 dollars) both increased at a compound annual rate of a bit over 3.5%. GDP growth, in fact, was just a smidgen faster -- 0.016%
-- than growth of Net Household Worth.
From 1996 to 2015, GDP grew at a compound annual rate of 2.3% while Net Worth increased at the rate of 3.6%....
The real home price index extends from 1890. From 1890 to 1996, the index increased slightly faster than inflation so that
the index was 100 in 1890 and 113 in 1996. However from 1996 the index advanced to levels far beyond any previously experienced,
reaching a high above 194 in 2006. Previously the index high had been just above 130.
Though the index fell from 2006, the level in 2016 is above 161, a level only reached when the housing bubble had formed in
late 2003-early 2004.
The Shiller 10-year price-earnings ratio is currently 29.34, so the inverse or the earnings rate is 3.41%. The dividend yield
is 1.93. So an expected yearly return over the coming 10 years would be 3.41 + 1.93 or 5.34% provided the price-earnings ratio
stays the same and before investment costs.
Against the 5.34% yearly expected return on stock over the coming 10 years, the current 10-year Treasury bond yield is 2.32%.
The risk premium for stocks is 5.34 - 2.32 or 3.02%:
What the robot-productivity paradox is puzzles me, other than since 2005 for all the focus on the productivity of robots and
on robots replacing labor there has been a dramatic, broad-spread slowing in productivity growth.
However what the changing relationship between the growth of GDP and net worth since 1996 show, is that asset valuations have
been increasing relative to GDP. Valuations of stocks and homes are at sustained levels that are higher than at any time in the
last 120 years. Bear markets in stocks and home prices have still left asset valuations at historically high levels. I have no
idea why this should be.
The paradox is that productivity statistics can't tell us anything about the effects of robots on employment because both the
numerator and the denominator are distorted by the effects of colossal Ponzi bubbles.
John Kenneth Galbraith used to call it "the bezzle." It is "that increment to wealth that occurs during the magic interval
when a confidence trickster knows he has the money he has appropriated but the victim does not yet understand that he has lost
it." The current size of the gross national bezzle (GNB) is approximately $24 trillion.
Ponzilocks and the Twenty-Four Trillion Dollar Question
Twenty-three and a half trillion, actually. But what's a few hundred billion? Here today, gone tomorrow, as they say.
At the beginning of 2007, net worth of households and non-profit organizations exceeded its 1947-1996 historical average, relative
to GDP, by some $16 trillion. It took 24 months to wipe out eighty percent, or $13 trillion, of that colossal but ephemeral slush
fund. In mid-2016, net worth stood at a multiple of 4.83 times GDP, compared with the multiple of 4.72 on the eve of the Great
Unworthing.
When I look at the ragged end of the chart I posted yesterday, it screams "Ponzi!" "Ponzi!" "Ponz..."
To make a long story short, let's think of wealth as capital. The value of capital is determined by the present value of an
expected future income stream. The value of capital fluctuates with changing expectations but when the nominal value of capital
diverges persistently and significantly from net revenues, something's got to give. Either economic growth is going to suddenly
gush forth "like nobody has ever seen before" or net worth is going to have to come back down to earth.
Somewhere between 20 and 30 TRILLION dollars of net worth will evaporate within the span of perhaps two years.
When will that happen? Who knows? There is one notable regularity in the data, though -- the one that screams "Ponzi!"
When the net worth bubble stops going up...
...it goes down.
"... Is this the beginning of the collapse of the House of Saud? Or a Saudi renaissance led by Prince Mohammed as he claims? Stay tuned. ..."
"... John Chuckman: "Trump Says Saudi Elites Caught In Anti-Corruption Probe Were 'Milking' Kingdom For Years". This is just nonsense from Trump. Corruption is and has been everywhere in Saudi Arabia. How else could it be with all the countless billions changing hands in a fairly closed society? ..."
"... In all the Neocon Wars in the Mideast, great effort has been made, one way or another, not to have Israel at center stage, to avoid having Israel appear as aggressor. But, in fact, without the influence of Israel, none of these terrible wars would have happened. ..."
What's going on in Saudi Arabia? Over 200 bigwigs detained and 'illegal profits' of some
$800 billion confiscated.
The kingdom is in an uproar. The Saudi regime of King Salman and his ambitious 32-year old
son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, claim it was all part of an 'anti-corruption' drive that
has Washington's full backing.
Utter nonsense. I've done business in Saudi Arabia since 1976 and can attest that the entire
kingdom, with its thousands of pampered princes and princesses, is one vast swamp of
corruption. In Saudi, the entire nation and its vast oil revenues are considered property of
the extended Saudi royal family and its hangers-on. A giant piggy bank.
The late Libyan leader Muammar Khadaffi told me the Saudis are 'an incredibly rich bunch of
Bedouins living behind high walls and scared to death of their poorer neighbors.'
We have just witnessed a palace coup in Riyadh caused by the violation of the traditional
desert ruling system which was based on compromise and sharing the nation's riches.
Young Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's appointment as heir apparent by his ailing father,
King Salman, who is reportedly suffering from cognitive issues, upset the time-proven Saudi
collegial system and provoked the current crisis. Among the people arrested so far were 11
princes and 38 senior officials and businessmen, including the nation's best-known and richest
businessman, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who owns important chunks of Apple, Citigroup and
Twitter. He's being detained at Riyadh's swanky Ritz Carlton Hotel.
Also arrested was Bakr bin Laden, chairman of the largest Saudi construction firm, The
Binladen Group, and former Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, a bitter rival to the new Crown
Prince Mohammed.
Interestingly, there are no reports of senior Saudi military figures being arrested. The
Saudi military has always been kept weak and marginalized for fear it could one day stage a
military coup like the one led by Colonel Khadaffi who overthrew Libya's old British stooge
ruler, King Idris. For decades the Saudi army was denied ammunition. Mercenary troops from
Pakistan were hired to protect the Saudi royals.
Is this the beginning of the collapse of the House of Saud? Or a Saudi renaissance
led by Prince Mohammed as he claims? Stay tuned.
This is the key question, of huge import to the longer term future of the ME. In the
meantime, the issue is what the collateral damage inflicted upon the region by the rivals for
Saudi power is likely to be, with Lebanon and Iran the likely next targets. Can the Saudis
really get away with so openly admitting what everyone has known to be true for decades
– that they are firm allies of Israel? Are the Arabs really that beaten and cowed?
John Chuckman: "Trump Says Saudi Elites Caught In Anti-Corruption Probe Were 'Milking'
Kingdom For Years". This is just nonsense from Trump. Corruption is and has been everywhere
in Saudi Arabia. How else could it be with all the countless billions changing hands in a
fairly closed society?
So, it is easy for a guy like the new Crown Prince to glance around and conveniently find
some corruption among people he wants to discredit anyway.
It may go beyond merely discrediting them to having hundreds of billions seized by the
Crown Prince. Not a bad day's work.
What is going on is a kind of coup against the old order by the new usurper Crown Prince.
His recent appointment was by a King well known for his senility, and it suddenly and
surprisingly upset the established order of succession and all kinds of extended family
compacts.
We likely will never know what truly happened in this secretive kingdom. But we do know
the abrupt changes created lots of enemies who needed attending to, and that seems to be what
is happening.
And the enemies have no friends in Washington to whom they can appeal. The old order in
Saudi Arabia suffered terribly in the wake of 9/11, and despite great efforts to pacify the
US with new levels of cooperation, it is now being swept out.
Now, whatever is considered good for a hyper-aggressive United States is coincidentally
good for its de facto colony in the Middle East.
Trump himself has already proved to be one of Israel's best-ever American friends. Israel
has long had great influence, but it possibly never had it so good as it does now, as with a
UN Ambassador who speaks as though she were a joint appointment of Trump and Netanyahu.
Trump's only competitor in this regard would be Lyndon Johnson.
The US and Israel closely embrace the usurper because he has proven his dependability with
bloody projects like making illegal war on Yemen. That war is exactly like the proxy war
waged by mercenaries – ISIS and Al-Nusra et al – in Syria except that in this
case it is the open work of a nation-state. And now he joins Israel in making threats on
Lebanon.
In all the Neocon Wars in the Mideast, great effort has been made, one way or another,
not to have Israel at center stage, to avoid having Israel appear as aggressor. But, in fact,
without the influence of Israel, none of these terrible wars would have happened.
Yes, the Crown Prince will be a dependable component in the years-long American-Israeli
project of creating a new Middle East. The Crown Prince is essentially Israel's man in Saudi
Arabia, just as President el-Sisi is in Egypt. Israel is comfortable being surrounded by
absolute governments, so long as they are absolute governments beholden to its patron, the
United States.
Right now, the new Crown Prince is doing another bloody service for Israeli interests. The
Prime Minister of Lebanon, Saad Hariri, was called to come to Riyadh in the King's name for
some business, as it turned out on false pretenses. Hariri had his plane surrounded and he
was effectively arrested upon landing. Just pure modern piracy. Later, and who knows after
what threats, he announced his sudden and unexpected resignation as prime minister, and he
remains in Saudi Arabia.
It just so happens, in very recent time, Netanyahu and some of his officials have made
some very ugly noises against Lebanon and even staged a large-scale set of war games,
including calling up reservists, clearly threatening the country.
I would still like an article by Mr. Margolis on this interesting topic – if there is a
benign explanation for it, why not share it with us. It would be fascinating to hear a
description of what the place is like
Eric Margolis's name is in Jeffrey Epstein's little black book.
A journalist, Mr. Margolis certainly knows what an interesting story it would be to write
about his visits to Lolita Island. Why no comment, no article? See for yourself:
So much corruption and so much goes unreported. And most people don't care since they are
hooked to Pop Culture and other nonsense. Maybe this is what all societies need: An ongoing
TV series about the most powerful peoples, institutions, and industries in America. So,
imagine a TV show called the FED. It has to be based on facts than fiction. Since it takes
time to ascertain facts, these shows will feature events from a month ago. Always a
month-time-lag to verify facts. And it will show what kind of decisions took place within the
FED. And a TV show called SUPREME COURT. A dramatization of key things that happened in SC.
Again, a month-lag on the programming. And the PRESIDENCY And the CIA And the FBI. And the
NYT and other elite media. And IVY LEAGUES. A show on the major decisions made by university
presidents and deans. And the Pentagon. And Goldman Sachs. And Amazon. And Microsoft. And
Google. And Apple.
This stuff can be made entertaining with a bit of dramatization. Outright fictionalization
will not be allowed as everything has to be according to verified facts. However, narrative
will of course be tightened and streamlined and dramatized with colorful personalities.
This will be a great public service.
And maybe every city can have a Play Production about City Hall. A never-ending series
based on what happens among politicians, big time folks, and etc in the seats of power.
That way, entertainment won't always be about escapism but about focusing on what is
happening among the powerful.
Now, there are shows like HOUSE OF CARDS that offer a vague inkling of what happens in DC.
But with fictionalized characters and exaggerated situations, it's more escapism than
enterism .
We need Enterism in culture. We need to enter into the way of power.
Charge in corruption is a standard instrument in regime change effort. Most widely used in in
color revolutions. So this is a pretty old way tested in xUSSR republics.
Everybody is against corruption, so it has become the new cool way to concentrate power in
dictatorial societies to engage in an anti-corruption drive, as Putin and Xi Jinping have done.
Actually corrupt people may well be arrested, but somehow included in the set of those arrested
are rivals of the leader who are conveniently disposed of.
likbez , November 10, 2017 8:53 pm
Barkley,
You should probably think in a wider framework of color revolution, not in the narrow
framework of (possibly inflated) corruption charges. This is about de-legitimization, not
about the corruption per se.
BTW the charge in corruption is a standard tool used in color revolutions. So it is far
from only "the new cool way to concentrate power in dictatorial societies". It is more of an
old way to induce "regime change".
It is perfectly applicable to political struggle in neoliberal societies as well as we see
now with Trump. Probably even more, as "greed is good" morale imperative implies. Also
provides opponents of Trump high moral ground to attach him and his entourage.
We can start analysis from Trump campaign against Hillary. If it would be more interesting
to analyze the current anti-Trump campaign from this angle. Especially recent Robert
Mueller's indictments. We can view then as a kind of attempt to "import" color revolution
methods of "regime change" into the USA in order to depose Trump.
The Chinese pastor Leung has outlined the 12 steps of regime change.
The key difference is that this time it is not the U.S. making regime change overseas, but
in America itself to serve the powers that be. The 12 steps are:
1.Dispatch CIA, MI6 and other intelligence officers as students, tourists, volunteers,
businessmen, reporters to the target country
2.Set up Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) under the guise of humanitarianism to
fight for "democracy" and "human rights" in order to attract advocates of freedom and
ideals
3.Attract local traitors, especially academics, politicians, reporters, soldiers etc.
through bribery or threaten those who have some stain in their life
4.If the target country has unions, bribe them
5.Pick a catchy theme or color for the revolution. Examples include the Praque spring
(1968), Velvet Revolution (Eastern Europe, 1989), Rose Revolution (Georgia, 2003), Cedar
Revolution (Lebanon, 2005), Orange Revolution (Ukraine 2004), Green Revolution (Iran),
Jasmine Revolution, Arab Spring and even Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution
6.Start protests for whatever reasons to kick off the revolution. It could be human
rights, democracy, government corruption or electoral fraud. Evidence isn't necessary; an
excuse will do.
7.Write protest signs and banners in English to let Americans see and get Americans
politicians and civilians involved
8.Let those corrupted politicians, intellectuals and union leaders join the protests and
call upon all people with grievances to join
9.The US and European mainstream media help by continuously emphasizing that the
revolution is caused by injustice and thereby gaining the support of the majority
10.When the whole world is watching stage a false-flag action. The target government
will soon be destabilized and lose support among its people
11.Add in violent agent provocateurs to provoke the police to use force. This will cause
the target government to lose the support of other countries and become "delegitimized" by
the international community
12.Send politicians to the US, EU, the UN to petition so that the target government will
face the threat of economic sanctions, no-fly zones and even airstrikes and an armed rebel
uprising.
Oh, I don't think so, Likbez. The really big numbers of arrests for corruption as part of
a power grab have not been in color revolution nations, but in long estabilished regimes. So
in China Xi Joinping has arrested about 1.4 million people in the CPC on anti-corruption
charges since he took power. No wonder nobody was voting against him at the recent party
congress.
Then we have Erdogan in Turkkey, who has arrested something like 70,000. Now a lot of
those have been busted for supposedly being part of the Gulenist copu attempt, but many have
been buseed for couurption. Yeah, color places do it, but these are the places with the
reallyi big numbers.
Oh, and the numbers arrested in Saudi Arabia apparently now exceed 200, and that is not
coloar revolution, nor is what has gone on in the US.
likbez , November 11, 2017 9:32 pm
"Oh, I don't think so, Likbez. The really big numbers of arrests for corruption as part of
a power grab have not been in color revolution nations, but in long estabilished
regimes."
Not true. After Ukrainian Maidan color revolution (2014) there were wide purges on
corruption charges of supporters of ousted President Yanukovich.
The current "Russiagate" color revolution against Trump recently started to concentrate on
corruption charges too (Mueller's first indictments). They are definitely not wide. But they send
a message to Trump and serve classic for color revolution de-legitimization purpose. In the context of the USA they probably do not actually need them to be wide as they can
be amplified 100 or 1000 times by anti-Trump MSM.
In both cases there is a strong support within the intelligence agencies of the actions
that can help to depose elected President (Brennan, Clapper, possibly Comey in case of the
USA). Along with the goal to froze the possibility of détente with Russia. Which was achieved
to the delight of all neocons.
There are also some discussions about the possibility that DNC hack was a false flag operation
in classic color revolutions fashion. See
We endure potholes and live in fear of collapsing highway bridges because our leaders
wanted these very special people to have an even larger second yacht
It's not enough to say, in response to the Paradise Papers revelations, that we
already knew that rich people parked their money in offshore tax havens, where their piles
accumulate far from the scrutiny of our government. Nor is it enough to say that we were
already aware that we live in a time of "inequality."
What we have learned this week is the clinical definition of the word. What we have learned
is how much the rich and the virtuous have been hiding away and where they're hiding it. Yes,
there are sinister-looking Russian capitalists involved. But there's also our favorite actors
and singers. Our beloved alma mater, supposedly a charitable institution. Everyone with money
seems to be in on it.
We're also learning that maybe we've had it backwards all along. Tax havens on some tropical island aren't
some sideshow to western capitalism; they are a central reality. Those hidden billions are like
an unseen planet whose gravity is pulling our politics and our economy always in a certain
direction. And this week we finally began to understand what that uncharted planet looks like;
we started to grasp its mass and its power.
Think about it like this. For decades Americans have been erupting in anger at what they can
see happening to their beloved middle-class world. We think we know what the culprit is; we can
see it vaguely through a darkened glass. It's "elitism". It's a "rigged system". It's people
who think they're better than us. And for decades we have lashed out. At the immigrant next
door. At Jews. At Muslims. At school teachers. At public workers who are still paid a decent
wage. Our fury, unrelenting, grows and grows.
We revolt, but it turns out we have chosen the wrong political leader. We revolt again; this
time, the leader is even worse.
This week we are coming face to face with a big part of the right answer: it's that the
celebrities and business leaders we have raised up above ourselves would like to have nothing
to do with us. Yes, they are grateful for the protection of our laws. Yes, they like having the
police and the marine corps on hand to defend their property.
Yes, they eat our food and breathe our air and expect us to keep these pure and healthy;
they demand that we get educated before we may come and work for them, and for that purpose
they expect us to pay for a vast system of public schools. They also expect us to watch their
movies, to buy their products, to use their software. They expect our (slowly declining) middle
class to be their loyal customers.
But those celebrities and business types would prefer not to do what it takes to support all
this. That burden's on us. Oh, they're happy to haul billions out of our economy and use us up
in the workplace, but maintaining the machinery that keeps it all running – that's on
us.
I don't want to go too far here. I know that what the billionaires and the celebrities have
done is legal. They merely took advantage of the system. It's the system itself, and the way it
was deliberately constructed to achieve these awful ends, that should be the target of our
fury.
For decades Americans have lashed out against taxation because they were told that cutting
taxes would give people an incentive to work harder and thus make the American economy
flourish. Our populist leaders told us this – they're telling us this still, as they
reform taxes in Washington – and they rolled back the income tax, they crusaded against
the estate tax, and they worked to keep our government from taking action against offshore tax
havens.
In reality, though, it was never about us and our economy at all. Today it is obvious that
all of this had only one rationale: to raise up a class of supermen above us. It had nothing to
do with jobs or growth. Or freedom either. The only person's freedom to be enhanced by these
tax havens was the billionaire's freedom. It was all to make his life even better, not
ours.
Think, for a moment, of how this country has been starved so the holders of these offshore
accounts might enjoy their private jets in peace. Think of what we might have done with the
sums we have lost to these tax strategies over the decades. All the crumbling infrastructure
that politicians love to complain about: it should have – and could have - been fixed
long ago.
Think of all the young people saddled with catastrophic student-loan debt: we should have
– could have – made that unnecessary. Think of all the decayed small towns, and the
dying rust belt cities, and the drug-addicted hopeless: all of them should have – could
have – been helped.
But no. Instead America chose a different project. Our leaders raised up a tiny class of
otherworldly individuals and built a paradise for them, made their lives supremely delicious.
Today they hold unimaginable and unaccountable power.
We endure potholes and live in fear of collapsing highway bridges because our leaders wanted
these very special people to have an even larger second yacht. Our kids sit in overcrowded
classrooms in underfunded schools so that a handful of exalted individuals can relax on their
own private beach.
Today it is these same golden figures with their offshore billions who host the fundraisers,
hire the lobbyists, bankroll the think tanks and subsidize the artists and intellectuals.
This is their democracy today. We just happen to live in it.
"... US Budgetary Costs of Post-9/11 Wars Through FY2018: $5.6 Trillion ..."
"... The Guardian just showed that the UK government is a state-sponsor of terrorism if it allowed LIFG terrorists to openly reside in the UK and given the love affair that the Guardian has going with various salafi jihadists, the Guardian is an organ of terrorist propaganda, which was obvious from the way it took pride in naming Ahrar al-Sham as a source for much of its reporting on Syria. ..."
"... JFK/RFK tried to get the precursor to AIPAC, the American Zionist Council, (AZC) to register as foreign agents. Of course, he also insisted that Israel allow inspectors into Israel's nuclear weapons producing facility. I forget what the resolution of those issues was. ;-) ..."
A British Minister of Hindu heritage was fired after it emerged that she secretly met Israeli
officials in Israel and elsewhere without informing the Foreign Office. Back in Britain she then
tried to arrange additional finances for Israel's
arming of al-Qaeda in the Golan heights. The affair shines light on the nefarious influence of
the Israel lobby on British politics.
Priti Patel was International Development Secretary, responsible for British aid to various countries
and organizations. She is a Thatcherite Conservative, a vocal supporter of Britain's exit from the
European Union and of Hindu fascism in India:
She has been a strong cheerleader of the Narendra Modi government, publicly praising a number
of its policies including demonetisation.
In August Patel went on a "family holiday" to Israel. Instead of enjoying the beach she met dozens
of Israeli officials from Prime Minister Netanyahoo down to the heads of Zionist aid organizations.
She was shepherded by one Lord Polak, a long time Israel lobbyist in British politics. Polak accompanied
her to every meeting. None of these were disclosed to the British Embassy, the Foreign Office or
Downing Street. Cabinet rules demand that all such meetings are coordinated and briefed through these
official channels.
Stuart Polak is a
major character in Zionist lobbying in Britain:
Ennobled by David Cameron two years ago, Lord Polak is a veteran of Westminster's corridors of
power. He has taken literally hundreds of Tory MPs to Israel over the years, educating them about
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and securing their support in parliamentary votes and the public
arena.
Under his guidance, CFI became the biggest lobbying group in Westminster, holding lunches for
700 guests, making countless Downing Street visits, and developing contacts throughout Israel
and the Middle East.
Polak fled
when the media tried to question him about his Israel visit arrangements for Patel.
One of Patel's meetings was at an army hospital in the Israel occupied Syrian Golan heights where
the Israeli military
patches up al-Qaeda Jihadis which were wounded while fighting the Syrian government. Only last
week the Israeli army in the occupied Golan
supported a
murderous attack of al-Qaeda Jihadis on the Syrian Druze village of Hader in the Quneitra area.
The Jihadis in the Golan are surrounded by Syrian government forces. Their only supply line is through
Israel occupied land. Druze in Israel who protested against the attack
were arrested .
Back in Britain Priti Patel
asked her department to move British aid money from Palestinian causes to the Israeli military
operation in the occupied Golan. (Funny how the Guardian in its
wrap-up fails to mention that point ...)
Additionally to her busy holiday, Priti Patel had two other meetings with Israeli officials which
she similarly did not disclose.
When it became clear yesterday that Priti Patel's behavior would cost her her job, the British
Zionist lobby launched a rescue attempt. Based on anonymous sources the Jewish Chronicle
claimed that Prime Minister May had been informed about two of the meetings and had ordered Patel
to not disclose them:
Number 10 instructed Development Secretary Priti Patel not to include her meeting with the Israel
foreign ministry official Yuval Rotem in New York on 18 September in her list of undisclosed meetings
with Israelis which was published on Monday, the JC has learned.
Downing Street immediately denied the claim and no other source backed it up. The blackmail attempt
failed. The Jewish Chronicle also was
at the forefront of the slander campaign that tried to smear the British labor leader Corbyn
as anti-semite.
Indeed a very influential lobbyist group ..... now having convinced governments about the world
that criticism of Palestinian genocide is hate speech. They are actively seeking to make any negative
comment about Zionism a crime. The only comfort I can find is: Not all Morons live in America.
This line gave me a chill: "Lord Polak is a veteran of Westminster's corridors of power. He has
taken literally hundreds of Tory MPs to Israel over the years" Once in Israel they are subjected
to hypnosis and/or subliminal indoctrination.
I really don't see that what the British government did for Qaddafi has to do with Priti Patel.
Two leading figures in the Libyan opposition
Ah, the Libyan "opposition", the Guardian is up to it's usual trick of being economical with
the truth. In this case the Libyan "opposition" was the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG or
Al-Jama'a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya), a salafi jihadist group that was at the time classified
as a terrorist group because of its associations with Al Qaeda, the same Al Qaeda that the Israeli
government is supporting in Syria by providing medical aid and artillery support to its terrorists.
Oh, now I see the connection, Priti Patel wants the UK to provide support to salafi jihadists
just as it did the LIFG during the overthrow of Qaddafi.
...who had been living legally in the UK for years
The Guardian just showed that the UK government is a state-sponsor of terrorism if it allowed
LIFG terrorists to openly reside in the UK and given the love affair that the Guardian has going
with various salafi jihadists, the Guardian is an organ of terrorist propaganda, which was obvious
from the way it took pride in naming Ahrar al-Sham as a source for much of its reporting on Syria.
Don't be a retard. One cannot understand Western history without understanding the Jewish role.
The international Jewish financiers were active in both Britain and the U.S. before WWII and even
before WWI.
[long blubber taken from rense.com deleted]
[Make your own argument, don't just copy stuff from elsewhere - b.]
Judging by the footage of her leaving Downing Street, Patel seemed unconcerned. As another poster
stated, she probably knows she will be away from the front bench only temporarily. Liam Fox didn't
spend too much time on the back benches. Zionists can deny having influence as much as they like,
the facts speak for themselves. Pro Israeli politicians bending over backwards for Israel at the
expense of their own country rarely spend too much time away from the corridors of power. Patel
will be no different. The general public don't see Israel as a threat. If Patel had been meeting
up with Russian government officials, she would have been arrested.
A search of Murray's blog provides a link to the series of posts he made regarding the scandal
and his attempts to get it into the public eye,
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=matthew+gould
And although that scandal occurred in 2011, it clearly set the stage for the scandal surrounding
Patel, which I trust Murray will eventually write about now that he's free from his recent legal
issues. IOW, the Patel scandal isn't the first nor will it be the last and signals the very real
need to scupper May's government and install Corbyn.
spyridon #8: the so-called anti-Zionist lobby. For that is what it is - a lobby.
Most certainly wrong. A lobby, at least here in the US, is registered with the government and
is regulated by federal law. There might be an anti-zionist lobby in the US but I am not aware
of one. Anti-zionism is a mass political movement organized into many different organizations
that do not require official recognition from or registration by the government. Their autonomy
is protected from government control by the constitution of the US.
To really understand the political background of the „Balfour Declaration" it is necessary to
pay attention to what the British government was really up in the ME before WW I:
British imperial strategists were increasingly alarmed with the growing "Arab Awakening" emerging
in the context of Arab indigenous nationalism. These fears of a growing and developing Arab nationalism
informed British Prime Minister CAMPBELL BANNERMAN when he stated at the 1907 Colonial Conference:
"Empires are formed, enlarged and stabilized so very little before they disintegrate and
disappear. Do we have the means of preventing this fall, this crumbling, is it possible for
us to put a halt to the destiny of European colonialism which at present is at a critical stage?"
The answer Bannerman received from the commission he established to look at the question, was
that it was necessary to prevent any "Union of popular masses in the Arab region or the establishment
of any intellectual, spiritual or historical link between them". To achieve this one could "construct
a powerful, human 'barrier' foreign to the region, a force FRIENDLY TOWARDS IMPERIALISM and hostile
towards the inhabitants of the region."
The report submitted to Prime Minister Henry Campbell-Bannerman recommended the following actions:
1) To promote disintegration, division and separation in the region.
2) To establish artificial political entities that would be under the authority of the imperialist
countries. [MB, KSA]
3) To fight any kind of unity – whether intellectual, religious or historical – and taking practical
measures to divide the region's inhabitants.
4) To achieve this, it was proposed that a "buffer state" be established in Palestine, populated
by a strong, foreign presence which would be hostile to its neighbors and friendly to European
countries and their interests. [5]
The British rulers [and later the USG] thought they could use „Zionism" for their dirty geo-political,Machiavellian
games but the Zionists soon outwitted them (the British had deceived Zionists and Arabs with false
promises):
Sir John Munro Troutbeck (fmr. head of the British Middle East Office in Cairo) writing to
Churchill in May 1948:
"It is difficult not to see that Zionist policy is anything else than unashamed aggression
carried out by methods of deceit and brutality not unworthy of Hitler"
On June 2, 1948, Sir Troutbeck sent another diplomatic message, this time to the British foreign
secretary, Ernest Bevin. He complains that "the Americans are responsible for the creation of
a gangster state" headed by "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders".
Albert EINSTEIN (who fled to the US from Nazi-Germany in 1933) concurred some months later:
"It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world (if correctly informed
about Mr.Begins political record) could lend their names and support to the movements he represents.
Before irreparable damage [..] is done,... and the creation in Palestine of the impression that
a large segment of America support fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed
as to the record and objective of Mr. Begin and his government.
The public avowels of Mr. Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual character.
Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly
preached the doctrine of the Fascist state.
It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions
we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future."
Source: Letter to the NYT by Albert Einstein (and other prominent Jews) published in December
1948, after the DEIR YASSIN massacre to which it also refers:
„The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the „Freedom" Party.
Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism,
and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have
themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed
corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.
During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated
a reign of terror in the Palestine JEWISH] community
Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children
join them.
By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated
the population and exacted a heavy tribute." . [to say nothing of the Arabs – see Ilan Pappe/
Ethnic Cleansing]
(OVERCOMING ZIONISM, a book by Dr. Joel Kovel : perhaps the best analysis of the psychopathology
of Zionism ...which goes hand in hand with the psychopathology of "American exceptionalism" (moral
absolutism)
Congratulations to those posters who had the good sense to ignore the diversionary tactics of
the zionist shill. Those who chose to respond would be wise to consider the motives of rather
than the rather obvious lies which zionists post. When these scumsuckers aren't posting racist
garbage on pro humanist threads in a weak arsed attempt to bring sites into disrepute, they try
to push discussion of the egregious acts of the zionist lobby to one side by distracting naifs
thru posts of extended tirades composed entirely of deceits about the genocidal campaign of rape
murder and theft which israel's thugs have been conducting upon the indigenous people of the Jordan
Valley. Of course they don't even believe the shite themselves, but the purpose is to shift the
discussion away from zionism's hateful activities onto a never ending rehash of old stories, thereby
distracting from accurate discussion and assessment of zionism's latest crimes.
The thread is about a particularly nasty piece of Gujarati gash, fortunately atypical - most
of the men & women of that culture who I am familiar with are honest empathetic and like the rest
of us more interested in the well being of their families than seeking profit by advancing the
interests of arseholes looking for pay to play pols.
Priti Patel will get up on her hind legs and spout lies about anything as long as two basic
preconditions are met. 1) The subject must be controversial and not a point of view one would
expect to hear from a woman who likes to cast herself as 'the voice of the minority' - she is
desperate to lead the tories and wants to appeal to the typical tory - a grumpy old whitefella
who constantly moans about 'england going to the dogs'.
2) The gig must pay extremely well Patel has an expensive wardrobe and jewellery collection
to maintain - not mention her jones for thousand pound handbags, so she is always on the lookout
for rich arseholes desperate to sell fridges to Eskimos and that is the zionist lobby in a nutshell.
They specialise in persuading racist old pricks to increase their level of hate towards young
unwhite humans & in doing so ensure that lots more people die every year.
A classic example would be the horror show Israel has cooked up with KSA; from now on all shipments
of medicines to Yemen a nation which Israel and Saudi have destroyed by bombing and shelling of
all major population centers, will be blocked. So what if 800,000 Yemen citizens have cholera
because all water reticulation infrastructure has been destroyed by bombing? All the better! Blocking
the supply of all medicines will guarantee those cholera sufferers - most of em children, will
die.
Not even the nazis tried that one on but that is just another part of the plan for greater
israel so as per usual the end justifies the means for zionists.
Priti will be pissed she is unlikely to get the contract to sell that to englanders - not to worry
the zionist lobby has a queue of greedy sociopaths eager to do the job. Maybe the arsehole who
dropped by MoA fancies his chances and this post is part of his portfolio for the gig. Who cares
the grumpy old pr1cks are dying out and in another decade they will be gone completely and the
Jordan Valley will be returned to its owners not long after that. The enablers of zionism have
backed a loser, they know it which is why their crimes get worse and more obvious each year -
flailing about prior to drowning.
1) To promote disintegration, division and separation in the region.
2) To establish artificial political entities that would be under the authority of the imperialist
countries. [MB, KSA]
3) To fight any kind of unity – whether intellectual, religious or historical – and taking practical
measures to divide the region's inhabitants.
4) To achieve this, it was proposed that a "buffer state" be established in Palestine, populated
by a strong, foreign presence which would be hostile to its neighbors and friendly to European
countries and their interests. [5]
Familiar sounding, reminds one of the recent attempt to balkanize Syria, and the recent 2014
coup in Ukraine...and, heck, the modus operandi of the CIA in general...
Magnier mentioned this place a number of times in his articles on the Sunni jihad groups of
Syria. I also noticed many of these groups with ties to AQ had al Sham or Sham in their name.
The Shia Hezbolla interactive map also covers most of the Bilad al-Sham area. Syria itself
has been a steadfast opponent of the imposed state of Israel.
Strong historical ties throught the former Bilad al-Sham region -(Greater Syria? Historical
Syria)- although the Sunni jihadists seem to have now sided with the Israelis?
The nasty little state of Israel is totally reliant on US (plus five eyes) protection at the
UN, but like a parasite, sucking the life out of its host.
failure of imagination | Nov 9, 2017 1:30:47 PM |
43
Weirder even more is the entertainment of Rapture-Ready Christians. Certainly happy with Israel
now, but looking forward to The End. Should the duplicity of Pope Pius X onwards be revealed and
the mopes get angry (and not in a Christian way) then Kingdom Come comes to " a bunch of white
people pretending to be Jewish protected by a bunch of white people pretending to be Christian"
(Malcolm X) quicker than prophecy. More alcoholic-overreach, doubling-down on losing games (demographics).
Samson suit-case nukes can't be that bad. They may even scare the Arabs out of Europe.
Actually, wishing good health and thanks all
Britain's 260,000 Jews are a tiny fraction of 1% of the British population -- the amount of political
influence that this miniscule proportion is able to employ is so grossly beyond disproportionate
as to be laughable. So what is the answer?
Henry Ford and his ant- Semitism often pops up in discussions of Fascisn and Zionism . Ford's
involvements did not end merely with support for Nazi Germany. E H carr points out correctly that
Ford engineers were active in the building and design of Soviet industry .
Debs @ 39 said:"Who cares the grumpy old pr1cks are dying out and in another decade they will
be gone completely and the Jordan Valley will be returned to its owners not long after that. The
enablers of zionism have backed a loser, they know it which is why their crimes get worse and
more obvious each year - flailing about prior to drowning."
Great wrap-up Debs. One of your most salient rants, and if that scenario plays out, the world
will be better off..
Politus...another example of the Israeli 'lobby'. Zionists publicly brag about stove piping what
they consider to be anti Zionist comments to their army of social media trolls. He probably gets
paid by the word. Don't encourage him. Reason will not prevail.
Student of history. . . As far as Britain and the Balfour Declaration (2 November 1917), this
can only be understood in the context of British ambitions for the Middle East after the discovery
of oil in Persia in 1908 by D'Arcy, and the formation of the Anglo-Persian oil company in 1909.
Britain, having transitioned its navy from coal to faster, more efficient oil-powered ships, wanted
complete control over all Persian Gulf oil to ensure it would retain control of the seas.
Fun historical questions: What role did the German effort to build a Berlin-to-Baghdad rail
line to access Middle Eastern oil have on the outbreak of World War I? What part did Germany's
alliance with the Ottoman Empire have in (1) Britain's decision to issue the Balfour Declaration(1917)
and (2) Britains support for the Levant Arab Revolt against Ottoman rule (1916)?
Controlling the oil was a huge factor, and the Berlin-to-Baghdad rail line was a major threat
to British interests. Oil was also
the subject of secret treaties between Britain and Russia over post-war control of Central
Asian and the Middle East. To get to the point, the establishment of Israel was part of the British
Empire program:
The Arabs were also opposed to a separate Israeli state, claiming that instead a larger Arab
state would be a better fit for the region. In a 1919 petition, the General Syrian Congress
asserted that a key principle of their government would be "safeguarding the rights of minorities"
and that instead of a separate nation, "[o]ur Jewish compatriots shall enjoy our common rights
and assume the common responsibilities." Instead, the British were openly committed to the
creation of a Palestinian mandate for Jews. Three of the reasons offered for UK control over
the Palestinian mandate, at a 1919 meeting, were that the mandate would provide the UK with
"great prestige", to give access to the Hedjaz railway, and to provide a defensive buffer against
possible French threats towards Egypt and the Suez Canal. The Palestinian mandate and the resulting
state of Israel would long remain a symbol of the power and true priorities of foreign, European
interests in the Middle East.
Thes were standard British practices - establishing a client state (Israel) that would support
British imperial agendas and be reliant on British support for its long-term survival (hence,
would be obedient to British directives). However, the Zionists themselves eventually turned on
their British client state right after WW2. The United States eventually took over the British
role in the relationship with Israel as the Cold War ignited in the 1950s. This also initiated
a long period of U.S. support for Wahhabist Islam, which Israel supported (they created Hamas)
both as a proxy force against the Soviet Union, as well as against the secular PLO which wanted
Palestinian land returned.
Zionists are more like Wahhabists than anything else - complete merger of religious doctrine
with state government, intolerance for any other religious groups, (kind of like certain groups
of evangelical Christians), a real tendency towards fascist organization and authoritarian repression
- hence the 'natural alliance' between groups like these:
"Patel.. Hindutva fanatics would fit well with the US touring freak show of wahhabi's, zionists
and nazi's."
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Nov 9, 2017 12:31:34 PM | 34
As far as the British deal today? Israel, relying so heavily on external support for its economic
health, trys hard to influence British and American politics, i.e. it spends millions to influence
elections and government policy for its own interests. Funny how this is viewed as acceptable
behavior for Israel (and Saudi Arabia). Some law about having to register as a foreign agent is
being violated in Congress, the State Department and the associated cloud of lobbyists, isn't
it?
"Havent we been arguing the opposite when GOP politicians have talked with russians?
Why is Preti wrong to be fired then? A bit of double standard here now.."Anonymous 36
There is no comparison between what Patel did and the unsubstantiated allegations made against
Americans who are far from being cabinet members.
To talk of 'double standards' in this matter is nonsensical unless you are drawing attention
to the incredible laxity with which Patel has been treated.
Britain's 260,000 Jews are a tiny fraction of 1% of the British population -- the amount of
polltical influence that this miniscule propoertion is able to employ is so grossly beyond
disproportionate as to be laughable.
I'm not so sure British Jews as British citizens have much political power. It's more that
many politicians in the UK have their noses so far up Washington's arse for some reason that when
the Israelis tell them to do something they do it immediately and without question because they
want to get their noses even further up Washington's arse. Why this happens I can only guess.
Perhaps they're all on massive backhanders from the CIA Perhaps the NSA and CIA have embarrassing
information about them. Perhaps they're worried that the CIA will organise a colour revolution.
Perhaps they believe the CIA/DoS BS that Putin is coming to murder them in their beds. Washington
exerts massive influence on British as well as European politicians but what it is is not obvious.
Also most of the media, including supposedly left-wing newspapers like The Guardian are strongly
Zionist.
@53 bevin.. i think they were drawing attention to the double standards where israel gets a free
ride all the time in the usa and everywhere else, but any contact with Russia is a huge no no,
as witness the insanity in the usa at present.. that was how i read it..
With the US and EU coming out Wednesday supporting Lebanon, doesn't seem the moar woar brigade
is pulling the strings. First Qatar survives its legislated doom, now Lebanon has still not yet
been freedomed.
Could this be yet another crack in the anglozionist machine? What possibly could
be going on with the borg?
"Saudi Arabia -- the cradle of Muslim extremism -- is an ally of Israel."
Israel has no allies. It uses other countries to do its dirty work for them. If that dirty
work can also destroy the 'ally' so much the better. For example, Turkey was 'allied' in the early
days with the destruction of Syria - supposedly Turkey had something against Assad. The quid pro
quo was to be Israel's influence in getting Turkey into the EU. However, it was clear that destruction
of Syria would empower the Kurds, which would be a real existential threat to Turkey, as opposed
to the imagined acts of Assad.
The supposed 'Turkish caliphate' had the same likelihood of happening as the supposed 'Qatar
pipeline' which would come online shortly after the supposed UNOCAL pipeline through Afghanistan
(hint try running major construction works through areas held by unstable tribal/ethnic/religious
groups. Groups would blow stuff up just to spite their opponents. Those bought off would not stay
bought off)
Once in Israel they are subjected to hypnosis and/or subliminal indoctrination.
They don't need to employ extreme measures like these. For one thing the people they are influencing
are already on their side, and run-of-the-mill overt peer group pressure to conform puts the human
psyche under enormous strain to conform to group demands.
An experiment that has been repeated probably thousands of times in various forms goes as follows:
In a rigged group discussion or "lesson" one person is the "mark" and the other members are part
of the experimenters team. In a very simple version of the experiment two lines are drawn on a
whiteboard. One line is, say, 20" long and the other one, drawn right beneath it, is 15" long
- very obviously shorter than the one above it. The mark is engaged in a discussion and asked
if he sees any difference between the two lines. Yes, the bottom line is shorter than the top
one he will invariably say. The other group members then vociferously disagree with the mark and
tell him no, he's wrong and both lines are exactly the same length. The mark will protest no,
that's crazy...just look at them! (The "teacher" will say the group needs to reach a consensus
before they can continue with the "lesson" or break for lunch.) The fake students will continue
to deny the mark's very true observation and continue to pressure him to admit his "error." About
3 out of 4 the "marks" in these experiments capitulate and "go with the group" even when it is
blatantly obvious he is right and they are wrong. (I don't have the exact number on hand...but
it is very high.)
So, no, Zionist Israelis do not need to brainwash and "subliminally" mind fuck visiting Zionist
allies to get them to go along with their hosts want. Boring old group pressure is usually sufficient
to get dissenters on board. It is the same dynamic that makes hold outs go along with gang rapes
and gives rise to mob mentality where even mild mannered people can become violent and kill. It
can be observed in groups of all kinds including internet forums. Kids do this all the time to
their friends. It is a very common human behavior.
Not every nefarious goal is achieved via a calculated and carefully planned conspiracy to secretly
trick or use deeply subversive tactics to gain compliance. Anyone who thinks so does not understand
human social psychology.
"Sponsors" locked up at the Ritz?
Trump prasing the Saudi "crackdown on corruption" and the borg axiously wondering where there
next paycheck will come from?
It's been close to 24 hrs since he posted that. If the rumors he heard come to pass that will
be very interesting indeed. I wonder how the "international community" will react?
Not to detract the thread but no, the one in Bdos was sold and is not the oldest. It's further
west in Jah, proudly of spanish- portuguese decent. Peace.
@ Laguerre 66
Indira Ghandi was well protected. MbS may be handed the throne but he is done. The purge was
pre-emptive. In the doing, he has notched up too many enemies. Billionaires need certainty. Fear
in the air.
Saudi Billionaires Scramble To Move Cash Offshore, Escape Asset Freeze
also at ZH Following KSA, "Kuwait orders citizens to Leave Lebanon Immediately - against any negative
impact that may take place"
The Saudi-Lebanon 'war' stuff is bullshit as was the was Saudi-Qatar 'war' on the recent past.
The Saudis can't handle the khat-chewing flip-flop, dishdasha and sports jacket-wearing Houthis,
let alone battle hardened Hezbollah. Saudi itself is in dire financial straits witnessed by the
dismal attempts to sell of ARAMCO to get a lump sum now rather than decling sums over time. It
is also attempting to diversify away from oil dependency with the NEOM bs.
This whole thing is an last ditch attempt by Israel to raise a distraction allowing it to grab
the areas of Syria/Lebanon it covets in the name of 'national security'. It is already showing
its concern for the Druze in the Occupied Golan, offering to protect them from its ISIS proxy
force. If Lebanon and Saudi get destroyed in the process, so much the better (from Israel's viewpoint).
Well, Bibi could use some distraction. He is in the police hot seat as his former chief of
staff and close confidant turned state's witness on corruption - allegations of
"suspected bribery, fraud and breach of trust."
JPost, November 9, 2017
According to Army Radio, Netanyahu is expected to be confronted during the investigation with
testimony from Ari Harrow, his former aide who has turned state's witness.
Police interrogators from the Lahav 433 unit arrived at the official residence of Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Thursday evening to question him over his involvement in police
cases 1000 and 2000.[.]
How shocking. Isn't this the norm - taking gifts in exchange for favours?
Once again, great article and wonderful, insightful (almost universally) comments. I LOVE this
site.
Anonymous @47. I'll take a stab at what I see as three different situations encompassed by
your query.
Patel's wrongdoing stemmed from being a state official conducting state business without the
knowledge of the state she ostensibly serves. It's ironic because the British State would likely
have been just fine with what she negotiated, acquiesced to, promised or whatever - but since
she did this covertly, and was outed by journalists, she was bumped from one office, though not
otherwise sanctioned.
The issue of government officials overtly or covertly putting the interests of foreign powers
above those of the citizens and interests of their own country should be of great concern, but
serving certain "allies" seems to have no boundaries in both the US and Britain.
When a private person or group that is not part of the home country government lobbies on behalf
of a foreign government, they are required to register as agents of that foreign government. Hence,
I say the "Friends of Israel" in Britain and AIPAC in the U.S. should be registered as foreign
agents.
That is one of the things Paul Manafort was charged with as regards Ukraine, Michael Flynn
got in some trouble over as regards Turkey, and is why Tony Podesta resigned from his lobbying
organization as regards RUSSIA!!!.
JFK/RFK tried to get the precursor to AIPAC, the American Zionist Council, (AZC) to register
as foreign agents. Of course, he also insisted that Israel allow inspectors into Israel's nuclear
weapons producing facility. I forget what the resolution of those issues was. ;-)
News media are a different situation completely. BBC in the US clearly promotes British political
and economic agendas. So even if RT was promoting Russian ideology, it would be no different.
In my observations of RT America, they are more honest and unbiased than most news sources. They
endeavor to present both "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints, and their news presenters like
Abby Martin, Thom Harmann and Ed Schultz have all stated that the network never once tried to
interfere with their editorial independence, which is something I doubt any Western corporate
or state-backed news presenter/editor can say. Well, except for those who share the official ideology
so much that they would never imagine presenting anything contrary to or questioning of that ideology.
Where I see bias in RT America is more in what news they choose not to cover, or to simply
report as having happened with no context. The other problem I have with RT is that they report
the Global War OF Terror and various false flag or hoax appearing events with the same assumptions
as the Western MSM.
reply to:Familiar sounding, reminds one of the recent attempt to balkanize Syria, and the recent
2014 coup in Ukraine...and, heck, the modus operandi of the CIA in general...
Posted by: librul | Nov 9, 2017 1:25:05 PM | 41
You are right and I think it also sounds like what is happening in the US today.
reply to "With the US and EU coming out Wednesday supporting Lebanon, doesn't seem the moar woar
brigade is pulling the strings.First Qatar survives its legislated doom, now Lebanon has still
not yet been freedomed.Could this be yet another crack in the anglozionist machine? What possibly
could be going on with the borg?
Posted by: TSP | Nov 9, 2017 6:45:18 PM | 65
Keep in mind the US spoken support came from the State Dept, however we haven't heard from
Trump yet and as his son-in-law is "best friends ever" with the SA Clown Prince, Tillerson may
once again be left to eat his words.
Most of the admirals are suspected of attending extravagant feasts at Asia's best
restaurants paid for by Leonard Glenn Francis, a Singapore-based maritime tycoon who made an
illicit fortune supplying Navy vessels in ports from Vladivostok, Russia to Brisbane,
Australia. Francis also was renowned for hosting alcohol-soaked, after-dinner parties, which
often featured imported prostitutes and sometimes lasted for days, according to federal court
records .
####
"... On the next day, Woolsey and his wife met separately with the same two Turkish businessmen at the Peninsula Hotel in New York City and discussed with them a more general but broadly based $10 million plan of their own that would combine lobbying with public relations to discredit Gülen both in the press and in congress. Woolsey stressed that he had the kind of contacts in government and the media to make the plan work. ..."
"... Woolsey did not get the $10 million contract that he sought and Flynn's well-remunerated work for Turkey reportedly consisted of some research, a short documentary that may or may not have been produced, and a November op-ed in The Hill ..."
"... But the real story about Flynn and Woolsey is the fashion in which senior ex-government employees shamelessly exploit their status to turn money from any and all comers without any regard for either the long- or short- term consequences of what they are doing. ..."
"... Just think. Casino king, lord of vice industry, is the #1 donor to the GOP. Politics was always about money, but now it's totally shameless. ..."
"... So did Flynn take the considerable risks of nondisclosure because he was an ideologue or was it primarily for the money? And was it pathological or just stupidly brazen? The Gereral's pardon awaits. ..."
"... What does one expect in a country where money dominates all ? The USA is a great country to live in when one is rich, anything goes, and horror when one is poor. The only way to escape horror is to get rich, and stay rich. I am severely ill, the Dutch health care system keeps me alive, at great cost. In the USA I would either be broke and dead, or simply dead. ..."
"... Just a couple observations here, but the world economy went into the toilet around the time the big Western economies started pushing all this anti-corruption stuff for businesses, and one cannot help but notice that political corruption in the West has become far more sophisticated in the past twenty years, with payoffs arriving after the fact to provide some degree of plausible deniability for the politicos and apparatchiks involved. ..."
"... 'As the sociologist Georg Simmel wrote over a century ago, if you make money the center of your value system, then finally you have no value system, because money is not a value'. ..."
"... Then, Errol Morris was interviewed about his documentary film on Donald Rumfseld. Morris was scathing: Rumsfeld was all about his career, his voluminous "snowflake" memos were meandering BS, self-aggrandizing; Morris was especially outraged with Rumsfeld's reaction to a seriously wounded soldier -- it was a photo op; no measure of humanity was in evidence. Interesting contrast between McNamara and Rumsfeld ..."
Enter former General Michael Flynn and former Bill Clinton CIA Director James Woolsey, both
of whom were national security advisers to candidate Donald Trump during his campaign when they
competed for contracts with Turkish businessmen linked to the Erdogan government to discredit
Gülen and possibly even enable his abduction and illegal transfer to Turkey. If, as a
consequence of their labors, Gülen were to be somehow returned home he would potentially
be tried on treason charges, which might in the near future carry
the death penalty in Turkey.
Both Flynn and Woolsey are highly controversial figures. Woolsey, in spite of having no
intelligence experience, was notoriously appointed CIA Director by Bill Clinton to reward the
neoconservatives for their support of his candidacy. But Woolsey never met privately with the
president during his two years in office. He is regarded as an ardent neocon and Islamophobe
affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the Jewish Institute for
National Security of America (JINSA) and the AIPAC-founded Washington Institute for Near East
Policy (WINEP). I once debated him on NPR where he asserted that Israel does not spy on the
United States, a delusional viewpoint to be sure. Former CIA Senior analyst Mel Goodman,
recalling Woolsey's tenure at the Agency,
commented in 2003 that "[he] was a disaster as CIA director in the 90s and is now running
around this country calling for a World War IV to deal with the Islamic problem. This is a
dangerous individual "
Flynn, is, of course, better known, and not for any good qualities that he might possess. He
is, like Woolsey, an ardent hawk on Iran and other related issues but is also ready to make a
buck through his company The Flynn Intel Group, where Woolsey served as an unpaid adviser. In
the summer of 2016 Flynn had obtained a three-month contract for $530,000 to "research"
Gülen and produce a short documentary film discrediting him, an arrangement that should
have been reported under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, but the big prize was a
possible contract in the millions of dollars to create a negative narrative on the
Hizmet founder and put pressure on the U.S. government to bring about his
extradition.
Woolsey and Flynn, both Trump advisers at the time, found themselves in competition for the
money. Flynn had a New York meeting at the Essex House with the businessmen accompanied by the
Turkish Foreign and Energy Ministers as well as Erdogan's son-in-law on September 19
th 2016 where, inter alia, the possibility of kidnapping Gülen and flying him
to Turkey was discussed. Flynn has denied that the possibility of kidnapping was ever raised,
but Woolsey, who was at the meeting for a brief time,
insists that "whisking away" Gülen in the dead of night was on the agenda, though he
concedes that the discussion was "hypothetical."
On the next day, Woolsey and his wife met separately with the same two Turkish businessmen
at the Peninsula Hotel in New York City and discussed with them a more general but broadly
based $10 million plan of their own that would combine lobbying with public relations to
discredit Gülen both in the press and in congress. Woolsey stressed that he had the kind
of contacts in government and the media to make the plan work.
Woolsey did not get the $10 million contract that he sought and Flynn's well-remunerated
work for Turkey reportedly consisted of some research, a short documentary that may or may not
have been produced, and a November
op-ed in The Hill by Flynn that denounced Gülen as a "radical Islamist who
portrays himself as a moderate."
But the real story about Flynn and Woolsey is the fashion in which senior ex-government
employees shamelessly exploit their status to turn money from any and all comers without any
regard for either the long- or short- term consequences of what they are doing. The guilt or
innocence of Fetullah Gülen was never an issue for them, nor the reputation of the United
States judiciary in a case which has all the hallmarks of a political witch hunt. And if a
kidnapping actually was contemplated, it begs one to pause and consider what kind of people are
in power in this country.
Neither Flynn nor Woolsey ever considered that their working as presidential campaign
advisers while simultaneously getting embroiled in an acrimonious political dispute involving a
major ally just might be seen as a serious conflict of interest, even if it was technically
not-illegal. All that motivated them was the desire to exploit a situation that they cared not
at all about for profit to themselves.
No one expects top rank ex-officials to retire from the world, but out of respect for their
former positions, they should retain at least a modicum of decency. This is lacking across the
board from the Clintons on down to the Flynns and Woolseys as Americans apparently now expect
less and less from their elected officials and have even ceased to demand minimal ethical
standards.
I've heard it said that Gülen was stateside precisely because of his potential leverage
over Ankara. One could be forgiven thinking, therefor, that he had outlived his usefulness
after the failed/faked coup. One might even consider sending him home would be a diplomatic
gift to such a "major ally," as Turkey. Apparently Langley does not want this bargaining chip
off the table just yet. Or do they? Who would even know?
Do you expect Americans to trust current national security state employees more than ex-,
if indeed ex- even has the connotation one expects? On what basis would they make this
judgement? Are most of the people in either camp not appointments from various
neocon-influenced administrations? What would popular resentment of this corruption even look
like? Would they demand the passing of legislation that could be ignored?
What ethical standards can be applied to an organization that can lie, under oath, without
repercussion? In a world in which sixth generation American citizens are equated in every way
with aggressive third-world refugees, the words "loyalty," and "corruption," have lost any
foundation upon which they might have meaning.
By CRAIG WHITLOCK | The Washington Post | Published: November 5, 2017
The "Fat Leonard" corruption investigation has expanded to include more than 60 admirals
and hundreds of other U.S. Navy officers under scrutiny for their contacts with a defense
contractor in Asia who systematically bribed sailors with sex, liquor and other temptations
[like cash], according to the Navy.
Most of the admirals are suspected of attending extravagant feasts at Asia's best
restaurants paid for by Leonard Glenn Francis, a Singapore-based maritime tycoon who made an
illicit fortune supplying Navy vessels in ports from Vladivostok, Russia, to Brisbane,
Australia. Francis also was renowned for hosting alcohol-soaked, after-dinner parties, which
often featured imported prostitutes and sometimes lasted for days, according to federal court
records.
the sell-out.. disease.. afflicting officials in national security.
corruption from the top down a combination of greed and dishonesty
Amen, Phil, and Americans are collateral damage.
General Michael Hayden abandoned an NSA cyber program –that could have prevented the
9/11 attack– in favor of a less effective plan that was more profitable for corporate
security firms, and generated greater funding for the intelligence agency.
"A Good American" tells the story of former Technical director of NSA, Bill Binney,
and a program called ThinThread. He and a small team within NSA created a surveillance tool
that could pick up any electronic signal on earth, filter it for targets and render results
in real-time. NSA leadership dumped it – three weeks prior to 9/11.
Watch it free, before it's taken down. https://youtu.be/FlkAxAc7EjI
So did Flynn take the considerable risks of nondisclosure because he was an ideologue or was
it primarily for the money? And was it pathological or just stupidly brazen?
The Gereral's pardon awaits.
What does one expect in a country where money dominates all ?
The USA is a great country to live in when one is rich, anything goes, and horror when one is
poor.
The only way to escape horror is to get rich, and stay rich.
I am severely ill, the Dutch health care system keeps me alive, at great cost.
In the USA I would either be broke and dead, or simply dead.
Oddly enough, I thought that Gülen was a Company asset, and that that was the reason
they took Flynn down. Not that I know anything, just speculation.
Meanwhile, in the private sector, for anybody below the C-Suite there is an ever
increasing pressure for compliance policies that outlaw all but the most trivial gifts or
meals and entertainment in order to prevent corruption and abuse of position.
Just a couple observations here, but the world economy went into the toilet around the
time the big Western economies started pushing all this anti-corruption stuff for businesses,
and one cannot help but notice that political corruption in the West has become far more
sophisticated in the past twenty years, with payoffs arriving after the fact to provide some
degree of plausible deniability for the politicos and apparatchiks involved.
Phil, thanks. Every sentence tells here of an America off the rails.
A onetime local mayor in my area may offer an idea of the type of person we need. Pat U.
has balls of steel. The Mob was against him. City hall bureaucrats were against him. The
unions were against him. The police were against him. Corrupt cops threatened to frame him.
The priest who'd married him and his wife was enlisted as an errand boy to deliver bribe
money. Pat once publicly described our area as a "banana republic". He had a remote car
starter installed to guard against assassination by car bombing. He was elected for multiple
terms, and survived all attempts to crush him.
What did Pat have going for him? Personal anatomy. A wife who'd been a very young Polish
WWII refugee, and who knew a thing or two about government gone bad and people gone bad. A
strong, incorruptible law director, and a strong, incorruptible budget and finance guy.
Charisma, and, of course, votes. He kept a local Mr. Big, a zillionaire briber of
politicians, at a distance and worked warily with him. Pat met the challenges of an
economically collapsing area pretty well.
How many politicians could weather the permanent storm of American corruption as well as
Pat? Not a whole lot.
The corruption in DC must be setting a record unmatched in history. It doesn't help that our
craven, corrupt Congress sets its own rules regarding pay and benefits, but has also passed
laws saying its 'OK' for those elite to engage in insider trading.
Each Rep and Senator knows that kissing up to the Fortune 500 guarantees them a job after
they leave Congress, with a fat paycheck, bennies and sexy secretaries more than happy to
take DICKtation, all provided by the company's they took care of while in Congress.
Compounding the situation is the equally rotten DOJ, who has no problem going after
blue-collar crime, but won't touch the real problem, those TBTF Wall Street banks acting like
out-of-control casinos who then dump their losses on the backs on the American taxpayer. The
latest USAG head Sessions is more confirmation that the Senate is a 'good ol' boys' and girls
club that will not go after current and former members, as Sessions will NOT go after the
thieving, lying, traitorous Hillary for her many crimes.
Its impossible to Drain the Swamp when it has so many creatures that snack on Americans
and protect each other.
Short of a revolution, this can only end badly for Americans.
I would love to have seen that debate.
I am not a fan of the contention that Iran embodies all things evil about Islam. But it is
disappointing that Gen Flynn's advocacy is mired in a competition for financial contract.
"We Americans appear to have done it all to ourselves through inexplicable tolerance for a
combination of greed and fundamental dishonesty on the part of our elected and appointed
government officials".
One thing about you Americans that often surprises foreigners is your readiness to believe
that all this corruption is something new or different. It has been going on ever since well
before 1776.
My own opinion is that systematic corruption is a more or less inevitable consequence of
Americans' attempts to cut themselves off from all previous history and moral standards.
There were to be no royalty, nobility, gentry – no one exceptional at all in any
way.
Well, human nature abhors a lack of hierarchy: we need it almost as much as water, air,
food, security. If you try to abolish all forms of hierarchy, all that happens is that it
goes underground. What do Americans respect – what, indeed, have they respected most
since (at least) the 1850s? Money. That's it. Cold hard cash. Wealth is next to godliness.
The more money you have, the better a person you are thought to be – absolutely
regardless of whether you got it by grinding the faces of the workers, murder, torture, drug
dealing, or anything else.
But money is not, cannot be a value. Marx explained this in fairly simple terms, but the
following is my favorite way of putting it.
'As the sociologist Georg Simmel wrote over a century ago, if you make money the center of
your value system, then finally you have no value system, because money is not a value'.
We Americans appear to have done it all to ourselves through inexplicable tolerance for
a combination of greed and fundamental dishonesty on the part of our elected and appointed
government officials.
One might call it stupid to believe that a nation could invest its government with the
power to handle and disburse vast sums of money without becoming corrupt. Then again one might call that belief insane. One thing is clear, giving the government that much power and money is sure to corrupt
it. Anyone who expects anything else of human beings does not know much about human
beings.
Flynn was the worst associate that Trump fell in love with. That's a flaw of Trump. He did
get rid of Gorka and one or two other NeoCons, unfortunately he has an 'influential' son in
law that he can't get rid of that easily whose connected by blood to Joo land. And
then again he has a Zionist speech writer Steven Miller, who's very good pushing back the
anti Trump press, but still a Zionist Joo .
'Second Coming' anyone? (Grin)
„I know of no other country where love of money has such a grip on men's hearts or
where stronger scorn is expressed for the theory of permanent equality of property."
Tocqueville
Dishonesty and greed – the American way from the beginning.
My own opinion is that systematic corruption is a more or less inevitable consequence of
Americans' attempts to cut themselves off from all previous history and moral standards.
There were to be no royalty, nobility, gentry – no one exceptional at all in any
way.
Well, the royalty, nobility, gentry as well as the chief priests and rabbis and and almost
everyone in a position of power have historically been pretty corrupt, I'd say. In fact it's
probably accurate to say that all of them have been based on violence, treachery and bullshit
or some varying mixture of those things has been the rule since rule began.
As far as worshipping money, you are correct, but the systemic corruption is baked into
the cake by the way most political systems generally arise, and it's not only an American
phenomenon since a person reading Aristophanes, Plutarch, Juvenal, Herbert Spencer and tons
more could as well be writing of current events. The concepts are unchanged; only the names,
dates and minor particular issues have changed.
Upon arriving at Messene Philip proceeded to devastate the country like an enemy acting
from passion rather than from reason. For he expected, apparently, that while he
continued to inflict injuries, the sufferers would never feel any resentment or hatred
towards him.
-The Histories of Polybius , Book VIII, pg 465, Section III. Affairs of Greece, Philip,
and Messenia. published in Vol. III
of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1922 thru 1927
The concept is not only ancient, but cross-cultural too.
" The Master said, 'Why do you not leave this place?' The answer was, 'There is no
oppressive government here.' The Master then said to his disciples: 'Remember this, my
little children. Oppressive government is more terrible than tigers.'"
-Confucius as quoted in The Ethics of Confucius, by Miles Menander Dawson, [1915]
What's PG griping about? Our elected leaders, senior officials and corporate captains
pretty accurately reflect what our country has devolved into.
Sorry good sir, but no devolution needed. It was baked in the cake from inception. The "anti-federalists" warned us but the warnings
fell on deaf (and powerless and preoccupied) ears.
I'm not trolling you, Jilles, you just keep showing up on this site bashing America with
factually wrong statements. I'm aware that the Netherlands is a pleasant nation, both my wife
and I have some Dutch ancestry, but the Netherlands, like the US, isn't perfect. The fact is
that every country, from Venezuela to Monaco, is a great country when one is rich, I'd bet
even Holland is nice if you've got a few bucks.
To your point about your health issues. Here in the US there are two primary medical
insurance programs run by the government, Medicare and Medicaid. If you're over 65 you are
automatically covered by Medicare, there are some low costs associated with it, but if you're
too poor to pay them, you don't have to. Medicaid is a government run health insurance
program for the poor and uninsured in the US. In most cases all medical conditions are
covered for free in this program. No hospital emergency room in the US is allowed to refuse
treatment, either. Could the system be better? Of course, but people aren't really dying in
the streets, desperate for medical attention, as the leftists you read are telling you.
Contrary to the proverb, fish DO NOT rot from the head down but from the gut. The rampant
corruption practiced by elected and unelected US officials alike, simply mirrors that of the
nation as a whole.
Our government is not our government anymore , it is a criminal cabal ran for and by
criminals and as such is not legitimate anymore and this has led to perpetual war for
perpetual profit and perpetual corruption, we are Rome and the end is near.
Amazing changes for the Good are taking place at an ever more rapid rate. The exposure of the
shenanigans of Flynn and Woolsey are literal examples of the figurative "The darkness hates
the Light because the Light exposes the darkness for it's evil deeds". The internet and
authors like this allow the Light (Truth) into Humanities Consciousness. Keep it up Giraldi!
Could the system be better? Of course, but people aren't really dying in the
streets, desperate for medical attention, as the leftists you read are telling you.
That may or may not be so, I'd have to see some statistics. The evidence of my lyon' eyes tells me plenty of people are living on the
streets. My gentrified neighborhood insisted that police remove the men who slept under dumpsters
in the alleys -- they moved them to bridge abutments and abandoned industrial sites.
Public libraries are ersatz day-care-for-hoboes; libraries now have police patrolling to
ensure that the mentally ill regulars do not act out too loudly or stink too badly. Washington, DC libraries post extensive rules on the bathroom doors: NO shaving, NO
showering, NO sex in the bathrooms.
Ben Franklin's famous quote while voting to adopt the US Constitution.
"Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think
a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a
blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be
well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have
done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government,
being incapable of any other."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
And that was back when the Fed Govt was designed to be much smaller and much less powerful
than today. Today's great power concentrated in the US govt, including the power to destroy
entire countries or businesses and of course people, as well as a great deal of money which
can then thus make people fabulously wealthy, means that this govt is far more susceptable to
corruption than the one old Ben Franklin was referring to.
In a country where money means anything and can buy anything, then one must assume that
everything is corrupt.
As a nation, we want to go nuts over a few hundred or perhaps a thousand deaths from
illegal aliens, but we look the other way as tens of thousands die in order to make people
rich(er) from a for-profit medical system.
Who are these hobos living in the street? Here in NYC they are drug addicts or mentally
unstable people. Why are they allowed to live in the street? Because leftist judges and
politicians have made it illegal to force them into mental hospitals or drug addiction
facilities. Leftists believe this is a sign of their benevolence. I don't know of anyone who
is actually homeless because of poverty in the US. There's just too many programs, from
section 8, to welfare, to public housing available.
as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need
despotic Government, being incapable of any other."
I could be classified as a big fan of BF, but I think today he'd change that to as other forms have done before it, when the leaders shall become so corrupted as
to benefit even more from despotic Government, being incapable of any other. It seems to me that the fish is always on the verge of rotting, and I on't know if it
starts at the head or not, but the thing still stinks, and the head, at least, has always
been pretty rotten.
A couple references to "2017" should be corrected to 2016. Thank you for using this wonderfully bipartisan example. One has to be pretty naive to
think that R and D mean much in Washington. Flush twice!
Of course, top officials sell out to anyone for anything. It is always that way in any
Empire, save the ones ruled by very bright and brutal men who make it clear that so doing
will cost in the biggest ways.
And then there is the fact of WASP culture being one in which everything is for sale. You
can see the issue in all kinds of works of literature, from Jonson's The Alchemist to Hardy's
Tess of the D'Urbervilles and beyond. That is what underlay the English rotating between fury
and amusement that the Irish and Highlanders were to too stupid about pence and pounds to
know when to sell, including their freedom and family heritage. The same dynamic was
highlighted in Yankee WASPs versus Southerners, whose sense of honor was both hated furiously
and laughed ay endlessly by pure-blood Anglo-Saxon Yankees.
Academics, working from CDC statistics, estimated in 2009 that 45,000 Americans die
every year from lack of medical care As a nation, we want to go nuts over a few hundred or
perhaps a thousand deaths from illegal aliens, but we look the other way as tens of
thousands die in order to make people rich(er) from a for-profit medical system.
Actually, I think the former figure is a *gigantic* over-estimate. Offhand, I'd say there are something like 100 million middle-class white Americans and
maybe 11 million or so illegal immigrants. And there were also over 17,000 total homicides
during 2016.
Now if we're talking about ordinary middle-class whites murdered by illegals, I doubt the
figure is even remotely close to 1-in-a-million per year, which would be a total of 100. In
fact, I'm quite skeptical about whether the total is above 10/year, which would be
one-in-10-million. That's the reason that neither VDare nor any of the other anti-immigrant
webzines can almost ever find any real-life cases to talk about.
In my opinion, the notion that anything more than an infinitesimal number of American
whites are murdered by illegals is just a total Internet hoax that's been endlessly
propagated by silly activists.
If anyone on this thread thinks I'm wrong then I challenge them to locate at least 10
cases of ordinary middle-class whites murdered by illegals in 2016 (I'm not talking about
Aryan Brotherhood gang members shivved in prison brawls or wives killing husbands/husbands
killing wives). If you can't find ten cases in all of America during an entire year, then I'm
probably right.
Did Flynn get crossways with the Mossad – is that why he is in trouble today? Clearly Gülen has protection in America – that has to mean Mossad/CIA
backing. I have seen writing that says that Gülen has ties to Israel. That explains a lot. Think Peace -- Art
Is corruption uniquely part of the US system of government (beyond the obvious propensity for
all systems to become corrupted);
or does the US system of governance have unique loopholes, or systemic weaknesses, that make
corruption more likely;
or is/has the US system of governance been corrupted by the machinations of a group or of
some 'bad apples,'
Are Woolsey/Flynn examples of the "bad apple" notion: their lack of character has spread
rot to the larger system? Their rot has normalized corruption?
Just watched two interviews, a conversation with Robert McNamara and Errol Morris, who
directed the documentary, Fog of War, about McNamara's controversial career and decisions
about war.
McNamara is widely described as an SOB of dubious moral fiber. In this conversation, he
does not hide from his complicity in enormously harmful decisions, but does spell out the
forces involved, not only the venal, career-protecting influences but also the realization
that decisions involve the lives of large numbers of US men in uniform.
McNamara also tries to articulate the complexities -- and restraint -- with which past
political leaders such as himself must approach their post-employment situation: while they
do have knowledge, from experience, about situations, McNamara argues that it was his belief
that he had to tread very lightly in making public opinions or prescriptions.
Then, Errol Morris was interviewed about his documentary film on Donald Rumfseld. Morris
was scathing: Rumsfeld was all about his career, his voluminous "snowflake" memos were
meandering BS, self-aggrandizing; Morris was especially outraged with Rumsfeld's reaction to
a seriously wounded soldier -- it was a photo op; no measure of humanity was in evidence.
Interesting contrast between McNamara and Rumsfeld
"Cometh the hour, cometh the man." Or Cometh the man, rot-eth the barrel."
McNamara is widely described as an SOB of dubious moral fiber. In this conversation, he
does not hide from his complicity in enormously harmful decisions, but does spell out the
forces involved, not only the venal, career-protecting influences but also the realization
that decisions involve the lives of large numbers of US men in uniform.
Interesting that you mentioned it. I remember years ago watching McNamara's Q&A
session after his lecture in one of the US "liberal" universities. I found myself surprised
(in a good sense) with his into your face readiness to face anything thrown at him. He went
ballistic when some student shouted "murderer" from back seats of the auditorium but McNamara
spoke to this student passionately and personally. He was absolutely human and vulnerable,
yet honest. In some sense it was very touching and you could see how it also tormented him.
As per neocons, from what I observed so far, I never encountered any indication of any of
them being simply decent humans–they are human sewer.
"... Mr. Stephens used an opaque holding company to own an approximately 40 percent stake in a loan business accused by the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of cheating working-class and poor Americans. While earning millions from the investment, Mr. Stephens helped finance a political onslaught against the bureau, never mentioning his personal connection to the fight. ..."
The Paradise Papers: How Business Titans, Royals and Pop Stars Hide Their
Cash
Records from a top offshore law firm reveal a client
list that is a who's who of the world's wealthiest
citizens, including Queen Elizabeth II, Bono and Madonna.
Here's how an American billionaire grew one of the
world's largest trusts and another owned part of a
company accused of exploiting the poor.
NYT - SCOTT SHANE, SPENCER WOODMAN and MICHAEL FORSYTHE - NOV. 7
Records from an offshore hideaway show how an American billionaire grew one of the world's
largest trusts and another owned part of a company accused of exploiting the poor.
James H. Simons, a reserved mathematician and hedge fund operator from Boston now
approaching 80, is a big Democratic donor. Warren A. Stephens, a 60-year-old golf enthusiast
once called the king of Little Rock, Ark., inherited a family investment bank and became a
booster of conservative Republicans.
But Mr. Simons and Mr. Stephens are both billionaires who have used the services of offshore
finance, the trusts and shell companies that the world's wealthiest people use to park their
money beyond the reach of tax collectors and out of the public eye.
Mr. Simons was the main beneficiary of a private trust, never previously described, that was
one of the largest in the world. In response to recent questions about the trust, Mr. Simons
said that he had transferred his share to a Bermuda-registered charitable foundation.
Mr. Stephens used an opaque holding company to own an approximately 40 percent stake in a
loan business accused by the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of cheating
working-class and poor Americans. While earning millions from the investment, Mr. Stephens
helped finance a political onslaught against the bureau, never mentioning his personal
connection to the fight.
The details of the two men's hidden wealth come from the files of Appleby, founded in
Bermuda more than a century ago and considered one of the world's top offshore law firms. A
collection of 6.8 million Appleby documents, obtained by the German newspaper Süddeutsche
Zeitung and shared with media organizations through the International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists, offers an inside look at the firm's services and customers.
Appleby operates in a rarefied universe of U.H.N.W.I.'s -- the industry's abbreviation for
ultra-high-net-worth individuals -- where yachts and private jets are preferred transport and
mansions sit empty because their owner has several others. Some of Appleby's customers are also
P.E.P.'s -- politically exposed persons -- for whom avoiding unwanted attention is a crucial
goal.
"The Right People. The Right Places," reads the slogan on Appleby's stationery.
What offshore services offer to a diverse international elite is secrecy and discretion,
along with the opportunity to minimize or defer taxes. Appleby appears to be more scrupulous
than another offshore firm, Panama-based Mossack Fonseca, about shunning overtly corrupt and
criminal clients, based on a comparison of the Appleby files with the leaked Panama Papers,
which drew global coverage last year. ...
What Are the Paradise
Papers? Our Reporting So Far
Paradise Papers Shine Light on Where the Elite
Keep Their Money https://nyti.ms/2j0wYmZ
NYT - MICHAEL FORSYTHE - NOV. 5, 2017
It's called the Paradise Papers: the latest in a series of leaks made public by the
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists shedding light on the trillions of
dollars that move through offshore tax havens.
The core of the leak, totaling more than 13.4 million documents, focuses on the Bermudan
law firm Appleby, a 119-year old company that caters to blue chip corporations and very
wealthy people. Appleby helps clients reduce their tax burden; obscure their ownership of
assets like companies, private aircraft, real estate and yachts; and set up huge offshore
trusts that in some cases hold billions of dollars.
The New York Times is part of the group of more than 380 journalists from over 90 media
organizations in 67 countries that have spent months examining the latest set of
documents.
As with the Panama Papers, the Paradise Papers leak came through a duo of reporters at the
German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and was then shared with I.C.I.J., a
Washington-based group that won the Pulitzer Prize for reporting on the millions of records
of a Panamanian law firm. The release of that trove of documents led to the resignation of
one prime minister last year and to the unmasking of the wealth of people close to President
Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
This week, The New York Times is publishing articles on the Paradise Papers that were
reported in cooperation with our I.C.I.J. partners. Here is a roundup of the stories that
have already been made public.
The Times's Coverage So Far
• Behind one of Silicon Valley's most prominent investors, Yuri Milner, was hundreds
of millions of dollars in Kremlin funding. The documents show that Mr. Milner's investment in
Twitter relied on money from VTB, bank controlled by the Russian state. One of his most
significant investors in Facebook relied on funding from Gazprom Investholding, another
government-controlled institution. Mr. Milner is also an investor in Cadre, a New York-based
real estate technology company founded by Jared Kushner, President Trump's son-in-law and
White House adviser.
(Kremlin Cash Behind Billionaire's Twitter and
Facebook Investments https://nyti.ms/2hHV8iR )
• Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, invested in a shipping company whose top
clients include a Russian firm controlled by an oligarch facing sanctions and President
Vladimir V. Putin's son-in-law. The ethics agreement Mr. Ross filed when taking office said
he intended to retain several investment partnerships, but did not specify that they were
used to hold his stake in the shipper, Navigator Holdings. The revelations of Mr. Ross's
continued investment led Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, to call for an
investigation. Mr. Ross said he had done nothing wrong, but would "probably" sell his
Navigator shares.
• Apple has come under scrutiny by Congress for shifting much of its earnings to
Irish subsidiaries, avoiding income taxes. Documents from the leak show that after its chief
executive, Tim Cook, said that the company didn't just "stash money on a Caribbean island,"
it found a new tax haven -- an island in the English Channel. The use of complex offshore
structures have helped keep much of Apple's more than $128 billion in profit abroad free from
taxation. The technique isn't unique to Apple. "U.S. multinational firms are the global
grandmasters of tax avoidance schemes," said Edward Kleinbard, a former corporate tax adviser
to such companies. ...
The Paradise Papers Make the Republican Tax Plan Look Insane
by David Dayen
Nov 6 2017, 9:06pm
The bill would give huge tax breaks to the superrich and reward corporations hoarding
assets abroad, just like those implicated in the latest massive leak.
-------------
Anyone who's breathed air in the past 40 years understands that rich people and big
corporations will do pretty much anything to avoid paying taxes. They hire sharp accountants,
exploit loopholes, and use special tax havens to shield their money. In that sense, one could
argue we didn't exactly need the release of the Paradise Papers -- the latest cache of
internal documents detailing the who, where, and how of the global elite's tax avoidance --
to bolster our well-founded suspicions.
• A bank in Utah is in the business of helping wealthy foreigners register private
planes in the United States, which requires American citizenship or residency. The offshore
files shed light on how a small financial institution, the Bank of Utah, served as a stand-in
for citizenship purposes to allow Russia's richest man, Leonid Mikhelson, whose energy
company is subject to sanctions, register a $65 million Gulfstream jet.
• The fortunes of the world's richest people are growing at a rate far faster than
for everyone else. One reason is that they are so adept at shielding their money from taxes
through the use of offshore companies and trusts. Queen Elizabeth II and pop stars like Bono
and Madonna have all taken advantage of offshore companies, Appleby records show. Americans
are big customers: The hedge fund billionaire James H. Simons and his family were
beneficiaries of a massive trust in Bermuda. Mr. Simons quietly transferred his share to a
Bermuda-registered charitable foundation that now has about $8 billion in assets. And Warren
A. Stephens, who aggressively grew a family investment bank in Arkansas, used an opaque
company to hide his stake in a payday loan company accused of exploiting the poor. ...
The predominantly elite clients of Appleby contrast with those of Mossack Fonseca -- the
company whose leaked records became the Panama Papers -- which appeared to be less
discriminating in the business it took on. The records date back to 1950 and up to 2016.
Appleby has offices in tax havens around the world. In addition to its Bermudan
headquarters, it works out of places like the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands
in the Caribbean; the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey off Britain; Mauritius and the
Seychelles in the Indian Ocean; and Hong Kong and Shanghai.
Americans -- companies and people -- dominate the list of clients. Past disclosures, such
as the 2013 "Offshore Leaks" from two offshore incorporators in Singapore and the British
Virgin Islands, the 2015 "Swiss Leaks" from a private Swiss bank owned by the British bank
HSBC and another leak in 2016 from the Bahamas were dominated by clients not from the United
States.
The Paradise Papers were leaked to the same two German reporters -- Bastian Obermayer and
Frederik Obermaier -- who obtained the Panama Papers.
The documents come not only from Appleby, but also from the Singaporean company Asiaciti
Trust and official business registries in places such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Lebanon
and Malta.
Setting up companies offshore is generally legal, and corporations routinely do so to
facilitate cross-border transactions such as mergers and acquisitions. Appleby, in a public
statement on Oct. 24, after inquiries from I.C.I.J., said that it was "subject to frequent
regulatory checks" in "highly regulated jurisdictions."
"Appleby has thoroughly and vigorously investigated the allegations and we are satisfied
that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, either on the part of ourselves or our clients,"
the company said.
"... What Whyte ran across was the sub-culture of the workplace as followed by those who set themselves upon a "career path" within a specific organization. The stereotypical examples are those, to quote Whyte , "who have left home spiritually as well as physically, to take the vows of organization life. [They adopt an ethic that] rationalizes the organization's demand for fealty and gives those who offer it wholeheartedly a sense of dedication." ..."
"... Today, some private-sector organizations have moved away from the most extreme demands of such conformity, but some other career lines have not, two examples being the military and career party politics. ..."
"... The Power Elite ..."
"... The Organization Man. ..."
"... hose who make their careers within these entities, especially the military and the government, are ideologically conditioned to identify their well-being with the specific goals of their chosen organizations. That means they must bind themselves not only to the goals, but also to the ethics of their workplace. ..."
"... Those who balk are eventually punished and cast out of the organizations. Those who guide these organizations, and essentially decide how rules and ethics will be interpreted and applied, are Mills's "power elite." ..."
"... It may come as a surprise to the reader that party politics as practiced by many of the Western democracies is quite similar. The "power elites" who reside at the top of the so-called greasy pole, holding positions as the head of ruling and contesting parties, are likely to demand the same sort of obedience to orders as any military officer. ..."
"... Rafe explained it this way ..."
"... Leaders of political parties can control their organizations in dictatorial fashion. They have power to reward or punish their party's cohorts in a fashion that can make or break careers. For instance, they control the dispersal of party funds from monies for elections right down to one's office budget; they determine whether a candidate will have to face a primary challenge; they make all committee assignments; they can promote and demote within the party ranks. ..."
"... As Rafe Mair observed, the possibilities for both reward and punishment are almost endless. In this way elected officials become bound to the diktats of their party's leaders. They cannot normally vote their conscience or reliably represent their constituency unless doing so coincides with the desires of their party's leadership. ..."
"... Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America's National Interest ..."
"... America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood ..."
"... This is an excellent summary of the basis in mentality of what is factually a 21st century version of a fascist regime. Even though two political parties and the shell forms of republican government may exist, the reality is that the parties are factions and the way things operate is via conformity and loyalty to an authoritarian power structure. ..."
Many working-class Americans voted for Donald Trump believing he would address their needs,
not those of rich Republicans. But all pols, it seems, end up conforming to their political
group's priorities, as Lawrence Davidson explains.
By Lawrence Davidson
In 1956, William H. Whyte published a book entitled The Organization Man about
America's societal changes in the post-World War II economy. Basing his findings on a large
number of interviews with CEOs of major American corporations, Whyte concluded that, within the
context of modern organizational structure, American "rugged individualism" had given way to a
"collectivist ethic." Economic success and individual recognition were now pursued within an
institutional structure – that is, by "serving the organization."
Whyte's book was widely read and praised, yet his thesis was not as novel as it seemed.
"Rugged individualism," to the extent that it existed, was (and is) the exception for human
behavior and not the rule. We have evolved to be group-oriented animals and not lone wolves.
This means that the vast majority of us (and certainly not just Americans) live our lives
according to established cultural conventions. These operate on many levels – not just
national patriotism or the customs of family life.
What Whyte ran across was the sub-culture of the workplace as followed by those who set
themselves upon a "career path" within a specific organization. The stereotypical examples are
those,
to quote Whyte , "who have left home spiritually as well as physically, to take the vows of
organization life. [They adopt an ethic that] rationalizes the organization's demand for fealty
and gives those who offer it wholeheartedly a sense of dedication."
Today, some private-sector organizations have moved away from the most extreme demands
of such conformity, but some other career lines have not, two examples being the military and
career party politics.
For insight in this we can turn to the sociologist C. Wright Mills , whose famous book
The Power
Elite was published the same year as Whyte's The Organization Man. Mills's
work narrows the world's ruling bureaucracies to government, military and top economic
corporations. T hose who make their careers within these entities, especially the military
and the government, are ideologically conditioned to identify their well-being with the
specific goals of their chosen organizations. That means they must bind themselves not only to
the goals, but also to the ethics of their workplace.
Those who balk are eventually punished and cast out of the organizations. Those who
guide these organizations, and essentially decide how rules and ethics will be interpreted and
applied, are Mills's "power elite."
How this works out in the military is pretty obvious. There is a long tradition of
dedication to duty. At the core of this dedication is a rigid following of orders given by
superiors. This tradition is upheld even if it is suspected that one's superior is
incompetent.
It may come as a surprise to the reader that party politics as practiced by many of the
Western democracies is quite similar. The "power elites" who reside at the top of the so-called
greasy pole, holding positions as the head of ruling and contesting parties, are likely to
demand the same sort of obedience to orders as any military officer.
The Organization Man or Woman in Politics
Running for and holding office in countries like the United States and Canada often requires
one to "take the vows of organization life." Does this support democracy or erode it? Here is
one prescient answer: the way we have structured our party politics has given us "an appalling
political system which is a step-by-step denial of democracy and a solid foundation for a
'soft' dictatorship."
One of the elegant rooms at President Trump's Mar-a-Lago club. (Photo from
maralagoclub.com)
Those are the words of the late Rafe Mair , a Canadian politician, broadcaster,
author and a good friend of this writer. Rafe spent years in Canadian politics, particularly in
his home province of British Columbia, and his experience led him to the conclusion expressed
above. How does this translate into practice?
Rafe
explained it this way : "In a parliamentary [or other form of representative]
democracy the voter transfers his rights to his member of parliament [congressperson, senator
or state legislator] to exercise on his behalf – the trouble is, by running for his
political party the [elected person, in turn, is led to] assign your [the voter's] rights to
the [party] leader for his exclusive use!"
There is no law that makes the elected official do this. However, the inducements to do so
are very powerful.
Leaders of political parties can control their organizations in dictatorial fashion.
They have power to reward or punish their party's cohorts in a fashion that can make or break
careers. For instance, they control the dispersal of party funds from monies for elections
right down to one's office budget; they determine whether a candidate will have to face a
primary challenge; they make all committee assignments; they can promote and demote within the
party ranks.
As Rafe Mair observed, the possibilities for both reward and punishment are almost
endless. In this way elected officials become bound to the diktats of their party's leaders.
They cannot normally vote their conscience or reliably represent their constituency unless
doing so coincides with the desires of their party's leadership.
I believe we are prisoners of a corrupted "democracy."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
July 13, 2017
The Prisoners of "Democracy"
Screwing the masses was the forte of the political establishment. It did not really matter
which political party was in power, or what name it went under, they all had one ruling
instinct, tax, tax, and more taxes. These rapacious politicians had an endless appetite for
taxes, and also an appetite for giving themselves huge raises, pension plans, expenses, and
all kinds of entitlements. In fact one of them famously said, "He was entitled to his
entitlements." Public office was a path to more, and more largesse all paid for by the
compulsory taxes of the masses that were the prisoners of "democracy."
[more info on this at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/07/the-prisoners-of-democracy.html
Sam F , October 30, 2017 at 11:42 am
Yes, our ertswhile democracy has been completely corrupted. Thanks to Lawrence Davidson,
William Whyte, C. Wright Mills, and Rafe Mair for this consideration of the systemic
corruption of political parties. The diseases of conformity within party organizations are a
nearly inherent problem of democracy.
The improper influence which determines the policies conformed to by parties is the
central problem, and stems largely from influence of the economic Power Elite, directing the
policies to which the Organization Man must be obedient to be chosen. This distortion can be
eliminated by Amendments to the Constitution to restrict funding of mass media and elections
to limited individual contributions.
Our problem is that we cannot make such reforms because those tools of democracy are
already controlled by oligarchy, which never yields power but to superior force. Talk of
justice and peace is not in their language of might makes right, and has no effect
whatsoever. They yielded to the 1964 Civil Rights Act only because their fear of riots in the
streets led them to pretend that MLK et al had been persuasive.
The foreign wars may be stopped by the defeat, isolation, and embargo of the US by foreign
powers. But within the US, the full price of democracy must again be paid the People of the
US. The oligarchy must be defeated by superior force: only those who deny enforcement to
oligarchy and terrify the rich will bring them to yield any power. That is likely to await
more severe recessions and inequities caused by the selfish and irresponsible rich.
mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:42 pm
You are exactly right Sam F. Unfortunately time is quickly running out for our corrupt
"civilization." The time to cultivate and practice wisdom has passed. The sad truth is that
our goose is cooked; there will be no cavalry showing up to save us. We are now "eating our
karma" and will reap our just deserts. Not because I or anyone say so, but because implacable
laws of nature will now play out. Dominant intellectual species occupy a precarious position
in planetary evolution, and we are on the verge of a great fall – and all the King's
horses and all the King's men will not be able to put our extincting species together again
..
Sam F , October 30, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Your reply touches a responsive chord, in that humanity seems to have made so little
permanent progress in its million years or so, mostly in its last few hundred years, an
insignificant fraction of planetary history. But the history and literature of temporary
progress lost is significant as the repository of ideas for future democracies, at those rare
moments when they are designed.
Our diseased society is but one tree in the forest of democracies. The US is or will be
like the apparently healthy tree that took down my power lines last night, a pretty red oak
with brilliant autumn leaves, but sideways now and blocking the road. But like the leaves on
that tree, we can see the problem and still hope to be as happy as this year's leaves on
healthier trees.
As in what I like to call the universal mind of humanity, individuals may have foresight
and thoughts beyond their apparent functions, which survive in that greater mind of their
thoughts recorded or just passed along, and in that way their learning is not in vain.
Drew Hunkins , October 30, 2017 at 10:34 am
Trump did nix out the TPP and did desire a rapprochement of sorts with Moscow. He also
regularly asserted that he wanted to re-build American manufacturing in the heartland and
wanted to rein in Washington's footprint across the globe. Of course Trump ultimately
capitulated to the militarist Russophobes. One can only put so much stock in campaign
pronouncements, but he did come off as less bellicose than Killary, that was clear to any
fair minded observer.
Trump's also been a nightmare as it comes to workers' rights in general, consumer and
environmental protections and fair taxation as it relates to regressive vs progressive rates.
He was also an Islamophobe when it comes to Iran and fell right in line with Adelson and the
other ZIonist psychopaths.
The most welcoming aspect of Trump was his desire to make peace with Russia, this has been
completely sabotaged by the deep state militarists. This is the reason the Corkers, Flakes
and much of the establishment mass media browbeat and attack him relentlessly. Most of them
ignore what he actually should be admonished for opting for nuclear brinkmanship instead.
exiled off mainstreet , October 30, 2017 at 11:25 am
This is the best description I have seen about Trump's role.
Bob Van Noy , October 30, 2017 at 10:37 am
Thank you CN and Lawrence Davidson for what I think is a accurate explanation of the
failure of our Democracy. I especially like the reference to C. Wright Mills who is a heroic
character for me. I think Mr. Mill's book on the Power Elite was prescient, as was his
thinking in general. He published a little known book "Listen, Yankee" (1960) that was very
insightful about the then current Cuban Revolution. It seems in retrospect that there was
plenty of warning at the time for America to wake up to the goals of Big Government and Big
Business but it was either successfully repressed or ignored by those who might have made a
difference, like Labor. At any rate, C. Wright Mills died too early, because he seemed
uniquely suited to make a difference. His writing remains current, I'll add a link.
I am a big CW Mills fan too. We have had many warnings – now we are going to
experience the fate of those who ignore wisdom.
tina , October 30, 2017 at 10:31 pm
Hey, college UWM 1984- 1987 Mass Comm, I did not graduate , but we studied Mills, Lewis
Mumford, and my favorite, Marshall McLuhan. Also, first time I was introduced to Todd Gitlin
and IF Stone. While I did not pursue a life in journalism, I so appreciate all those who did
the hard work. I still have all my college required reading books from these people, it is
like a set of encyclopedias, only better. And better than the internet. Keep up the work CN ,
I am not that talented, but what you do is important.
First, let me commend Lawrence Davidson for his selection of two of the most insightful
writers of the sixties to use as a springboard for his perceptive essay. A third(John Kenneth
Galbraith) would complete a trilogy of the brilliant academic social analysis of that time.
Galbraith's masterpiece(The Affluent Society) examined the influence of the heavy emphasis
corporate advertising had on American culture and concluded that the economic/social
structure was disproportionately skewed toward GDP(gross domestic product) at the expense of
educational investment. This was in direct contrast with the popular novels and essays of Ayn
Rand, the goddess of greed whose spurious philosophy had come to epitomize the mindset that
continues to plague the globe with the neoliberal ideals that have been reinvented under many
names over time; i.e. laissez faire, trickle down,the Laffer curve, free market economics and
monetarism.
Zachary Smith , October 30, 2017 at 12:17 pm
Usually such claims are themselves no more than campaign hot air. However, in their
ignorance, voters may well respond to such hot air, and the result can be a jump from the
proverbial frying pan into the fire. U.S. voters seem to have taken just such a leap when
they elected Donald Trump president.
Nowhere in this essay are either of the terms "Hillary" or "Clinton" mentioned. U.S.
voters had the choice of a known evil on the "D" side of the ballot, or another person well
understood to be a shallow, self-centered, rich *****. They were going to end up with an
unqualified person either way the voting went. Quite possibly the nod went to Trump because
1) his promises were surely more believable than those of Clinton and 2) Trump wasn't yet the
known destroyer of entire nations.
Describing the predicament of the voters as "ignorance" just isn't fair when looking at
the overall picture.
mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:50 pm
Yes. Voters were put in a no win situation. That's why I did not participate in the "show"
election.
Realist , October 31, 2017 at 4:33 am
What were Obama's reasons for failing to take a stand, once elected, on all the promises
he made during his campaigns? He mostly gave away the store to the other side, and insulted
his supporters while doing so. Talk about progressives not getting a "win" even after
carrying the elections. Two terms earlier, the media called the contest one of two
"moderates" between Bush and Gore. If that was "moderation" practiced by Dubya, I need a new
dictionary. Most recent elections have been pointless, especially when the Supreme Court
doesn't allow a complete recount of the votes. In a field of 13(!) primary candidates last
year, the GOP could not provide one quality individual. The Dems cheated to make sure the
worst possible of theirs would get the nomination. I see nothing but mental and moral midgets
again on the horizon for 2020. I don't expect Trump to seek re-election. He will have had a
bellyful should he even survive.
I believe what has happened to all of us is: "The Imposition of a New World Order." This
plan has been helped by puppet politicians. Therefore the question must be asked: "Is There
An Open Conspiracy to Control the World'?
[More info on this at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2014/12/is-there-open-conspiracy-to-control.html
john wilson , October 30, 2017 at 1:00 pm
Stephen: why do you ask the question to which you already know the answer? Yes, we're all
screwed and have been for years. The bankers already control the world and the military make
sure its stays that way.
Very true john wilson. Questions beget answers and information.
cheers Stephen J.
mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:52 pm
It's like the Purloined Letter by Poe – the truth of our enslavement is so obvious,
that only the deeply brainwashed can fail to see it.
Zachary Smith , October 30, 2017 at 12:48 pm
The parts of The Organization Man I found most interesting were the chapters about
"Testing The Organization Man". The companies were deliberately selecting for people
we currently label Corporate Psychopaths. Whyte suggested memorizing some "attitudes" before
taking one of the tests. Among them:
I loved my father and my mother, but my father a little bit more
I like things pretty much the way they are
I never worry much about anything
I don't care for books or music much
I love my wife and children
I don't let them get in the way of company work
You can substitute any number of things that you won't allow to get in the way of
company work .
Ecology. Laws. Regulations. Integrity. Religion.
"Screw planet Earth. Exxon comes first!" Or "screw Jesus and the horse he rode in on. We
need to cut taxes and balance the budget. People are poor because they're too lazy to get a
job."
mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:53 pm
Good points. Brainwashing in action revealed.
john wilson , October 30, 2017 at 12:55 pm
Democracy is another word for consensual slavery. In a communist system or a dictatorship
etc you are told you are a slave because you have no voice or choice. In a democracy you do
have a choice and its between one salve master and another. If you vote Democrat you are just
as much a slave to the system as you are if you vote Republican. The possibility of a third
choice which might just free you from your chains, is a fantasy and only there as window
dressing to give democracy some credibility. The term for this dilemma is called being
TOTALLY SCREWED!!
mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:55 pm
Amen John. You got it right brother.
exiled off mainstreet , October 31, 2017 at 11:01 am
This is an excellent summary of the basis in mentality of what is factually a 21st century
version of a fascist regime. Even though two political parties and the shell forms of
republican government may exist, the reality is that the parties are factions and the way
things operate is via conformity and loyalty to an authoritarian power structure.
I am reading Alex Krainer's book on Bill Browder. After introducing himself, he summarized Browser's Red Alert, then spends several
chapters giving the context of the 1990s US/IMF rape of Russia via Yeltsin. One thing that he mentions of which I was not aware,
is that the IMF forced Russia to allow other former Soviet countries to use, and issue , Rubles, thereby delaying the introduction
of national currencies by a year, and giving the other former Soviet countries a motivation to issue huge quantities of currency,
and thereby driving hyperinflation. He portrays Jeffrey Sachs as possibly a geopolitical useful idiot of the US and IMF.
The IMF refused to give loans to actually assist the transition, but they had no problem giving Yeltsin a 6.7 billion dollar
loan for the Chechen war. Banks were given loans "to support the ruble," which were promptly used to bet against same.
At times, the conduct of the Harvard connected personnel in Russia became so blatantly criminal that the FBI investigated and
prosecuted. Harvard defended the guilty parties, and even paid a 31 million dollar US fine to settle the matter, and kept the
guilty party as faculty.
By the way, Jeff Sachs has come to the conclusion that he was used in exactly that way, that the USG never intended to actually
assist Russia's transition, but to make the process as prolonged and destructive as possible.
And then there was the US support to Yeltsin's reelection campaign in '96. In January Yeltsin was polling with a 5% approval
rating. 55% of Russians thought he should resign rather than seek reelection, mostly because his policies had them dying off by
almost a million a year. Funny that. He and the 'Family' seriously considered cancelling the election and ruling by decree.
Instead, they decided to steal it, with the assistance of Western governments & the IMF. In March, President Clinton prevailed
on the IMF to release about $10b to the Russian government, which used the funds to support Yeltsin's reelection. Years of wage
arrears for government workers were suddenly cleared, as if by magic! Zyuganov was buried under a tsunami of stories that he intended
to bring back War Communism and the Purges from both State and Oligarch-owned media, while getting no coverage of his actual positions
from same. Zyuganov adhered to the legal limits on campaign spending, while Yeltsin exceeded them by a couple of orders of magnitude,
with no consequence. And to top it all off, there was flagrant use of 'administrative resource' and outright voter fraud. Mr.
Michael Meadowcroft, the leader of the OSCE election monitoring team, told The Exile of the heavy pressure he got from Western
governments to minimize his reporting of how the Yeltsin reelection team was abusing Russian political processes in every possible
way to ensure his reelection and the continuation of the policies that had Russians dying off by almost a million a year.
And so in '96 Western media celebrated the 54% majority vote for the guy with the 5% approval rating as 'A Triumph of Democracy!'
In 2012 they called it 'Massive Fraud!' when the guy with the 66% approval rating got 63% of the vote.
The only possible conclusion from this is that Western government care nothing for what Russians think, or how, or even whether,
they live, only that the Russian government submit.
Their big problem for Western governments is that Russian voters now understand this, which puts them beyond the influence
of the Anglosphere Foreign Policy Elite & Punditocracy.
This drives the AFPE&P up the wall, for they are obsessed with having 'Leverage' and 'Influence' and cannot stand having none.
And so they bleat about a miniscule Facebook ad buy.
The desperation is in full display. One interesting thing that I notice is that the apolitical people are not aware, and even
forget the propaganda shortly after being subjected to it. While this has the downside of making them uninterested in the facts,
it does make them indifferent to the propaganda as well. Should they be dragooned into fighting, they will fight to survive, rather
than to conquer.
As such, the powers that still are, are out of options. Winning a battle such as a colour revolution is more expensive to their
aims in the long run than not initiating one, yet they need to steal other countries' wealth to roll over their expense accounts.
I need to work up my cynicism and invest in popcorn.
Another nice little detail that Krainer includes is the sending of large sums of mint US banknotes to Russian banks involved in
money laundering for gangs. This was done by a bank owned by Browser's "angel" investor, Edmond Safra, and he lists how the regulators
went out of their way to avoid their legal responsibilities in that matter. He also spends some time on Browder's confession that
his (Browder's) pretensions of being in opposition to Soros outfit Renaissance Capital was a ruse, as Browder admits to having
conducted much business with same.
He also spends some pages looking at Browder's tax evasion through transfer pricing (selling cheaply abroad, to a tax haven)
using avionics outfit AVISMA.
Finally, some humour: when Browder got served his summons, he started complaining that he left the US due to prosecution of
his family. Under examination, it turns out that his immediate family included professors at prestigious US universities, long
after McCarthy, but long before he opted for UK citizenship.
Yes, I did
a piece on that long ago , probably before your time here. It included some very useful links, some of which probably still
work – perhaps the most eye-popping being Robert Friedman's "The Money Plane", from New York Magazine . Check it out;
I think you'll find it enlightening.
I did not know that Renaissance Capital was connected to Soros, though; that's news to me, and I guess you can always learn
something.
You go into more detail, e.g. that the purpose of the shell companies was to take ownership of and manipulate Gazprom et alia.
You also have more detail on Safra -- Krainer did not mention his death, and I don't recall him mentioning Mr North.
And there is considerable anecdotal confirmation – which I realize is not evidence – that Zyuganov actually won the election,
but was so stupefied and frightened at the prospect of leading such a restive country that he allowed the election to be stolen
from him without opposing it. If true, he has never spoken of it himself to my knowledge. But others have.
"Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those
scales do not tip to the right or the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social
status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic..."
"... Yanukovich has never been pro Russian, dear author, Yanukovich has always been pro Yanukovich. Why do you twist the reality? ..."
"... $35 million into Joule before they folded it. Yeah, they threw that money into a garbage can when they folded the business. ..."
"... By spreading the investigation, Mueller escapes from having to admit that Russia did not get Trump elected. Wait for some goofy blanket comdemnation against everyone....therefore no one ..."
"... Podesta is just a smokescreen to demonstrate "the lack of bias". Nothing will come of it unless it is necessary to produce a sacrificial Democrat, in which case Podesta is expendable. ..."
Last week, two bombshell reports published by
The Hill revealed that the FBI - headed by Robert Mueller at the time - discovered that "
Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former
President Bill Clinton 's charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow " – a
deal which would grant the Kremlin control over 20 percent of America's uranium supply, as
detailed by author Peter Schweitzer's book Clinton
Cash and the
New York Times in 2015.
... ... ...
Joule Unlimited
While NBC reports that Hillary Clinton's campaign manager and presumed Secretary of State
John Podesta is not currently affiliated with the Podesta group and not part of Mueller's
investigation, it should be noted that he sat on the board of Massachusetts energy company
Joule Unlimited, along
with senior Russian official Anatoly Chubais and Russian oligarch
Ruben
Vardanyan – who was appointed by Vladimir Putin to the Russian economic council.
Two months after Podesta joined the board, Joule managed to raise $35 million from Putin's
Kremlin-backed investment fund Rusnano.
Not only did John Podesta fail to properly disclose this relationship before joining the
Clinton Campaign, he transferred 75,000 shares of Joule to
his daughter through a shell company
using her address .
Despite the Russian assistance, the Daily Caller reports that
Joule Unlimited folded shortly after Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election.
In an interview with Fox Business News' Maria Bartaromo, Podesta denied that he failed to
disclose his ties, emphatically stating "Maria, that's not true. I fully disclosed and was
completely compliant," adding "I didn't have any stock in any Russian company!" in reference to
Massachusetts based Joule Unlimited – with its two Russian dignitaries on the board board
and a $35 million loan from a Russian investment fund founded by Vladimir Putin.
This is a grand plan to orchestrate IMMUNITY for both Podesta brothers for this whole
uranium mess and to set up a firewall to all the pedo stuff. Mueller needs to be yanked off
this thing YESTERDAY. His professional space needs to be locked down YESTERDAY. Trump did it
with Comey. One can only hope he's got a plan for this - what will end up being the biggest
malignant corruption scandal in American history. NO IMMUNITY!
Surprising the influence was bought so cheap. $180K got Bill Clinton a personal $500K
speaking fee, and cash and pledges of $130M to the Clinton Fund? That went who knows
where?
Darn good ROI. Almost 3X for the speech, and 722X for the Clinton Fund. Miracle winning
bets on Cattle Futures back in the 1980s were chump change in comparison.
That's the essential attribute of a good revolution, the base on which all other things
build.
Your average Joe (left or right) observes it. He doesn't have to imagine it or be told its
there without proof, its right there in front of him where he can see it and touch it. Two
different outcomes for the very same offense depending on who you are.
Make no mistake, Mueller is the Deep State guy put there to play defense just as much as
offense.
If they conclude they will have to sacrifice Podesta (or any underling) to prevent damage
to Hillary, Holder, Lynch and Obama thats exactly what they will do. Just like Weinstein will
be offered up to shield Whoopi, DeNiro, Tarantino and the rest of the Hollywood elites, they
all knew what he was doing and did nothing to stop his depredations for decades , in fact,
some even fed him his victims.
By spreading the investigation, Mueller escapes from having to admit that Russia did not
get Trump elected. Wait for some goofy blanket comdemnation against everyone....therefore no
one
Podesta is just a smokescreen to demonstrate "the lack of bias". Nothing will come of it
unless it is necessary to produce a sacrificial Democrat, in which case Podesta is
expendable.
"... The timing is curious. With all of the federal investigations and information gathering, I am suspicious that this will be a case of Goldman Sachs saying the bad guys already left, we're the good guys and we want to help your investigation. I find it almost impossible to believe that this man was blind to the culture and did not participate in the market mayhem. As long as he held high position, took his salary and bonus ... he was part of the problem. ..."
It is amazing that the "concern" mirrors the self-centered, look-out-for-ourselves values
that Mr. Smith attempts to draw attention to, including citing that he was disgruntled as he
was not well paid, earning only $500K and bonuses.
It seems it is still all about the money, and those unable to earn big bucks are evaluated
as lacking and incompetent. Ironically, his post made the wagons circle tighter and reduced
the likelihood for the short run that Goldman will ever be transparent.
OneCitizen Speaking Los Angeles
The timing is curious. With all of the federal investigations and information gathering, I
am suspicious that this will be a case of Goldman Sachs saying the bad guys already left,
we're the good guys and we want to help your investigation. I find it almost impossible to
believe that this man was blind to the culture and did not participate in the market mayhem.
As long as he held high position, took his salary and bonus ... he was part of the
problem.
No amount of "op ed" mea culpa or implicit finger pointing will suffice. Methinks that he
is positioning himself for a government job or another high-level gig at a major like Citi.
(Pure Speculation)
NewsView USA
" There is a rule of thumb when interviewing -- you don't bad-mouth your old
boss. No one wants to hear it," said Eric Fleming, the chief executive of the Wall
Street recruiting firm Exemplar Partners. "You can argue something like this needed to be
said, but if you hire the guy who said it you are taking the risk he will do it again."
And if I were hiring a gutsy manager to clean financial house and put more than a
thinly-veiled PR spin on a corrupt culture, I would precisely hire this fellow to do that
very job.
It all depends on where you sit and what you have to hide. I, for one, will be looking at
the next firm that does hire Mr. Smith. It will tell me volumes about whether that firm is
serious about business ethics.
June Charleston , SC
One of the many great disappointments in our government was the refusal to thoroughly
investigate & hold Wall Street banks & investment firms culpable for the economic
collapse which they created & from which they benefited. US taxpayers are still waiting
for judgment day while the thieves collect their profits as they laugh at us.
Michael, San Jose
If what he says is true, they will destroy him like a pack of jackals descending upon a
lamb. If what he says is not true, they will destroy him like a pack of lawyers suing a
defamer. Either way does not look good for him.
Peter K. Chan
I think it needed to be said. Much kudos to Mr. Smith. Coming from an insider, his
observations carried much weight.
To the Wall Street executive who said Mr. Smith should have taken it with his superiors
privately and to the headhunter skeptical about him getting work again on Wall Street:
Something are simply more important than self-interests and the interests of a few. These two
just don't get it. To the firm that still does trading business with Goldman because it
thinks Goldman is a good trader while acknowledging that Goldman can and will trade against
you: maybe you would want to rephrase that before you lose YOUR clients?
Wilson, CaliforniaR
What I find most disturbing is the personal attacks on Mr. Smiths character while side
stepping the detailed charges he levels at the banks culture, using only the most generalized
rebuttals containing weasel words like "disappointment" and dead pan statements like "it is
just not true". From my experience, you see this phenomenon when someone has wandered off the
reservation and is doing too much truth telling.
What I find most amazing however, is how they can claim he was some low level nothing
executive (i.e. hint** he was one of the sorry losers who was passed over). This may be true,
yet I have never worked at any company big or small who put sad sack passed-over middle
managers in recruitment videos.
Frankly I could not care less how unfair, cruel or scumbaggish Goldman's internal culture
is. But the day some joker takes my money and calls me sock puppet is the day I turn said
joker into my personal money butler. fetch! faster!!
Thanks for the World Series tickets, but I will pass on this product for now. What else
you got? oh! btw - my kids want to know what a million dollar bills look like in a
briefcase... have that delivered to my home office by 4pm. etc etc.
Dude, Philly
.."reignited a debate on the Internet and on cable television over whether Wall Street was
corrupted by greed and excess"
I didn't realize there was a debate. Don't you need to have two sides that both hold
legitimate opinions for there to be a debate?
"... Socialism a century ago seemed to be the wave of the future. There were various schools of socialism, but the common ideal was to guarantee support for basic needs, and for state ownership to free society from landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. In the West these hopes are now much further away than they seemed in 1917. Land and natural resources, basic infrastructure monopolies, health care and pensions have been increasingly privatized and financialized. ..."
"... Instead of Germany and other advanced industrial nations leading the way as expected, Russia's October 1917 Revolution made the greatest leap. But the failures of Stalinism became an argument against Marxism – guilt-by-association with Soviet bureaucracy. European parties calling themselves socialist or "labour" since the 1980s have supported neoliberal policies that are the opposite of socialist policy. Russia itself has chosen neoliberalism. ..."
"... Few socialist parties or theorists have dealt with the rise of the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector that now accounts for most increase in wealth. Instead of evolving into socialism, Western capitalism is being overcome by predatory finance and rent extraction imposing debt deflation and austerity on industry as well as on labor. ..."
"... Failure of Western economies to recover from the 2008 crisis is leading to a revival of Marxist advocacy. The alternative to socialist reform is stagnation and a relapse into neofeudal financial and monopoly privileges. ..."
"... Russia's Revolution ended after 74 years, leaving the Soviet Union so dispirited that it ended in collapse. The contrast between the low living standards of Russian consumers and what seemed to be Western success became increasingly pronounced. ..."
"... When the Soviet Union dissolved itself in 1991, its leaders took neoliberal advice from its major adversary, the United States, in hope that this would set it on a capitalist road to prosperity. But turning its economies into viable industrial powers was the last thing U.S. advisors wanted to teach Russia. [3] Their aim was to turn it and its former satellites into raw-materials colonies of Wall Street, the City of London and Frankfurt – victims of capitalism, not rival producers. ..."
"... It should not be surprising that banks became the economy's main control centers, as in the West's bubble economies. Instead of the promised prosperity, a new class of billionaires was endowed, headed by the notorious Seven Bankers who appropriated the formerly state-owned oil and gas, nickel and platinum, electricity and aluminum production, as well as real estate, electric utilities and other public enterprises. It was the largest giveaway in modern history. The Soviet nomenklatura became the new lords in outright seizure that Marx would have characterized as "primitive accumulation." ..."
"... The American advisors knew the obvious: Russian savings had been wiped out by the polst-1991 hyperinflation, so the new owners could only cash out by selling shares to Western buyers. The kleptocrats cashed out as expected, by dumping their shares to foreign investors so quickly at such giveaway prices that Russia's stock market became the world's top performer for Western investors in 1994-96. ..."
"... The basic neoliberal idea of prosperity is financial gain based on turning rent extraction into a flow of interest payments by buyers-on-credit. This policy favors financial engineering over industrial investment, reversing the Progressive Era's industrial capitalism that Marx anticipated would be a transition stage leading to socialism. Russia adopted the West's anti-socialist rollback toward neofeudalism. ..."
"... Russia joined the dollar standard. Buying Treasury bonds meant lending to the U.S. Government. The central bank bought U.S. Treasury securities to back its domestic currency. These purchases helped finance Cold War escalation in countries around Russia. Russia paid 100% annual interest in the mid-1990s, creating a bonanza for U.S. investors. On balance, this neoliberal policy lay Russia's economy open to looting by financial institutions seeking natural resource rent, land rent and monopoly rent for themselves. Instead of targeting such rents, Russia imposed taxes mainly on labor via a regressive flat tax – too right wing to be adopted even in the United States! ..."
"... Theories of Surplus Value ..."
"... This Western financial advice became a textbook example of how not ..."
"... By 1991, when the Soviet Union's leaders decided to take the "Western" path, the Western economies themselves were reaching a terminus. Appearances were saved by a wave of unproductive credit and debt creation to sustain the bubble economy that finally crashed in 2008. ..."
"... The same debt overgrowth occurred in the industrial sector, where bank and bondholder credit since the 1980s has been increasingly for corporate takeovers and raiding, stock buybacks and even to pay dividends. Industry has become a vehicle for financial engineering to increase stock prices and strip assets, not to increase the means of production. The result is that capitalism has fallen prey to resurgent rentier ..."
"... Theories of Surplus Value ..."
"... American Journal of Economics and Sociology ..."
"... Super-Imperialism ..."
"... The Great Credit Crash ..."
"... The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-Economic Costs of the Neoliberal Baltic Model ..."
Socialism
a century ago seemed to be the wave of the future. There were various schools of socialism, but
the common ideal was to guarantee support for basic needs, and for state ownership to free
society from landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. In the West these hopes are now much
further away than they seemed in 1917. Land and natural resources, basic infrastructure
monopolies, health care and pensions have been increasingly privatized and financialized.
Instead of Germany and other advanced industrial nations leading the way as expected,
Russia's October 1917 Revolution made the greatest leap. But the failures of Stalinism became
an argument against Marxism – guilt-by-association with Soviet bureaucracy. European
parties calling themselves socialist or "labour" since the 1980s have supported neoliberal
policies that are the opposite of socialist policy. Russia itself has chosen
neoliberalism.
Few socialist parties or theorists have dealt with the rise of the Finance, Insurance
and Real Estate (FIRE) sector that now accounts for most increase in wealth. Instead of
evolving into socialism, Western capitalism is being overcome by predatory finance and rent
extraction imposing debt deflation and austerity on industry as well as on labor.
Failure of Western economies to recover from the 2008 crisis is leading to a revival of
Marxist advocacy. The alternative to socialist reform is stagnation and a relapse into
neofeudal financial and monopoly privileges.
Socialism flowered in the 19 th century as a program to reform capitalism by
raising labor's status and living standards, with a widening range of public services and
subsidies to make economies more efficient. Reformers hoped to promote this evolution by
extending voting rights to the working population at large.
Ricardo's discussion of land rent led early industrial capitalists to oppose Europe's
hereditary landlord class. But despite democratic political reform, the world has un-taxed land
rent and is still grappling with the problem of how to keep housing affordable instead of
siphoning off rent to a landlord class – more recently transmuted into mortgage interest
paid to banks by owners who pledge the rental value for loans. Most bank lending today is for
real estate mortgages. The effect is to bid up land prices toward the point where the entire
rental value is paid as interest. This threatens to be a problem for socialist China as well as
for capitalist economies.
Landlords, banks and the cost of living
The classical economists sought to make their nations more competitive by keeping down the
price of labor so as to undersell competitors. The main cost of living was food; today it is
housing. Housing and food prices are determined not by the material costs of production, but by
land rent – the rising market price for land.
In the era of the French Physiocrats, Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, this
land rent accrued to Europe's hereditary landlord class. Today, the land's rent is paid mainly
to bankers – because families need credit to buy a home. Or, if they rent, their
landlords use the property rent to pay interest to the banks.
The land issue was central to Russia's October Revolution, as it was for European politics.
But the discussion of land rent and taxation has lost much of the clarity (and passion) that
guided the 19 th century when it dominated classical political economy, liberal
reform, and indeed most early socialist politics.
In 1909/10 Britain experienced a constitutional crisis when the democratically elected House
of Commons passed a land tax, only to be overridden by the House of Lords, governed by the old
aristocracy. The ensuing political crisis was settled by a rule that the Lords never again
could overrule a revenue bill passed by the House of Commons. But that was Britain's last real
opportunity to tax away the economic rents of landlords and natural resource owners. The
liberal drive to tax the land faltered, and never again would gain serious chance of
passage.
The democratization of home ownership during the 20 th century led middle-class
voters to oppose property taxes – including taxes on commercial sites and natural
resources. Tax policy in general has become pro- rentier and anti-labor – the
regressive opposite of 19 th -century liberalism as developed by "Ricardian
socialists" such as John Stuart Mill and Henry George. Today's economic individualism has lost
the early class consciousness that sought to tax economic rent and socialize banking.
The United States enacted an income tax in 1913, falling mainly on rentier income,
not on the working population. Capital gains (the main source of rising wealth today) were
taxed at the same rate as other income. But the vested interests campaigned to reverse this
spirit, slashing capital gains taxes and making tax policy much more regressive. The result is
that today, most wealth is not gained by capital investment for profits. Instead, asset-price
gains have been financed by a debt-leveraged inflation of real estate, stock and bond
prices.
Many middle-class families owe most of their net worth to rising prices for their homes. But
by far the lion's share of the real estate and stock market gains have accrued to just One
Percent of the population. And while bank credit has enabled buyers to bid up housing prices,
the price has been to siphon off more and more of labor's income to pay mortgage loans or
rents. As a result, finance today is what is has been throughout history: the main force
polarizing economies between debtors and creditors.
Global oil and mining companies created flags of convenience to make themselves tax-exempt,
by pretending to make all their production and distribution profits in tax-free trans-shipping
havens such as Liberia and Panama (which use U.S. dollars instead of being real countries with
their own currency and tax systems).
The fact that absentee-owned real estate and natural resource extraction are practically
free of income taxation shows that democratic political reform has not been a sufficient
guarantee of socialist success. Tax rules and public regulation have been captured by the
rentiers , dashing the hopes of 19 th -century classical reformers that
progressive tax policy would produce the same effect as direct public ownership of the means of
production, while leaving "the market" as an individualistic alternative to government
regulation or planning.
In practice, planning and resource allocation has passed to the banking and financial
sector. Many observers hoped that this would evolve into state planning, or at least work in
conjunction with it as in Germany. But liberal "Ricardian socialist" failed, as did
German-style "state socialism" publicly financing transportation and other basic
infrastructure, pensions and similar "external" costs of living and doing business that
industrial employers otherwise would have to bear. Attempts at "half-way" socialism via tax and
regulatory policy against monopolies and banking have faltered repeatedly. As long as major
economic or political choke points are left in private hands, they will serve s springboards to
subvert real reform policies. That is why Marxist policy went beyond these would-be socialist
reforms.
To Marx, the historical task of capitalism was to prepare the way for socializing the means
of production by clearing away feudalism's legacy: a hereditary landlord class, predatory
banking, and the monopolies that financial interests had pried away from governments. The path
of least resistance was to start by socializing land and basic infrastructure. This drive to
free society from economic overhead in the form of hereditary privilege and unearned income by
the "idle rich" was a step toward socialist management, by minimizing rentier costs ("
faux frais of production").
Proto-socialist reform in the leading industrial nations
Marx was by no means alone in expecting a widening range of economic activity to be shifted
away from the market to the public sector. State socialism (basically, state-sponsored
capitalism) subsidized pensions and public health, education and other basic needs so as to
save industrial enterprise from having to bear these charges.
In the United States, Simon Patten – the first economics professor at the new Wharton
business school at the University of Pennsylvania – defined public infrastructure as a
"fourth factor of production" alongside labor, capital and land. The aim of public investment
was not to make a profit, but to lower the cost of living and doing business so as to minimize
industry's wage and infrastructure bill. Public health, pensions, roads and other
transportation, education, research and development were subsidized or provided freely.
[1]
The most advanced industrial economies seemed to be evolving toward some kind of socialism.
Marx shared a Progressive Era optimism that expected industrial capitalism to evolve in the
most logical way, by freeing economies from the landlordship and predatory banking inherited
from Europe's feudal era. That was above all the classical reform program of Adam Smith, John
Stuart Mill and the intellectual mainstream.
But the aftermath of World War I saw the vested interests mount a Counter-Enlightenment.
Banking throughout the Western world find its major market in real estate mortgage lending,
natural resource extraction and monopolies – the Anglo-American model, not that of German
industrial banking that had seemed to be capitalism's financial future in the late 19
th century.
Since 1980 the Western nations have reversed early optimistic hopes to reform market
economies. Instead of the classical dream of taxing away the land rent that had supported
Europe's hereditary landed aristocracies, commercial real estate has been made virtually exempt
from income taxation. Absentee owners avoid tax by a combination of tax-deductibility for
interest payments (as if it is a necessary business expense) and fictitious over-depreciation
tax credits that pretend that buildings and properties are losing value even when market prices
for their land are soaring.
These tax breaks have made real estate the largest bank customers. The effect has been to
financialize property rents into interest payments. Likewise in the industrial sphere,
regulatory capture by lobbyists for the major monopolies has disabled public attempts to keep
prices in line with the cost of production and prevent fraud by breaking up or regulating
monopolies. These too have become major bank clients.
The beginning and end of Russian socialism
Most Marxists expected socialism to emerge first in Germany as the most advanced capitalist
economy. After its October 1917 Revolution, Russia seemed to jump ahead, the first nation to
free itself from rent and interest charges inherited from feudalism. By taking land, industry
and finance into state control, Soviet Russia's October Revolution created an economy without
private landlords and bankers. Russian urban planning did not take account of the natural
rent-of-location, nor did it charge for the use of money created by the state bank. The state
bank created money and credit, so there was no need to rely on a wealthy financial class. And
as property owner, the state did not seek to charge land rent or monopoly rent.
By freeing society from the post-feudal rentier class of landlords, bankers and
predatory finance, the Soviet regime was much more than a bourgeois revolution. The
Revolution's early leaders sought to free wage labor from exploitation by taking industry into
the public domain. State companies provided labor with free lunches, education, sports and
leisure activity, and modest housing.
Agricultural land tenure was a problem. Given its centralized marketing role, the state
could have reallocated land to build up a rural peasantry and helped it invest in
modernization. The state could have manipulated crop prices to siphon off agricultural gains,
much like Cargill does in the United States. Instead, Stalin's collectivization program waged a
war against the kulaks. This political shock led to famine. It was a steep price to pay for
avoiding rent was paid to a landlord class or peasantry.
Marx had said nothing about the military dimension of the transition from progressive
industrial capitalism to socialism. But Russia's Revolution – like that of China three
decades later – showed that the attempt to create a socialist economy had a military
dimension that absorbed the lion's share of the economic surplus. Military aggression by a half
dozen leading capitalist nations seeking to overthrow the Bolshevik government obliged Russia
to adopt War Communism. For over half a century the Soviet Union devoted most of capital to
military investment, not provide sufficient housing or consumer goods for its population beyond
spreading literacy, education and public health.
Despite this military overhead, the fact that the Soviet Union was free of a
rentier class of financiers and absentee landlords should have made the Soviet Union
the world's most competitive low-cost economy in theory. In 1945 the United States certainly
feared the efficiency of socialist planning. Its diplomats opposed Soviet membership on the
ground that state enterprise and pricing would enable such economies to undersell capitalist
countries.
[2] So socialist countries were kept out of the IMF, World Bank and the planned World Trade
Organization, explicitly on the ground that they were free of land rent, natural resource rent,
monopoly rent and financial charges.
Capitalist economies are now privatizing and financializing their basic needs and
infrastructure. Every activity is being forced into "the market," at prices that need to cover
not only the technological costs of production but also interest, ancillary financial fees and
pension set-asides. The cost of living and doing business is further privatized as financial
interests pry roads, health care, water, communications and other public utilities away from
the public sector, while driving housing and commercial real estate deeply into debt.
The Cold War has shown that capitalist countries plan to continue fighting socialist
economies, forcing them to militarize in self-defense. The resulting oppressive military
overhead is then blamed on socialist bureaucracy and inefficiency.
The collapse of Russian Stalinism
Russia's Revolution ended after 74 years, leaving the Soviet Union so dispirited that it
ended in collapse. The contrast between the low living standards of Russian consumers and what
seemed to be Western success became increasingly pronounced. In contrast to China's housing
construction policy, the Soviet regime insisted that families double up. Clothing and other
consumer goods had only drab designs, needlessly suppressing variety. To cap matters, public
opposition to Russia's military personnel losses in Afghanistan caused popular resentment.
When the Soviet Union dissolved itself in 1991, its leaders took neoliberal advice from its
major adversary, the United States, in hope that this would set it on a capitalist road to
prosperity. But turning its economies into viable industrial powers was the last thing U.S.
advisors wanted to teach Russia.
[3] Their aim was to turn it and its former satellites into raw-materials colonies of Wall
Street, the City of London and Frankfurt – victims of capitalism, not rival
producers.
Russia has gone to the furthest anti-socialist extreme by adopting a flat tax that fails to
distinguish wages and profits of labor and capital from unearned rental income. By also having
to pay a value-added tax (VAT) on consumer goods (with no tax on trading in financial assets),
labor is taxed much higher than the wealthy.
Most Western "wealth creation" is achieved by debt-leveraged price increases for real
estate, stocks and bonds, and by privatizing the public domain. The latter process has gained
momentum since the early 1980s in Margaret Thatcher's Britain and Ronald Reagan's America,
followed by Third World countries acting under World Bank tutelage. The pretense is that
privatization will maximize technological efficiency and prosperity for the economy as a
whole.
Following this advice, Russian leaders agreed that the major sources of economic rent
– natural resource wealth, real estate and state companies – should be transferred
to private owners (often to themselves and associated insiders). The "magic of the marketplace"
was supposed to lead the new owners to make the economy more efficient as a byproduct of making
money in the quickest way possible.
Each Russian worker got a "voucher" worth about $25. Most were sold off simply to obtain
money to buy food and other needs as many companies stopped paying wages. Russia had wiped out
domestic savings with hyperinflation after 1991.
It should not be surprising that banks became the economy's main control centers, as in the
West's bubble economies. Instead of the promised prosperity, a new class of billionaires was
endowed, headed by the notorious Seven Bankers who appropriated the formerly state-owned oil
and gas, nickel and platinum, electricity and aluminum production, as well as real estate,
electric utilities and other public enterprises. It was the largest giveaway in modern history.
The Soviet nomenklatura became the new lords in outright seizure that Marx would have
characterized as "primitive accumulation."
The American advisors knew the obvious: Russian savings had been wiped out by the polst-1991
hyperinflation, so the new owners could only cash out by selling shares to Western buyers. The
kleptocrats cashed out as expected, by dumping their shares to foreign investors so quickly at
such giveaway prices that Russia's stock market became the world's top performer for Western
investors in 1994-96.
The Russian oligarchs kept most of their sales proceeds abroad in British and other banks,
beyond the reach of Russian authorities to recapture. Much was spent on London real estate,
sports teams and luxury estates in the world's flight-capital havens. Almost none was invested
in Russian industry. Wage arrears often mounted up half a year behind. Living standards shrank,
along with the population as birth rates plunged throughout the former Soviet economies.
Skilled labor emigrated.
The basic neoliberal idea of prosperity is financial gain based on turning rent extraction
into a flow of interest payments by buyers-on-credit. This policy favors financial engineering
over industrial investment, reversing the Progressive Era's industrial capitalism that Marx
anticipated would be a transition stage leading to socialism. Russia adopted the West's
anti-socialist rollback toward neofeudalism.
Russian officials failed to understand the State Theory of money that is the basis of Modern
Monetary Theory: States can create their own money, giving it value by accepting it in payment
of taxes. The Soviet government financed its economy for seventy years without any need to back
the ruble with foreign exchange. But Russia's central bank was persuaded that "sound money"
required it to back its domestic ruble currency with U.S. Treasury bonds in order to prevent
inflation. Russian leaders did not realize that dollars or other foreign currencies were only
needed to finance balance-of-payments deficits, not domestic spending except as this money was
spent on imports.
Russia joined the dollar standard. Buying Treasury bonds meant lending to the U.S.
Government. The central bank bought U.S. Treasury securities to back its domestic currency.
These purchases helped finance Cold War escalation in countries around Russia. Russia paid 100%
annual interest in the mid-1990s, creating a bonanza for U.S. investors. On balance, this
neoliberal policy lay Russia's economy open to looting by financial institutions seeking
natural resource rent, land rent and monopoly rent for themselves. Instead of targeting such
rents, Russia imposed taxes mainly on labor via a regressive flat tax – too right wing to
be adopted even in the United States!
When the Soviet Union dissolved itself, its officials showed no apprehension of how quickly
their economies would be de-industrialized as a result of accepting U.S. advice to privatize
state enterprises, natural resources and basic infrastructure. Whatever knowledge of Marx's
analysis of capitalism had existed (perhaps in Nicolai Bukharin's time) was long gone. It is as
if no Russian official had read Volumes II and III of Marx's Capital (or Theories
of Surplus Value ) where he reviewed the laws of economic rent and interest-bearing
debt.
The inability of Russia, the Baltics and other post-Soviet countries to understand the FIRE
sector and its financial dynamics provides an object lesson for other countries as to what to
avoid. Reversing the principles of Russia's October 1917 Revolution, the post-Soviet
kleptocracy was akin to the feudal epoch's "primitive accumulation" of the land and commons.
They adopted the neoliberal business plan: to establish monopolies, first and most easily by
privatizing the public infrastructure that had been built up, extracting economic rents and
them paying out the resulting as interest and dividends.
This Western financial advice became a textbook example of how not to organize an
economy.
[4] Having rejoined the global economy free of debt in 1991, Russia's population, companies
and government quickly ran up debts as a result of its man-made disaster. Families could have
been given their homes freely, just as corporate managers were given their entire companies
virtually for free. But Russian managers were as anti-labor as they were greedy to grab their
own assets from the public domain. Soaring housing prices quickly plagued Russian's economy
with one of the world's highest-priced living and business costs. That prevented any thought of
industrial competitiveness with the United States or Europe. What passed for Soviet Marxism
lacked an understanding of how economic rents and the ensuing high labor costs affected
international prices, or how debt service and capital flight affected the currency's exchange
rate.
Adversaries of socialism pronounced Marxist theory dead, as if the Soviet dissolution meant
the end of Marxism. But today, less than three decades later, the leading Western economies are
themselves succumbing to an overgrowth of debt and shrinking prosperity. Russia failed to
recognize that just as its own economy was expiring, so was the West's. Industrial capitalism
is succumbing to a predatory finance capitalism that is leaving Western economies debt-ridden.
[5] The underlying causes were clear already a century ago: unchecked financial
rentiers , absentee ownership and monopolies.
The post-Soviet collapse in the 1990s was not a failure of Marxism, but of the
anti-socialist ideology that is plunging Western economies under domination by the Finance,
Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector's symbiosis of the three forms of rent extraction: land
and natural resource rent, monopoly rent, and interest (financial rent). This is precisely the
fate from which 19 th -century socialism, Marxism and even state capitalism sought
to save the industrial economies.
A silver lining to the Soviet "final" stage has been to free Marxist analysis from Russian
Marxology. Its focus of Soviet Marxology was not an analysis of how the capitalist nations were
becoming financialized neo- rentier economies, but was mainly propagandistic,
ossifying into a stereotyped identity politics appealing to labor and oppressed minorities.
Today's revival of Marxist scholarship has begun to show how the U.S.-centered global economy
is entering a period of chronic austerity, debt deflation, and polarization between creditors
and debtors.
Financialization and privatization are submerging capitalism in debt deflation
By 1991, when the Soviet Union's leaders decided to take the "Western" path, the Western
economies themselves were reaching a terminus. Appearances were saved by a wave of unproductive
credit and debt creation to sustain the bubble economy that finally crashed in 2008.
The pitfalls of this financial dynamic were not apparent in the early years after World War
II, largely because economies emerged with their private sectors free of debt. The ensuing boom
endowed the middle class in the United States and other countries, but was debt financed, first
for home ownership and commercial real estate, then by consumer credit to purchase of
automobiles and appliances, and finally by credit-card debt just to meet living expenses.
The same debt overgrowth occurred in the industrial sector, where bank and bondholder credit
since the 1980s has been increasingly for corporate takeovers and raiding, stock buybacks and
even to pay dividends. Industry has become a vehicle for financial engineering to increase
stock prices and strip assets, not to increase the means of production. The result is that
capitalism has fallen prey to resurgent rentier interests instead of liberating
economies from absentee landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. Banks and bondholders have
found their most lucrative market not in the manufacturing sector but in real estate and
natural resource extraction.
These vested interests have translated their takings into the political power to shed taxes
and dismantle regulations on wealth. The resulting political Counter-Reformation has inverted
the idea of "free market" to mean an economy free for rent extractors, not free
from landlords, monopolists and financial exploitation as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill
and other classical economists had envisioned. The word "reform" as used by today's neoliberal
media means undoing Progressive Era reforms, dismantling public regulation and
government power – except for control by finance and its allied vested
interests.
All this is the opposite of socialism, which has now sunk to its nadir through the Western
World. The past four decades have seen most of the European and North American parties calling
themselves "socialist" make an about-face to follow Tony Blair's New Labour, the French
socialists-in-name and the Clinton's New Democrats. They support privatization,
financialization and a shift away from progressive taxation to a value-added tax (VAT) falling
on consumers, not on finance or real estate.
China's socialist diplomacy in today's hostile world
Now that Western finance capitalism is stagnating, it is fighting even harder to prevent the
post-2008 crisis from leading to socialist reforms that would re-socialize infrastructure that
has been privatized and put a public banking system in place. Depicting the contrast between
socialist and finance-capitalist economies as a clash of civilizations, U.S.-centered "Western"
diplomacy is using military and political subversion to prevent a transition from capitalism
into socialism.
China is the leading example of socialist success in a mixed economy. Unlike the Soviet
Union, it has not proselytized its economic system or sought to promote revolution abroad to
emulate its economic doctrine. Just the opposite: To avert attack, China has given foreign
investors a stake in its economic growth. The aim has been to mobilize U.S. and other foreign
interests as allies, willing customers for China's exports, and suppliers of modern production
facilities in China.
This is the opposite of the antagonism that confronted Russia. The risk is that it involves
financial investment. But China has protected its autonomy by requiring majority Chinese
ownership in most sectors. The main danger is domestic, in the form of financial dynamics and
private rent extraction. The great economic choice facing China today concerns the degree to
which land and natural resources should be taxed.
The state owns the land, but does fully tax its rising valuation or rent-of-location that
has made many families rich. Letting the resulting real-estate and financialized wealth
dominate its economic growth poses two dangers: First, it increases the price that new buyers
must pay for their home. Second, rising housing prices force these families to borrow –
at interest. This turns the rental value of land – value created by society and public
infrastructure investment – into a flow of interest to the banks. They end up receiving
more over time than the sellers, while increasing the cost of living and doing business. That
is a fate which a socialist economy must avoid at all costs.
At issue is how China can best manage credit and natural resource rent in a way that best
meets the needs of its population. Now that China has built up a prosperous industry and real
estate, its main challenge is to avoid the financial dynamics that are subjecting the West to
debt deflation and burying Western economies. To avoid these dynamics, China must curtail the
proliferation of unproductive debt created merely to transfer property on credit, inflating
asset prices in the process.
Socialism is incompatible with a rentier class of landlords, natural resource
owners and monopolists – the preferred clients of banks hoping to turn economic rent into
interest charges. As a vehicle to allocate resources "the market" reflects the status quo of
property ownership and credit-creation privileges at any given moment of time, without
consideration for what is fair and efficient or predatory. Vested interests claim that such a
market is an immutable force of nature, whose course cannot be altered by government
"interference." This rhetoric of political passivity aims to deter politicians and voters from
regulating economies, leaving the wealthy free to extract as much economic rent and interest as
markets can bear by privatizing real estate, natural resources, banking and other
monopolies.
Such rent seeking is antithetical to socialism's aim to take these assets into the public
domain. That is why the financial sector, oil and mineral extractors and monopolists fight so
passionately to dismantle state regulatory power and public banking. That is the diplomacy of
finance capital, aiming to consolidate American hegemony over a unipolar world. It backs this
strategy with a neoliberal academic curriculum that depicts predatory financial and
rentier gains as if they add to national income, not simply transfer it into the hands
of the rentier classes. This misleading picture of economic reality poses a danger for
China sending its students to study economics at American and European universities.
The century that has elapsed since Russia's October 1917 Revolution has produced a
substantial Marxist literature describing how finance capitalism has overpowered industrial
capitalism. Its dynamics occupied Marx in Volumes II and III of Capital (and also his
Theories of Surplus Value ). Like most observers of his era, Marx expected capitalism
to make a substantial step toward socialism by overcoming the dynamics of parasitic capital,
above all the tendency for debt to keep on expanding at compound interest until it produces a
financial crash.
The only way to control banks and their allied rentier sectors is outright
socialization. The past century has shown that if society does not control the banks and
financial sector, they will control society. Their strategy is to block government money
creation so that economies will be forced to rely on banks and bondholders. Regulatory
authority to limit such financial aggression and the monopoly pricing and rent extraction it
supports has been crippled in the West by "regulatory capture" by the rentier
oligarchy.
Attempts to tax away rental income (the liberal alternative to taking real estate and
natural resources directly into the public domain) is prone to lobbying for loopholes and
evasion, most notoriously via offshore banking centers in tax-avoidance enclaves and the "flags
of convenience" sponsored by the global oil and mining companies. This leaves the only way to
save society from the financial power to convert rent into interest to be a policy of
nationalizing natural resources, fully taxing land rent (where land and minerals are not taken
directly into the public domain), and de-privatizing infrastructure and other key sectors.
Conclusion
Markets have not recovered for the products of American industry and labor since 2008.
Industrial capitalism has been sacrificed to a form of finance capitalism that is looking more
pre-capitalist (or simply oligarchic and neofeudal) with each passing year. The resulting
polarization forces every economy – including China – to choose between saving its
bankers and other creditors or freeing debtors and lowering the economy's cost structure. Will
the government enforce bank and bondholder claims, or will it give priority to the economy and
its people? That is an eternal political question spanning pre-capitalist, capitalist and
post-capitalist economies.
Marx described the mathematics of compound interest expanding to absorb the entire economy
as age-old, long predating industrial capitalism. He characterized the ancient mode of
production as dominated by slavery and usury, and medieval banking as predatory. These
financial dynamics exist in socialist economies just as they did in medieval and ancient
economies. The way in which governments manage the dynamics of credit and debt thus are the
dominant force in every era, and should receive the most pressing attention today as China
shapes its socialist future.
Notes.
[1] I give the details in "Simon Patten on Public Infrastructure and Economic Rent
Capture," American Journal of Economics and Sociology 70 (October 2011):873-903.
[2] My book Super-Imperialism
(1972; new ed. 2002) reviews this discussion during 1944-46.
[3] I discuss the IMF and World Bank plan to wipe out Russian savings with hyperinflation
and make manufacturing investment uneconomic in "How Neoliberal Tax and Financial Policy
Impoverishes Russia – Needlessly," Mir Peremen (The World of Transformations),
2012 (3):49-64 (in Russian). МИР
ПЕРЕМЕН 3/2012 (ISSN 2073-3038) Mir peremen М.
ХАДСОН,
Неолиберальная
налоговая и
финансовая
политика
приводит к
обнищанию
России, 49-64.
"... Spy Schools: How the CIA, FBI and Foreign Intelligence Secretly Exploit America's Universities ..."
"... The Boston Globe ..."
"... Inside Higher Ed ..."
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... The Price of Admission ..."
"... Inside Higher Ed ..."
"... Inside Higher Ed ..."
"... look back to Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Mao, Mussolini et.al with THIER use of domestic agencies to impose lock-step thinking and to ferret out free-thinkers. ..."
"... It is amazing how many biochemists and microbiologists from the People's Republic of China would e-mail me asking if I had a position in my "lab," touting their bench skills, every time I published a paper on the federal bioterrorism program, medical civic action programs, etc. ..."
"... When I started teaching 48 years ago, the president of my college was James Dovonan, Bill Donovan's (founder of the OSS) brother, portrayed by Tom Hanks in the movie, "Bridge of Spies." ..."
"... Beyond NIH funded grant-based research, Homeland Security, Energy, Defense, and the Intelligence Community agencies have long histories of relationships with American academia. This could be funded research, collaborative research, shared personnel relationships, or all other manner of cooperation. Sometimes it's fairly well known and sometimes it's kept quiet, and sometimes it's even classified. But it is much more extensive and expansive than what Golden describes, and much less "cozy" or suspicious. ..."
"... For years I have said that it is foolish to look to universities for moral guidance, and this story is one more instance. In this case, the moral ground is swampy at best, and the universities do not appear to have spent a lot of time worrying about possible problems as long as the situation works to their advantage financially. ..."
"... Does Golden discuss at all the way in which the CIA and other intelligence services funnel money into academic research without the source of the funding ever being revealed? This was common practice in the 1960s and 1970s, and colleges like MIT were among those involved in this chicanery. ..."
"... Where has IHE been for the past several decades? Read Rosenfeld's book, Subversives..... about the FBI's illegal acts at Berkeley. Or read this, a summary of his book: https://alumni.berkeley.edu... Or read George R. Stewart, The Year of the Oath. ..."
Book documents how foreign and domestic intelligence agencies use
-- and perhaps exploit -- higher education and academe for spy operations.
Foreign and domestic intelligence services spar and spy on one another all across the world.
But it would be naïve to think it's not happening in the lab or classroom as well.
In his new book, Spy Schools: How the CIA, FBI and Foreign Intelligence Secretly Exploit
America's Universities ( Henry Holt and Company ),
investigative journalist Daniel Golden explores the fraught -- and sometimes exploitative --
relationship between higher education and intelligence services, both foreign and domestic.
Chapters explore various case studies of the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of
Investigation using the open and collaborative nature of higher education to their advantage,
as well as foreign governments infiltrating the U.S. via education.
"It's pretty widespread, and I'd say it's most prevalent at research universities," Golden,
an editor at ProPublica and an alumnus of The Boston Globe 's "Spotlight" team, told
Inside Higher Ed . "The foreign intelligence services have the interest and the
opportunity to learn cutting-edge, Pentagon-funded or government-funded research."
Golden, who has also covered higher education for The Wall Street Journal ,
previously wrote about
the intersection of wealth and admissions in his 2006 book The Price of Admission
.
Each of the case studies in Spy Schools , which goes on sale Oct. 10, is critical.
One could read the chapters on the Chinese government's interest in U.S. research universities
as hawkish, but then turn to the next chapter on Harvard's relationship with the CIA and read
it as critical of the American intelligence establishment as well.
"People of one political persuasion might focus on [the chapters regarding] foreign
espionage; people of another political persuasion might focus on domestic espionage," Golden
said. "I try to follow where the facts lead."
Perhaps the most prestigious institution Golden examines is Harvard University, probing its
cozy relationship with the CIA. (While Harvard has recently come under scrutiny for its
relationship with the agency after it withdrew an invitation for Chelsea Manning to be a
visiting fellow -- after the agency objected to her appointment -- this book was written before
the Manning incident, which occurred in September.) The university, which has had varying
degrees of closeness and coldness with the CIA over the years, currently allows the agency to
send officers to the midcareer program at the Kennedy School of Government while continuing to
act undercover, with the school's knowledge. When the officers apply -- often with fudged
credentials that are part of their CIA cover -- the university doesn't know they're CIA agents,
but once they're in, Golden writes, Harvard allows them to tell the university that they're
undercover. Their fellow students, however -- often high-profile or soon-to-be-high-profile
actors in the world of international diplomacy -- are kept in the dark.
"Kenneth Moskow is one of a long line of CIA officers who have enrolled undercover at the
Kennedy School, generally with Harvard's knowledge and approval, gaining access to
up-and-comers worldwide," Golden writes. "For four decades the CIA and Harvard have concealed
this practice, which raises larger questions about academic boundaries, the integrity of class
discussions and student interactions, and whether an American university has a responsibility
to accommodate U.S. intelligence."
But the CIA isn't the only intelligence group operating at Harvard. Golden notes Russian
spies have enrolled at the Kennedy School, although without Harvard's knowledge or
cooperation.
When contacted by Inside Higher Ed , Harvard officials didn't deny Golden's
telling, but defended the university's practices while emphasizing the agreement between the
university and the CIA -- which Golden also writes about -- on not using Harvard to conduct CIA
fieldwork.
"Harvard Kennedy School does not knowingly provide false information or 'cover' for any
member of our community from an intelligence agency, nor do we allow members of our community
to carry out intelligence operations at Harvard Kennedy School," Eric Rosenbach, co-director of
the Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, said in a
statement.
While Golden said the CIA's involvement on campus raises existential questions about the
purpose and integrity of higher education, Harvard maintained that the Kennedy School was
living up to its mission.
"Our community consists of people from different spheres of public service. We are proud to
train people from the U.S. government and the intelligence community, as well as peace
activists and those who favor more open government," Rosenbach said in his statement. "We train
students from a wide range of foreign countries and foreign governments, including -- among
others -- Israel, U.K., Russia and China. That is consistent with our mission and we are proud
to have that reach."
On the other hand, other countries are interested in exploiting U.S. higher education.
Golden documents the case of Ruopeng Liu, a graduate student at Duke University who siphoned
off U.S.-government-funded research to Chinese researchers. Liu eventually returned to China
and has used some of the research for his Chinese-government-funded start-up ventures.
Golden is comprehensive, interviewing Duke researchers who worked with Liu, as well as
dispatching a freelance journalist in China to interview Liu (he denied wrongdoing, saying his
actions were taken as part of higher education's collaborative norms regarding research
projects). Despite questions that arose while Liu was a student, he received his doctorate in
2009 without any formal questions or pushback from the university. A week before Liu defended
his dissertation, Golden notes that Duke officials voted to move forward in negotiations with
the Chinese government regarding opening a Duke campus in China -- raising questions about
whether Duke was cautious about punishing a Chinese student lest there were negative business
implications for Duke. (
The building of the campus proved to be a controversial move in its own right. )
The Duke professor Liu worked under told Golden it would be hard to prove Liu acted with
intentional malice rather than out of genuine cultural and translational obstacles, or ethical
slips made by a novice researcher. Duke officials told Inside Higher Ed that there
weren't any connections between Liu and the vote.
"The awarding of Ruopeng Liu's degree had absolutely no connection to the deliberations over
the proposal for Duke to participate in the founding of a new university in Kunshan, China," a
spokesman said in an email.
These are just two chapters of Golden's book, which also goes on to document the foreign
exchange relationship between Marietta College, in Ohio, and the controversial
Chinese-intelligence-aligned University of International Relations. Agreements between Marietta
and UIR, which is widely regarded a recruiting ground for Chinese intelligence services,
include exchanging professors and sending Chinese students to Marietta. Conversely, Golden
writes, as American professors teach UIR students who could end up spying on the U.S., American
students at Marietta are advised against studying abroad at UIR if they have an interest in
working for the government -- studying at UIR carries a risk for students hoping to get certain
security clearances. Another highlight is the chapter documenting the CIA's efforts to stage
phony international academic conferences, put on to lure Iranian nuclear scientists as
attendees and get them out of their country -- and in a position to defect to the U.S.
According to Golden's sources, the operations, combined with other efforts, have been
successful enough "to hinder Iran's nuclear weapons program."
But Golden's book doesn't just shed light on previously untold stories. It also highlights
the existential questions facing higher education, not only when dealing with infiltration from
foreign governments, but also those brought on by cozy relationships between the U.S.
intelligence and academe.
"One issue is American national security," Golden said. "Universities do a lot of research
that's important to our government and our military, and they don't take very strong
precautions against it being stolen," he said. "So the domestic espionage side -- I'm kind of a
traditionalist and I believe in the ideal of universities as places where the brightest minds
of all countries come together to learn, teach each other, study and do research. Espionage
from both sides taints that that's kind of disturbing."
After diving deep into the complex web that ties higher education and espionage together,
however, Golden remains optimistic about the future.
"It wouldn't be that hard to tighten up the intellectual property rules and have written
collaboration agreements and have more courses about intellectual safeguards," he said. "In the
1970s, Harvard adopted guidelines against U.S. intelligence trying to recruit foreign students
in an undercover way they didn't become standard practice [across academe, but], I still think
those guidelines are pertinent and colleges would do well to take a second look at them."
"In the idealistic dreamer mode, it would be wonderful if the U.N. or some other
organization would take a look at this issue, and say, 'Can we declare universities off-limits
to espionage?'"
Equating the presence and activities of US intelligence on campuses with that of foreign
intelligence is pretty obtuse moral relativism. US academia and US intelligence alike benefit
from cooperation, and the American people are the winners overall. By the way, is it really
necessary to twice describe this relationship as "cozy"? What does that mean, other to
suggest there's something illicit about it?
It'd be nice if American intelligence was paying a bit more attention to
what goes on in academic research--as far as I can tell, the country
keeps making policies that don't seem particularly well-informed by the
research in relevant areas. Can we get them to infiltrate more labs of
scientists working on climate change or something?
Maybe stick around, engage in some
participant observation and figure that research out? It's not clear they
have any acquaintance with the literature on the causes of war. Really,
pick a place to start, and pay attention.
If you cannot see how a gov't intelligence agency, prohibited from working in the USA by
statute and who is eye-deep in AMERICAN education is wrong, then I am worried. Read history.
Look back to the 1970's to start and to the 1950's with FBI and the military agents in
classrooms; then read about HUAC.
Now, look back to Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Mao, Mussolini
et.al
with THIER use of domestic agencies to impose lock-step thinking and to ferret out
free-thinkers.
Actually, I read quite a bit of history. I also know that US intelligence agencies are not
"prohibited from working in the USA." If they have relationships in academia that remind you
of Stalin, Hitler, etc., how have US agencies "imposed lock-step thinking and ferreted out
free-thinkers?" Hasn't seemed to work, has it? Your concern is overwrought.
"Cozy" might refer to the mutual gains afforded by allowing the federal government to
break many rules (and laws) while conducting their "intelligence operations" in academe. I do
not know if I felt Homeland Security should have had permission to bring to this country,
under false premises supported by ICE and accrediting agencies, thousands of foreign
nationals and employed them at companies like Facebook, Apple, Morgan Stanley and the U.S.
Army. While Homeland Security collected 16K tuition from each of them (and the companies that
hired these F-1s didn't have to pay FICA) all our nation got was arrests of 20 mid level visa
brokers.
Personally, I think cozy was quite complimentary as I would have chosen other words. Just
imagine if there are additional "undercover students" with false credentials in numbers
significant enough to throw off data or stopping universities and colleges from enforcing
rules and regulations. If you set up and accredit a "fake university" and keep the proceeds,
it strikes me as illicit.
And behaving as if the "the presence and activities of US intelligence on campuses" is
something to accept without question is also "obtuse moral relativism". We are talking about
an arrangement wherein a / the most prestigious institutions of higher learning has an
established relationship with the CIA along with some accepted protocol to ongoing
participation.
Whether it is right, wrong, or in between is another matter but please don't
pretend that it's just business as usual and not worthy of deeper investigation.
It is amazing how many biochemists and microbiologists from the People's Republic of China
would e-mail me asking if I had a position in my "lab," touting their bench skills, every
time I published a paper on the federal bioterrorism program, medical civic action programs,
etc.
Never mind that I primarily do health policy and economics work, and have not been near
a lab bench since I returned to school for my doctorate.....anything with a defense or
security application drew a flurry of interest in getting involved.
As a result, I tended to
be very discerning in who I took on as an advisee, if only to protect my security
clearance.
PAr for the course for both UG and grad students from China who have not paid a head
hunter. ANY school or program offering money to international students was flooded by such
inquiries. Get over yourself.
When I started teaching 48 years ago, the president of my college was James Dovonan, Bill
Donovan's (founder of the OSS) brother, portrayed by Tom Hanks in the movie, "Bridge of
Spies."
We had a program in "Tropical Architecture" which enrolled students form "third world"
countries. Rumor was -- --
When I got my Ph.D. from Harvard in 1968, the Shah of Iran got an honorary doctorate at
the same commencement. The next year, by pure coincidence!, he endowed three chairs of Near
Eastern Studies at H.U.
So glad to see they're on campus. Many young people now occupy the CIA; the old "cowboys"
of the Cold War past are gone. U may find this interesting>>
http://osintdaily.blogspot....
Hundreds of government civil servants attend courses at the Kennedy School every year.
That a few of them come from the CIA should be no surprise. It and all the other intelligence
agencies are nothing more than departments within the federal government, just like Veterans
Affairs, Health and Human Services, the FDA, Energy, and so on. Nothing sneaky or suspicious
about any of it. Why anyone with cover credentials would tell the Kennedy School admin that
is beyond me. When I was in cover status, I was in cover status everywhere; to not be was to
blow your cover, period, and was extremely dangerous.
Beyond NIH funded grant-based research, Homeland Security, Energy, Defense, and the
Intelligence Community agencies have long histories of relationships with American academia.
This could be funded research, collaborative research, shared personnel relationships, or all
other manner of cooperation. Sometimes it's fairly well known and sometimes it's kept quiet,
and sometimes it's even classified. But it is much more extensive and expansive than what
Golden describes, and much less "cozy" or suspicious.
For years I have said that it is foolish to look to universities for moral guidance, and
this story is one more instance. In this case, the moral ground is swampy at best, and the
universities do not appear to have spent a lot of time worrying about possible problems as
long as the situation works to their advantage financially.
The key, here, is financially. The bean counters and those whose research is funded don't
look hard at the source of the funding. Just so it keeps coming.
Does Golden discuss at all the way in which the CIA and other intelligence services funnel
money into academic research without the source of the funding ever being revealed? This was
common practice in the 1960s and 1970s, and colleges like MIT were among those involved in
this chicanery.
Remember also how intelligence agency money was behind the journal Encounter?
Lots of propaganda got distributed under the guise of objective social science research.
Where has IHE been for the past several decades? Read Rosenfeld's book, Subversives.....
about the FBI's illegal acts at Berkeley. Or read this, a summary of his book:
https://alumni.berkeley.edu... Or read George R. Stewart, The Year of the Oath.
In the
research for my biography of Stewart I found significant information about CIA presence on
the UC Berkeley campus, in the mid-twentieth century, which reached in to the highest levels
of the administration and led to a network of "professors" recruited by that unAmerican spy
agency.
The oaths, the current gender wars and the conviction by accusation of harassment are
all later attempts to politicize education and turn fiat lux into fiat nox. IHE should be
writing more about that and about the current conviction by sexual accusation, and the effect
of such on free thought and free inquiry.
McClatchy
points out, since March 2015 Judicial Watch has been engaged in a back and forth battle with
the National Archives which argues that "the documents should be kept secret [to preserve]
grand jury secrecy and Clinton's personal privacy."
Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that files Freedom of Information Act
requests, wants copies of the documents that the National Archives and Records Administration
has declined to release. It filed a FOIA request for the documents in March 2015 and in October
2015 the group sued for the 238 pages of responsive records.
According to Judicial Watch: " The National Archives argues that the documents should be
kept secret, citing grand jury secrecy and Clinton's personal privacy."
But Judicial Watch says that because so much about the Whitewater case has already been made
public, "there is no secrecy or privacy left to protect."
The documents in question are alleged drafts of indictments written by Hickman Ewing, the
chief deputy of Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel appointed to investigate Bill and
Hillary Clinton's alleged involvement in fraudulent real estate dealings dating back to the
70's.
Ewing told investigators he drafted the indictments in April 1995. According to Judicial
Watch, the documents pertain to allegations that Hillary Clinton provided false information and
withheld information from those investigating the Whitewater scandal.
Meanwhile, for those who haven't been alive long enough to remember some of the original
Clinton scandals dating back to the 1970's, the Whitewater scandal revolved around a series of
shady real estate deals in the Ozarks, not to mention a couple of illegal, federally-insured
loans, back when Bill was Governor of Arkansas.
Of course, like with all Clinton scandals, while several other people ended up in jail as a
result of the FBI's Whitewater investigation, Bill and Hillary emerged unscathed. Wikipedia
offers more details:
The Whitewater controversy, Whitewater scandal (or simply Whitewater), was an American
political episode of the 1990s that began with an investigation into the real estate
investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim McDougal and Susan McDougal,
in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a failed business venture in the 1970s and
1980s.
A March 1992 New York Times article published during the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign
reported that the Clintons, then governor and first lady of Arkansas, had invested and lost
money in the Whitewater Development Corporation. The article stimulated the interest of L. Jean
Lewis, a Resolution Trust Corporation investigator who was looking into the failure of Madison
Guaranty Savings and Loan, also owned by Jim and Susan McDougal.
Lewis looked for connections between the savings and loan company and the Clintons, and on
September 2, 1992, she submitted a criminal referral to the FBI naming Bill and Hillary Clinton
as witnesses in the Madison Guaranty case. Little Rock U.S. Attorney Charles A. Banks and the
FBI determined that the referral lacked merit, but Lewis continued to pursue the case. From
1992 to 1994, Lewis issued several additional referrals against the Clintons and repeatedly
called the U.S. Attorney's Office in Little Rock and the Justice Department regarding the case.
Her referrals eventually became public knowledge, and she testified before the Senate
Whitewater Committee in 1995.
David Hale, the source of criminal allegations against the Clintons, claimed in November
1993 that Bill Clinton had pressured him into providing an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan
McDougal, the Clintons' partner in the Whitewater land deal. The allegations were regarded as
questionable because Hale had not mentioned Clinton in reference to this loan during the
original FBI investigation of Madison Guaranty in 1989; only after coming under indictment
himself in 1993, did Hale make allegations against the Clintons. A U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission investigation resulted in convictions against the McDougals for their role in the
Whitewater project. Jim Guy Tucker, Bill Clinton's successor as governor, was convicted of
fraud and sentenced to four years of probation for his role in the matter. Susan McDougal
served 18 months in prison for contempt of court for refusing to answer questions relating to
Whitewater.
Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary were ever prosecuted, after three separate inquiries found
insufficient evidence linking them with the criminal conduct of others related to the land
deal.
Just more attempts to "criminalize behavior that is normal"...
"National Security" Will Prevail Again. Hillary's health and mental condition are at
risk.
Hillary/Diezapam 2020
Holy war? FFS people, this shit's straight out of the End of Days stories or numerous
religious, spiritual and philosophical belief systems. Yes, the war between good and evil is
real and evil has the upper hand at the moment. Greatly has the upper hand.
Edit and More Importantly, Andre Ward's announced his retirement from boxing Man was a
thing of beauty in the ring....
In 1999, nine years before the Calabrese interview, Zeifman told the Scripps-Howard news
agency: "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her." In a 2008 interview on "The
Neal Boortz Show," Zeifman was asked directly whether he fired her. His answer: "Well, let me
put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were ! we no
longer needed, and advised her that I would not ! could not recommend her for any further
positions."
They owned the property of what was most likely a drug smuggling operation in Paron,
Arkansas.
That property has ties with the Rose law firm in Little Rock , in which Hillary Rodham
Clinton was formerly a partner. While some observers believe the property was intended as an
additional presidential residence - the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, for example, reported it
was rumored to be a "White House West"; and contractors who worked on it whimsically tagged
it "Camp Chelsea" - there are strong indications something quite different might be taking
place in Paron
Simultaneous with this, residents said there was an increase in low-flying airplanes over
the property. Unlike the military aircraft that occasionally fly over the area, these were
"small Cessna-like" aircraft, according to Hill. He said the planes typically fly through a
pass in the Cockspur Mountains on Southeast's property, several miles from the main road.
"After the planes leave, 20 to 30 minutes will go by, and small trucks and Jeeps leave the
property at two different entrances," said Hill. He added that neighbors, during a flurry of
aircraft activity, had logged the details, which they then passed on to federal
authorities
The ones with Vince Foster's fingerprints on them?
" After nearly two years of searches and subpoenas, the White House said this evening that
it had unexpectedly discovered copies of missing documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's law
firm that describe her work for a failing savings and loan association in the 1980's.
"The mysterious appearance of the billing records, which had been the specific subject of
various nvestigative subpoenas for two year s, sparked intense interest about how they
surfaced and where they had been"
"But Whitewater investigators believe that the billing records show significant
representation. They argue that the records prove that Ms. Clinton was not only directly
involved in the representation of Madison, but more specifically, in providing legal work on
the fraudulent Castle Grande land deal."
"Investigators believe this suggests that, at some point, this copy was passed from Vince
Foster to Hillary Clinton for her review.
In addition, investigators had the FBI conduct fingerprint analysis of the billing
records. Of significance, the prints of Vince Foster and Hillary Clinton were found."
It is extremely unfortunate that criminal behavior is now considered normal! The Clintons
are responsible for that.
The Clintons were extremely guilty of Whitewater for profiteering on a failed real estate
deal at Arkansas' residents expense, in addition to dozens of other crimes! I often wonder
how life could be much better if the Clintons were never elected! The invasive and rampant
corruption in virtually every sector of our society, has made this country 100%
dysfunctional!
There had been criminal activity at the local level in government in some regions, but
Clinton nationalized it, and legitimized it. Nixon was impeached, and resigned, giving people
belief that nobody was above the law.
Now, Trump has not committed a single impeachable offense, and all that they ever talk
about is impeachment!
I recall reading that Starr had DNC loyalties. My guess is that Republicans were more
concerned with a President Gore, than a President Clinton.
Although Hillary Clinton has blamed numerous factors and people for her loss to Donald Trump in
last year's election, no one has received as much blame as the Russian government. In an effort to
avoid blaming the candidate herself by turning the election results into a national scandal, accusations
of Kremlin-directed meddling soon surfaced. While such accusations have largely been discredited
by both
computer analysts and
award-winning journalists like Seymour Hersh, they continue to be repeated as the
investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Russian government picks up steam.
However,
newly released Clinton emails suggest that that the former secretary of state's disdain for the
Russian government is a relatively new development. The emails, obtained by conservative watchdog
group Judicial Watch, show that the Russian government was included in invitations to exclusive Clinton
Foundation galas that began less than two months after Clinton became the top official at the U.S.
State Department.
In March of 2009, Amitabh Desai, then-Clinton Foundation director of foreign policy, sent invitations
to numerous world leaders, which included Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, then-Russian President
Dmitry Medvedev, and former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev. Desai's emails were
cc'd to Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro and later forwarded to top Clinton aide Jake
Sullivan.
The Clinton Foundation's activities during Hillary's tenure as secretary of state have been central
to the accusations that the Clinton family used their "charitable" foundation as a means of enriching
themselves via a massive "Pay to Play" scheme. Emails leaked by Wikileaks, particularly
the Podesta emails , offered
ample evidence connecting foreign donations to the Clintons and their foundation with preferential
treatment by the U.S. State Department.
"... My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers, teachers, engineers, etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For much of the twentieth century this class was in some tension with corporations, and used their skills at influencing government policy to help develop and protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere around 1970 I think this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and interests. ..."
"... This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed the whole newly enlarged New Class to swing to the right, since they really didn't particularly need the working class politically anymore. And since it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money while transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar community has been the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals, anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless private equity job cutting, etc., etc. all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic Party towards the right was a natural part of this evolution. ..."
"... They also sense that organized politics in this country – being chiefly the province of the New Class – has left them with little leverage to change any of this. ..."
"... the New Class has very strong internal solidarity – and since somebody has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside that class is "fair game." ..."
"... So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology of the New Class (neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly but opposed to non-meritocratic biases like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism", I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance and anger among the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class still controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for channeling lower-class anger and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled out. ..."
"... Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments are influenced will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class, and break its lock on the corridors of power, but I don't see it on the horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more about it. ..."
"... A little puzzled by the inclusion of teachers, alongside financiers and the like, in William Meyer's list of the New Class rulers. Enablers of those rulers, no doubt, but not visibly calling the shots. But then I'm probably just another liberal elitist failing to recognize my own hegemony, like Chris. ..."
"... I assume he meant certain professors [of economics]. Actually on @4, there's a good chapter on the topic in a Thomas Franks latest. ..."
Obviously Mr. Deerin is, on its face, utilizing a very disputable definition
of "liberal."
However, I think a stronger case could be made for something like Mr.
Deerin's argument, although it doesn't necessarily get to the same conclusion.
My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers,
teachers, engineers, etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For
much of the twentieth century this class was in some tension with corporations,
and used their skills at influencing government policy to help develop and
protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight
to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere
around 1970 I think this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and
professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and
interests.
Vive la meritocracy. This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed
the whole newly enlarged New Class to swing to the right, since they really
didn't particularly need the working class politically anymore. And since
it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money while
transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar
community has been the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals,
anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless private equity job cutting, etc., etc.
all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic Party towards
the right was a natural part of this evolution.
I think the 90% or so of the community who are not included in this class
are confused and bewildered and of course rather angry about it. They
also sense that organized politics in this country – being chiefly the province
of the New Class – has left them with little leverage to change any of this.
Watching the bailouts and lack of prosecutions during the GFC made
them dimly realize that the New Class has very strong internal solidarity
– and since somebody has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside
that class is "fair game."
So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology
of the New Class (neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly
but opposed to non-meritocratic biases like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism",
I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance and anger among
the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class
still controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for
channeling lower-class anger and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled
out.
Let me be clear, I'm not saying Donald Trump is leading an insurgency
against the New Class – but I think he tapped into something like one and
is riding it for all he can, while not really having the slightest idea
what he's doing.
Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments
are influenced will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class,
and break its lock on the corridors of power, but I don't see it on the
horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more about it.
A little puzzled by the inclusion of teachers, alongside financiers
and the like, in William Meyer's list of the New Class rulers. Enablers
of those rulers, no doubt, but not visibly calling the shots. But then I'm
probably just another liberal elitist failing to recognize my own hegemony,
like Chris.
"... My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers, teachers, engineers, etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For much of the twentieth century this class was in some tension with corporations, and used their skills at influencing government policy to help develop and protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere around 1970 I think this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and interests. ..."
"... This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed the whole newly enlarged New Class to swing to the right, since they really didn't particularly need the working class politically anymore. And since it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money while transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar community has been the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals, anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless private equity job cutting, etc., etc. all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic Party towards the right was a natural part of this evolution. ..."
"... They also sense that organized politics in this country – being chiefly the province of the New Class – has left them with little leverage to change any of this. ..."
"... the New Class has very strong internal solidarity – and since somebody has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside that class is "fair game." ..."
"... So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology of the New Class (neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly but opposed to non-meritocratic biases like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism", I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance and anger among the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class still controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for channeling lower-class anger and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled out. ..."
"... Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments are influenced will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class, and break its lock on the corridors of power, but I don't see it on the horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more about it. ..."
"... A little puzzled by the inclusion of teachers, alongside financiers and the like, in William Meyer's list of the New Class rulers. Enablers of those rulers, no doubt, but not visibly calling the shots. But then I'm probably just another liberal elitist failing to recognize my own hegemony, like Chris. ..."
"... I assume he meant certain professors [of economics]. Actually on @4, there's a good chapter on the topic in a Thomas Franks latest. ..."
Obviously Mr. Deerin is, on its face, utilizing a very disputable definition
of "liberal."
However, I think a stronger case could be made for something like Mr.
Deerin's argument, although it doesn't necessarily get to the same conclusion.
My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers,
teachers, engineers, etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For
much of the twentieth century this class was in some tension with corporations,
and used their skills at influencing government policy to help develop and
protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight
to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere
around 1970 I think this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and
professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and
interests.
Vive la meritocracy. This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed
the whole newly enlarged New Class to swing to the right, since they really
didn't particularly need the working class politically anymore. And since
it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money while
transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar
community has been the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals,
anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless private equity job cutting, etc., etc.
all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic Party towards
the right was a natural part of this evolution.
I think the 90% or so of the community who are not included in this class
are confused and bewildered and of course rather angry about it. They
also sense that organized politics in this country – being chiefly the province
of the New Class – has left them with little leverage to change any of this.
Watching the bailouts and lack of prosecutions during the GFC made
them dimly realize that the New Class has very strong internal solidarity
– and since somebody has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside
that class is "fair game."
So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology
of the New Class (neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly
but opposed to non-meritocratic biases like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism",
I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance and anger among
the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class
still controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for
channeling lower-class anger and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled
out.
Let me be clear, I'm not saying Donald Trump is leading an insurgency
against the New Class – but I think he tapped into something like one and
is riding it for all he can, while not really having the slightest idea
what he's doing.
Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments
are influenced will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class,
and break its lock on the corridors of power, but I don't see it on the
horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more about it.
A little puzzled by the inclusion of teachers, alongside financiers
and the like, in William Meyer's list of the New Class rulers. Enablers
of those rulers, no doubt, but not visibly calling the shots. But then I'm
probably just another liberal elitist failing to recognize my own hegemony,
like Chris.
"... "Those days are over when Ivanka can run in and lay her head on the desk and cry," he told multiple people. ..."
"... Mr. Bannon made little secret of the fact that he believed "Javanka," as he referred to the couple behind their backs, had naïve political instincts and were going to alienate Mr. Trump's core coalition of white working-class voters. ..."
"... He also advised that ideological softening would buy the president no good will from Democrats or independent voters, whom Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump believe Mr. Trump still has a chance of reaching. ..."
"... "They hate the very mention of his name," Mr. Bannon told them. "There is no constituency for this." ..."
"... His advice for the president: "You've got the base. And you grow the base by getting" things done. ..."
With little process to speak of, tensions over policy swelled. Ideological differences devolved
into caustic personality clashes. Perhaps nowhere was the mutual disgust thicker than between Mr.
Bannon and Mr. Trump's daughter and son-in-law.
Mr. Bannon openly complained to White House colleagues that he resented how Ms. Trump would try
to undo some of the major policy initiatives that he and Mr. Trump agreed were important to the president's
economic nationalist agenda, like withdrawing from the Paris climate accords. In this sense, he was
relieved when Mr. Kelly took over and put in place a structure that kept other aides from freelancing.
"Those days are over when Ivanka can run in and lay her head on the desk and cry," he told
multiple people.
Mr. Bannon made little secret of the fact that he believed "Javanka," as he referred to the
couple behind their backs, had naïve political instincts and were going to alienate Mr. Trump's core
coalition of white working-class voters.
He told White House colleagues including the president that too many conservative Republicans
in Congress would balk if Mr. Trump took their advice and showed more flexibility on immigration,
particularly toward young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children.
He also advised that ideological softening would buy the president no good will from Democrats
or independent voters, whom Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump believe Mr. Trump still has a chance of reaching.
"They hate the very mention of his name," Mr. Bannon told them. "There is no constituency
for this."
His advice for the president: "You've got the base. And you grow the base by getting" things done.
"... Update: The Palm Beach Post reported that Melgen's sentencing in a separate trial was abruptly postponed, fueling speculation he may be cooperating with authorities in the Menendez case. ..."
Observer
Allowing
public officials to remain in office while under indictment normalizes corruption
By
Michael Sainato
• 08/10/17 11:50am
Sen. Robert Menendez. Kena Betancur/Getty Images
In 2015, New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez was indicted on bribery charges. Prosecutors alleged
that he accepted nearly $1 million in bribes through campaign donations, vacations, and private
jet flights in return for doing political favors for a Florida optometrist, Salomon Melgen, a
co-defendant in the case. In April 2017, Melgen was found guilty of Medicare fraud. Menendez
pressed
Obama's Health and Human Services secretary for leniency in the case. In addition,
Menendez also tried to use his political influence to coerce U.S. officials to pressure the
Dominican Republic to benefit one of Melgen's companies. He also intervened in acquiring visas
for Melgen's foreign girlfriends. Since 2014, Menendez has
raised
$4.6 million for legal expenses and has continued to raise campaign funds for his
re-election bid in 2018.
Menendez first
won
election to the Senate in 2006. He was a
Hillary
Clinton
superdelegate in 2016 and
served
as her national campaign co-chair
during her failed 2008 presidential campaign.
On August 9, a federal judge
denied
Menendez's last chance to avoid a trial this September. His attorneys tried to argue
that his indictment should be overturned due to the Supreme Court
decision
that essentially normalized
corruption
by overturning former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's corruption conviction in June 2016. In the
ruling against Menendez, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Walls
wrote
, "Whether the acts alleged in the Superseding Indictment satisfy the definition of
an 'official act' under McDonnell is a factual determination that cannot be resolved before the
Government has the opportunity to present evidence at trial."
In addition to McDonnell's successful overturning of a corruption conviction, former New
York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver managed to have his
corruption
conviction
overturned
in July 2017 due to the Supreme Court's decision narrowing the definition of political
corruption, though federal prosecutors are working on re-trying the case. Former Congresswoman
Corinne Brown is currently undergoing efforts to have her
corruption
conviction from May 2017
overturned
.
This trend of permitting high-profile public officials to remain in elected office after
receiving federal indictments normalizes corruption. Civilians indicted on charges related to
their jobs are typically fired or forced to resign. Public officials should be held to even
higher standards than people in the private sector because they are accountable to their
constituents. Instead, standards of conduct have been deteriorating, leading to political
antipathy across the country because voters increasingly feel that public officials prioritize
their personal interests and those of their
wealthy donors
.
What kind of representation are constituents receiving when public officials behave in ways
where they have to worry about staying out of jail because of actions they took in office? As
American citizens, public officials have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty,
but constituents also have the right to unencumbered representation. Politicians should not be
allowed to act
above the law
and get away with it.
Update: The Palm Beach Post
reported
that Melgen's sentencing in a separate trial was abruptly postponed, fueling
speculation he may be cooperating with authorities in the Menendez case.
... Or would you claim that while Clinton, yes, is
a well-known money-grubbing scum, Kissinger and Nuland are statespersons, above reproach and
above suspicion?
Anyway, you heard it here first, at Unz Review. So what?
Meanwhile, remember this: "None dare call it treason."
"... While I respect the author for raising this topic, he seems to fall into "assessment of the Soviet Experiment" mode in a careless way. I realize I tend to repetition about this, but it is terribly misleading -- perhaps "disorienting" would be a better term -- to discuss theses questions without any reference to the tremendous impact external pressures -- call it "intersystemic conflict," "international conflict," whatever -- had on the course of the Soviet Union's development. While it could be argued that capitalist economies also faced external pressures, that would miss the question of how such pressures impact on a society in the process of formation ..."
"... Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the choice ..."
"... What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves. ..."
"... It's obvious that people can enjoyably engage in cooperative behavior, but if they can do so under a barrage is another matter. The one thing that we can be certain of is that if capitalist elites aren't thoroughly demoralized they will do whatever they can to 'prove' TINA. ..."
"... West had spent several billion dollars in cash to bribe significant portions of the Soviet elite (Soros, via his foundation, was especially active). And large part of the elite war already poisoned by neoliberalism and wanted to become rich. So while pre-conditions for the collapse of the USSR were internal (communist ideology was actually discredited in early 70th; economic stagnation started around the same time, Communist Party leadership completely degraded and became a joke in 80th ), external pressures and subversive activity played the role of catalyst that made the process irreversible. ..."
While I respect the author for raising this topic, he seems to fall into "assessment of
the Soviet Experiment" mode in a careless way. I realize I tend to repetition about this, but
it is terribly misleading -- perhaps "disorienting" would be a better term -- to discuss theses
questions without any reference to the tremendous impact external pressures -- call it "intersystemic
conflict," "international conflict," whatever -- had on the course of the Soviet Union's development.
While it could be argued that capitalist economies also faced external pressures, that would miss
the question of how such pressures impact on a society in the process of formation .
We're talking about questions of constrained path dependence of a fundamental order that the experimentalist
mode of thinking misses. Etc, etc.
Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the
choice by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of developing
a transitional program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy under market socialism.
What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over
was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the
elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves.
While it is essential to try to determine the viability of alternative economic systems in
comparison what we've got now, doing so without taking into account the tremendously destructive
opposition a transition would face is, in a way, to blithely continue on in a "Soviet Experiment"
mentality.
It's obvious that people can enjoyably engage in cooperative behavior, but if they can
do so under a barrage is another matter. The one thing that we can be certain of is that if capitalist
elites aren't thoroughly demoralized they will do whatever they can to 'prove' TINA.
I was a little confused by this comment. I'm not opposed to looking at the impact
of external pressures, but I am opposed to treating them as monocausal.
Your preferred pattern of historical explanation shifts during the course of your comment.
When discussing the USSR in the process of formation, you concentrate on bringing out external
pressures and therefore considering the choices of the leadership as highly constrained. When
discussing the collapse of the Soviet Union, you instead stress the choices of the leadership
elite to "seize an opportunity to enrich themselves."
I'm not even sure why you would assume that your thesis about the elite choosing to engage
in looting is opposed to anything that I'm saying.
I agree with you on is that it is possible to think both about what a self-sustaining better
society might look like, and also the extent to which it's hard to get there within the constraints
of current power structures. They are not the same question, and I think both are worth pondering.
"Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the choice
by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of developing a transitional
program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy under market socialism.
What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over
was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the
elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves. "
West had spent several billion dollars in cash to bribe significant portions of the Soviet
elite (Soros, via his foundation, was especially active). And large part of the elite war already
poisoned by neoliberalism and wanted to become rich. So while pre-conditions for the collapse
of the USSR were internal (communist ideology was actually discredited in early 70th; economic
stagnation started around the same time, Communist Party leadership completely degraded and became
a joke in 80th ), external pressures and subversive activity played the role of catalyst that
made the process irreversible.
The fact that neoliberalism was rising at the time means that this was the worst possible time
for the USSR to implement drastic economic reforms and sure mediocre politicians like Gorbachev
quickly lost control of the process. With some important help of the West.
The subsequent economic rape of Russia was incredibly brutal and most probably well coordinated
by the famous three letter agencies: CIA (via USAID and "Harvard mafia") ) and MI6 and their German
and French counterparts. See
Brain drain, especially to the USA and Israel was simply incredible. Which, while good for
professionals leaving (although tales of Russian Ph.D swiping malls are not uncommon, especially
in Israel ) , who can earn much better money abroad, is actually another form of neocolonialism
for the countries affected:
It was a tragically missed opportunity to try genuine socialism. Instead of essentially selling
the state enterprises to the Mafia, they could have been GIVEN, probably broken up, to the workers
in them. It would have been instant worker-owned, market regulated – what? We don't have a familiar
name for it, but it might be what Marx meant by "socialism."
Ironically, the Bolsheviks first set up such co-operatives, called soviets, but soon seized
them in favor of state ownership. End of the socialist experiment. It's quite possible they were
far more Russian than Marxist.
The US economy hit a wall in the 70s. Instead of readjusting internally, it used its reserve
currency and global exploitation to gain an extra few decades of consumerism. If exploitation
is acceptable, then we could say that capitalism wins. However, capitalism will work until there
is nothing left to exploit.
In the meantime, the USSR was set up in a way where it could not follow
IMO, left leaning theoretical communism would have trouble surviving when in competition with
a system based on short-termism such as capitalism. This competition against short-termism would
force the communist country to turn into a form of fascism just to stop the opportunists which
happen to have the skills from defecting.
While in the Peace Corps serving in Africa (after 2010), I had a former military doctor (originally
from Moldavia) who I'd see due to ongoing health issues. He served in Angola as a doctor during
the civil wars and had pictures of the people he helped who were injured in the war. He was hands
down the most competent doctor I saw who was employed by the PC. This was by a wide margin of
competence too. I had not illusions about the Peace Corps and it purpose (to put the kind face
on US empire?). We'd talk quite a bit, and he was still bitter about the collapse of the Soviet
Union, and Gorbachev who he blamed for its demise, due to the lower standards of living and hardships
now faced by many in the Eastern bloc and in Russia itself. In all honesty, though I identify
with the far Left, this was new to me since I never realized that anyone would long for those
days since all I ever heard about as a youth (due to propaganda of course) was about long bread
lines and the gray world of the lives of those in the Soviet Union. Kukezel's comments above,
and other information I have gained over the time had somewhat expanded my ideas and understanding
regarding the system, as have my growing understanding of just how unjust our system in the US
is becoming more unjust year after year.
I am not knowledgeable enough, possibly not smart enough, to understand the finer points of
the discussion here concerning Marx, but I do think it possible for we as a species to create
better systems to organize our world other than one predicated on the profit motive. Besides being
unsustainable in a world of finite resources and the possibility that we humans will destroy the
possibility to exist, we need to creatively try new forms of organization. The problem with the
concentration of power of present day capitalism is that it seems so adaptable to new ways to
effectively change. I know some Marx but am limited, but he was very impressed with capitalism's
way to adapt to preserve itself.
Unfortunately, at times I become too cynical about the ability of the human species intellect
and abitlity to go beyond short-term solutions. We just may not be able to get past our limitations
as a creature. In short, I just don't know if we are smart enough to do what is best for survival.
Like my Peace Corps doctor, I too sometimes wax nostalgic for a past that will never return, back
to the sixties when it seemed the distribution of wealth was more egalitarian, unions brought
about some economic justice, and the concentration of power and wealth was not so dramatic as
it is today. I just never know if I was too blind, or deluded, at the time to see that maybe those
weren't actually better times in that the system itself was built upon the same exploitation has
existed in all of US history. So all this good discussion at times brings me back to the question–is
our historical evolution not far enough along a continuum for us to change before it is too late?
That's a bummer of a thought, I know, but the present political manifestations keep blunting any
optimism I still possess.
I too sometimes wax nostalgic for a past that will never return, back to the sixties when
it seemed the distribution of wealth was more egalitarian, unions brought about some economic
justice, and the concentration of power and wealth was not so dramatic as it is today.
That was "white priveledge" back then. It's passing is what led to Trump and the epidemic of
homelessness.
"... After the processes of industrialization and urbanization had completely, there was nowhere for the economy to go, and the low growth combined with the ossification of bureacratic structures and the entrenchment of the World War II generation in power meant a lack of job opportunities. All of this contributed to the malaise that killed productivity and increased alcoholism, creating a self-feedback loop. Yeltsin and his cronies calculated that if the USSR transitioned to a capitalist economy, they stood to make a lot of money, so they met in secret and agreed to its dissolution. The public wanted reform, but they didn't want full-blown capitalism, certainly not of the variety Russia saw in the 90's. ..."
"... Especially considering the fact that Marx was arguably the greatest thinker of the modern era and his contributions were not at all limited to the 'isms' that people fought for in his name, I think a much better topic for a post would have been "common Cold War misconceptions about Russia and Marxism." ..."
I would rather live in Cuba than in Haiti, and the country's economic performance is all
the more impressive considering the economic warfare wrought upon it by the US.
48% of Russians regret the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the second largest political
party in Russia after Putin's is the Communist Party (article from The Nation circa 2012).
And this isn't a political party claiming to bring about a new socialist society but rather
one that promises to bring back the communism of the Brezhnev era.
Russia was a backwards country at the beginning of World War I and saw its industry
annihilated by the war. The peace treaty ceded its industrial heartlands, and then it was
ripped apart by the civil war of the 1920's. But this didn't compare to World War II, which
wiped out an entire generation of Russians.
Yet within 12 years of the war's end, they were the first to put an object into space, and
four years later they were the first to put a human into orbit. They Americans, who had been
unscathed by the war, were blessed with nearly unlimited natural resources and had the most
powerful economy and military in in history, saw their attempt blow up on the launchpad.
At this time in America, people actually thought socialism might win out. The Soviets
certainly thought so. In the first two decades after World War II, their economy was probably
the fastest growing in history. They were so confident that their system was superior that
they assumed they could beat the American capitalists in every way, including providing the
general populace with consumer goods. This promise, made during the "Kitchen Debates" and
throughout the 60's and 70's, when the government officially embraced consumerism, was a
horrible miscalculation that eventually contributed greatly to the public's discontent with
the regime.
After the processes of industrialization and urbanization had completely, there was
nowhere for the economy to go, and the low growth combined with the ossification of
bureacratic structures and the entrenchment of the World War II generation in power meant a
lack of job opportunities. All of this contributed to the malaise that killed productivity
and increased alcoholism, creating a self-feedback loop. Yeltsin and his cronies calculated
that if the USSR transitioned to a capitalist economy, they stood to make a lot of money, so
they met in secret and agreed to its dissolution. The public wanted reform, but they didn't
want full-blown capitalism, certainly not of the variety Russia saw in the 90's.
Especially considering the fact that Marx was arguably the greatest thinker of the modern
era and his contributions were not at all limited to the 'isms' that people fought for in his
name, I think a much better topic for a post would have been "common Cold War misconceptions
about Russia and Marxism."
This is supposed to be a heterodox economics blog but it's always from the Keynesian
perspective and never from the Marxist. Considering Keynes's thoughts on the Labour Party,
for one, I think more perspectives are needed in informing discussion on how to approach
questions of social justice. Marxian economists predicted the crisis just as well as the
Keynesians. Let's listen.
"... "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" ..."
"... Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: " Russia intervened and decided the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate of 'Deploralandia'. ..."
"... Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI, and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger or footprints. ..."
"... Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million more! ..."
"... Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen! ..."
"... Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph. There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with progressives to bolt the party. ..."
"... This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary. ..."
"... Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.) ..."
"... Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then he travels to Europe for more paid speeches. ..."
"... They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering in full flower throughout his second term. ..."
"... Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act ..."
Over the past quarter century progressive writers, activists and academics have followed a trajectory
from left to right – with each presidential campaign seeming to move them further to the right. Beginning
in the 1990's progressives mobilized millions in opposition to wars, voicing demands for the transformation
of the US's corporate for-profit medical system into a national 'Medicare For All' public
program. They condemned the notorious Wall Street swindlers and denounced police state legislation
and violence. But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who
pursued the exact opposite agenda.
Over time this political contrast between program and practice led to the transformation of the
Progressives. And what we see today are US progressives embracing and promoting the politics of the
far right.
To understand this transformation we will begin by identifying who and what the progressives are
and describe their historical role. We will then proceed to identify their trajectory over the recent
decades.
We will outline the contours of recent Presidential campaigns where Progressives were deeply
involved.
We will focus on the dynamics of political regression: From resistance to submission, from
retreat to surrender.
We will conclude by discussing the end result: The Progressives' large-scale, long-term embrace
of far-right ideology and practice.
Progressives by Name and Posture
Progressives purport to embrace 'progress', the growth of the economy, the enrichment of society
and freedom from arbitrary government. Central to the Progressive agenda was the end of elite corruption
and good governance, based on democratic procedures.
Progressives prided themselves as appealing to 'reason, diplomacy and conciliation', not brute
force and wars. They upheld the sovereignty of other nations and eschewed militarism and armed intervention.
Progressives proposed a vision of their fellow citizens pursuing incremental evolution toward
the 'good society', free from the foreign entanglements, which had entrapped the people in unjust
wars.
Progressives in Historical Perspective
In the early part of the 20th century, progressives favored political equality while opposing
extra-parliamentary social transformations. They supported gender equality and environmental preservation
while failing to give prominence to the struggles of workers and African Americans.
They denounced militarism 'in general' but supported a series of 'wars to end all wars'
. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home
and bloody imperial wars overseas. By the middle of the 20th century, different strands emerged
under the progressive umbrella. Progressives split between traditional good government advocates
and modernists who backed socio-economic reforms, civil liberties and rights.
Progressives supported legislation to regulate monopolies, encouraged collective bargaining and
defended the Bill of Rights.
Progressives opposed wars and militarism in theory until their government went to war.
Lacking an effective third political party, progressives came to see themselves as the 'left
wing' of the Democratic Party, allies of labor and civil rights movements and defenders of civil
liberties.
Progressives joined civil rights leaders in marches, but mostly relied on legal and
electoral means to advance African American rights.
Progressives played a pivotal role in fighting McCarthyism, though ultimately it was the Secretary
of the Army and the military high command that brought Senator McCarthy to his knees.
Progressives provided legal defense when the social movements disrupted the House UnAmerican Activities
Committee.
They popularized the legislative arguments that eventually outlawed segregation, but it was courageous
Afro-American leaders heading mass movements that won the struggle for integration and civil rights.
In many ways the Progressives complemented the mass struggles, but their limits were defined by
the constraints of their membership in the Democratic Party.
The alliance between Progressives and social movements peaked in the late sixties to mid-1970's
when the Progressives followed the lead of dynamic and advancing social movements and community organizers
especially in opposition to the wars in Indochina and the military draft.
The Retreat of the Progressives
By the late 1970's the Progressives had cut their anchor to the social movements, as the anti-war,
civil rights and labor movements lost their impetus (and direction).
The numbers of progressives within the left wing of the Democratic Party increased through recruitment
from earlier social movements. Paradoxically, while their 'numbers' were up, their caliber had declined,
as they sought to 'fit in' with the pro-business, pro-war agenda of their President's party.
Without the pressure of the 'populist street' the 'Progressives-turned-Democrats' adapted
to the corporate culture in the Party. The Progressives signed off on a fatal compromise: The corporate
elite secured the electoral party while the Progressives were allowed to write enlightened manifestos
about the candidates and their programs . . . which were quickly dismissed once the Democrats took
office. Yet the ability to influence the 'electoral rhetoric' was seen by the Progressives as a sufficient
justification for remaining inside the Democratic Party.
Moreover the Progressives argued that by strengthening their presence in the Democratic Party,
(their self-proclaimed 'boring from within' strategy), they would capture the party membership,
neutralize the pro-corporation, militarist elements that nominated the president and peacefully transform
the party into a 'vehicle for progressive changes'.
Upon their successful 'deep penetration' the Progressives, now cut off from the increasingly disorganized
mass social movements, coopted and bought out many prominent black, labor and civil liberty activists
and leaders, while collaborating with what they dubbed the more malleable 'centrist' Democrats.
These mythical creatures were really pro-corporate Democrats who condescended to occasionally converse
with the Progressives while working for the Wall Street and Pentagon elite.
The Retreat of the Progressives: The Clinton Decade
Progressives adapted the 'crab strategy': Moving side-ways and then backwards but never forward.
Progressives mounted candidates in the Presidential primaries, which were predictably defeated
by the corporate Party apparatus, and then submitted immediately to the outcome. The election of
President 'Bill' Clinton launched a period of unrestrained financial plunder, major wars of aggression
in Europe (Yugoslavia) and the Middle East (Iraq), a military intervention in Somalia and secured
Israel's victory over any remnant of a secular Palestinian leadership as well as its destruction
of Lebanon!
Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent
over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act, thereby opening
the floodgates for massive speculation on Wall Street through the previously regulated banking sector.
When President Clinton gutted welfare programs, forcing single mothers to take minimum-wage jobs
without provision for safe childcare, millions of poor white and minority women were forced to abandon
their children to dangerous makeshift arrangements in order to retain any residual public support
and access to minimal health care. Progressives looked the other way.
Progressives followed Clinton's deep throated thrust toward the far right, as he outsourced manufacturing
jobs to Mexico (NAFTA) and re-appointed Federal Reserve's free market, Ayn Rand-fanatic, Alan Greenspan.
Progressives repeatedly kneeled before President Clinton marking their submission to the Democrats'
'hard right' policies.
The election of Republican President G. W. Bush (2001-2009) permitted Progressive's to temporarily
trot out and burnish their anti-war, anti-Wall Street credentials. Out in the street, they protested
Bush's savage invasion of Iraq (but not the destruction of Afghanistan). They protested the media
reports of torture in Abu Ghraib under Bush, but not the massive bombing and starvation of millions
of Iraqis that had occurred under Clinton. Progressives protested the expulsion of immigrants from
Mexico and Central America, but were silent over the brutal uprooting of refugees resulting from
US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the systematic destruction of their nations' infrastructure.
Progressives embraced Israel's bombing, jailing and torture of Palestinians by voting unanimously
in favor of increasing the annual $3 billion dollar military handouts to the brutal Jewish State.
They supported Israel's bombing and slaughter in Lebanon.
Progressives were in retreat, but retained a muffled voice and inconsequential vote in favor of
peace, justice and civil liberties. They kept a certain distance from the worst of the police state
decrees by the Republican Administration.
Progressives and Obama: From Retreat to Surrender
While Progressives maintained their tepid commitment to civil liberties, and their highly 'leveraged'
hopes for peace in the Middle East, they jumped uncritically into the highly choreographed Democratic
Party campaign for Barack Obama, 'Wall Street's First Black President'.
Progressives had given up their quest to 'realign' the Democratic Party 'from within':
they turned from serious tourism to permanent residency. Progressives provided the foot soldiers
for the election and re-election of the warmongering 'Peace Candidate' Obama. After the election,
Progressives rushed to join the lower echelons of his Administration. Black and white politicos joined
hands in their heroic struggle to erase the last vestiges of the Progressives' historical legacy.
Obama increased the number of Bush-era imperial wars to attacking seven weak nations under American's
'First Black' President's bombardment, while the Progressives ensured that the streets were quiet
and empty.
When Obama provided trillions of dollars of public money to rescue Wall Street and the bankers,
while sacrificing two million poor and middle class mortgage holders, the Progressives only criticized
the bankers who received the bailout, but not Obama's Presidential decision to protect and reward
the mega-swindlers.
Under the Obama regime social inequalities within the United States grew at an unprecedented rate.
The Police State Patriot Act was massively extended to give President Obama the power to order the
assassination of US citizens abroad without judicial process. The Progressives did not resign when
Obama's 'kill orders' extended to the 'mistaken' murder of his target's children and other family
member, as well as unidentified bystanders. The icon carriers still paraded their banner of the
'first black American President' when tens of thousands of black Libyans and immigrant workers
were slaughtered in his regime-change war against President Gadhafi.
Obama surpassed the record of all previous Republican office holders in terms of the massive numbers
of immigrant workers arrested and expelled – 2 million. Progressives applauded the Latino protestors
while supporting the policies of their 'first black President'.
Progressive accepted that multiple wars, Wall Street bailouts and the extended police state were
now the price they would pay to remain part of the "Democratic coalition' (sic).
The deeper the Progressives swilled at the Democratic Party trough, the more they embraced the
Obama's free market agenda and the more they ignored the increasing impoverishment, exploitation
and medical industry-led opioid addiction of American workers that was shortening their lives. Under
Obama, the Progressives totally abandoned the historic American working class, accepting their degradation
into what Madam Hillary Clinton curtly dismissed as the 'deplorables'.
With the Obama Presidency, the Progressive retreat turned into a rout, surrendering with one flaccid
caveat: the Democratic Party 'Socialist' Bernie Sanders, who had voted 90% of the time with the Corporate
Party, had revived a bastardized military-welfare state agenda.
Sander's Progressive demagogy shouted and rasped on the campaign trail, beguiling the young electorate.
The 'Bernie' eventually 'sheep-dogged' his supporters into the pro-war Democratic Party corral.
Sanders revived an illusion of the pre-1990 progressive agenda, promising resistance while demanding
voter submission to Wall Street warlord Hillary Clinton. After Sanders' round up of the motley progressive
herd, he staked them tightly to the far-right Wall Street war mongering Hillary Clinton. The Progressives
not only embraced Madame Secretary Clinton's nuclear option and virulent anti-working class agenda,
they embellished it by focusing on Republican billionaire Trump's demagogic, nationalist, working
class rhetoric which was designed to agitate 'the deplorables'. They even turned on the working
class voters, dismissing them as 'irredeemable' racists and illiterates or 'white trash' when
they turned to support Trump in massive numbers in the 'fly-over' states of the central US.
Progressives, allied with the police state, the mass media and the war machine worked to defeat
and impeach Trump. Progressives surrendered completely to the Democratic Party and started to advocate
its far right agenda. Hysterical McCarthyism against anyone who questioned the Democrats' promotion
of war with Russia, mass media lies and manipulation of street protest against Republican elected
officials became the centerpieces of the Progressive agenda. The working class and farmers had disappeared
from their bastardized 'identity-centered' ideology.
Guilt by association spread throughout Progressive politics. Progressives embraced J. Edgar Hoover's
FBI tactics: "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian
banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" For progressives, 'Russia-gate'
defined the real focus of contemporary political struggle in this huge, complex, nuclear-armed superpower.
Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: "Russia intervened and decided
the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted
against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference
was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected
Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly
elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate
of 'Deploralandia'.
Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI,
and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger
or footprints.
The Progressives' far right - turn earned them hours and space on the mass media as long
as they breathlessly savaged and insulted President Trump and his family members. When they managed
to provoke him into a blind rage . . . they added the newly invented charge of 'psychologically
unfit to lead' – presenting cheap psychobabble as grounds for impeachment. Finally! American
Progressives were on their way to achieving their first and only political transformation: a Presidential
coup d'état on behalf of the Far Right!
Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement
and betrayal!
In return, President Trump began to 'out-militarize' the Progressives by escalating US involvement
in the Middle East and South China Sea. They swooned with joy when Trump ordered a missile strike
against the Syrian government as Damascus engaged in a life and death struggle against mercenary
terrorists. They dubbed the petulant release of Patriot missiles 'Presidential'.
Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over
2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million
more!
Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained
when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives
out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They
chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's
embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions
of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological
weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen!
Conclusion
Progressives turned full circle from supporting welfare to embracing Wall Street; from preaching
peaceful co-existence to demanding a dozen wars; from recognizing the humanity and rights of undocumented
immigrants to their expulsion under their 'First Black' President; from thoughtful mass media critics
to servile media megaphones; from defenders of civil liberties to boosters for the police state;
from staunch opponents of J. Edgar Hoover and his 'dirty tricks' to camp followers for the 'intelligence
community' in its deep state campaign to overturn a national election.
Progressives moved from fighting and resisting the Right to submitting and retreating; from retreating
to surrendering and finally embracing the far right.
Doing all that and more within the Democratic Party, Progressives retain and deepen their ties
with the mass media, the security apparatus and the military machine, while occasionally digging
up some Bernie Sanders-type demagogue to arouse an army of voters away from effective resistance
to mindless collaboration.
But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who pursued
the exact opposite agenda.
Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph.
There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave
us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with
progressives to bolt the party.
This piece accurately traces the path from Progressive to Maoist. It's a pity the Republican
Party is also a piece of shit. I think it was Sara Palin who said "We have two parties. Pick one."
This should be our collective epitaph.
This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist
fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary.
"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as
appeasement and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats)
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
The great Jimmy Dore is a big thorn for the Democrats. From my blog:
Apr 29, 2017 – Obama is Scum!
Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during
eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported
by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read
about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which
can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless
presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money
up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and
speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.)
Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering
the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign
for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation
this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then
he travels to Europe for more paid speeches.
Obama gets over $200,000 a year in retirement, just got a $65 million deal, so doesn't need
more money. Why would a multi-millionaire ex-president fly around the globe collecting huge speaking
fees from world corporations just after his political party was devastated in elections because
Americans think the Democratic party represents Wall Street? The great Jimmy Dore expressed his
outrage at Obama and the corrupt Democratic party in this great video.
Left in the good old days meant socialist, socialist meant that governments had the duty of
redistributing income from rich to poor. Alas in Europe, after 'socialists' became pro EU and
pro globalisation, they in fact became neoliberal. Both in France and the Netherlands 'socialist'
parties virtually disappeared.
So what nowadays is left, does anyone know ?
Then the word 'progressive'. The word suggests improvement, but what is improvement, improvement
for whom ? There are those who see the possibility for euthanasia as an improvement, there are
thos who see euthanasia as a great sin.
Discussions about left and progressive are meaningless without properly defining the concepts.
They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious
chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering
in full flower throughout his second term. But, hey, the brother now has five mansions, collects
half a mill per speech to the Chosen People on Wall Street, and parties for months at a time at
exclusive resorts for billionaires only.
Obviously, he's got the world by the tail and you don't. Hope he comes to the same end as Gaddaffi
and Ceaușescu. Maybe the survivors of nuclear Armageddon can hold a double necktie party with
Killary as the second honored guest that day.
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home
and bloody imperial wars overseas.
You left out the other Roosevelt.
Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party
bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act
Hilarious!
Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump
for promising to eventually expel 5 million more!
so it's not just conservative conspiracy theory stuff as some might argue.
Still, the overall point of this essay isn't affected all that much. Open borders is still
a "right wing" (in the sense this author uses the term) policy–pro-Wall Street, pro-Big Business.
So Obama was still doing the bidding of the donor class in their quest for cheap labor.
I've seen pro-immigration types try to use the Obama-deportation thing to argue that we don't
need more hardcore policies. After all, even the progressive Democrat Obama was on the ball when
it came to policing our borders, right?! Who needed Trump?
@Carlton Meyer If Jimmy keeps up these attacks on Wall Street, the Banksters, and rent-seekers
he is going to get run out of the Progressive movement for dog-whistling virulent Anti-Semitism.
Look at how the media screams at Trump every time he mentions Wall Street and the banks.
Mr. Petra has penned an excellent and very astute piece. Allow me a little satire on our progressive
friends, entitled "The path to hell is paved with good intentions".
The early socialist/progressive travellers were well-intentioned but naïve in their understanding
of human nature and fanatical about their agenda. To move the human herd forward, they had no
compulsions about resorting to harsher and harsher prodding and whipping. They felt entitled to
employ these means because, so they were convinced, man has to be pushed to move forward and they,
the "progressives", were the best qualified to lead the herd. Scoundrels, psychopaths, moral defectives,
and sundry other rascals then joined in the whipping game, some out of the sheer joy of wielding
the whip, others to better line their pockets.
So the "progressive" journey degenerates into a forced march. The march becomes the progress,
becoming both the means and the end at the same time. Look at the so-called "progressive" today
and you will see the fanatic and the whip-wielder, steadfast about the correctness of his beliefs.
Tell him/her/it that you are a man or a woman and he retorts "No, you are free to choose, you
are genderless". What if you decline such freedom? "Well, then you are a bigot, we will thrash
you out of your bigotry", replies the progressive. "May I, dear Sir/Madam/Whatever, keep my hard-earned
money in my pocket for my and my family's use" you ask. "No, you first have to pay for our peace-making
wars, then pay for the upkeep of refugees, besides which you owe a lot of back taxes that are
necessary to run this wonderful Big Government of ours that is leading you towards greener and
greener pastures", shouts back the progressive.
Fed up, disgusted, and a little scared, you desperately seek a way out of this progress. "No
way", scream the march leaders. "We will be forever in your ears, sometimes whispering, sometimes
screaming; we will take over your brain to improve your mind; we will saturate you with images
on the box 24/7 and employ all sorts of imagery to make you progress. And if it all fails, we
will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables and forget about you at election
time."
Knowing who is "progressive" and know who is "far-right" is like knowing who is "fascist" and
who is not. For obvious historical reasons, the Russian like to throw the "fascist" slogan against
anyone who is a non-Russian nationalist. However, I accept the eminent historian Carroll Quigley's
definition of fascism as the incorporation of society and the state onto single entity on a permanent
war footing. The state controls everything in a radically authoritarian social structure. As Quigley
states, the Soviet Union was the most complete embodiment of fascism in WWII. In WWII Germany,
on the other hand, industry retained its independence and in WWII Italy fascism was no more than
an empty slogan.
Same for "progressives". Everyone wants to be "progressive", right? Who wants to be "anti-progressive"?
However, at the end of the day, "progressive" through verbal slights of hand has been nothing
more than a euphemism for "socialist" or, in the extreme, "communist" the verbal slight-of-hand
because we don't tend to use the latter terms in American political discourse.
"Progressives" morphing into a new "far-right" in America is no more mysterious than the Soviet
Union morphing from Leninism to Stalinism or, the Jewish (Trotskyite) globalists fleeing Stalinist
nationalism and then morphing into, first, "Scoop" Jackson Democrats and then into Bushite Republicans.
As you might notice, the real issue is the authoritarian vs. the non-authoritarian state. In
this context, an authoritarian government and social order (as in communism and neoconservatism)
are practical pre-requisites necessity to force humanity to transition to their New World Order.
Again, the defining characteristic of fascism is the unitary state enforced via an authoritarian
political and social structure. Ideological rigor is enforced via the police powers of the state
along with judicial activism and political correctness. Ring a bell?
In the ongoing contest between Trump and the remnants of the American "progressive" movement,
who are the populists and who the authoritarians? Who are the democrats and who are the fascists?
I would say that who lands where in this dichotomy is obvious.
@Alfa158 Is Jimmy Dore really a "Progressive?" (and what does that mean, anyway?) Isn't Jimmy's
show hosted by the Young Turks Network, which is unabashedly Libertarian?
Anyway, what's so great about "the Progressive movement?" Seems to me, they're just pathetic
sheepdogs for the war-crazed Dems. Jimmy should be supporting the #UNRIG movement ("Beyond Trump
& Sanders") for ALL Americans:
On 1 May 2017 Cynthia McKinney, Ellen Brown, and Robert Steele launched
Petras, for some reason, low balls the number of people ejected from assets when the mafia
came to seize real estate in the name of the ruling class and their expensive wars, morality,
the Constitution or whatever shit they could make up to fuck huge numbers of people over. Undoubtedly
just like 9/11, the whole thing was planned in advance. Political whores are clearly useless when
the system is at such extremes.
Banks like Capital One specialize in getting a signature and "giving" a car loan to someone
they know won't be able to pay, but is simply being used, shaken down and repossessed for corporate
gain. " No one held a gun to their head! " Get ready, the police state will in fact put a gun
to your head.
Depending on the time period in question, which might be the case here, more than 20 million
people were put out of homes and/or bankrupted with more to come. Clearly a bipartisan effort
featuring widespread criminal conduct across the country – an attack on the population to sustain
militarism.
If I may add:
"and you also have to dearly pay for you being white male heterosexual for oppressing all colored,
all the women and all the sexually different through the history".
"And if it all fails, we will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables
and forget about you at election time. If we see that you still don't get with the program we
will reeducate you. Should you resist that in any way we'll incarcerate you. And, no, normal legal
procedure does not work with racists/bigots/haters/whatever we don't like".
"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement
and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats)
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House
UnAmerican Activities Committee
which itself was a progressive invention. There was no "right wing" anywhere in sight when
it was estsblished in 1938.
Putin's biggest mistake was not creating the fake two party system. America has given the world many gifts, and our system
of party politics is one of the best for maintaining control of a large nation. If Vlad had followed this advice, and created
the real illusion of democracy in Russia, the West would have found him much harder to oppose.
Article is by Gessen, and clearly biased against Russia, but I think the idea is still a good one.
Putin has arguably aged badly as a leader, and considers himself too indispensable, much like Jiang Zemin in China. Though
by Russian standards, he's the best since Alexander II.
Dutch disease is another mark against Russia, which Putin hasn't done much about, and which arguably makes them more dependent
on the West (and possibly China) than they should be.
The article above also doesn't mention Larry Summers, which is a profound insight to which particular businessmen got away
with it.
"... Start at 2:25. Chris Hayes to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" Note Swalwell's carefully phrased non-answers, as well as Hayes' seeming failure to know that not registering is a very common practice. (If video doesn't play in your browser, go here and listen, again starting at 2:25.) ..."
"... The big story is that these chicken-little stories all seam to serve as cover for the bought-and-paid for chicken little politicians ..while those elected politicians who give a damp about their office and those they represent are sidelined. ..."
"... And why do you thing tyrants, despots, emirs and dictators generously donated so much to the phoney Foundation? Because they wanted to further its good works, just like the Saudis are very worried about AIDS prevention? No, they wanted to buy influence. And Clinton gave them what they wanted. And why did these same tyrants, despots, emits and dictators stop donating once Clinton lost? Because she could no longer deliver. ..."
"... Corruption in high places is the norm. It is childish, all this virtue signaling. I would respect the sore losers more if they were honest they want to put Obama in as President for Life the US is Haiti now. Or the Kissinger faction of the MIC could install one of our TV generals as our version of Gen. Pinochet. ..."
"... It was the filthy Clintonites who gave us Trump to begin with. ..."
"... No doubt plenty of insulating layers if money-laundering took place via real estate, though its worth plumbing those depths. But given Trump appointees' soft-ball approach to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, I'd guess that's an arena well worth the time of journalists, insulating layers or not. I recall Sheldon Adelson's disdain for the FCPA likely increasing his fervor to dump Democrats. ..."
"... as I keep reminding people, you can turn on the spigot of MacCarthyism, and you may think that you can turn off that spigot, but you can't. In the case of Joe MacCarthy himself, it didn't truly end till about the time of his premature death from alcoholism. ..."
"... One aspect of the now-thoroughly-rotten system in the U S of A is the constant contesting of election results. As Lambert Strether keeps writing, the electronic voting machines are a black hole, and both parties have been engaged in debasing the vote and diminishing the size of the electorate. The gravamen in both parties is that the voters don't know what they are doing and the ballots aren't being counted properly. Maybe we can do something about that ..."
"... This is an implicit warning about impeachment. I interpret this as a recommendation to vigorously oppose Trump's actions over the next three and a half years, and to effectively campaign against him in 2020. Trump really is a terrible President, but Mike Pence would be terrible, too. And so would Hillary Clinton, but I hope we won't have to worry about her any more. ..."
"... In case you're wondering why I think that Trump is a terrible President, here's a short summary: ..."
"... None of the left-leaning writers who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation* have demonstrated a working knowledge of counterintelligence. I've also noticed that they correlate a lack of publicly-known evidence to an actual absence of evidence, which is the purview of the investigation. Investigators will be holding any evidence they discover close to their vests for obvious reasons, but even more so in this case because some of the evidence will have origins where sources and methods will statutorily need to be concealed. ..."
"... If they had anything concrete on Trump we've have heard about it by now. The spooks have been leaking for months – they aren't going to suddenly clam up if they've discovered something that's actually a crime. ..."
"... Until someone presents actual evidence, this investigation is nothing more than Democrat payback for Benghazi, which itself was a BS investigation in search of a crime that went on for years. Unfortunately for sHillary, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and they did manage to uncover actual criminality in her case (and brushed it right under the rug). ..."
"... Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction more favorable to their interests! ..."
"... This is what gets me. We're supposed to me a great power, and we're going nuts on this stuff. It's like an elephant panicking at the sight of a mouse. The political class has lost its grip entirely. ..."
"... How sad, then, that the Pied Piper email showed that the Clinton campaign wanted Trump for their opponent. Or Was she ..."
"... OK, so you are saying that we should trust the word of anonymous leakers from the intelligence community, that is, anonymous leaks from a pack of proven perjurers, torturers, and entrapment artists, all on the basis of supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see. ..."
"... For that matter, how do we know the leakers even exist? When some media outlet wants to publish some made-up story, they can just attribute it to an anonymous source. ..."
"... As Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz pointed out, the DOJ reports to the President. Trump was completely within his authority to give instructions to Comey and fire him. Dershowitz also points out Trump can pardon anyone, including himself. But Trump doesn't read and oddly no one seems to have clued him in on what Dershowitz has said. ..."
...Gaius quotes Matt Taibbi's line of thought that the relentless Trump investigations will eventually
turn up something, most likely money laundering. However, it's not clear that that can be pinned
on Trump. For real estate transactions, it is the bank, not the property owner, that is responsible
for anti-money-laundering checks. So unless Trump was accepting cash or other payment outside the
banking system, it's going to be hard to make that stick. The one area where he could be vulnerable
is his casinos. However, if I read this history of his casinos correctly,
Trump
could have been pretty much out of that business since 1995 via putting the casinos in a public
entity (although he could have continued to collect fees as a manager). Wikipedia hedges its bets
and says Trump
has been out
of the picture since at least 2011 . He only gets licensing fees and has nada to do with management
and operations. So even if Trump got dirty money, and in particular dirty Russian money, it's hard
to see how that begins to translate into influence over his Presidency, particularly since any such
shady activity took place before Trump was even semi-seriously considering a Presidential bid.
By Gaius Publius
, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to
DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius ,
Tumblr and
Facebook . GP article archive
here . Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
Start at 2:25. Chris Hayes to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to
go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" Note Swalwell's carefully phrased non-answers,
as well as Hayes' seeming failure to know that not registering is a very common practice. (If video
doesn't play in your browser, go here and listen, again starting at 2:25.)
"And most pitiful of all that I heard was the voice of the daughter of Priam, of Cassandra" - Homer, The Odyssey
,
Book 11
PRIAM: What noise, what shriek is this? TROILUS: 'Tis our mad sister; I do know her voice. It is Cassandra.
-Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida ,
Act II, scene 2 "I'll be your Cassandra this week."
-Yours truly
So much of this story is hidden from view, and so much of the past has to be erased to conform
to what's presently painted as true.
Example of the latter: Did you remember that Robert Mueller and Bush's FBI were behind the
highly
suspicious (and likely covered-up) 2001 anthrax investigation - Robert Mueller, today's man of
absolute integrity? Did you remember that James Comey was the man behind the
destruction of the mind of Jose Padilla , just so that Bush could have a terrorist he could point
to having caught - James Comey, today's man of doing always what's right? If you forgot all that
in the rush to canonize them, don't count on the media to remind you - they have
another purpose .
Yes, I'll be your Cassandra this week, the one destined
not to be believed . To what
do I refer? Read on.
How Many Foreign Agents Register as Foreign Agents? A Number Far Smaller Than "All"
Today let's look at one of the original sins pointed to by those trying to take down Trump, leaving
entirely aside whether Trump needs taking down (which he does). That sin - Michael Flynn and Paul
Manafort's failing to register as "foreign agents" (of Turkey and Ukraine, respectively, not Russia)
until very after the fact.
See the Chris Hayes video at the top for Hayes' question to Rep. Eric Swalwell about that. Hayes
to Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" What
Swalwell should have answered: "Almost forever by modern American practice."
Jonathan Marshall,
writing at investigative journalist Robert Parry's Consortium News, has this to say about the
current crop of unregistered foreign agents (my emphasis throughout):
The Open Secret of Foreign Lobbying
The alleged hacking of the Hillary Clinton campaign's emails and the numerous contacts of Donald
Trump's circle with Russian officials, oligarchs and mobsters have triggered any number of investigations
into Moscow's alleged efforts to influence the 2016 election and the new administration .
In contrast, as journalist Robert Parry recently
noted , American politicians and the media have been notably silent about other examples of
foreign interference in U.S. national politics. In part that's because supporters of more successful
foreign pressure groups have enough clout to
downplay or deny their very existence . In part it's also because America's political system
is so riddled with big money that jaded insiders rarely question the status quo of influence
peddling by other nations .
The subject of his discussion is the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Under the Act,
failure to properly register carries a penalty of up to five years in prison and $10,000 in fines.
Marshall notes that while the influence of foreign agents was of great national concern during World
War I and World War II, very little is done today to require or enforce FARA registration:
Since the end of World War II, however, enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act
has been notably lax. Its effectiveness has been stymied by political resistance from lobby supporters
as well as by the law's many loopholes -
including Justice Department's admission that FARA "does not authorize the government to inspect
records of those not registered under the Act."
A 2016 audit
by the inspector general of the Department of Justice
determined that half of FARA registrations and 62 percent of initial registrations
were filed late , and 15 percent of registrants simply stopped filing for periods of
six months or more. It also determined that the Department of Justice brought only seven criminal
cases under FARA from 1966 to 2015, and filed no civil injunctions since 1991 .
The result - almost no one registers who doesn't want to.
Here's Russia-savvy
Matt Taibbi , who is looking at the whole Russia-Trump investigation and wonders what's being
investigated. Note his comments about FARA at the end of this quote:
When James Comey was fired I didn't know what to think, because so much of this story
is still hidden from view .
Certainly firing an FBI director who has announced the existence of an investigation targeting
your campaign is going to be improper in almost every case. And in his post-firing rants about
tapes and loyalty, President Trump validated every criticism of him as an impetuous, unstable,
unfit executive who additionally is ignorant of the law and lunges for authoritarian solutions
in a crisis.
But it's our job in the media to be bothered by little details, and the strange timeline of
the Trump-Russia investigation qualifies as a conspicuous loose end.
[So] What exactly is the FBI investigating? Why was it kept secret from other intelligence
chiefs, if that's what happened? That matters, if we're trying to gauge what happened last week.
Is it a FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act) case involving former National Security Adviser
Michael Flynn or a lower-level knucklehead like Carter Page?
Since FARA is violated more or less daily in Washington and largely ignored by authorities
unless it involves someone without political connections (an awful lot of important people
in Washington who appear to be making fortunes lobbying for foreign countries are merely engaged
in "litigation support," if you ask them), it would be somewhat anticlimactic to find out that
this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot constitutional crisis.
Is it something more serious than a FARA case, like money-laundering for instance, involving
someone higher up in the Trump campaign? That would indeed be disturbing, and it would surely
be improper – possibly even impeachable, depending upon what exactly happened behind the scenes
– for Trump to get in the way of such a case playing itself out.
But even a case like that would be very different from espionage and treason . Gutting
a money-laundering case involving a campaign staffer would be more like garden-variety corruption
than the cloak-and-dagger nightmares currently consuming the popular imagination.
Sticking narrowly with FARA for the moment, if this were just a FARA case, it would be more than
"somewhat anticlimactic to find out that this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot
constitutional crisis." It would be, not to put to fine a point on it, highly indicative that something
else is going on, that other hands are involved, just as the highly suspicious circumstances around
the takedown of Eliot Spitzer indicate the presence of other hands and other actors.
My best guess, for what it's worth, is that Trump-Russia will devolve into a money-laundering
case, and if it does, Trump will likely survive it, since so many others in the big money world do
the same thing. But let's stick with unregistered foreign agents a bit longer.
John McCain, Randy Scheuneman and the Nation of Georgia
Do you remember the 2008 story about McCain advisor Randy Scheunemann, who claimed he no longer
represented the nation of Georgia while advising the McCain campaign, even though his small (two-person)
firm still retained their business?
In the current [2008] crisis, President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia fell into a Soviet trap
by moving troops into the disputed territory of South Ossetia and raining artillery and rocket
fire on the South Ossetian capital city of Tskhinvali, with a still undetermined loss of civilian
life. As in 1956, the Soviets responded with overwhelming force and additional loss of life. Once
again the United States could offer only words, not concrete aid to the Georgians.
It is difficult to believe that, like the Hungarians in 1956, the Georgians in 2008 could
have taken such action without believing that they could expect support from the United States
. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denies that the Bush administration was the agent provocateur
in Georgia. To the contrary, a State Department source said that she explicitly warned President
Saakashvili in July to avoid provoking Russia.
If this information is correct, then, by inference, John McCain emerges as the most likely
suspect as agent provocateur . First, McCain had a unique and privileged pipeline to President
Saakashvili (shown to the right in the photo to the right). McCain's top foreign policy advisor,
Randy Scheunemann, was a partner in a two-man firm that served as a paid lobbyist for the Georgian
government . Scheunemann continued receiving compensation from the firm until the McCain campaign
imposed new restrictions on lobbyists in mid-May. Scheunemann reportedly helped arrange a telephone
conversation between McCain and Saakashvili on April 17 of this year, while he was still being
paid by Georgia...
McCain has benefited politically from the crisis in Georgia. McCain's swift and belligerent
response to the Soviet actions in Georgia has bolstered his shaky standing with the right-wing
of the Republican Party. McCain has also used the Georgian situation to assert his credentials
as the hardened warrior ready to do battle against a resurgent Russia. He has pointedly contrasted
his foreign policy experience with that of his Democratic opponent Barack Obama. Since the
crisis erupted, McCain has focused like a laser on Georgia, to great effect . According to
a Quinnipiac
University National Poll released on August 19 he has gained four points on Obama since their
last poll in mid-July and leads his rival by a two to one margin as the candidate best qualified
to deal with Russia.
Was Scheunemann a paid lobbyist for Georgia at the time of these events? He says no. Others
aren't so sure :
Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal-leaning watchdog
group, said Scheunemann still has a conflict of interest because his small firm continues to represent
foreign clients. The records that show Scheunemann ceased representing foreign countries as of
March 1 also show his partner, Michael Mitchell, remains registered to represent the three nations.
Mitchell said Tuesday that Scheunemann no longer has any role with Orion Strategies but declined
to say whether Scheunemann still is receiving income or profits from the firm .
If almost no one registers under FARA who doesn't want to, what's the crime if Flynn didn't register?
The answer seems to be, because he's Trump appointee Michael Flynn, and FARA is a stick his
enemies can beat him with, while they're looking for something better.
The fact that FARA is a stick almost no one is beaten with, matters not at all, it seems.
Not to Democratic politicians and appointees; and not to many journalists either.
An Investigation in Search of a Crime
Questioning the Michael Flynn investigation leads us (and Matt Taibbi) down a further rabbit hole,
which includes two questions: what's being investigated, and how did this investigation start?
Short answer to the first question - no one knows, since unlike the Watergate break-in, this whole
effort didn't start with a crime that needed investigating. It seems to have started with an investigation
(how to get rid of Trump) in search of a crime. And one that still hasn't found evidence of one.
Journalist Robert Parry, who himself was a key Iran-Contra investigator,
makes the same point :
In Watergate , five burglars were caught inside the DNC offices on June 17, 1972, as
they sought to plant more bugs on Democratic phones. (An earlier break-in in May had installed
two bugs, but one didn't work.) Nixon then proceeded to mount a cover-up of his 1972 campaign's
role in funding the break-in and other abuses of power.
In Iran-Contra , Reagan secretly authorized weapons sales to Iran, which was then designated
a terrorist state, without informing Congress, a violation of the Arms Export Control Act. He
also kept Congress in the dark about his belated signing of a related intelligence "finding."
And the creation of slush funds to finance the Nicaraguan Contras represented an evasion of the
U.S. Constitution.
There was also the attendant Iran-Contra cover-up mounted both by the Reagan White House and
later the George H.W. Bush White House, which culminated in Bush's Christmas Eve 1992 pardons
of six Iran-Contra defendants as special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh
was zeroing in on possible indictment of Bush for withholding evidence.
By contrast , Russia-gate has been a "scandal" in search of a specific crime. President
Barack Obama's intelligence chieftains have alleged – without presenting any clear evidence –
that the Russian government hacked into the emails of the Democratic National Committee and of
Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta and released those emails via WikiLeaks and other
Internet sites. (The Russians and WikiLeaks have both denied the accusations.)
The DNC emails revealed that senior Democrats did not maintain their required independence
regarding the primaries by seeking to hurt Sen. Bernie Sanders and help Clinton. The Podesta emails
pulled back the curtain on Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street banks and on pay-to-play features
of the Clinton Foundation.
Hacking into personal computers is a crime, but the U.S. government has yet to bring any
formal charges against specific individuals supposedly responsible for the hacking of the
Democratic emails. There also has been no evidence that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with
Russians in the hacking.
Lacking any precise evidence of this cyber-crime or of a conspiracy between Russia and the
Trump campaign, Obama's Justice Department holdovers and now special prosecutor Robert Mueller
have sought to build "process crimes," around false statements to investigators and possible
obstruction of justice.
I've yet to see actual evidence of an underlying crime - lots of smoke, which is fine as a starting
point, but no fire, even after months of looking (and months of official leaking about every damning
thing in sight). This makes the current investigation strongly reminiscent of the Whitewater investigation,
another case of Alice (sorry, Ken Starr) jumping into every hole she could find looking for a route
to Wonderland. Ken Starr finally found one, perjury about a blow job. Will Mueller find something
more incriminating? He's still looking too.
Note that none of this means Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of . It just means that
how he's gotten rid of matters. (As you ponder this, consider what you think would be fair
to do to a Democratic president. I guarantee what happens to Trump will be repeated.)
What Was the Sally Yates Accusation Against Flynn Really About?
Short answer to the second question of my two "further rabbit hole" questions - How did this investigation
start? - may be the Sally Yates accusation that Flynn was someone who could be blackmailed.
Here's Parry on that (same link):
In the case of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's first national security adviser,
acting Attorney General Sally Yates used the archaic Logan Act of 1799 to create a predicate for
the FBI to interrogate Flynn about a Dec. 29, 2016 conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak, i.e., after Trump's election but before the Inauguration .
Green Party leader Jill Stein and retired Lt. General Michael Flynn attending a dinner marking
the RT network's 10-year anniversary in Moscow, December 2015, sitting at the same table as Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
The Logan Act, which has never resulted in a prosecution in 218 years , was enacted
during the period of the Alien and Sedition Acts to bar private citizens from negotiating on their
own with foreign governments. It was never intended to apply to a national security adviser
of an elected President, albeit before he was sworn in.
But it became the predicate for the FBI interrogation - and the FBI agents were armed with
a transcript of the intercepted Kislyak-Flynn phone call so they could catch Flynn on any gaps
in his recollection, which might have been made even hazier because he was on vacation in the
Dominican Republic when Kislyak called.
Yates also concocted a bizarre argument that the discrepancies between Flynn's account of the
call and the transcript left him open to Russian blackmail although how that would work – since
the Russians surely assumed that Kislyak's calls would be monitored by U.S. intelligence and
thus offered them no leverage with Flynn – was never explained.
Still, Flynn's failure to recount the phone call precisely and the controversy stirred up around
it became the basis for an obstruction of justice investigation of Flynn and led to President
Trump's firing Flynn on Feb. 13.
Do I need, Cassandra-like, to say this again? None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve
getting rid of . It just means that how he's gotten rid of matters.
"So Much of the Story Is Still Hidden From View"
I'm not taking Robert Parry as the final word on this, but he's one word on this, and his
word isn't nothing. If we were looking down rabbit holes for the source of this investigation,
for where all this anti-Trump action started, I don't think Yates' concerns are where it begins.
What I do know is that Manafort and Flynn not registering as foreign agents puts them squarely
in the mainstream of Washington political practice. The fact that these are suddenly crimes of the
century makes me just a tad suspicious that, in Matt Taibbi's words, "so much of this story is still
hidden from view."
I warned you - I'll be your Cassandra this week. crime
I would think that a crime in search of an investigation would be Clinton's private server
while at state and, the tie in thru the Clinton foundation .just saying.
The big story is that these chicken-little stories all seam to serve as cover for the bought-and-paid
for chicken little politicians ..while those elected politicians who give a damp about their office
and those they represent are sidelined.
While some might think there is some tie in with donations to the Clinton Foundation and favors
granted by the political wing of the Clinton Conglomerate and the sudden dissolution of said donations
after the toppling of Dame Clinton by Der Trumpf it appears all such talk originates in the fever
swamp of the right wing echo chamber and it's shot caller the GRU.
Present us evidence that the GRU has any influence, much less is the "shot-caller" with respect
to the "right-wing echo chamber".
And why do you thing tyrants, despots, emirs and dictators generously donated so much to the
phoney Foundation? Because they wanted to further its good works, just like the Saudis are very
worried about AIDS prevention? No, they wanted to buy influence. And Clinton gave them what they wanted. And why did these same tyrants, despots, emits and dictators stop donating once Clinton lost?
Because she could no longer deliver.
I cannot tell if Ed's comment is straight or satire or snarcasm or what. The internet is a
poor place to try such things.
I am going to take it as a straight comment. The Clintons have been grooming Chelsea for public
office and will try desperately to get her elected to something somewhere. That way, they will
still have influence to peddle and their Family of Foundations will still be worth something.
I hope Chelsea's wanna-have political career is strangled in the cradle. And hosed down with
napalm and incinerated down to some windblown ashes.
That investigation has been firmly crammed down the rabbit hole and cemented over.
If it had taken place in a nation where laws meant anything it would have likely disclosed:
Clinton set up a private computer server center to control the information about her background,
financial dealings, and political arrangements while serving as Secretary of State in the Obama
administration.
Obama was aware of the arrangement
Clinton transferred classified and top secrete documents to her private server. This is by
definition theft.
Clinton defied subpoenas, refused to turn over documents, and destroyed evidence. This is
by definition obstruction of justice.
In spite of being informed that the server was not secure, Clinton placed classified and sensitive
national security information on the server. This is equivalent to printing the same documents
on paper and walking through Central Park throwing them at the squirrels. And it fits the legal
definition of treason.
Failure to prosecute Clinton is graphic proof that the US is not a nation of laws, but rather
one where power, bribes and influence peddling determine who the law applies to.
Corruption in high places is the norm. It is childish, all this virtue signaling. I would respect
the sore losers more if they were honest they want to put Obama in as President for Life the
US is Haiti now. Or the Kissinger faction of the MIC could install one of our TV generals as our
version of Gen. Pinochet.
Since he won't be impeached, I assume Gaius meant Trump should be assassinated? In the USA
every four years we have the opportunity to battle over the control of voting machine software,
voter disqualification and hanging chads. But if we want to change Presidents in mid-stream the
traditional method is to have them shot.
It was the filthy Clintonites who gave us Trump to begin with. Let Trump be smeared all over
their face and shoved way deep up their noses till 2020. And if the Clintonite scum give us another Clintonite nominee in 2020, then let Trump be elected
all over again. I'll vote for that.
As regards the 2008 Georgian situation discussed here, Russia seems to have been referred to
as Soviet . Twice. This happened for some years in the '90s but it is rather late to
do so these days. Maybe I misunderstood something?
You did not misunderstand; yes, the author of that article was sloppy. He was switching back
and forth between events of 1956 and 2008, and he failed to adequately proofread what he wrote
about 2008.
Gaius offers a realistic and well-put caution for Democrats and journalists taking their eye
off the ball of the Mnuchin crowd.
I've a good friend who's exasperated when I utter such blasphemies, asking how I could have
missed the constant swell of opinion by Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, Joe Scarborough, Rachel Meadow,
etc
When I reply that prospects outside the courts of comedians and MSNBC infotainment pundits
goosing their base are different – and I'm not so sure I'd prefer a less crass and crazed President
Pence armed with Trumpster strategies – I'm asked "But what about justice?!!!"
Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
No doubt plenty of insulating layers if money-laundering took place via real estate, though
its worth plumbing those depths. But given Trump appointees' soft-ball approach to the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act, I'd guess that's an arena well worth the time of journalists, insulating
layers or not. I recall Sheldon Adelson's disdain for the FCPA likely increasing his fervor to
dump Democrats.
And let's apply the justice to everyone , not just the "enemy camp" of whoever happens
to be speaking.
And let's apply justice to those at the top first. Only after cleaning out all the top, most
privileged layers, then the layers beneath them, should justice be applied to those at the bottom
socio-economic layers. IOW, the opposite of the strategy we've seen applied over most of our history
in many or most places.
Yves Smith: Thanks for this. Astute observations. And as I keep reminding people, you can turn
on the spigot of MacCarthyism, and you may think that you can turn off that spigot, but you can't.
In the case of Joe MacCarthy himself, it didn't truly end till about the time of his premature
death from alcoholism.
Hence the observation above in the posting that the rightwingers will pull out the same techniques
if a Democrat wins the next election.
One aspect of the now-thoroughly-rotten system in the U S of A is the constant contesting of
election results. As Lambert Strether keeps writing, the electronic voting machines are a black
hole, and both parties have been engaged in debasing the vote and diminishing the size of the
electorate. The gravamen in both parties is that the voters don't know what they are doing and
the ballots aren't being counted properly. Maybe we can do something about that
I'm sure readers will be shocked to learn that the electoral system referred to is that used
in Venezuela in 2012. And it will be the rare person who can distinguish between a superior system
for conducting an election and a result that they don't like.
Do I need, Cassandra-like, to say this again? None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve
getting rid of.
No. You didn't need to say it even once. Another interesting analysis utterly ruined by the writer's incessant feverish need to virtue
signal himself as a Trump hater. Ugh!
You write an article chock-full of information clearly pointing to corruption, venality, un-democratic
machinations, and still you feel the need to repeat over and over and over again that does not
mean that you don't want to remove Trump. Remove him? Like how, Gaius? And why? Why not remove the people you write about in your article? Why not say 40 times you want to
remove them. Undemocratically, of course. As you say in your article, be careful of how the talk about removing people one does not like.
You're a Cassandra alright. And methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Note that none of this means Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of. It just means that how
he's gotten rid of matters. (As you ponder this, consider what you think would be fair to do
to a Democratic president. I guarantee what happens to Trump will be repeated.)
This is an implicit warning about impeachment. I interpret this as a recommendation to
vigorously oppose Trump's actions over the next three and a half years, and to effectively campaign
against him in 2020. Trump really is a terrible President, but Mike Pence would be terrible, too.
And so would Hillary Clinton, but I hope we won't have to worry about her any more.
In case you're wondering why I think that Trump is a terrible President, here's a short
summary:
Scott Pruitt
Betsy DeVos
Jeff Sessions
Steven Mnuchin
Tom Price
Neil Gorsuch
There are other reasons, but that list should suffice for now.
None of the left-leaning writers who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation* have
demonstrated a working knowledge of counterintelligence. I've also noticed that they correlate
a lack of publicly-known evidence to an actual absence of evidence, which is the purview of the
investigation. Investigators will be holding any evidence they discover close to their vests for
obvious reasons, but even more so in this case because some of the evidence will have origins
where sources and methods will statutorily need to be concealed.
Furthermore, many of these writers appear to be unfamiliar with the case law governing the
major features of the case. Yes, money laundering may be a part of the case and a financial blog
may emphasize that aspect of the case because that's what they're familiar with, but what we're
fundamentally looking at is possible violations of the Espionage Act, as well as the obstruction
of justice by certain players to hide their involvement. Not a single one of these articles (or
any of the cable news shows) have taken note of one of the juiciest and obscure pieces of evidence
that's right there out in the open, if you'd been following this as closely as I have. As much
as I admire Gaius Publius and Matt Taibbi, and trust their reporting within their demonstrated
and reliable competencies, neither have really written about intelligence activities in a thoroughgoing
manner in order to be identified as journalists specializing in matters pertaining to intelligence,
espionage, spies. Publius writes about political economy and Taibbi is as "Russia savvy" as your
average Russian citizen; maybe less so. And being Russia savvy does not make you FSB savvy. Now
if Sy Hersh wrote something about L'Affaire Russe, that would be worth seriously considering.
*I won't even address the seriousness or motives of the people on the right who have been pooh-poohing
the Russia investigation. But it is curious for otherwise "GOP-savvy" lefties to align with people
who spout Fox News talking points all the live long day, and who are wrong about everything, all
the time, and not in a "broken clock tells correct time twice a day" sort of way.
If they had anything concrete on Trump we've have heard about it by now. The spooks have been
leaking for months – they aren't going to suddenly clam up if they've discovered something that's
actually a crime.
Until someone presents actual evidence, this investigation is nothing more than Democrat payback
for Benghazi, which itself was a BS investigation in search of a crime that went on for years.
Unfortunately for sHillary, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and they did manage to
uncover actual criminality in her case (and brushed it right under the rug).
Just what makes Putin "the enemy"? Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction
more favorable to their interests! and in other news, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
> Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction
more favorable to their interests!
This is what gets me. We're supposed to me a great power, and we're going nuts on this stuff.
It's like an elephant panicking at the sight of a mouse. The political class has lost its grip
entirely.
> Putin must be delighted to have a vainglorious ignoramus presiding over a US government paralyzed
by division
How sad, then, that the Pied Piper email showed that the Clinton campaign wanted Trump for
their opponent. Or Was she Putin's stooge? Perhaps the server she left open to the world
for three months with no password provided the Russkis with some kompromat ? Really,
there's as much evidence for that theory as anything else
> so must also likewise concede that there may be more there than you suppose
So either there's something there or there isn't. That does seem to exhaust the possibilities.
If only Maddow, the Clintonites, whichever factions in the intelligence community that are
driving the "drip, drip, drip" of stories, the Jeff Bezos Shopper, cable, and all the access journalists
writing it all up would take such a balanced perspective .
OK, so you are saying that we should trust the word of anonymous leakers from the intelligence
community, that is, anonymous leaks from a pack of proven perjurers, torturers, and entrapment
artists, all on the basis of supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see.
Because secret squirrel counterintelligence. Ah, now I get it.
We don't know who the leakers are. They're anonymous, but they willingly associate themselves
with an intelligence community, the very organizations that commit perjury, that engage in torture,
that do entrapment, all on a regular basis. Not to mention other crimes for which men have hung,
such as gin up up evidence to drive this country towards aggressive war. So nothing to be suspicious
of here.
These organizations have been leaking on a regular basis but they have not leaked evidence.
That by itself is suspicious, since in a white collar crime case, a serial killer case, etc. we
don't usually have a flood of anonymous leaks coming from supposed investigators.
Nor in a garden-variety criminal investigation do we have the suspect laid out in advance,
and any leaks are intended to make the suspect guilty in the mind of the public, before charges
or brought or a crime is determined.
For that matter, how do we know the leakers even exist? When some media outlet wants to publish
some made-up story, they can just attribute it to an anonymous source.
Nope. Telling us prawns to wait until the evidence is in, or, worse, that only the specialists
can be trusted, is one of the tactics of repression that the elite use while they are busy manufacturing
and/or hiding said evidence. And surely by now we all know that "specialists" have no clothes.
If you want serious analysis by seriously non-left people who have broken rocks in the quarry
of intelligence, you can read Sic Semper Tyrannis. They have offered some hi-valu input on this
whole "Putin diddit" deal.
They also offered some hi-valu input on the Hillary server matter. And Colonel Lang had a thing
or three to say about the Clinton Family of Foundations . . . including a little-remarked-upon
stealth-laundry-pipeline registered in Canada.
Philip Giraldi has also written guest-posts at Sic Semper Tyrannis from time to time. The name
"Philip Giraldi' is one of the pickable subject-category names on the right side of the SST homepage.
> Not a single one of these articles (or any of the cable news shows) have taken note of one
of the juiciest and obscure pieces of evidence that's right there out in the open, if you'd been
following this as closely as I have.
Or, you know, probable cause to investigate based on very public admissions. Production before
a grand jury is secret under penalty of criminal prosecution. Once probable cause is affirmed,
then the indictments will be under seal for what could be some time. I think it's probable that
there may already be indictments against some of the players. DJT may already be a John Doe. The
Fed GJ's in DC are three months long, the current one wrapping up third week of August [a guess
based on past experience as a 3rd party]. Expect movement early this fall.
As Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz pointed out, the DOJ reports to the President. Trump
was completely within his authority to give instructions to Comey and fire him. Dershowitz also
points out Trump can pardon anyone, including himself. But Trump doesn't read and oddly no one
seems to have clued him in on what Dershowitz has said.
Nixon was a completely different case. There had been an actual crime, a break in. Archibald
Cox was an special prosecutor appointed by Congress. Firing him raised Constitutional issues.
If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, read the complaint in "Kriss et al v. BayRock
Group LLC et al" [ 1:10-cv-03959-LGS-DCF ] in NY Southern District. It's a RICO. It goes from
the 46-story Trump SoHo condo-hotel on Spring Street to Iceland [?] and beyond. Then check out
DJT's deposition in Trilogy Properties "LLC et al v. SB Hotel Associates LLC et al" [ 1:09cv21406
] and his D&O doc production.
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
I've said repeatedly that people should stop hyperventilating about Trump and Russia and if
anything should be bothered that he was in business with a crook, as in Felix Sater. I was on
this long ago. Sater is Brighton Beach mafia. That means Jewish mafia, BTW; he worked Jewish connections
overseas. He's not connected to anyone of any importance in Russia. No one with any sophistication
would do business with a felon who turned state's evidence. Means he can't be trusted (by upstanding
people, because he's a crook, and by crooks, because he sang like a canary).
On the latest one, "
GOP Operative Sought Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn ," unlocked
at the WSJ, the main source, long-time Republican oppo researcher Peter W. Smith, left the land
of the living on May 14 of this year, at the age of 81. So, on the up side, we've finally got a source with a name. On the down side, he's dead.
Do better!
The only thing that Russia wanted from Ukraine is not to allow themselves to become threat to Russia by joining NATO. Ukraine,
having wasted all other options for normal development, couldn't resist taking the offer of cashing in on becoming a threat
to Russia. Ukraine tries to justify this based on some past historical grievances from the 1930's.
What total lunacy and hippocracy. Do I really need to remind you that before 2014 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, NATO membership
was not a popular option for most Ukrainians. But now, after the deceitful land grab by Russia of Crimea and three years of proxy
directed war in Donbas orchestrated in Moscow, most Ukrainians now look favorably towards NATO membership. Latest polls show that
55.9% o Ukrainians now favor NATO integration (I think that pre 2014 it was less than 15%) and 66.4% now favor EU integration.
You reap what you sew, Putinista fanboys. Bye, bye 'NovoRossiya'! http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2017/06/17/7147228/ The engine
that drove the US into an economic power house was decades of violating free market principles
The engine that drove German economic success was being bailed out by the US right after WW2..
Considering that Russia was gang-raped by Bill Clinton's Oligarch friends .a gang rape that caused a demographic collapse of
the Russian population .Russia's subsequent recovery has been miraculous
OOPS These comments were meant for Priss Factor not Mr. Hack
"... The reasoning was simple and is not hard to understand: Carthago delenda est. ..."
"... In a way McCain can be viewed now as a caricature of the Roman senator Cato the Elder, who is said to have used it as the conclusion to all his speeches. ..."
Your discussion just again had shown that there is no economics, only a political economy.
And all those neoliberal perversions, which are sold as an economic science is just an apologetics
for the financial oligarchy.
Apologetics of plunder in this particular case.
In a way the USSR with its discredited communist ideology, degenerated Bolshevik leadership
(just look at who was at the Politburo of CPSU at the time; people much lower in abilities then
Trump :-) and inept and politically naïve Mikhail Gorbachev at the helm had chosen the most inopportune
time to collapse :-)
And neoliberal vultures instantly circled the corpse and have had a feast. Geopolitical goals
of the USA also played important role in amplifying the scope of plunder.
No comparison of performance of Russia vs. China makes any sense if it ignores this fact.
While I would argue with the economic advice given the Russian government after 1988, I am simply
trying to understand the reasoning behind the advice, no more than that.
The reasoning was simple and is not hard to understand: Carthago delenda est.
In a way McCain can be viewed now as a caricature of the Roman senator Cato the Elder,
who is said to have used it as the conclusion to all his speeches.
History repeats "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."
Unfortunatly Russia has its own fifth column of "Chicago boys" (called Chubasyata) to implement those distarous for common people
measures
What Russia needed at the time was a Marshall plan. Instead Clinton mefia (Which at the very top included Rubin and Summers) adopted
the plan to plunder and colonize Russia. It did not work.
Structural factors in the economic reforms of China, Eastern Europe, and the Former Soviet Union
By Jeffrey Sachs and Wing Thye Woo
Discussion
By Stanley Fischer - Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The facts with which Jeffrey Sachs and Wing Woo have to contend are, first, that Chinese economic reform has been successful in
producing extraordinary growth - the greatest increase in economic well-being within a 15-year period in all of history (perhaps
excluding the period after the invention of fire); but second, that reform in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union (EEFSU)
has been accompanied not by growth but by massive output declines (in countries that are reforming as well as in those, such as Ukraine,
which are not).
The interpretation of these facts with which they have to contend is that Chinese reform - described variously as piecemeal, pragmatic,
bottom-up, or gradual - has been successful because it has been gradualist and EEFSU reform has failed because it has applied shock
treatment. The conclusion is that EEFSU should have pursued a gradualist reform strategy, perhaps one that started with economic
rather than political reform. Many also imply that there is still time for gradualism.
Sachs and Woo reject the view that economic reform in EEFSU should have been gradualist, though they do approve of the gradualist
Chinese approach to the creation of a non-state industrial sector. They argue that the structure of the economy was responsible for
the success of the Chinese reform strategy, and that there are no useful lessons for EEFSU from the Chinese case.
Reform in China started in an economy in which 80 percent of the population was rural, in which planning had never been pervasive,
and in which economic control was in any case quite decentralized. Further, Chinese industrial growth has come largely from new firms,
largely town and village enterprises, and there has been no reform of the state-owned enterprise (SOE) sector. In EEFSU by contrast,
the industrial sector was extremely large, and there was no hope of starting a significant private sector without restructuring industry.
The authors make this argument with the aid of a model, basically one that says that the private sector in a reforming EEFSU economy
is so heavily taxed that it does not pay an individual to move to that sector from the subsidized industrial sector. In China by
contrast, agricultural reform freed up labour whose opportunity cost was below the earnings available in the industrial private (or
at least TVE) sector - and in addition, because the SOE sector was relatively small, the industrial private sector was taxed less
than in EEFSU. The model is linear and ignores uncertainty, but there can be no doubt that it is very difficult to start new firms
in much of EEFSU. That, more than the earnings of an individual already in that sector, seems to be the equivalent of the tax that
Sachs and Woo include; indeed, earnings for those who succeed in moving to the private sector are typically higher than they are
in the state sector.
Sachs and Woo also argue that the data exaggerate China's success and EEFSU's output declines. I was initially inclined to discount
this argument, but now believe it has a real basis, and that all that needs doing is to fill in the numbers....
Reading the paper by Samuel Marden, which was important in understanding the economic transformation of China, was also an important
experience in understanding why Jeffrey Sachs, Wing Thye Woo and Stanley Fischer expressly rejected the Chinese experience in
looking to a development model for the Soviet Union as the Soviet Union was geographically transformed.
The Chinese development model worked dramatically well, the Soviet model that Sachs, Wing and Fischer supported was as dramatically
disruptive and self-defeating.
"... If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing houses (and assuming, of course, that Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the rest of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could say "Jonathan Hay." ..."
"... Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who control our lives, was the general director of the Harvard Institute of International Development (HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian economy and the plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer (HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks and investment houses in Boston and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. ..."
"... These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers, now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant millionaires (or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign investors. ..."
"... Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work with, they ignored - or shunned - the most capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke and his disciple, Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism would collapse. Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities. ..."
"... On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation of capital into fewer and fewer hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression, taxation and war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, the Balkans, and other countries, and how it uses its control over money to produce social chaos. ..."
"... Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank" was designed to plunder the wealth of America through war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less than a giant pyramid scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources. ..."
"... The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the policy implementers - Williamson employs the derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by the thousands (the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances, renting out the finest dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution businesses, and then watching, cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the artistic heritage of the country. ..."
"... Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father, of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s daughter married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote anti-czarist political agitation for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin upon his successful revolution. ..."
"... By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little vibrations on Capitol Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical Bill Clinton bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson. ..."
"... The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year period, Williamson notes, is more than $180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international public lenders have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices." ..."
"... As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded last year, with the attendant Bank of New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock market, and the whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings. ..."
"... What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings that barely rose above the seriousness of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively make banks another federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial transactions of U.S. citizens. ..."
"... In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau, or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would show far more professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury secretary] Larry Summers, Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who oversaw the distribution and sale of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member of the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998. ..."
"... And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this year] announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment was made to him from a secret Kremlin bank account? . . . ..."
"... You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians, leaving them destitute while creating a new and ruthless class of international capitalist gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all Americans deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy, and restricting their civil rights. If only Americans cared. ..."
After 1991 Eastern Europe and FSU were mercilessly looted. That was tremendous one time transfer
of capital (and scientists and engineers) to Western Europe and the USA. Which helped to secure
"Clinton prosperity period"
China were not plundered by the West. Russia and Eastern Europe were. That's the key difference.
For Russia this period was called by Anne Williamson in her testimony before the Committee
on Banking and Financial Services of the United States House of Representatives "The economic
rape of Russia"
How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia by Paul Likoudis
May 4, 2000
The other day I was surprised to learn that Jeffrey Sachs, the creator of "shock therapy"
capitalism, who participated in the looting of Russia in the 1990s, is now NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo's
top adviser for health care. So we in NY will get shock therapy, much as the Russians did two
decades ago. Here is a story I wrote for The Wanderer in 2000:
===
How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia
by Paul Likoudis
In an ordinary election year, Anne Williamson's Contagion would be political dynamite, a
bombshell, a block-buster, a regime breaker.
If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing
houses (and assuming, of course, that Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book
would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the rest
of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could
say "Jonathan Hay."
Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who
control our lives, was the general director of the Harvard Institute of International Development
(HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian economy and the
plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by
Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer (HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish
sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks and investment houses in Boston
and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Contagion can be read on many different levels.
At its simplest, it is a breezy, slightly cynical, highly entertaining narrative of Russian
history from the last months of Gorbachev's rule to April 2000 - a period which saw Russia
transformed from a decaying socialist economy (which despite its shortcomings, provided a modest
standard of living to its citizens) to a "managed economy" where home-grown gangsters and socialist
theoreticians from the West, like Hay and his fellow Harvardian Jeffrey Sachs, delivered 2,500%
inflation and indescribable poverty, and transferred the ownership of Russian industry to Western
financiers.
Williamson was an eyewitness who lived on and off in Russia for more than ten years, where
she reported on all things Russian for The New York Times, Th e Wall Street Journal, and a
host of other equally reputable publications. She knew and interviewed just about everybody
involved in this gargantuan plundering scheme: Russian politicians and businessmen, the new
"gangster" capitalists and their American sponsors from the IMF, the World Bank, USAID, Credit
Suisse First Boston, the CIA, the KGB - all in all, hundreds of sources who spoke candidly,
often ruthlessly, of their parts in this terrible human drama.
Her account is filled with quotations from interviews with top aides of Yeltsin and Clinton,
all down through the ranks of the two hierarchical societies to the proliferating mass of Russian
destitute, pornographers, pimps, drug dealers, and prostitutes. Some of the principal characters,
of course, refused to talk to Williamson, such as Bill Clinton's longtime friend from Oxford,
Strobe Talbott, now a deputy secretary of state and, Williamson suspects, a onetime KGB operative
whose claim to fame is a deceitful translation of the Khrushchev Memoirs. (A KGB colonel refused
to confirm or deny to Williamson that Clinton and Talbott visited North Vietnam together in
1971 - though he did confirm their contacts with the KGB for their protests against the U.S.
war in Vietnam in Moscow. See especially footnote 1, page 210.)
The 546-page book (the best part of which is the footnotes) gives a nearly day-by-day report
on what happened to Russia; left unstated, but implied on every page, is the assumption that
those in the United States who think what happened in Russia "can't happen here" better realize
it can happen here.
Once the Clinton regime and its lapdogs in the media defined Russian thug Boris Yeltsin
as a "democrat," the wholesale looting of Russia began. According to the socialist theoreticians
at Harvard, Russia needed to be brought into the New World Order in a hurry; and what better
way to do it than Sachs' "shock therapy" - a plan that empowered the degenerate, third-generation
descendants of the original Bolsheviks by assigning them the deeds of Russia's mightiest state-owned
industries - including the giant gas, oil, electrical, and telecommunications industries, the
world's largest paper, iron, and steel factories, the world's richest gold, silver, diamond,
and platinum mines, automobile and airplane factories, etc. - who, in turn, sold some of their
shares of the properties to Westerners for a song, and pocketed the cash, while retaining control
of the companies.
These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson
of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers,
now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant millionaires
(or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign
investors.
When Russian members of the Supreme Soviet openly criticized the looting of the national
patrimony by these new gangsters early in the U.S.-driven "reform" program, in 1993, before
all Soviet institutions were destroyed, Yeltsin bombed Parliament.
Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work
with, they ignored - or shunned - the most capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists
who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke and his disciple,
Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism
would collapse. Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit
of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities.
In the new, emerging global economy, it's clear that Russia is the designated center for
heavy manufacturing - just as Asia is for clothing and computers - with its nearly unlimited
supply of hydroelectric power, iron and steel, timber, gold and other precious metals.
This helps explain why America's political elites don't give a fig about the closing down
of American industries and mines. As Williamson observes, Russia is viewed as some kind of
"closet."
What is important for Western readers to understand - as Williamson reports - is that when
Western banks and corporations bought these companies at bargain basement prices, they bought
more than just industrial equipment. In the Soviet model, every unit of industrial production
included workers' housing, churches, opera houses, schools, hospitals, supermarkets, etc.,
and the whole kit-and-caboodle was included in the selling price. By buying large shares of
these companies, Western corporations became, ipso facto, town managers.
Another Level
On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation
of capital into fewer and fewer hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts
on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression, taxation and
war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia,
the Balkans, and other countries, and how it uses its control over money to produce social
chaos.
Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of
the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank" was designed to plunder the wealth of America through
war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less than a giant pyramid
scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources.
Williamson is of that small but noble school of economics writers who believe that the academic
field of economics is not some esoteric science that can only be comprehended by those with
IQs in four digits, and she - drawing on such writers as Hayek and von Mises, Roepke and the
late American Murray Rothbard - explains in layman's vocabulary the nuts and bolts of sound
economic principles and the real-world effects of the Fed's policies on hapless Americans.
Contagion also serves up a severe indictment of the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, and the other international "lending" agencies spawned by the Council on Foreign Relations
and similar "councils" and "commissions" which are fronts for the big banks run by the Houses
of Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, et al.
The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the
policy implementers - Williamson employs the derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed
ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by the thousands
(the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances,
renting out the finest dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for
goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution businesses, and then watching,
cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the
artistic heritage of the country.
Williamson describes brilliantly that heady atmosphere in Moscow in the early days of the
IMF/USAID loan-scamming: a 24-hour party. There were bars like the Canadian-operated Hungry
Duck, which lured Russian teenage girls into its bar with a male striptease and free drinks,
"who, once thoroughly intoxicated, were then exposed to crowds of anxious young men the club
admitted only late in the evening."
The Third Level
At a third and more intriguing level, Contagion is about America's criminal politics in
the Clinton regime, and, inevitably, the reader will put Williamson's book down with the sense
that Al Gore will be the next occupier of the White House.
Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father,
of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for
Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s daughter
married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote
anti-czarist political agitation for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin
upon his successful revolution.
Williamson also documents Gore's intimate involvement with powerful Wall Street financial
houses, and his New York breakfast meeting with multibillionaire George Soros (a key Russian
player) just as the Russian collapse was underway.
Williamson tells an interesting story of Gore's response to the IMF/World Bank/USAID plunder
of U.S. taxpayers for the purpose of hobbling Russia.
By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of
billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian
and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little vibrations on Capitol
Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical
Bill Clinton bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling
ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error
and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson.
"Pundits and academics joined government officials in bemoaning Mother Russia's thieving
ways, her bottomless corruption and constant chaos, all the while wringing their soft hands
with a schoolmarm's exasperation. Russia's self-appointed democracy coach Strobe Talbott ('Pro-Consul
Strobe' to the Russians) would get it right. An equally sanctimonious Albert Gore - the same
Al Gore who'd been so quick to return the CIA's 1995 report detailing Viktor Chernomyrdin's
and Anatoly Chubais' personal corruption with the single word 'Bullshit' scrawled across it
- took the low road and sniffed that the Russians would just have to get their own economic
house in order and cut their own deal with the IMF. . . ."
The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year
period, Williamson notes, is more than $180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton
has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international public lenders
have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices."
As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded
last year, with the attendant Bank of New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker
Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock market, and the
whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings.
What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings
that barely rose above the seriousness of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result
in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively make banks another
federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial
transactions of U.S. citizens.
Double Effect
In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan
District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau, or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom
of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would show far more
professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury
secretary] Larry Summers, Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted
with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who oversaw the distribution and sale
of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member
of the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998.
"Instead of allowing Larry Summers to ramble casually in response to questions at a banking
committee hearing, the Treasury secretary should be asked exactly who suckered him - his Russian
friends, his own boss [former Harvard associate Robert Rubin, his boss at Treasury who was
once cochairman at Goldman Sachs], or private sector counterparts of the Working Committee
on Financial Markets [a White House group whose membership is drawn from the country's main
financial and market institutions: the Fed, Treasury, SEC, and the Commodities & Trading Commission].
. . . Or did he just bungle the entire matter on account of wishful thinking? Or was it gross
incompetence?
"The FBI and Congress ought to be very interested in establishing for taxpayers the truth
of any alleged 'national security' issues that justified allowing the Harvard Institute of
International Development to privatize U.S. bilateral assistance. It too should be their brief
to discover the relationship between the [Swedish wheeler-dealer and crony of Sachs, Anders]
Aslund/Carnegie crowd and Treasury and exactly what influence that relationship may have had
on the awarding of additional grants to Harvard without competition. On what basis did Team
Clinton direct their financial donor, American International Group's (AIG) Maurice Greenberg
(a man nearly as ubiquitous as any Russian oligarch in sweetheart public-funding deals), to
Brunswick Brokerage when sniffing out a $300 million OPIC guarantee for a Russian investment
fund. . . .
And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this year]
announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment
was made to him from a secret Kremlin bank account? . . .
"American and Russian citizens can never be allowed to learn what really happened to the
billions lent to Yeltsin's government; it would expose the unsavory and self-interested side
of our political, financial, and media elites. . . . Instead, the [House] Banking Committee
hearings will use the smoke screen of policing foreign assistance flows to pass legislation
that will effectively end U.S. citizens' financial privacy while making them prisoners of their
citizenship. . . . The Banking Committee will use the opportunity the Russian dirty money scandal
presents to reanimate the domestic 'Know Your Customer' program, which charges domestic banks
with monitoring and reporting on the financial transactions in which middle-class Americans
engage. This data is collected and used by various government agencies, including the IRS;
meaning that if a citizen sells the family's beat-up station wagon or their 'starter' home,
the taxman is alerted immediately that the citizen's filing should reflect the greater tax
obligation in that year of the sale. . . . Other data on citizens for which the government
has long thirsted will also be collected by government's newest police force, the banks. .
. ."
You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians,
leaving them destitute while creating a new and ruthless class of international capitalist
gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all Americans
deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy,
and restricting their civil rights. If only Americans cared.
"... You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians, leaving them destitute while creating
a new and ruthless class of international capitalist gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all
Americans deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy, and restricting their civil
rights. If only Americans cared. ..."
The other day I was surprised to learn that Jeffrey Sachs, the creator of "shock therapy" capitalism, who participated in the
looting of Russia in the 1990s, is now NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo's top adviser for health care. So we in NY will get shock therapy, much
as the Russians did two decades ago.
Here is a story I wrote for The Wanderer in 2000:
===
How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia
by Paul Likoudis
In an ordinary election year, Anne Williamson's Contagion would be political dynamite, a bombshell, a block-buster, a regime breaker.
If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing houses (and assuming, of course, that
Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, and the rest of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could say "Jonathan
Hay."
Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who control our lives, was the general director
of the Harvard Institute of International Development (HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian
economy and the plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer
(HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks
and investment houses in Boston and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Contagion can be read on many different levels.
At its simplest, it is a breezy, slightly cynical, highly entertaining narrative of Russian history from the last months of Gorbachev's
rule to April 2000 - a period which saw Russia transformed from a decaying socialist economy (which despite its shortcomings, provided
a modest standard of living to its citizens) to a "managed economy" where home-grown gangsters and socialist theoreticians from the
West, like Hay and his fellow Harvardian Jeffrey Sachs, delivered 2,500% inflation and indescribable poverty, and transferred the
ownership of Russian industry to Western financiers.
Williamson was an eyewitness who lived on and off in Russia for more than ten years, where she reported on all things Russian
for The New York Times, Th e Wall Street Journal, and a host of other equally reputable publications. She knew and interviewed just
about everybody involved in this gargantuan plundering scheme: Russian politicians and businessmen, the new "gangster" capitalists
and their American sponsors from the IMF, the World Bank, USAID, Credit Suisse First Boston, the CIA, the KGB - all in all, hundreds
of sources who spoke candidly, often ruthlessly, of their parts in this terrible human drama.
Her account is filled with quotations from interviews with top aides of Yeltsin and Clinton, all down through the ranks of the
two hierarchical societies to the proliferating mass of Russian destitute, pornographers, pimps, drug dealers, and prostitutes. Some
of the principal characters, of course, refused to talk to Williamson, such as Bill Clinton's longtime friend from Oxford, Strobe
Talbott, now a deputy secretary of state and, Williamson suspects, a onetime KGB operative whose claim to fame is a deceitful translation
of the Khrushchev Memoirs. (A KGB colonel refused to confirm or deny to Williamson that Clinton and Talbott visited North Vietnam
together in 1971 - though he did confirm their contacts with the KGB for their protests against the U.S. war in Vietnam in Moscow.
See especially footnote 1, page 210.)
The 546-page book (the best part of which is the footnotes) gives a nearly day-by-day report on what happened to Russia; left
unstated, but implied on every page, is the assumption that those in the United States who think what happened in Russia "can't happen
here" better realize it can happen here.
Once the Clinton regime and its lapdogs in the media defined Russian thug Boris Yeltsin as a "democrat," the wholesale looting
of Russia began. According to the socialist theoreticians at Harvard, Russia needed to be brought into the New World Order in a hurry;
and what better way to do it than Sachs' "shock therapy" - a plan that empowered the degenerate, third-generation descendants of
the original Bolsheviks by assigning them the deeds of Russia's mightiest state-owned industries - including the giant gas, oil,
electrical, and telecommunications industries, the world's largest paper, iron, and steel factories, the world's richest gold, silver,
diamond, and platinum mines, automobile and airplane factories, etc. - who, in turn, sold some of their shares of the properties
to Westerners for a song, and pocketed the cash, while retaining control of the companies.
These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as
the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers, now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant
millionaires (or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign investors.
When Russian members of the Supreme Soviet openly criticized the looting of the national patrimony by these new gangsters early
in the U.S.-driven "reform" program, in 1993, before all Soviet institutions were destroyed, Yeltsin bombed Parliament.
Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work with, they ignored - or shunned - the most
capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke
and his disciple, Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism would collapse.
Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment
of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities.
In the new, emerging global economy, it's clear that Russia is the designated center for heavy manufacturing - just as Asia is
for clothing and computers - with its nearly unlimited supply of hydroelectric power, iron and steel, timber, gold and other precious
metals.
This helps explain why America's political elites don't give a fig about the closing down of American industries and mines. As
Williamson observes, Russia is viewed as some kind of "closet."
What is important for Western readers to understand - as Williamson reports - is that when Western banks and corporations bought
these companies at bargain basement prices, they bought more than just industrial equipment. In the Soviet model, every unit of industrial
production included workers' housing, churches, opera houses, schools, hospitals, supermarkets, etc., and the whole kit-and-caboodle
was included in the selling price. By buying large shares of these companies, Western corporations became, ipso facto, town managers.
Another Level
On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation of capital into fewer and fewer
hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression,
taxation and war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, the Balkans, and other countries,
and how it uses its control over money to produce social chaos.
Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank"
was designed to plunder the wealth of America through war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less
than a giant pyramid scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources.
Williamson is of that small but noble school of economics writers who believe that the academic field of economics is not some
esoteric science that can only be comprehended by those with IQs in four digits, and she - drawing on such writers as Hayek and von
Mises, Roepke and the late American Murray Rothbard - explains in layman's vocabulary the nuts and bolts of sound economic principles
and the real-world effects of the Fed's policies on hapless Americans.
Contagion also serves up a severe indictment of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the other international "lending"
agencies spawned by the Council on Foreign Relations and similar "councils" and "commissions" which are fronts for the big banks
run by the Houses of Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, et al.
The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the policy implementers - Williamson employs the
derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by
the thousands (the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances, renting out the finest
dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution
businesses, and then watching, cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the artistic
heritage of the country.
Williamson describes brilliantly that heady atmosphere in Moscow in the early days of the IMF/USAID loan-scamming: a 24-hour party.
There were bars like the Canadian-operated Hungry Duck, which lured Russian teenage girls into its bar with a male striptease and
free drinks, "who, once thoroughly intoxicated, were then exposed to crowds of anxious young men the club admitted only late in the
evening."
The Third Level
At a third and more intriguing level, Contagion is about America's criminal politics in the Clinton regime, and, inevitably, the
reader will put Williamson's book down with the sense that Al Gore will be the next occupier of the White House.
Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father, of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's
pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s
daughter married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote anti-czarist political agitation
for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin upon his successful revolution.
Williamson also documents Gore's intimate involvement with powerful Wall Street financial houses, and his New York breakfast meeting
with multibillionaire George Soros (a key Russian player) just as the Russian collapse was underway.
Williamson tells an interesting story of Gore's response to the IMF/World Bank/USAID plunder of U.S. taxpayers for the purpose
of hobbling Russia.
By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had
vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little
vibrations on Capitol Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical Bill Clinton
bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding
a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson.
"Pundits and academics joined government officials in bemoaning Mother Russia's thieving ways, her bottomless corruption and constant
chaos, all the while wringing their soft hands with a schoolmarm's exasperation. Russia's self-appointed democracy coach Strobe Talbott
('Pro-Consul Strobe' to the Russians) would get it right. An equally sanctimonious Albert Gore - the same Al Gore who'd been so quick
to return the CIA's 1995 report detailing Viktor Chernomyrdin's and Anatoly Chubais' personal corruption with the single word 'Bullshit'
scrawled across it - took the low road and sniffed that the Russians would just have to get their own economic house in order and
cut their own deal with the IMF. . . ."
The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year period, Williamson notes, is more than
$180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international
public lenders have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices."
As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded last year, with the attendant Bank of
New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock
market, and the whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings.
What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings that barely rose above the seriousness
of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively
make banks another federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial transactions of
U.S. citizens.
Double Effect
In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau,
or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would
show far more professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury secretary] Larry Summers,
Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who
oversaw the distribution and sale of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member of
the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998.
"Instead of allowing Larry Summers to ramble casually in response to questions at a banking committee hearing, the Treasury secretary
should be asked exactly who suckered him - his Russian friends, his own boss [former Harvard associate Robert Rubin, his boss at
Treasury who was once cochairman at Goldman Sachs], or private sector counterparts of the Working Committee on Financial Markets
[a White House group whose membership is drawn from the country's main financial and market institutions: the Fed, Treasury, SEC,
and the Commodities & Trading Commission]. . . . Or did he just bungle the entire matter on account of wishful thinking? Or was it
gross incompetence?
"The FBI and Congress ought to be very interested in establishing for taxpayers the truth of any alleged 'national security' issues
that justified allowing the Harvard Institute of International Development to privatize U.S. bilateral assistance. It too should
be their brief to discover the relationship between the [Swedish wheeler-dealer and crony of Sachs, Anders] Aslund/Carnegie crowd
and Treasury and exactly what influence that relationship may have had on the awarding of additional grants to Harvard without competition.
On what basis did Team Clinton direct their financial donor, American International Group's (AIG) Maurice Greenberg (a man nearly
as ubiquitous as any Russian oligarch in sweetheart public-funding deals), to Brunswick Brokerage when sniffing out a $300 million
OPIC guarantee for a Russian investment fund. . . . And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this
year] announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment was made to him from a secret
Kremlin bank account? . . .
"American and Russian citizens can never be allowed to learn what really happened to the billions lent to Yeltsin's government;
it would expose the unsavory and self-interested side of our political, financial, and media elites. . . . Instead, the [House] Banking
Committee hearings will use the smoke screen of policing foreign assistance flows to pass legislation that will effectively end U.S.
citizens' financial privacy while making them prisoners of their citizenship. . . . The Banking Committee will use the opportunity
the Russian dirty money scandal presents to reanimate the domestic 'Know Your Customer' program, which charges domestic banks with
monitoring and reporting on the financial transactions in which middle-class Americans engage. This data is collected and used by
various government agencies, including the IRS; meaning that if a citizen sells the family's beat-up station wagon or their 'starter'
home, the taxman is alerted immediately that the citizen's filing should reflect the greater tax obligation in that year of the sale.
. . . Other data on citizens for which the government has long thirsted will also be collected by government's newest police force,
the banks. . . ."
You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians, leaving them destitute while creating
a new and ruthless class of international capitalist gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing
all Americans deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy, and restricting their
civil rights. If only Americans cared.
Whether we like it or not, America was built on crony capitalism. Be it
Hamilton's policies which set the groundwork for industrialization, or be it
the massive land grants for railroads, they made America what it is today.
It
was called "the American system" and as such was copied by Prussia in the 19th
century, with the result that an agricultural backwater turned into an
industrial powerhouse that two World Wars could not destroy.
There may be arguments why that model is no longer needed. But to posit a
pristine time when none of it happened, and how it was spoiled by crony
capitalism, is basically not knowing your history.
Its not the truth that Communism has been tried and failed, its that true
Communism has never been tried, erh, I mean true capitalism. [insert post-1789
ideology here.]
To Adriana Pena's comment, I'd add the Homestead Act, the Erie Canal (state
government), and pretty much any time government force was used to removed
Indians from land, allowing for the widespread distribution of land ownership
that did so much to make the U.S. a country of middle-class folks.
As others
have pointed out, there's a Libertarian vibe to these Crony Capitalism
articles. Like there's a "true capitalism" or a "true free market" out there.
There isn't.
In my little town, my city council during the past few years has:
* pledged
hundreds of thousands of dollars of annual "sales tax rebates" to the region's
largest car dealer. The reason: He expanded his dealership. The agreement says
the total amount of the rebate may not exceed the total amount of the
expansion. In other words, taxpayers could pay for every penny he spends.
Meanwhile, smaller car dealers in the area pay every penny the local
governments can get.
* pledged up to $1 million to a multi-national retailer that no doubt would
have opened a store here anyway. That retailer of course is taking business
from our smaller independently owned retailers, whose taxes help fund the
competitor that is taking business from them.
* bought an office building for $1.1 million, knocked it down, prepared the
lot for development, and "sold" it to a real estate developer for $10. Yes,
$10. After having spent well over $1 million to buy the property and prepare it
for development.
* built a new sewer plant and sent sewer/water rates skyrocketing to pay for
it. Then, just weeks before the plant was to go on line, the city set aside 25%
of the plant capacity for a real estate developer who announced plans for an
industrial park. Technically, on the day the plant opened, it was already
beyond capacity. The real estate developer paid exactly $0 for it even as
homeowners and businesses around town are paying millions of dollars more for
it.
The amazing thing is, many people seem okay with all this (and there are
other examples like these I could give). The Chamber of Commerce, the Economic
Development Corporation (which is made up of local economic development
directors, mayors, city councilmen, big businesses, etc.), the local newspaper,
all tell us these are great moves because it's economic development.
At the same time they tell us these things, many storefronts are empty,
people are still walking away from houses that are underwater on their
mortgages, property taxes and local sales taxes are going up, etc.
ID269211 Ima Right
,
29 Apr 2017 12:19 According to NYT on Obama $400K speech, Obamas already have $12 million plus
receiving $80 million for their biography/books.
"... By Joshua Weitz, a research associate at the Academic-Industry Research Network and an incoming graduate student in the PhD program in political science at Brown University ..."
"... Since the merger of Penguin and Random House in 2013, PRH has been owned jointly by Bertelsmann and the British education and publishing multinational Pearson, PLC. A leading producer of education and testing materials, Pearson has profited substantially from one of President Obama's major legislative initiatives-Race to the Top (RTTT). ..."
By Joshua Weitz, a research associate at the Academic-Industry Research Network and an incoming
graduate student in the PhD program in political science at Brown University
Since leaving office President Obama has drawn widespread criticism for accepting a
$400,000 speaking fee from the Wall Street investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald, including from
Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Only a few months out of office, the move has been
viewed as emblematic of the cozy relationship between the financial sector and political elites.
But as the President's critics have voiced outrage over the decision many have been reluctant
to criticize the record-setting
$65 million book deal that Barack and Michelle Obama landed jointly this February with Penguin
Random House (PRH). Writing in the Washington Post, for example,
Ruth Marcus argues that while the Wall Street speech "feels like unfortunate icing on an already
distasteful cake," the book deal is little more than the outcome of market forces fueled by consumer
demand: "If the market bears $60 million to hear from the Obamas, great."
For industry insiders, however, the size of the deal has vastly exceeded estimates of a projected
final offer. As the leading trade magazine, Publishers Weekly ,
reported , a week before the announcement one publisher involved in the negotiations estimated
that the two books would likely garner a $30 million contract, less than half the accepted bid.
Seeking to make sense of the $65 million figure,
some have pointed to the former President's prior book sales and Clintonesque celebrity status.
Since 2001, 1995's Dreams from My Father and 2006's The Audacity of Hope -both of which
were published by Crown, a division of Random House (now PRH) owned by the German multimedia conglomerate
Bertelsmann-have sold roughly 4.7 million copies, undoubtedly yielding substantial profits.
But according to industry insiders the former First Lady's contribution is a far greater gamble.
And despite the President's successful publishing record the size of the contract remains something
of a mystery. At $20 per book, sales of the two books combined would have to exceed 3.25 million
copies to match the cost of the advance, and that doesn't include necessary overhead such as the
costs of materials, distribution, and marketing. As one insider stated, "no one expected it to go
this high, [with the books selling for] almost double what we might have imagined "
At this point, a brief review of the relationship between the Obama administration and the companies
behind the deal may shed light on the logic underlying this extraordinary bid.
Since
the merger of Penguin and Random House in 2013, PRH has been owned jointly by Bertelsmann and
the British education and publishing multinational Pearson, PLC. A leading producer of education
and testing materials, Pearson has profited substantially from one of President Obama's major legislative
initiatives-Race to the Top (RTTT).
Much like its Bush-era predecessor, No Child Left Behind, RTTT provides competitive funding to
K-12 schools based on a range of criteria intended to stimulate higher teacher and student performance.
Among the standards for receiving funding under RTTT is the adoption of Common Core (CC) testing,
which, in effect, incentivized school districts to hand federal grant money over to private firms
that create CC tests.
Backed
by the powerful Gates Foundation and pushed heavily by President Obama and then Secretary of
Education Arne Duncan, RTTT was met with widespread criticism among parents, teachers, and education
scholars for its punitive and test-centric approach to education reform. In July of 2011, outrage
over the initiative culminated in a
widely publicized march held outside the White House, attendees of which included some of the
country's leading educators, such as Jonathan Kozol and Diane Ravitch.
Despite extensive outcry, including
calls for Duncan's resignation in 2014 from the National Education Association and the American
Federation of Teachers, two groups that many regard as traditional Democratic constituencies, President
Obama continued to voice support for Duncan and RTTT. When Duncan finally resigned in late-2015,
Obama praised Duncan's record , while not-so-subtly infantilizing his critics: "Arne has done
more to bring our educational system-sometimes kicking and screaming-into the 21 st century
than anybody else."
But if RTTT was a failure in the eyes of the country's educators, it was a remarkable success
for the testing companies. Between 2010, when RTTT first took effect, and 2014 demand for tests in
the U.S. grew from
$1.6 to $2.5 billion . Few firms benefitted from the rise of standardized testing in the United
States as
much as Pearson . According to
an analysis by CNBC from 2010 to 2014 Pearson received more contracts than any other company
in the industry-27 out of 128 in total. As Elaine Weiss noted in
a 2013 report
published by the Economic Policy Institute, in the state of Tennessee, one of the top recipients
of RTTT awards, state funds flowing to Pearson increased threefold, from roughly $7 to $22 million
between 2009 and 2013.
While the Obamas' deal is unique for the amount of money involved, outsized book contracts between
politicians and industries they've benefitted has precedent. In a
recent report issued
by the Roosevelt Institute, the study's authors, Thomas Ferguson, Paul Jorgensen, and Jie Chen, argue
that the mainstream approach to money in politics fails to recognize major sources of political spending.
Among the least appreciated avenues for political money, they argue, are payments to political figures
in the form of director's fees, speaking fees, and book contracts. They note, for example,
an apparent quid pro quo between former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and telecommunications
firms:
Newt Gingrich, a major player in the critical Telecommunications Act of 1996, had a history
of ties to organizations in this arena from his earliest days as a politician. He also profited
from book contracts proffered by vertically integrated concerns anchored in the industry.
NotTimothyGeithner
Future corruption is important. In a way, its not about the next President as much as the back
benchers with delusions of adequacy. If Obama can get $65 million (I wonder if this was symbolic),
a key vote can get a nice advance for a vote here and there especially if they blow up on tv similar
to Obama or Liz Warren.
Most politicians are surprisingly cheap when it comes to actual payments, but the expectation
they can cash in is important.
TK421
It's definitely setting/maintaining a precedent.
sgt_doom
It's called a payoff. And look at the majority shareholders behind these dudes, it is always
the Big Four investment firms: Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street, and Fidelity (the others you
may see will be the front-type groups, like Capital Group, and when you drill down further you
get the Big Four once again).
skippy
Common Core was always about getting an IP on education and thus monopolize a bottleneck for
endless rent extraction.
disheveled . CC seems to be a reference to a core feature of neoliberalism and not education
but we know how these semantic games are played
kurtismayfield
It seems that the book deal is a common payoff for our political class.
In all, Cuomo has made $783,000 from HarperCollins for his book. The book sold 3,200 copies
since it was published in the fall of 2014, according to tracking company NPD BookScan.
According to Neilsen BookScan, Patrick's first book, "A Reason to Believe,'' has sold 9,445
copies in hardcover since coming out last April. And for that, Random House gave the governor
a whopping $1.3 million advance.
johnnygl
Nice find
Bawb the Revelator
I believe, Kurtis, the late Gore Vidal used to complain about America no longer reading [THE
UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA.] Bertelsmann's education hustle will survive Betsy Devos' evangelism
to "charterize" the Public School system – which, btw, predates the US Constitution by 130 years.
No Matter: Surely Bertelsmann can and will diversify into Netflix sit-coms and similar growth
industries.
Syria strike is not mentioned, but this HaffPo junk after all ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... concocted out of thin air ..."
"... Ivanka Trump ― along with her husband, Jared Kushner ― has been thought to occupy rarified space within Trump's constellation of voices, if only because she is one Trump adviser that can never lose her job. ..."
"... And weeks ago, The New York Times reasserted Ivanka's bona fides depicting her as an "all-around confidante" for her father, an "adviser whose portfolio has few parameters," and one of the "highest-ranking women" in Trump's senior staff. ..."
On the other hand it could be that Ivanka Trump is actually complicit in her father's decisions
(
as is her husband , who reportedly backed Trump's decision to fire Comey) and all this talk about
the way she has the unique power to steer her father from his most reckless decisions is just something
that was ― I don't know ... concocted out of thin air ? Wow, you know, if that were the
case, then her role as a White House adviser might have to be reassessed. But surely there's no need.
Based on the way the media has covered Ivanka Trump over the past year, consistently asserting her
as a "moderating influence," it's clear that the real story is that her ability to guide her father's
decision-making process is now decidedly on the wane. Yeah, that has to be what's happening. In a
way this is nothing new. Since its inception, the Trump White House has been
a hothouse of factional infighting , with various players in opposing camps gaining or losing
leverage over the president's decision-making process.
But Ivanka Trump ― along with her husband,
Jared Kushner ― has been thought to occupy rarified space within Trump's constellation of voices,
if only because she is one Trump adviser that can never lose her job.
... ... ...
And weeks ago,
The New
York Times reasserted Ivanka's bona fides depicting her as an "all-around confidante" for her
father, an "adviser whose portfolio has few parameters," and one of the "highest-ranking women" in
Trump's senior staff. According to this report, she and her father "trade thoughts from morning until
late at night," and she has a role in reviewing "some executive orders before they are signed." Per
the Times:
In interviews last week, she said she intended to act as a moderating force in an administration
swept into office by nationalist sentiment. Other officials added that she had weighed in on topics
including climate, deportation, education, and refugee policy.
However, the Times noted that there was scant evidence to indicate she'd ever actually successfully
manifested this ability to influence her father's thinking or change his mind. Obviously, only a
nattering nabob of negativism would suggest that she may, in fact, have actually been very
influential to Trump's thinking all this while, or that she is personally approving of his policy
choices and comfortable with the ethno-nationalist tinge to her father's politics. Nevertheless,
Trump's decision to fire Comey ― along with his daughter's decision to not attempt to intervene ―
demonstrates that she might be becoming an increasingly marginalized figure in her father's administration.
Syria strike is not mentioned, but this HaffPo after all ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... concocted out of thin air ..."
"... Ivanka Trump ― along with her husband, Jared Kushner ― has been thought to occupy rarified space within Trump's constellation of voices, if only because she is one Trump adviser that can never lose her job. ..."
"... And weeks ago, The New York Times reasserted Ivanka's bona fides depicting her as an "all-around confidante" for her father, an "adviser whose portfolio has few parameters," and one of the "highest-ranking women" in Trump's senior staff. ..."
On the other hand it could be that Ivanka Trump is actually complicit in her father's decisions
(
as is her husband , who reportedly backed Trump's decision to fire Comey) and all this talk about
the way she has the unique power to steer her father from his most reckless decisions is just something
that was ― I don't know ... concocted out of thin air ? Wow, you know, if that were the
case, then her role as a White House adviser might have to be reassessed. But surely there's no need.
Based on the way the media has covered Ivanka Trump over the past year, consistently asserting her
as a "moderating influence," it's clear that the real story is that her ability to guide her father's
decision-making process is now decidedly on the wane. Yeah, that has to be what's happening. In a
way this is nothing new. Since its inception, the Trump White House has been
a hothouse of factional infighting , with various players in opposing camps gaining or losing
leverage over the president's decision-making process.
But Ivanka Trump ― along with her husband,
Jared Kushner ― has been thought to occupy rarified space within Trump's constellation of voices,
if only because she is one Trump adviser that can never lose her job.
... ... ...
And weeks ago,
The New
York Times reasserted Ivanka's bona fides depicting her as an "all-around confidante" for her
father, an "adviser whose portfolio has few parameters," and one of the "highest-ranking women" in
Trump's senior staff. According to this report, she and her father "trade thoughts from morning until
late at night," and she has a role in reviewing "some executive orders before they are signed." Per
the Times:
In interviews last week, she said she intended to act as a moderating force in an administration
swept into office by nationalist sentiment. Other officials added that she had weighed in on topics
including climate, deportation, education, and refugee policy.
However, the Times noted that there was scant evidence to indicate she'd ever actually successfully
manifested this ability to influence her father's thinking or change his mind. Obviously, only a
nattering nabob of negativism would suggest that she may, in fact, have actually been very
influential to Trump's thinking all this while, or that she is personally approving of his policy
choices and comfortable with the ethno-nationalist tinge to her father's politics. Nevertheless,
Trump's decision to fire Comey ― along with his daughter's decision to not attempt to intervene ―
demonstrates that she might be becoming an increasingly marginalized figure in her father's administration.
"... The ways that Jared, " senior adviser to the president," and Ivanka, " assistant to the president," have already benefited from their links to "Dad" in the first 100 days of his presidency stagger the imagination. Ivanka's company, for instance, won three new trademarks for its products from China on the very day she dined with President Xi Jinping at her father's Palm Beach club. ..."
"... Here's where things get tricky. We can't pinpoint the exact gains generated from any one meeting of the next generation Trump. They rely on the idea that, because their brand was so huge to begin with, profits and deals would have come anyway. That's why we won't ever see their books or tax returns. ..."
"... The Trumps and Kushners will behave in ways that will benefit their global businesses. There's just one catch. They have to get away with it, legally speaking. So the first law of family business in the Oval Office turns out to be: get stellar legal counsel. And they've done that. Their lawyers have by now successfully created trusts that theoretically - but only theoretically - separate Ivanka from her businesses and deflect any accusations over activities that may, now or in the future, violate federal rules. And there are two of those in particular to consider. ..."
"... The Code of Federal Regulations is a set of rules published by the executive departments and agencies of the government. Title 18 section 208 of that code deals with "acts affecting a personal financial interest." This criminal conflict of interest statute states "an officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States Government" can't have a "financial interest" in the result of their duties. ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Forbes ..."
"... Ivanka noted in her book, The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Work and Life ..."
"... Making the future yet murkier, the family may be on the precipice of major problems. The most striking of them: Kushner's marquee building, 666 Fifth Ave (an 80-story, ultra-luxury Manhattan skyscraper) has a greater than 25% vacancy rate . It hasn't made enough money to even cover its interest payments for several years, and in two years it will have to pay principal as well on its $1.2 billion mortgage. That's going to hurt if foreign companies don't step in to staunch the flow of dollars out of the firm and that, undoubtedly, could require a quid pro quo ..."
President Trump, his children and their spouses, aren't just using the Oval Office to augment their political legacy or secure
future riches. Okay, they certainly are doing that, but that's not the most useful way to think about what's happening at the moment.
Everything will make more sense if you reimagine the White House as simply the newest branch of the Trump family business empire,
its latest outpost.
It turns out that the voters who cast their ballots for Donald Trump, the patriarch, got a package deal for his whole clan. That
would include, of course,
first
daughter Ivanka who, along with her husband, Jared Kushner, is now a key political adviser to the president of the United States.
Both now have
offices
in the White House close to him. They have multiple
security clearances
, access to high-level leaders whenever they visit the Oval Office or Mar-a-Lago, and the perfect formula for the sort of brand-enhancement
that now seems to come with such eminence. President Trump may have an exceedingly "
flexible " attitude toward policymaking generally,
but in one area count on him to be stalwart and immobile: his urge to run the White House like a business, a family business.
The ways that Jared, "
senior adviser to the president," and Ivanka, "
assistant to the president," have already benefited from their links to "Dad" in the first 100 days of his presidency stagger
the imagination. Ivanka's company, for instance,
won three new trademarks for its products from China on the
very day she dined with President Xi Jinping at
her father's Palm Beach club.
In a similar fashion, thanks to her
chance to socialize with
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, her company could be better positioned for deal negotiations in his country. One of those perks
of family power includes nearing a licensing agreement with Japanese apparel giant
Sanei International
, whose parent company's largest stakeholder is the Development Bank of Japan - an entity owned by the Japanese government. We
are supposed to buy the notion that the
concurrent private
viewing of Ivanka's products in Tokyo was a coincidence of the scheduling fairy. Yet since her father became president, you won't
be surprised to learn that global sales of her merchandise have more or less gone
through the roof .
Here's where things get tricky. We can't pinpoint the exact gains generated from any one meeting of the next generation Trump.
They rely on the idea that, because their brand was so huge to begin with, profits and deals would have come anyway. That's why we
won't ever see their books or tax returns.
Conflicts of interest? They now permeate the halls of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but none of this will affect or change one thing
President Trump holds dear - and believe it or not, it's not the wishes of his base in the American heartland. It's advancing his
flesh and blood, and their flesh-and-blood-once-removed spouses and relatives.
Federal Regulations and Trump Family Interpretations
The Trumps and Kushners will behave in ways that will benefit their global businesses. There's just one catch. They have to
get away with it, legally speaking. So the first law of family business in the Oval Office turns out to be: get stellar legal counsel.
And they've done that. Their lawyers have by now successfully created trusts that theoretically - but only theoretically - separate
Ivanka from her businesses and
deflect any accusations
over activities that may, now or in the future, violate federal
rules. And there are two of
those in particular to consider.
The Code of Federal Regulations is
a set of rules published by the executive departments and agencies of the government.
Title 18 section 208 of that code deals with "acts affecting
a personal financial interest." This criminal conflict of interest
statute states "an officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States Government" can't have a "financial interest"
in the result of their duties. What that should mean, legally speaking, for a family occupying the executive office is: Ivanka
could not have dinner with the president of China while her business was applying for and receiving provisional approval of pending
trademarks from his country, if one of those acts
might impact the other. To an outsider, the connection between those acts seems obvious enough and it's bound to be typical of what's
to come.
Meanwhile, there are real penalties for being convicted of violating this rule. These include fines or imprisonment or both as
set forth in section 216 of Title 18.
Certain lawyers have
argued that Ivanka's and
Jared's appointments
don't violate Rule 208 or other
nepotism statutes because they are
not paid advisers to the president. In other words, because Ivanka doesn't get a salary for her service to her uh, country conflicts
automatically vanish. She's already done her Trumptilian best to demonstrate her affinity for ethical behavior by cordoning herself
off from her business responsibilities (sort of).
According
to the New York Times , "Ivanka has transferred her brand's assets into a trust overseen by her brother-in-law, Josh
Kushner, and sister-in-law, Nicole Meyer." Phew, no family connections there! Or maybe she just doesn't care for her siblings-in-law.
But not all assets, it turns out,
are created equal. So the daughter-in-chief will, it seems, keep her
stake in the Trump International Hotel, a 15-minute stroll from the White House, which just happens to boast "the
Ivanka Trump Suite " and "
The Spa by Ivanka Trump ." ("The Spa by Ivanka Trump™
and Fitness Center transitions guests from the Technogym setting of the Fitness Center to the tranquil spa haven that is calming,
balancing, purifying, revitalizing, and healing ") There, many a foreign diplomat or special interest mogul can "calm, energize,
[and] restore" himself or herself, while angling for an "in" with the family. We don't know precisely the nature of what the Trump
family stands to gain from the hotel because its books aren't made public, but it's reasonable to assume that we're not talking losses.
Besides this other D.C. domain, Ivanka and Jared will remain the beneficiaries of their mutual business empires now valued at about
three quarters of a billion dollars, according to
White House ethics filings.
But wait. There's an even more explicit rule against using public office (like, say, the White House) for private gain:
Title 5 section
2635.702 . On that subject, the section states that "an
employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service, or enterprise,
or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or
persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity."
Okay, that's wordy. And though the rule doesn't apply to the president or vice president - we have Nelson Rockefeller to thank
for that, but more on him later - for any other executive office position, the rule explains that "status as an employee is unaffected
by pay or leave status." That means that you can't say someone is not an employee just because she isn't drawing a paycheck, which
means she isn't, in fact, exempt just because she can't show a W-2 form.
The second rule of family business is undoubtedly: control the means of enforcement. And President Trump just got
his man onto the Supreme Court, so even if ethical charges rose to the highest court in the land, the family has at least a little
insurance.
Bankers and Presidents: A Walk Through History
The idea of powerful bloodlines collaborating is nothing new in either business or politics. At the turn of the twentieth century,
mogul families routinely intermarried to spawn yet more powerful and profitable business empires. And when it comes to Oval Office
politics, American history is littered with multi-generational public servants with blood ties to presidents. Abraham Lincoln's oldest
son, Robert, a Republican, served as
secretary of war in
the administrations of Presidents James Garfield and Chester Arthur, and finally as U.S.
minister to Great Britain
during President Benjamin Harrison 's administration.
Dwight D. Eisenhower's son, John, became a decorated brigadier-general, served as assistant staff secretary in the White House while
his father was in office and was later appointed
ambassador to Belgium
under President Richard Nixon (once his father's
vice-president). But neither of them inflated the coffers of the family business in the process.
Whether family business connections might influence prominent figures in the White House isn't a subject new to the Trump era
either. In 1974, when Gerald Ford, who took over the presidency after Richard Nixon's impeachment, nominated Nelson Rockefeller to
be his vice president, Nelson's brother
David
ran the Chase Manhattan Bank (now JPMorgan Chase). Questions naturally arose about the notorious wealth and political reach of
the Rockefeller family. Nelson, the grandson of oil magnate John D. Rockefeller, had even
worked
at the bank and had been on the boards of multiple oil companies.
That same year, the Department of Justice conveniently concluded that conflict of interest laws
did not apply to the office of the vice president - but not before Democratic Senator Robert Byrd asked, "Can't we at least agree
that the influence is there, that it is a tremendous influence, that it is more influence than any president or vice president ever
had?" And yet, as fabulously wealthy and linked in as Nelson Rockefeller was, his situation doesn't even compare to the family business
tangle in the Trump White House.
There have been other family members than the Trumps and Jared Kushner in positions of significance in the White House. When,
for instance, Woodrow Wilson fell gravely ill
in 1919, his second wife, Edith, stepped in to act on his behalf, essentially running the government in a blanket of secrecy
from his bedside. Her intention, however, was never to make hay with a family business, but to ensure that her husband's policies
prevailed. The two Bush presidents, with a
business and
banking legacy that snaked
back a century, were elected, not handed power. And though Bill Clinton's reign in the Oval Office enabled wife Hillary to garner
enough public recognition (and banking connections) to successfully run for senator in New York State, become secretary of state
under President Obama, and launch two ultimately unsuccessful presidential bids, the Clintons only became
super-wealthy after Bill's time in office. Though their charity foundation's
ties to foreign governments remain suspect, they never had a private business while Bill was in the White House.
What can't be found in the historical record is someone's child, wife, or relations holding court in the West Wing while expanding
a family business, no less a network of them. The present situation, in other words, is unique in the annals of American history.
Only 100 days into Donald Trump's presidency, he already has something of the look of the authoritarian kleptocrats elsewhere on
the planet who siphon state wealth into their own bank accounts and businesses.
And remember, the Trump empire is also the Kushner empire. Jared's
family business depends on global investors hailing from countries that just happen to be in his White House portfolio. He, for
example, led the efforts
to prepare for the state visit to Mar-a-Lago of the Chinese president (while the Kushner business was
engaged in high-level talks with a major Chinese financial conglomerate). A Russian state-owned bank under U.S. sanctions whose
chairman met with Jared in December
referred to him
as the head of Kushner Companies, though he was already visibly if not yet officially a Trump adviser.
He is similarly the administration's point man for Middle East "peace," even though his family has financial relationships with
Israel . Meanwhile, in his
role as head of the newly formed
White House Office of American Innovation, the potential opportunities to fuse government and private business opportunities are
likely to prove endless.
Nepotism on Parade
Faced with the dynasty-crushing possibility of selling his business or even placing it in a blind trust, Donald Trump chose instead
to let his two older sons, Eric and Donald Jr., manage it. Talk about smoke and mirrors. While speaking with
Forbes in March, Eric indicated that he would provide his father with updates on the Trump Organization "quarterly" - but
who truly believes that father and sons won't discuss the family empire far more frequently than that?
The family has already racked up a
laundry
list of global conflicts of interest that suggest ways in which the White House is likely to become a moneymaking vehicle for
the Trump line. There's Turkey, for instance, where the Trump Organization already has a substantial investment, and where President
Trump recently
called President Recip Tayyip Erdogan to congratulate him on his power-grabbing, anti-democratic victory in a disputed election
to change the country's constitution. Given Trump business interests globally, you could multiply that call by the world.
Meanwhile, Ivanka's brand isn't just doing business as usual, it's killing it. Since 2017,
according
to the Associated Press, "global sales of Ivanka Trump merchandise have surged." As a sign of that, the brand's imports, mostly
from China, have more than doubled over the previous year. As for her husband, he remained the CEO of Kushner Companies through January,
only then
abdicating his management role in that real-estate outfit and 58 other businesses, though remaining the sole primary beneficiary
of most of the associated family trusts. His and Ivanka's children are secondary beneficiaries. That means any policy decision he
promotes could, for better or worse, affect the family business and it doesn't take a genius to know which of those options he's
likely to choose.
Kleptocrats, Inc.
Despite an already mind-boggling
set
of existing conflicts of interest, ranging from
business affiliations with oligarchs
connected to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to
the Secret Service and the
Pentagon leasing space in Trump Tower (for at least $3 million per year), the Trump family business is now looking to the glorious,
long haul. The family is already scouting for a
second hotel in Washington. Trump has reportedly used nearly $500,000 from early campaign money raised for his own 2020 presidential
bid to
bolster the biz. It's evidently been poured into "Trump-owned restaurants, hotels and golf clubs," as well as rent at Trump Tower
in New York City.
According to the latest polls, the majority
of registered voters believe that the installation of Ivanka and Jared in the White House is inappropriate. But that could matter
less to Donald Trump. Ask
Stephen Bannon
or Chris Christie
what happens when Ivanka or Jared don't like you. That's the family version of mob-style power.
Ivanka noted in her book, The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Work and Life , that "in business, as in life, nothing
is ever handed to you." Except, of course, when your father is president and he hands you the keys to grow the family business on
a silver platter.
Four decades ago, at a Senate hearing on his potential conflicts of interest, Vice President Rockefeller was
asked , "Can you
separate the interests of big business from the national interest when they differ?" It's a question some senator should pose to
Ivanka and Jared, replacing "big business" with "big family business."
Making the future yet murkier, the family may be on the precipice of major problems. The most striking of them: Kushner's
marquee building, 666 Fifth Ave (an 80-story, ultra-luxury Manhattan skyscraper) has a greater than
25% vacancy rate
. It hasn't made enough money to even cover its interest payments for several years, and in two years it will have to
pay principal as
well on its $1.2 billion mortgage. That's going to hurt if foreign companies don't step in to staunch the flow of dollars out of
the firm and that, undoubtedly, could require a quid pro quo or two.
In our era, it's no secret that presidents leave office with the promise of quickly growing exponentially wealthier. But for the
first family to gain such wealth while still in the White House would be a first. Yet the process that could make that possible already
seems to be well underway. All this, as Donald Trump, his children, and his son-in-law continue to carve out an unprecedented role
for themselves as America's business-managers-in-chief, presiding not so much over the country as over their own expanding imperial
domains.
Mar 20, 2017 Trump Embraces the Goldman Sachs Vampire Squid
It's business as usual in Washington. Trump promised to drain the swamp. Instead, he is busy populating it with Goldman Sachs
vampire squids. On this edition of The Geopolitical Report, we take a look at the outsized influence of the notorious global investment
banking firm, its ability to navigate both Democrat and Republican administrations, and its disastrous effect on the economy as it
socializes risk and pockets.
https://youtu.be/x2OK-m7fcUk
Indeed, money rules the USA.
But I'm not at all sure that the money that is now in Washington has the same goals as the Obama money.
The Dutch professor Laslo Maracs, Amsterdam University, UVA, explains that the money now surrounding Trump, sees that continuing
the Obama policies for military world supremacy will ruin them.
Deep State is not concerned with what happens to the USA, and its citizens, rich of poor, they want to rule the world.
It is possible that Deep State calculates that who rules the world cannot have any debt to anyone in the world, in other words, USA
debts to the Chinese do not matter any more.
Maybe Hillary meant this when she wrote in an e mail 'how does one handle one's banker ?'.
200 Words Perhaps the real problem is that so many of the "methods" used to enable political corruption are in fact "legal".
For example, what should we think about someone from a terrorist family who is sponsored by an "elite" that make him rich in the
"financial swamp" in a handful of years so that he can play politics? Where was Naomi Prins then?
The disastrous US war against Iraq was largely organized, promoted and justified by a disproportionate percentage of US Jews
(Zionists), including leading Neocon policymakers in the Bush and Obama administration – Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliott
Abrams, Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, David Frum, Shulsky, Levey, Cohen, Rahm Emanuel etc They continue to push for war against Iran
and should be seen as the 'godfathers' of the tragedies of Iraq, Syria and Libya where millions have fled ..
Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter Display All Comments
100 Words @jilles dykstra Indeed,
money rules the USA.
But I'm not at all sure that the money that is now in Washington has the same goals as the Obama money.
The Dutch professor Laslo Maracs, Amsterdam University, UVA, explains that the money now surrounding Trump, sees that continuing
the Obama policies for military world supremacy will ruin them.
Deep State is not concerned with what happens to the USA, and its citizens, rich of poor, they want to rule the world.
It is possible that Deep State calculates that who rules the world cannot have any debt to anyone in the world, in other words,
USA debts to the Chinese do not matter any more.
Maybe Hillary meant this when she wrote in an e mail 'how does one handle one's banker ?'. This link will give you a clear
view most cannot see. Meet the new boss same as the old boss!
"Who controls the issuance of money controls the government!" Nathan Meyer Rothschild
June 13, 2016 Which Corporations Control The World?
A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many of the brands below do you use?
Isn't one of the foundational pillars of the so called Judeo-Christian way of life, Greed?
That being the case, kudos to the Americans for selecting such good Judeo-Christians (given the Trump & Kushner combo, that
is so appropriate, isn't it ), as their looters-in-chief.
100 Words As Ms. Prins surely knows, "presiding over the country" is in the claws of neocons/banksters et al., bonafide members
of a Zionist Mafia Empire - & Trump is as well. Trump may have believed he could do something for the unfortunate majority and
quickly found out otherwise in any case, why focus on the lower echelon of profiteering Ms. Prins? Why not at least connect the
dots to the top puppeteers? To avoid doing so is gatekeeping. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter Display All Comments Alden ,
May 6, 2017 at 7:16 pm GMT \n
@Inertiller Nice gossip. Nomi
typically follows the astro-turf formula of cognitive dissonance so favored by the whore-media. A tool of distraction to keep
any reader entertained, creating a fake, magical version of how Washington and it's owners actually operate. The propaganda typically
focuses on the head puppet who happens to be Trump this time 'round, but it doesn't matter.
You must believe that it matters however, so that's the role of the professional copyist. They come in various flavors; right,
left, libertarian or car salesman. Supermarket tabloids are long a dying breed - supplanted by serious sounding op-ed monkeys
with serve a the same insidious purpose with unprecedented technology advanatages. (They all call each other fake, how gracious.)
Nomi lists the serious sounding codes, laws and statutes. These don't impress anyone anymore other than the most deluded and
credulous saps who are seriously addicted to their flavor of social media. Law what?
A recap of the obvious: First the Russian accusations, following that, the emoluments. Anything else on American's minds at
the moment? If you've been paying attention, there shouldn't be much other than Trump on the brain.
These charges may all be true or relevant, but that doesn't matter, it may rain tomorrow, which is important, but only so much.
The "laws" don't apply until the PTB want them too - and when that happens the whore media will be sure to let us know. Trump's
impeachment would be an exciting show, and would take up hours of time from billions everywhere, fans would shriek for and against.
Now that's entertainment!
Ask yourself, what is it that you could be doing at the moment? How can you thrive in a country where worthless shit is thrown
at you 24/7, mostly from your beloved muck rackers, which ever device you choose to use? Once they have you addicted, you are
pretty much harmless. Best post I've read on the Internet in 20 years. Whoever you are, chapeaus!!!!!!
200 Words Kushner's new 5th AV building still has vacancies because it is not completely finished. Some of the upper floors
are just floors, partial ceilings and exterior walls. They are still putting in the electricity and plumbing.
Tenants in those kind of buildings are not naive innocents. They are hard core business people who drive hard bargains with
the landlords. For the kind of rent the Kushners want, they will get tenants who demand all sorts of concessions and extras.
Sometimes it's better for a landlord to keep a unit vacant and wait for a tenant who can and will pay a high rent.
Sometimes it's better for a landlord to charge low rents and get the building filled up fast.
Ms Nomi, like Michael Hudson doesn't know anything about real estate. But like Michael Hudson, she claims she knows about it.
I'll always remember Hudsons pontificating about NYC residential real estate without a mention of NYC's rent control laws.
Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter Display All Comments
400 Words First it must never be forgotten that Trump wagered against the odds for an increase in wealth if the long shot
of him becoming president came about, yet there was certain financial extinction if if his run at the Presidency had ended as
most informed people had expected.
Trump is no Rockefeller inasmuch his wealth is nebulous; the businesses runs on confidence in his brand, and is consequently
very vulnerable to hostile government investigation. He was expected to win by absolutely no one, and could expect the administration
of Hilary's to have come for him, and the judges would not be sympathetic. He along with his family would have ended up on the
street with a tin cup if he hadn't won. As a business decision, it was a crazier bet than any made in his casinos.
The Code of Federal Regulations is a set of rules published by the executive departments and agencies of the government.
Title 18 section 208 of that code deals with "acts affecting a personal financial interest." This criminal conflict of interest
statute states "an officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States Government" can't have a "financial interest"
in the result of their duties. What that should mean, legally speaking, for a family occupying the executive office is: Ivanka
could not have dinner with the president of China while her business was applying for and receiving provisional approval of pending
trademarks from his country, if one of those acts might impact the other. To an outsider, the connection between those acts seems
obvious enough and it's bound to be typical of what's to come.
Secondly, sIn October 2013, the US sent the general in command of nuclear weapons on an official trip to Moscow. He, wit his
unrivalled knowledge of the most sensitive secrets in the US was thus exposed to all kinds of possible compromising situation
at the hands of a foreign regieme. As it happens he seems to have simply got drunk (he got sacked), but really there are better
thing to worry about than Trump's daughter selling some cosmetics. Non of this stuff is going to make much difference to Trump's
wealth anyway.
Thirdly, I don't see any parallel at all with Nelson Rockefeller. In my view, Trump is most similar to Peisistratos tyrant
of Athens Like him Trump is a very capable businessman, who relies on the suport of the common people. Like Peisistratos, Trump
may be a transition from elite rule to one based on the will of the lower orders.
100 Words I'm not a huge fan of Ivanka "those photos made me cry" Trump being in the Oval Office, nor her husband. But this
whole article's a nothing burger that would fit in quite well at the NY Times or Bezos's personal blog. There's simply no evidence
of corruption, just innuendo, guesswork ("she's killing it") and accusatory fingers being pointed by someone with an obvious grudge.
(Oh and thanks for the non-working AP story link too. Helpful!) So what if Ivanka did sell a few more handbags or hotel rooms?
The Republic will survive. I'm much more concerned about her presence marginalizing Bannon or convincing Trump to bomb Middle
Eastern countries. That bothers me. Of course, given this reporter's clear biases, that would be the thing that bothers
her least . Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter Display All Comments Wizard of Oz ,
May 7, 2017 at 1:39 am GMT \n
Isn't it reassuring to know that any promises rich foreigners think they've got from Trump are worth nothing.
"... This is just one of many lucrative speaking gigs he plans to pursue, over and above the $65 million he and Michelle will receive for their memoirs. All in all, the Obamas can expect to haul in $200 million in the next fifteen years or so. ..."
"... "I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." - Obama, Apr 2010. It's useful to know that point appears to be upward of $200 million. ..."
AT LONG LAST, after kitesurfing with Virgin billionaire Richard Branson and Instagramming his
time aboard David Geffen's yacht in French Polynesia with Oprah Winfrey, Bruce Springsteen, and
Tom Hanks, former President Barack Obama has returned from vacation rested and ready to get back
to work. After months of seeing Donald Trump attempt to trash his legacy and destroy the modest
progressive gains he was able to achieve, liberals were getting restless for him to say something-anything-in
response.
"Why are we not hearing from him?" Sarah Kovner, an Upper West Side nonprofit consultant who
raised $1 million for Obama's campaigns, told the New York Times. "Democrats are desperate. Everything
that Trump is doing really requires a response."
But the sense of relief was short lived in the house of neoliberalism. Obama supporters succumbed
to a still-smoldering round of internecine squabbling after the news broke that their champion
would take a $400,000 check from Wall Street investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald to give a speech
on health care this September. This is just one of many lucrative speaking gigs he plans to
pursue, over and above the $65 million he and Michelle will receive for their memoirs. All in
all, the Obamas can expect to haul in $200 million in the next fifteen years or so.
Vox's Matt Yglesias led the charge among disenchanted Obama supporters, with an attention-grabbing
post under the wildly exaggerated headline "Obama's $400,000 Wall Street speaking fee will undermine
everything he believes in." Yglesias argued that during this trying period of rising right-wing
populism, liberal leaders need to maintain higher standards of personal ethics. Joe Trippi, who
made his career working for the former Vermont governor–turned–thoroughly compromised lobbyist
Howard Dean, agreed about the optics. "Every president since I've been active in politics immediately
got whacked for big speechifying," he told the Times. "I can't remember it not happening. And
they never look good."
Daniel Gross led the pro-Obama counterforces with the Slate-pitchiest of Slate hot takes, tut-tutting
the "absurd double-standard" and the rampant "misunderstanding of the market forces animating
the industries in which Obama now works." Gross argues, somewhat persuasively, that such buckraking
hasn't hurt liberalism in the past, and concludes, a good deal less persuasively, that it shouldn't
do so now. (The piece ran with a typically Slate-ified, everyone-calm-down sub-head: "If the only
thing keeping progressivism afloat is the virtue-signaling of our best leaders, we're in trouble."
Uh, Earth to Gross: we're in trouble.) He concludes by arguing that Obama's accepting the fee
was actually redistributive and populist: He would be taking money from the low-tax folks at Cantor
Fitzgerald and pay about 40 percent of it in income tax. This speaking gig, in short, was straight
out of Robin Hood's own playbook; it would hurt the poor not to take it!
Both sides of the debate are clearly right about two things: The Obamas don't need the money;
and they don't seem the type to fall to Clintonesque greed. But the mistake in the hubbub over
the Cantor speech is to see the decision as a bug in contemporary Democratic politics, rather
than a feature. It may well dismay Yglesias to be reminded of this, but insofar as Obama has made
a return to politics, it is not to fight the scourge of Trump-inflected populism. Obama has no
intention of violating the rules of the presidential fraternity, in which departing presidents
speak no ill of their replacements. Rather, Obama wants to show that the Democratic Party has
been, and will continue to be, open for business to all comers. He is, in effect, marking off
his version of center-left progressivism in order to stave off, once and for all, an emboldened
Sanders-led insurgency from his left.
Feel the Spurn
Lest we forget, Obama's genius lay in being able to speak credibly to both Wall Street and
Main Street. Back in 2006, well before his race for the presidency, Ken Silverstein wrote the
definitive story on the Obama money machine for Harper's Magazine. In 2008, Obama set records
for Wall Street donations-a point that Hillary Clinton cited in defense of her own lavishly compensated
stint behind a Goldman Sachs-branded podium. Obama did it and he passed super-tough financial
regulations all the same-so why not Hillary too? After all, none of his regulatory prevented him
from going on to raise a boatload of money from Wall Street in 2012. This, in short, is business
as usual as it should be: both lucrative and free of moral censure!
Obama's winning 2008 message, you may recall, was that there was not a filthy-rich and dirt-poor
America, or a corporate multinational and sole-proprietor America, or a full-time-with-benefits
and freelance-contract-gig America, but the United States of America. (Anyway, I think that's
how it went.) And he was blessed with the preternatural ability to speak convincingly to both
sides. As the son of a Kenyan immigrant with a Muslim middle name raised in a single-mother household
and as a South Side Chicago community organizer, he could address the oppressed as a sympathizer.
And as the credentialed Ivy Leaguer, former Harvard Law Review editor, and fawning admirer of
the Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers brand of deregulatory Democratic economics, he could rub
elbows with elites.
In this light, we shouldn't look at Obama's decision to take Cantor Fitzgerald's check as a
risky venture that could alienate certain Democratic constituencies and feed into the anti-establishment
populist groundswell. Instead, Obama is positively affirming his ties to Wall Street and corporate
interests: Unlike the Sanders left, I am willing to work with you, and so will the Democratic
Party, so long as I have sway.
Even when he was luxuriating in sunny beach climes with the global elite, Obama leveraged his
considerable post-presidential clout to his former labor secretary Tom Perez put in charge of
the Democratic National Committee, successfully smiting the insurgent candidacy of the Sanders-backed,
and Sanders-backing, challenger, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison. What was at stake in that contest became
clear on April 18 when Perez and Sanders appeared on MSNBC's "All In with Chris Hayes" during
their "unity tour." The new DNC chair made it abundantly clear that he wasn't "feeling the Bern."
While the earnest host tried to goad Perez into agreeing with Sanders that the Democratic Party
had to finger the ruling billionaire class and say "your greed is destroying this country," he
refused to take the bait.
Obama centrists don't have to worry just about Sanders' popularity. Elizabeth Warren, who is
increasingly appearing as a plausible presidential candidate for 2020, has also risen as an economic
populist critic of the former president. She has been perfectly willing to challenge Obama by
name, saying he was wrong to claim at a commencement address at Rutgers last year that "the system
isn't as rigged as you think." "No, President Obama, the system is as rigged as we think," she
writes in her new book This Fight Is Our Fight. "In fact, it's worse than most Americans realize."
She even went so far as to say she was "troubled" by Obama's willingness to take his six-figure
speaking fee from Wall Street. There is indeed a fight brewing, but it's not Obama v. Trump, but
Obama v. Warren-Sanders.
And this is where the real difficulty lies for the Democrats. The trouble with the popular
and eminently reasonable Sanders-Warren platform-reasonable for all those, Obama and Clinton included,
who express dismay over our country's rampaging levels of Gilded Age-style inequality-is that
it alienates the donor class that butters the DNC's bread. With Clinton's downfall, and with the
popularity of economic populism rising in left circles, Obama has to step in and reassert his
more centrist brand of Democratic politics. And what better way to do so than by conspicuously
cashing a check from those who would fund said politics?
Moderating the Millennials
Obama's return to the spotlight sought a more noble purpose: He was launching his work at the
Obama Foundation. This enterprise would be dedicated to, among other goals, "training and elevating
a new generation of political leaders in America," according to Obama's post-presidency senior
adviser Eric Schultz. Here, too, we do well to note just what leaders are likely to prosper under
Obama's guidance, and which ones will be denied backstage lanyards at his foundation conclaves.
It takes no great leap of the imagination to surmise that Obama is keen to see his party led away
from the left insurgency brewing among the Democrats' millennial constituency.
Obama hagiographers would inform you that his campaign was noteworthy for its facility with
young voters and activists, thanks to his innovative use of online mobilizing and his Kennedy-esque
charisma. But lost in these sunny encomiums is the rise of anti-establishment youth activism that
flowered under his presidency. One could trace the alternate saga of the Obama presidency in a
three-act tragedy of millennial activist outrage: Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and
Feel the Bern.
This tension was always there during the Obama presidency for those paying attention. Consider
this 2015 KPC article about Obama's determination to answer the frustrations of BLM activists
by making inequality the focus of his post-presidential foundation. He announced his intentions
at a speech at Lehman College in the Bronx and during an appearance on the Late Show with David
Letterman. "We're going to invest in you before you have problems with the police, before there's
the kind of crisis we see in Baltimore," he assured aggrieved communities of color from the unlikely
platform of the Ed Sullivan Theater. He also brought his inequality gospel to Manhattan's big-money
donors, as the AP noted in an unusually arch dispatch:
He tied the call to justice with an economic message for the sixty donors who paid $10,000
to see him at an expansive, art-filled Upper East Side apartment-including actor Wendell Pierce,
who played a Baltimore police detective working in drug-ridden projects on The Wire. . . . Obama
later held a discussion with about thirty donors contributing up to $33,400. That event was closed
to the media.
In this light, Obama's outreach to young leaders and activists isn't much of legacy-burnishing
of President Hope-and-Change. Instead, it looks distinctly like a counterinsurgency effort to
mobilize more moderate forces among millennial Democrats and tame their alleged potential to spin
out of control. How do we clone more market-friendly activists like Deray Mckesson and quarantine
the pro-Bernie DSA youth and their bloom of red-rosed Twitter accounts? Obama hopes Silicon Valley
can help figure this out. Indeed, he's so committed to achieving this goal that he's willing to
become a venture capitalist to do so.
I fully understand Obama believes TANSTAAFL, just like I do.
What evidence do you have for your free lunch political-economics?
If your free lunch polices are so fantastic, why don't you start businesses that pay high wages,
high taxes, and charge low prices with you as business owner having zero income and zero wealth?
Why don't you do everything with zero fossil fuel burning content, going from place to place
by walking on unpaved land (concrete and asphalt pavement are fossil fuel intensive) or by flying
in a wood frame plane power by burning wood with the metal produced by charcoal from wood?
After all, it's neoliberal to require paying for businesses, wages, taxes, capital in the price
of goods and services.
It's neoliberal to believe burning fossil fuels is the only feasible way to build capital assets,
like cars and pavement.
Obama is obviously a neoliberal for taking action that will result in paying $160,000 more in
taxes. Real progressives know that paying taxes is not progressive, and Obama should make sure
he never pays higher taxes by never doing any work.
What is worse, if Obama gives the $400,000 to his foundation to help pay Chicago workers to
build his literary, he will dodge the $160,000 in taxes, but then burden those construction workers
with higher taxes compared to living on welfare in government housing built 50 years ago in the
neoliberal tax and spend era.
Clearly true progressives understand as true conservatives do, no one should ever work,mget
paid to work, and if lucky enough to be paid to be in Congress, you must never do any work. The
disasterous neoliberal bill passed only because of Democrats fails to shutdown government, fails
to end taxes on the wages paid by government to doctors and nurses who are paid by insurers with
insurance paid for by workers and government taxes on workers.
The only good government for true progressives and conservatives is government that does absolutely
nothing. Only when government does nothing can the perfection of both conservative and progressive
policies be preserved. Passing anything always costs people and anything that costs is neoliberal,
and thus it's absolutely not conservative or progressive.
True conservative policies make everything free.
True progressive policies make everything free.
But neoliberalism forces every law to have costs, so every accomplishment by Congress is totally
not progressive or conservative, but evil neoliberal.
"This is just one of many lucrative speaking gigs he plans to pursue, over and above the $65 million
he and Michelle will receive for their memoirs. All in all, the Obamas can expect to haul in $200
million in the next fifteen years or so."
"I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." - Obama, Apr 2010.
It's useful to know that point appears to be upward of $200 million.
"... It should not be a surprise. This unseemly and unnecessary cash-in fits a pattern of bad behavior involving the financial sector, one that spans Obama's entire presidency. ..."
"... Obama's Wall Street payday will confirm for many what they have long suspected: that the Democratic Party is managed by out-of-touch elites who do not understand or care about the concerns of ordinary Americans. It's hard to fault those who come to this conclusion.. ..."
"... I began this essay by saying that Obama's $400,000 oligarchic shill job was a bookend ..."
"... Before he was even elected, an executive from Citigroup (the corporate owner of Citibank) gave Obama a list of acceptable choices for who may serve on his cabinet. The list ended up matching Obama's actual cabinet picks once elected almost to a 't' ..."
"The rumors are true: Former President Barack Obama will receive $400,000 to speak at a health
care conference organized by the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald.
It should not be a surprise. This unseemly and unnecessary cash-in fits a pattern of bad
behavior involving the financial sector, one that spans Obama's entire presidency.
That governing failure convinced millions of his onetime supporters that the president and
his party were not, in fact, playing for their team, and helped pave the way for President Donald
Trump. Obama's Wall Street payday will confirm for many what they have long suspected: that
the Democratic Party is managed by out-of-touch elites who do not understand or care about the
concerns of ordinary Americans. It's hard to fault those who come to this conclusion..."
If Progressives Don't Wake Up To How Awful Obama Was, Their Movement Will Fail
...............
" I began this essay by saying that Obama's $400,000 oligarchic shill job was a bookend
.
I did that because, in what was easily the single most important and egregious WikiLeaks email
of 2016, we learned that Wall Street was calling the shots in the Obama administration before
the Obama administration even existed.
"... Meanwhile the center left spent their time and energy attacking the messengers - calling Sanders "unserious" - while mansplaining that their minimal reforms and tinkering was improving lives and people should be eternally grateful. ..."
"... No wonder so many voters don't trust the Democratic party. ..."
"Working-class Americans didn't necessarily understand the details of global trade deals, but
they saw elite Americans and people in China and other developing countries becoming rapidly wealthier
while their own incomes stagnated or declined. It should not be surprising that many of them agreed
with Trump and with the Democratic presidential primary contender Bernie Sanders that the game
was rigged."
Meanwhile the center left spent their time and energy attacking the messengers - calling Sanders
"unserious" - while mansplaining that their minimal reforms and tinkering was improving lives
and people should be eternally grateful.
No wonder so many voters don't trust the Democratic party.
No, their pro-business attitude is part of the problem. They've bought into conservative propaganda:
see Bill Clinton's welfare deform for instance.
Matthew Yglesias's piece sharply criticizing Obama for taking a $400,000 speaker fee to talk
at a conference organized by Cantor Fitzgerald is getting a lot of pushback. I find this a little
startling – while I disagree with MY's defense of centrism, the underlying argument – that there
is something sleazy about former officials going on the speaker's circuit for astronomical fees
– seems so obviously right as to scarcely merit further discussion, let alone vigorous disagreement.
I've seen three counter-arguments being made. First – that Yglesias and others making this
case are being implicitly racist by holding Obama to a higher standard than other politicians.
Personally, I'll happily stipulate to holding Obama to a higher standard than other politicians,
but it isn't because he is black. Instead, it's because Obama seemed to plausibly be better than
most other politicians on personal ethics. That's not to say that I agreed with his foreign policy,
or attitude to the financial sector, or many other things he did, but I wouldn't have expected
him to look to cash in, especially as he doesn't seem to be hurting for money. Obviously, I was
wrong.
Second – that there isn't any real difference between Obama's giving speeches for a lot of
money, and Obama getting a fat book contract, since both are responses to the market. This, again,
is not convincing. Tony Blair is catering to a market too – a rather smaller market of murderous
kleptocrats who want their reputations burnished through association with a prominent Western
politician. The key question is not whether it is a market transaction, but what is being sold,
and whom it is being sold to. In my eyes, there is a sharp difference between selling the flattery
of your company to the rich and powerful, and selling a book manuscript that is plausibly of real
interest to a lot of ordinary people. The former requires you to shape your public persona in
very different ways than the latter.
Third – that everyone does it so why shouldn't the Obamas. Yglesias deals with this pretty
well out of the box:
Indeed, to not take the money might be a problem for someone in Obama's position. It would
set a precedent.
Obama would be suggesting that for an economically comfortable high-ranking former government
official to be out there doing paid speaking gigs would be corrupt, sleazy, or both. He'd be looking
down his nose at the other corrupt, sleazy former high-ranking government officials and making
enemies.
Which is exactly why he should have turned down the gig.
Just so. The claim that 'everyone does it' is not an excuse or defense. It's a statement of
the problem.
I do think that MY's piece can be criticized (more precisely, with a very slight change in
rhetorical emphasis, it points in the opposite direction than the one Yglesias wants it to point
in). MY states the objections that progressive centrism (or, as we've talked about it here in
the past, left neo-liberalism) is subject to:
The political right is supposed to be pro-business as a matter of ideological commitment. The
progressive center is supposed to be empirically minded, challenging business interests where
appropriate but granting them free rein at other times.
This approach has a lot of political and substantive merits. But it is invariably subject to
the objection: really?
Did you really avoid breaking up the big banks because you thought it would undermine financial
stability, or were you on the take? Did you really think a fracking ban would be bad for the environment,
or were you on the take? One man's sophisticated and pragmatic approach to public policy can be
the other man's grab bag of corrupt opportunism.
He then goes on to say why this means that Obama needs to adopt a higher standard of behavior:
Leaders who sincerely care about the fate of the progressive center as a nationally and globally
viable political movement need to push back against this perception by behaving with a higher
degree of personal integrity than their rivals - not by accepting the logic that what's good for
the goose is good for the gander.
and
Obama should take seriously the message it sends to those young people if he decides to make
a career out of buckraking. He knows that Hillary Clinton isn't popular with the youth cohort
the way he is. And he knows that populists on both the left and the right want to make a sweeping
ideological critique of all center-left politics, not just a narrow personal one of Clinton. Does
Obama want them to win that battle and carry the day with the message that mainstream politics
is just a moneymaking hustle?
Of course, it's just one speech. Nothing is irrevocable about one speech. But money doesn't get
any easier to turn down with time, any more than rebuking friends and colleagues gets easier.
To make his post-presidency a success, Obama should give this money to some good cause and then
swear off these gigs entirely.
But what does Obama's willingness to take the money in the first place say about progressive
centrism, if we stipulate (as I think MY would likely agree) that Obama is probably as good as
progressive centrists are likely to get? The left neoliberal hit against standard liberal-to-left
politics in the 1980s was that it fostered sleazy interest groups and tacit or not-so-tacit mutual
backscratching between these interest groups and politicians. If the very best alternative that
left neoliberalism has to offer is another, and arguably worse version of this (Wall Street firms,
unlike unions, don't even have the need to pretend to have the interests of ordinary people at
heart), then its raison d'etre is pretty well exploded.
More succinctly – MY wants Obama to behave better, because otherwise political centrism will
start to look like a hustle. But if someone like Obama is not behaving better, doesn't that imply
that the hustle theory has legs?
"... By Mark Ames, founding editor of the Moscow satirical paper The eXile and co-host of the Radio War Nerd podcast with Gary Brecher (aka John Dolan). Subscribe here . Originally published at The Exiled ..."
"... Can hugely rich new capitalists weather a backlash from the angry masses? ..."
"... Great piece. Mark Ames and his former eXile comrades Yasha Levine and Matt Taibbi write some of the most honest and ideologically neutral critiques of the current political and economic clusterfuck. The Guardian, OTOH, is pure neoliberal establishment propaganda. ..."
"... 'Why do I get the feeling that this "playbook" is being resurrected to manage a "privatization" of the American "safety net?" ..."
Posted on
April 27, 2017 by
Yves
Smith Yves here. At the end, Ames explains why this sudden handwringing
about Russian inequality is newsworthy:
Without any of this context, it's as though Russia's extremes of inequality
that Credit Suisse just reported on suddenly appeared out of nowhere, as
a manifestation of Vladimir Putin's innate evil. As though nothing preceded
him-the 1990s had never happened, and our Establishment has always sincerely
cared about how Russians must suffer from inequality and corruption. Erasing
history like this has a funny way of making America look exceptionally good,
and Russia look exceptionally bad.
As anyone who knows a smidge about this sordid history could tell you, the
US's neoliberal reforms set the stage for a plutocratic land grab, with members
of the Harvard team advising the State Department feeding at the trough in a
big way. As we've written, the fact that Harvard paid $26.5 million in fines,
yet Larry Summer not merely failed to sanction the professor who headed the
team, his personal friend Andrei Shleifer, but actually protected him
was the proximate cause of the ouster of Summers as Harvard president .
The Guardian just published a piece on
Russia's inequality problem - first and worst in the world, according to
a new
Credit Suisse report . Funny to see Credit Suisse wringing its hands over
Russian inequality, given that bank's active complicity in designing and profiting
off the privatization of Russia in the early-mid 1990s. Shortly before Credit
Suisse arrived in Russia, it was the most equal country on the planet; a few
years after Credit Suisse arrived and pocketed up to hundreds of millions in
profits, Russia was the most unequal country on earth, and it's pretty much
been that way since.
Credit Suisse's new Russia branch was set up in 1992, and it was led by a
young twenty-something American banker named Boris Jordan, the grandson of wealthy
White Russian emigres. Jordan was key to the bank's success, thanks to his cozy
relationships with Russia's neoliberal "young reformers" in charge of privatizing
the former Communist country. In the first wave of voucher privatization-when
all Russians were issued vouchers which they could then either convert into
shares in a newly-privatized company, or sell off-Credit Suisse's Boris Jordan
gobbled up
17 million of Russia's privatization vouchers, over 10 percent of the total.
Inside connections were the key. While working for Credit Suisse, Jordan
advised the Yeltsin government on how to implement its Russia's disastrous voucher
privatization scheme. Jordan worked together with the two of the most powerful
US-backed Russian free-marketeers: Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar, architect of
the shock therapy program that led to the mass impoverishment of tens of millions
of Russians; and Anatoly Chubais, architect of Russia's privatization program,
which created Russia's new billionaire oligarch class. Gaidar's shock therapy
confiscated wealth from the masses; Chubais' privatization concentrated wealth
in a few hands. And Jordan's Credit Suisse advised, traded off, and profited
from this wealth transfer. This was the trio that played a central role in creating
the inequality that Credit Suisse is now wringing its hands over. (You can read
an
interview with Jordan about how he co-advised the voucher implementation
in 1992, which is stunning for a lot of reasons- he admits they sped up its
implementation of voucher privatization to make sure that Russia's parliament,
i.e. representative democracy, couldn't interfere with it. Democracy was not
something anyone involved in Russia's privatization in the 1990s gave a shit
about.)
The conflicts-of-interest here were so over-the-top, they were almost impossible
to wrap your head around: Credit Suisse banker Boris Jordan helped implement
the voucher privatization scheme with Russia's top political figures; and Credit
Suisse massively profited off this same privatization scheme. And it was all
done with the full backing and support of the US Treasury Department and the
IMF.
(Another major beneficiary of Russian privatization vouchers was a murky
hedge fund run by the billionaire Chandler brothers. They made a killing snapping
up vouchers cheap, converting them into stakes in key Russian industries, and
selling their stakes for huge profits. I
wrote about them a couple of years ago because one of the Chandler brothers
plowed some of his Russia loot into something called the
Legatum Institute -a Dubai-based neocon front group that's been bankrolling
the
"Russia disinformation panic!" for
several years now, issuing
report after
report after
report on the Kremlin disinformation scare by their protege
Peter Pomerantsev . You have to let these vulture-capitalist billionaires
wet their beaks a little, or they'll raise an army of human rights activists
to regime-change your ass.)
Shock therapy, first implemented in 1992 and not really ended until Russia's
devastating financial crash in 1998, was politically useful in that by confiscating
the Russian middle-class's and lower-class's savings, it created a massively
unequal society. And that alone drove Russia further from its Communist recent
past, which was the political goal that justified everything.
In 1994, this same young Credit Suisse banker, Boris Jordan,
told Forbes' Paul Khlebnikov about a scheme he was trying to sell to the
Yeltsin regime. It was called "loans-for-shares" and when it was finally adopted
at the end of 1995, it resulted in what many considered the single largest plunder
of public wealth in recorded history: The crown jewels of Russian industry-oil,
gas, natural resources, telecoms, state banks-given away to a tiny group of
connected bankers. It was this scheme, first devised by a Credit Suisse banker,
that created Russia's world-famous oligarchy.
The scheme went something like this: The Yeltsin regime announced in late
1995 auctions under which bankers would lend the government money in exchange
for "temporary" control over the revenue streams of Russia's largest and most
valuable companies. After a period, the government would "repay" the "loans"
and the banks would give the their large stakes back to the government.
In reality, every single "auction" was rigged by the winning bank, which
paid next to nothing for its control over an oil company/nickel company/etc.
Even the little money paid by this bank was often stolen from the state. That's
because Russia used a handful of private banks as authorized treasury institutions
to transfer government salaries and other funds around the country. This allowed
the same bankers who were authorized as state treasury banks to keep those funds
for themseles rather than distribute them to the teachers, doctors and scientists
as salaries-so they did what was in their rational self-interest and kept the
money, delaying salary payments for months or even years at a time, while they
used the funds for themselves to speculate, or to buy up assets in auctions
they rigged for themselves. It was pure libertarian paradise on earth-everything
von Hayek and von Mises dreamed of-in practice.
By the time the loans-for-shares was actually put into effect in late 1995,
Credit Suisse's Boris Jordan joined up with an anointed banker-oligarch, Vladimir
Potanin, to set up their own investment bank, Renaissance Capital. They raised
their first private equity fund, Sputnik Capital-with George Soros and Harvard
University as co-investors-and Sputnik Capital went on to take advantage of
the loans-for-shares investment opportunities, which had even more help from
the fact that Yeltsin made Potanin his Finance Minister in 1996.
This sudden mass wealth transfer from the many to the few had a devastating
effect on Russia's population. Inflation in the first two years of shock therapy
and voucher privatization ran at 1,354% in 1992, and 896% in 1993, while real
incomes plunged 42% in 1992 alone; real wages in 1995 were half of where they
were in 1990 (pensions in 1995 were only a quarter in real terms of where they
were in 1990). According to very conservative official Russian statistics, GDP
plunged 44% from 1992-1998 - others put the GDP crash even higher, 50% or more.
By comparison the Soviet GDP fell 24% during its war with Nazi Germany, and
the US's GDP fell 30% during the Great Depression. So what happened in the 1990s
was unprecedented for a major developed country-by the end of the decade and
all of the Washington/financial industry-backed reforms, Russia was a basket
case, a third-rate country with an even bleaker future. Capital investment had
collapsed 85% during that decade-everyone was stripping assets, not investing
in them. Domestic food production collapsed to half the levels during perestroika;
and by 1999, anywhere from a third to half of Russians relied on food grown
in their own gardens to eat. They'd reverted to subsistence farming after a
decade of free market medicine.
All of this had a catastrophic effect on Russians' health and lives. Male
Russian life expectancy dropped from 68 years during the late Soviet era, to
56 in the mid-1990s, about where it had been a century earlier under the Tsar.
Meanwhile, as births plunged and child poverty and malnutrition soared, Russia's
death-to-birth ratio reached levels not seen in the 20th century. According
to Amherst economist David Kotz, over 6 million Russians died prematurely during
the US-backed free-market reforms in the 1990s. What's odd is how little pity
or empathy has ever been shown for those Russians who were destroyed by the
reforms we backed, advised funded, bribed, coerced, and were accessory to in
every way. They weren't entirely America's fault; Yeltsin and his US-backed
"market bolsheviks" had their own cynical, ideological and political reasons
to restructure Russia's political economy in the most elitist, hierarchical
unequal manner possible. But if the US had acted differently, given how much
influence the Clinton Administration had with the Yeltsin regime, things could
certainly have turned out differently. The point is-they didn't. The inequality
was the surest sign of success. It only became something to wring our hands
about later, a soft-power weapon to smack them with, now that we have little
to zero influence over Russia.
It's interesting that our literature is filled with plenty of official empathy
for Weimar German victims of that country's hyperinflation, but nothing of the
sort for Russians of the 1990s, who were, it was argued, being ennobled and
lifted up by the linear thread of liberal history-they were heading towards
the bright market-based future, can't let a few knocks and scratches distract
us! Can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs, as the West's Stalin apologists
used to say.
Here, for example, is a typical cheerleader story about the new Russian inequality,
published in
Businessweek in 1996-a fluff job on Boris Jordan's Russian backer, Vladimir
Potanin. Notice how the headline/subheader make clear that the hero of this
narrative is the Russian billionaire, and the villains are the "angry masses"
of poor envious Russians:
The Battle for Russia's Wealth
Can hugely rich new capitalists weather a backlash from the angry
masses?
Russia's answer to J.P. Morgan could not be less like the eccentric,
bulbous-nosed original. Vladimir O. Potanin is a shy, athletic man of
35. Holding court in his rosewood-paneled office on Moscow's Masha Poryvaeva
Street, the president of Oneximbank quietly gives instructions to two
strapping bodyguards at his door. Cool and controlled, Potanin is a
standout in a group of dynamic businessmen who have seized huge slices
of the economy.
Which reads a lot like this fluff job in the Los Angeles Times, published
around the same time, headlined
"Whiz-Kid Banker Named to Russian Cabinet" . Which reads a lot like
a Businessweek followup up with even more shameless hagiography, headlined
"The Most Powerful Man in Russia" . You can try reading that last one
if you want, but I recommend keeping a vomit bag close by-and a cyanide
pill for good measure.
So this is the sordid and depressing backstory to the Credit Suisse report
on Russian inequality-the story you definitely won't and don't read about
in Credit Suisse's own account. They're a bank; their reports, while perhaps
truthful, are far from The Truth-more like marketing pamphlets than serious
scholarship.
Credit Suisse made a killing in Russia in the early-mid 1990s,
dominating two-thirds of Russia's capital markets deals-while tens of
millions sank into desperate poverty. That too is inequality.
Jordan himself remained a
powerful celebrity-investor through the early Putin era. In 1997, Boris
Jordan was caught up in a major scandal surrounding the privatization of
the national telecoms concern, Svyazinvest-which was won by a consortium
that included Soros, Harvard, and a bank owned by Finance Minister Potanin
and his partner, Mikhail Prokhanov, who today owns the Brooklyn Nets. The
scandal was this: The government official in charge of auctioning off the
telecoms to Soros-Harvard-Potanin-Jordan consortium, Alfred Kokh, had been
given a shady $100,000 book advance by a shady Swiss company connected to
Potanin's bank. The book had not been written; the advance was unusually
high; and the Swiss "publisher" which had never published a book before
was itself incorporated and led by none other than Boris Jordan's cousin,
Tikhon Troyanos.
The revelations led to scandals, and Yeltsin was forced to fire his privatization
chief Alfred Kokh, along with a handful of other corrupt US-backed "young
reformers" caught getting paid on the eve of a rigged auction.
But what did it really matter? What really mattered to everyone who matters
was the political structure of Russia's economy. No longer egalitarian,
no longer a threat to the neoliberal order-it now had the world's most unequal
society, and that was a good thing, because the new elites would identify
their interests more with the interests of their Davos counterparts than
with the interests of the "backwards" Russian masses, whose fate was their
problem, not ours. This is when racist caricatures of the "backwards" Russian
masses help-you don't have to empathize with them, history is sending them
to the trash heap of history, not you. The world was safe for business,
and that was all the affirmation anyone needed to hear.
At the end of the Yeltsin era, I visited the sprawling suburban Moscow
"compound" owned by Potanin and his banking partner, Mikhail Prokhorov,
as well as Renaissance Capital-the bank first founded with Boris Jordan
in the mid-1990s. It was a huge gated compound with several buildings, a
mini-hotel, and a nightclub/concert hall. One of the first things I saw
entering the gaming hall building was two familiar-looking men in track
suits playing backgammon: Vladimir Potanin, billionaire oligarch; and Alfred
Kokh, the fired, disgraced head of Yeltsin's privatization committee.
The financial crisis of 1998 left Russia's in complete tatters, and Boris
Jordan was never the big shot that he had been before. His real value was
providing cover for the new boss Vladimir Putin as he re-centralized power
under Kremlin control. The first upstart oligarch that Putin took down was
Vladimir Gusinsky. He was briefly jailed and then exiled to Israel. His
once-respected opposition TV station, NTV, was "bought" by Gazprom, and
Gazprom, needing a western-friendly face for its hostile takeover,
hired Boris Jordan as the new general director of the network-and his
old partner-in-crime, Alfred Kokh, the disgraced ex-privatization chief,
as chairman of NTV's board. Almost immediately, 25 NTV journalists- half
the staff-
"resigned" . Jordan's job was to blunt western criticism of the Kremlin
as it destroyed the lone critical voice on Russian television, and two years
later, his job done, he moved on.
Without any of this context, it's as though Russia's extremes of inequality
that Credit Suisse just reported on suddenly appeared out of nowhere, as
a manifestation of Vladimir Putin's innate evil. As though nothing preceded
him-the 1990s had never happened, and our Establishment has always sincerely
cared about how Russians must suffer from inequality and corruption. Erasing
history like this has a funny way of making America look exceptionally good,
and Russia look exceptionally bad.
Great piece. Mark Ames and his former eXile comrades Yasha Levine and
Matt Taibbi write some of the most honest and ideologically neutral critiques
of the current political and economic clusterfuck. The Guardian, OTOH, is
pure neoliberal establishment propaganda. It really went downhill after
Katherine Viner replaced Allan Rusbridger as chief editor. If the Snowden
affair happened today they would probably be loudly calling for his arrest.
Why do I get the feeling that this "playbook" is being resurrected to
manage a "privatization" of the American "safety net?" When it happened
in Russia, the Russians ended up with Vladimir Vladimirovitch rising to
stem the tide of officially sanctioned criminality. One could say that Russia
has had precious little experience with "representational" governance, and
thus a return to some form of autocracy was understandable. America, on
the other hand, has, supposedly, a storied history of representative governance.
So far, that "story" isn't showing signs of turning out so well for the
"angry masses" of the Homeland. What, then, will America "put up with" to
see the mere appearance of social justice? This is where the supposed "opposition"
party, the Democrats, have fallen down. They aren't even "talking" a good
game today. The longer these tensions continue, and increase, the greater
the damage from the eventual unwinding will be.
The job of the Dems is to herd the sheep in the right direction. They
do this by pretending to be lefties while keeping the true alternative,
socialism, in its box. One could argue the whole history of the 20th century
after WW1 was about keeping socialism in its box. Funny how the end of the
Evil Empire–at least notionally committed to socialism–has made the situation
in the West so much worse. It's almost a though those 20th century progressive
reforms were only intended to keep the commies at bay. Now the plutocrats
don't have to pretend any more.
Ambrit wrote: 'Why do I get the feeling that this "playbook" is being
resurrected to manage a "privatization" of the American "safety net?"
Because many of the same sociopaths who learned how to loot a collapsing
empire after the fall of the USSR took the lessons learned and applied them
over here.
Well this is to be expected isn't it. The same banks that go around the
world selling their brand of "market based reforms" then turn around and
wring their hands when the post-reform economy has been stratified in favour
of the 1%. It's almost as if registering their concern about the inequality
levels they had a hand in creating somehow assuages their guilt. In my own
country South Africa, one of the most unequal societies in the world, we
are drowning in a constant, ad nauseum barrage of media commentary about
how orthodox neoliberal thinking is the only thing that will save the country.
Such stories of how orthodoxy itself plunged a country like Russia into
economic anarchy are sadly lacking, in fact speaking ill of orthodoxy is
anathema and one suspects that journalists are either infected with terminal
gullibility vis a vis neoliberal thinking or are towing the line to stay
in their jobs
Thanks for this great article It looks like Popper's positivism did
wonders for George Soros. As he would say: "I made a killing". Sure nothing
a couple of his humanitarian NGO's can not fix!
I suppose we'll never forgive the Russians for how bad they let neoliberal
capitalism look.
I think that in some circles there's a deeply seated viral antagonism
toward Russia and Russians that goes far beyond, and is far more deeply
laid, than the liberal-v-not-liberal clash of civilizations du jour. Like
herpes, this particular disease bubbles to the surface under certain conditions,
such as a the Ukraine coup. Perhaps the virus first broke out around the
time of the Venetian
Sack of Constantinople ?
Ask a Russian. If you ask a Western liberal and you'll get nothing but
a blank stare. Of course Russia bad . That's all we need to known.
Full stop. My Western liberal conscience is clean.
The rank hypocrisy involved reminds one of Obama's
gratuitous Russia bashing . And who is more iconically Western, more
iconically liberal, than President Obama? Obama is nothing if not cool,
and Western liberalism is coolness itself.
I've wondered what a better alternative would have looked like – instead
of looting and refitting Russia to join a neoliberal capitalist world. Wasn't
it Jeffrey Sachs, now reformed, who said shock therapy would be the fastest
and least painful way to get Russia up and running? And Putin has been a
tightrope walker all along and seems to be very sensible. Almost too sensible.
He has his nationalist opponents on one side (the late, great Boris Nemtsov
was one) who say he is giving Russian wealth away to the West and his western-neoliberal
detractors one the other side who call him a nationalist tyrant. In between
he has the backing of the Russian people. Very agile.
The obvious alternative way would be the various routes followed by the
former Iron Curtain countries. Most had some form of shock therapy, if none
as extreme as that in Russia, probably because they don't have the easy
to grab mineral resources. None have done as well as hoped, but some have
been moderately successful by steering a middle course – The Czech Republic
and Poland have done reasonably well over the past 20 years. In general,
I would say that those which opted for slower and gentler market reform
did better than the 'get it over quick' ones. The one country that tried
not to change – Belarus – is still standing, if a bit of a basket case.
Keep in mind the EU played a much more constructive role back then. The
elites at the time really wanted integration and modernization to work,
especially in the Central European countries like those ones you listed.
Not directly related, but for wider context, very similar programs happened
in Mexico during the Salinas administration (1988-1994) around the same
time. NAFTA in 1994 was the 'reward' for the Mexican elites doing as they
were told.
Here's an old NYT article which aims for a tone of 'cheerleading with
reservations', but does give you a sense of the corruption involved during
the biddings, especially around TelMex and the resulting problems.
Of course, we know how the story ends in Mexico with the 1994-5 Tequila
Crisis, much like the story ended in Russia with the 1998 default which
crushed the LTCM hedgies.
I've wondered what a better alternative would have looked like – instead
of looting and refitting Russia to join a neoliberal capitalist world. Wasn't
it Jeffrey Sachs, now reformed, who said shock therapy would be the fastest
and least painful way to get Russia up and running? And Putin has been a
tightrope walker all along and seems to be very sensible. Almost too sensible.
He has his nationalist opponents on one side (the late, great Boris Nemtsov
was one) who say he is giving Russian wealth away to the West and his western-neoliberal
detractors one the other side who call him a nationalist tyrant. In between
he has the backing of the Russian people. Very agile.
My one minor quibble is the assertion that those in the West put the
blame of the downfall of the Russian masses on the masses themselves. Most
of those in the West are either ignorant, or in denial, of how bad it got
for the average Russian in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union.
They were taught that the USSR was a hellhole where everyone lived in horrific
poverty except for the party leaders. So they saw the horrible conditions
under Yeltsin and company as a continuation of how things had always been.
Some even argue it got better, painting any report showing things were better
under the USSR as communist propaganda.
"... For example, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed's board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks for the Fed's emergency lending programs. ..."
"... To Sanders, the conclusion is simple. "No one who works for a firm receiving direct financial assistance from the Fed should be allowed to sit on the Fed's board of directors or be employed by the Fed," he said. ..."
"... The investigation also revealed that the Fed outsourced most of its emergency lending programs to private contractors, many of which also were recipients of extremely low-interest and then-secret loans." ..."
"... Despite the GAO's finding of crony capitalism--A THE PARTICULARLY HARMFUL SYMBIOSIS BETWEEN BANKS AND GOVERNMENT--it's rare to find a 'librul' economist, particularly among the commenters here, who has an unkind word about how the Fed does its business. The ONLY criticism of the Fed typically has to do with a certain peevishness that arises when the Fed threatens to take away the ultra-low interest rates that commenters here covet. ..."
... Q: The World Economic Forum has called for "reimagining" and
"reforming" capitalism. To what extent is this need for reform the result of disruption brought by
technological change, globalization, and immigration and to what extent is it the effect of rent-seeking
and regulatory capture?
The impact of technological change, globalization, and immigration on society depends on how the
relevant institutions manage these developments. Capitalism has worked poorly in recent years because
governments mishandled the challenges of technological change and globalization, and that failure
is related to rent-seeking and regulatory capture. The elites who engage with each other through
the World Economic Forum and elsewhere can become out of touch and blind to reality; you can see
the problem from Steve Schwarzman of Blackstone saying in Davos in 2016 that he found public anger
"astonishing."
Acemoglu and Robinson argued in Why
Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty that "man-made political and economic
institutions underlie economic success (or lack of it)." Technological developments have highlighted
the immense power associated with controlling information. The business of investigative reporting
is in a crisis. Corporations often play off governments, shopping jurisdictions and making bargains.
For capitalism to work, the relevant institutions must work effectively and avoid excessive rent
extraction. The governance challenge of the global economy is daunting.
Here are a few examples...
Q: Some people describe Donald Trump's economic policies as "corporatism." Are you more worried
by Trump's interference in the market economy or by companies' ability to subvert markets' rules?
...
"Martin Hellwig and I discuss "global competitiveness" and THE PARTICULARLY HARMFUL SYMBIOSIS
BETWEEN BANKS AND GOVERNMENTS in our book The Bankers' New Clothes: What's Wrong with Banking and
What to Do about It."
[Private/public arrangements are often a way for private parties to bleed wealth from society.
Our current banking system is the most egregious example of this.]
Nicholas Gruen: "every bank is part of a larger public–private partnership and that at the apex
of that system we already have a people's bank. Right now it might be owned by the people, but
it's captured by the private banks."
With the internet, the central bank could just as easily lend to individuals. Instead of having
the banking cartel ration credit and set interest rates, direct lending to borrowers could eliminate
the unnecessary margins and fees charged by the cartel...and create competition where there is
now collusion and crony capitalism.
The audit of the Fed that Bernie got the GAO to do: "The non-partisan, investigative arm of Congress
also determined that the Fed lacks a comprehensive system to deal with conflicts of interest,
despite the serious potential for abuse. In fact, according to the report, the Fed provided conflict
of interest waivers to employees and private contractors so they could keep investments in the
same financial institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans.
For example, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed's board of directors
at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the
Fed. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks for the Fed's emergency lending
programs.
In another disturbing finding, the GAO said that on Sept. 19, 2008, William Dudley, who is
now the New York Fed president, was granted a waiver to let him keep investments in AIG and General
Electric at the same time AIG and GE were given bailout funds. One reason the Fed did not make
Dudley sell his holdings, according to the audit, was that it might have created the appearance
of a conflict of interest.
To Sanders, the conclusion is simple. "No one who works for a firm receiving direct financial
assistance from the Fed should be allowed to sit on the Fed's board of directors or be employed
by the Fed," he said.
The investigation also revealed that the Fed outsourced most of its emergency lending programs
to private contractors, many of which also were recipients of extremely low-interest and then-secret
loans."
Despite the GAO's finding of crony capitalism--A THE PARTICULARLY HARMFUL SYMBIOSIS BETWEEN
BANKS AND GOVERNMENT--it's rare to find a 'librul' economist, particularly among the commenters
here, who has an unkind word about how the Fed does its business. The ONLY criticism of the Fed
typically has to do with a certain peevishness that arises when the Fed threatens to take away
the ultra-low interest rates that commenters here covet.
'Capitalism has worked poorly in recent years because
governments mishandled the challenges of technological change
and globalization, and that failure is related to
rent-seeking and regulatory capture. '
I want some of what both of you are smoking. This is inherent
in capitalism and goes back to its origins. There has never
been anything except "crony" capitalism, and, as Adam Smith
observed, the first thing successful business men buy is the
politicians.
Dear DrD, so wrong. There is plenty of capitalism well
removed from politics. Rather, politics becomes a problem
when institutions are not robust enough to control the
avarice of the politician.
By far the majority of capitalists are doing their best to
earn a living by providing wanted goods and services. The
same can be sad for some politicians, but not for those who
are for sale.
I'm not sure where if anywhere you disagree with each other.
The way I see it these are inherent flaws of capitalism, as
Dr. Dick says, and it requires a solution "from outside",
i.e. from the political realm, as Barry says.
Going back to
the quote, "capitalism" is not "working poorly" by the
self-referential measures commonly applied to it. The rich
are still getting richer, albeit more slowly in the last
several years. GDP, aka "the economy" is the only measure
used widely, and over the last 40 years has done fine.
By any measure that include metrics "from outside" such as
how well people are faring, however, it's not doing well.
Societies that derive their social arrangements entirely from
capitalism are in trouble.
He also confirmed that President Trump's decision to bomb a Syrian airbase to punish President
Bashar al-Assad for a nerve gas attack last week was influenced by the reaction of his sister
Ivanka, who said she was "heartbroken and outraged" by the atrocity.
PGL puts the blame on Yeltsin and this is what Stiglitz writes:
"I believe what we are confronting is partly the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that shaped Russia's transition.
This framework's influences was reflected in the tremendous emphasis reformers placed on privatization, no matter how it was done,
with speed taking precedence over everything else, including creating the institutional infrastructure needed to make a market
economy work."
Larry Summers and Jeffrey Sachs were involved in this. It would be nice if they wrote mea culpas.
"Many in Russia believe that the US Treasury pushed Washington Consensus policies to weaken their country. The deep corruption
of the Harvard University team chosen to "help" Russia in its transition, described in a detailed account published in 2006 by
Institutional Investor, reinforced these beliefs.
I believe the explanation was less sinister: flawed ideas, even with the best of intentions, can have serious consequences.
And the opportunities for self-interested greed offered by Russia were simply too great for some to resist. Clearly, democratization
in Russia required efforts aimed at ensuring shared prosperity, not policies that led to the creation of an oligarchy."
Just look at what the West did to Iraq. Like Stiglitz I think it is more incompetence and ideology than a sinister plan to
destroy Iraq and Russia. And we are reaping the results of that incompetence.
2008 was also incompetence, greed and ideology not some plot to push through "shock doctrines."
If the one percent were smart they would slowly cook the frog in the pot, where the frog doesn't notice, instead of having
these crises which backfire.
I believe what we are confronting is partly the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that shaped Russia's transition.
This framework's influences was reflected in the tremendous emphasis reformers placed on privatization, no matter how it was done,
with speed taking precedence over everything else, including creating the institutional infrastructure needed to make a market
economy work....
The term Washington Consensus was coined in 1989 by English economist John Williamson to refer to a set of 10 relatively specific
economic policy prescriptions that he considered constituted the "standard" reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing
countries by Washington, D.C.–based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and the US Treasury
Department. The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect
to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.
Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
Redirection of public spending from subsidies toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary
education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
Competitive exchange rates;
Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing,
etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
Privatization of state enterprises;
Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on
safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
PGL blames Yeltsin but even Stiglitz writes that it was the Washington Consensus which was to blame for the poor transition and
disastrous collapse of Russia. Now we are reaping the consequences. Just like with Syria, ISIL and Iraq.
Suppose though the matter with privatization is not so much speed but not understanding what should not be subject to privatizing,
such as soft and hard infrastructure.
That a Washington Consensus approach to Russian development proved obviously faulty is important because I would argue the approach
has repeatedly proved faulty from Brazil to South Africa to the Philippines... When the consensus has been turned away from as
in Brazil for several years the development results have dramatically changed but turning from the approach which allows for severe
concentrations of wealth has proved politically difficult as we find now in Brazil.
The range in real per capita GDP growth from 1990 to 2015 extends from 15.8% to 19.8% to 41.1% to 223.1% to 789.1%. This range
needs to be thoroughly analyzed in terms of reflective policy.
The range in total factor productivity growth or decline from 1990 to 2014 extends from a decline of - 16.9% to - 12.2% to - 5.1%
to growth of 40.9% and 76.4%. Again, this range needs to be thoroughly analyzed in terms of reflective policy.
The persuasiveness of the Washington Consensus approach to development strikes me as especially well illustrated by the repeated,
decades-long insistence by Western economists that Chinese development is about to come to a crashing end. The insistence continues
with an almost daily repetition in the likes of The Economist or Financial Times.
I would suggest the success of China thoroughly studied provides us with remarkable policy prescriptions.
"... Too much liberal swamp gas [In Stiglitz's book] ..."
"... I love joe. His technical intuition is peerless. But he is mushy at heart. Social values involved. Unlike say chomsky ..."
"... It may eventually prove to be generous to describe Russia's misfortune as "the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that
shaped Russia's transition" according to Stiglitz. It may prove rather to be "the legacy of *intentionally* flawed consensus". ..."
I've been encouraging folks to read his 1997 book - in particular chapter 5. When I do, the Usual Suspects decided to attack by
questioning Stiglitz's credential.
One of them cited Wikipedia noting it relied on World Bank research. Of course, Stiglitz headed the World Bank back then. Go
figure.
It may eventually prove to be generous to describe Russia's misfortune as "the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that
shaped Russia's transition" according to Stiglitz. It may prove rather to be "the legacy of *intentionally* flawed consensus".
"... Could Russia's post-communist transition have been managed better? We can never answer such questions definitively: history
cannot be re-run. But I believe what we are confronting is partly the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that shaped Russia's
transition. ..."
"... This framework's influences was reflected in the tremendous emphasis reformers placed on privatization, no matter how it was
done, with speed taking precedence over everything else, including creating the institutional infrastructure needed to make a market
economy work. Fifteen years ago, when I wrote Globalization and its Discontents, I argued that this "shock therapy" approach to economic
reform was a dismal failure. ..."
"... Today, more than a quarter-century since the onset of transition, those earlier results have been confirmed, and those who
argued that private property rights, once created, would give rise to broader demands for the rule of law have been proven wrong. Russia
and many of the other transition countries are lagging further behind the advanced economies than ever. GDP in some transition countries
is below its level at the beginning of the transition." ..."
"... In the matter before us – the question of the many billions in capital that fled Russia to Western shores via the Bank of New
York and other Western banks – we have had a window thrown open on what the financial affairs of a country without property rights,
without banks, without the certainty of contract, without an accountable government or a leadership decent enough to be concerned with
the national interest or its own citizens' well-being looks like. ..."
"... And there is no mistake as to who the victims are, i.e. Western, principally U.S., taxpayers and Russian citizens' whose national
legacy was stolen only to be squandered and/or invested in Western real estate and equities markets ..."
"In terms of per capita income, Russia now ranks 73rd (in terms of purchasing power parity) – well below the Soviet Union's
former satellites in Central and Eastern Europe. The country has deindustrialized: the vast majority of its exports now come from
natural resources. It has not evolved into a "normal" market economy, but rather into a peculiar form of crony-state capitalism
.
Many had much higher hopes for Russia, and the former Soviet Union more broadly, when the Iron Curtain fell. After seven decades
of Communism, the transition to a democratic market economy would not be easy. But, given the obvious advantages of democratic
market capitalism to the system that had just fallen apart, it was assumed that the economy would flourish and citizens would
demand a greater voice. What went wrong? Who, if anyone, is to blame?
Could Russia's post-communist transition have been managed better? We can never answer such questions definitively: history
cannot be re-run. But I believe what we are confronting is partly the legacy of the flawed Washington Consensus that shaped Russia's
transition.
This framework's influences was reflected in the tremendous emphasis reformers placed on privatization, no matter how it
was done, with speed taking precedence over everything else, including creating the institutional infrastructure needed to make
a market economy work. Fifteen years ago, when I wrote Globalization and its Discontents, I argued that this "shock therapy" approach
to economic reform was a dismal failure.
But defenders of that doctrine cautioned patience: one could make such judgments only with a longer-run perspective. Today,
more than a quarter-century since the onset of transition, those earlier results have been confirmed, and those who argued that
private property rights, once created, would give rise to broader demands for the rule of law have been proven wrong. Russia and
many of the other transition countries are lagging further behind the advanced economies than ever. GDP in some transition countries
is below its level at the beginning of the transition."
Stiglitz is not saying markets cannot work if the rules are properly constructed. He is saying that the Yeltsin rules were
not as they were crony capitalism at their worse. And it seems the Putin rules are not much better. He mentions his 1997 book
which featured as chapter 5 "Who Lost Russia". It still represents an excellent read.
"Shleifer also met his mentor and professor, Lawrence Summers, during his undergraduate education at Harvard. The two went on
to be co-authors, joint grant recipients, and faculty colleagues.[5]
During the early 1990s, Andrei Shleifer headed a Harvard project under the auspices of the Harvard Institute for International
Development (HIID) that invested U.S. government funds in the development of Russia's economy.
Schleifer was also a direct advisor to Anatoly Chubais, then vice-premier of Russia, who managed the Rosimushchestvo (Committee
for the Management of State Property) portfolio and was a primary engineer of Russian privatization. Shleifer was also tasked
with establishing a stock market for Russia that would be a world-class capital market.[14]
In 1996 complaints about the Harvard project led Congress to launch a General Accounting Office investigation, which stated
that the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID) was given "substantial control of the U.S. assistance program."[15]
In 1997, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) canceled most of its funding for the Harvard project after investigations
showed that top HIID officials Andre Schleifer and Johnathan Hay had used their positions and insider information to profit from
investments in the Russian securities markets. Among other things, the Institute for a Law Based Economy (ILBE) was used to assist
Schleifer's wife, Nancy Zimmerman, who operated a hedge fund which speculated in Russian bonds.[14]
In August 2005, Harvard University, Shleifer and the Department of Justice reached an agreement under which the university
paid $26.5 million to settle the five-year-old lawsuit. Shleifer was also responsible for paying $2 million worth of damages,
though he did not admit any wrongdoing
"He has held a tenured position in the Department of Economics at Harvard University since 1991 and was, from 2001 through
2006, the Whipple V. N. Jones Professor of Economics."
My impression is that Andrei Shleifer was a marionette, a low level pawn in a big game.
The fact that he was a greedy academic scum, who tried to amass a fortune in Russia probably under influence of his wife (his
wife, a hedge fund manager, was GS alumnae and was introduced to him by Summers) is peripheral to the actual role he played.
Jeffey Sacks also played highly negative role being the architect of "shock therapy": the sudden release of price and currency
controls, withdrawal of state subsidies, and immediate trade liberalization within a country, usually also including large-scale
privatization of previously public-owned assets.
In other words "shock therapy" = "economic rape"
As Anne Williamson said:
"Instead, after robbing the Russian people of the only capital they had to participate in the new market – the nation's
household savings – by freeing prices in what was a monopolistic economy and which delivered a 2500% inflation in 1992, America's
"brave, young Russian reformers" ginned-up a development theory of "Big Capitalism" based on Karl Marx's mistaken edict that
capitalism requires the "primitive accumulation of capital". Big capitalists would appear instantly, they said, and a broadly-based
market economy shortly thereafter if only the pockets of pre-selected members of their own ex-Komsomol circle were properly
stuffed.
Those who hankered for a public reputation were to secure the government perches from which they would pass state assets
to their brethren in the nascent business community, happy in the knowledge that they too would be kicked back a significant
cut of the swag. The US-led West accommodated the reformers' cockeyed theory by designing a rapid and easily manipulated voucher
privatization program that was really only a transfer of title and which was funded with $325 million US taxpayers' dollars.
"
"Many in Russia believe that the US Treasury pushed Washington Consensus policies to weaken their country. The deep corruption
of the Harvard University team chosen to "help" Russia in its transition, described in a detailed account published in 2006
by Institutional Investor, reinforced these beliefs."
This was not a corruption. This was the intent on Clinton administration. I would think about it as a planned operation.
The key was that the gangster capitalism model was enforced by the Western "Washington consensus" (of which IMF was an integral
part) -- really predatory set of behaviors designed to colonize Russia and make is US satellite much like Germany became after
WWII but without the benefit of Marshall plan.
Clinton consciously chose this criminal policy among alternatives: kick the lying body. So after Russian people get rid of
corrupt and degraded Communist regime, they got under the iron hill of US gangsters from Clinton administration.
My impression is that Clinton was and is a criminal. And he really proved to be a very capable mass murderer. And his entourage
had found willing sociopaths within Russian society (as well as in other xUUSR republics; Ukraine actually fared worse then Russia
as for the level of plunder) who implemented neoliberal policies. Yegor Gaidar was instrumental in enforcing Harvard-designed
"shock therapy" on Russian people. He also create the main neoliberal party in Russia -- the Democratic Choice of Russia - United
Democrats. Later in 1990s, it became the Union of Right Forces.
Before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services of the United States House of Representatives
September 21, 1999
In the matter before us – the question of the many billions in capital that fled Russia to Western shores via the Bank
of New York and other Western banks – we have had a window thrown open on what the financial affairs of a country without property
rights, without banks, without the certainty of contract, without an accountable government or a leadership decent enough to
be concerned with the national interest or its own citizens' well-being looks like. It's not a pretty picture, is it?
But let there be no mistake, in Russia the West has truly been the author of its own misery. And there is no mistake as
to who the victims are, i.e. Western, principally U.S., taxpayers and Russian citizens' whose national legacy was stolen only
to be squandered and/or invested in Western real estate and equities markets
... ... ...
A lot of people, especially pensioners, died because of Clinton's gangster policies in xUUSR space.
I am wondering how Russian managed to survive as an independent country. The USA put tremendous efforts and resources in destruction
of Russian economy and colonizing its by creating "fifth column" on neoliberal globalization.
all those criminal oligarchs hold moved their capitals to the West as soon as they can because they were afraid of the future.
Nobody persecuted them and Western banks helped to extract money from Russia to the extent that some of their methods were clearly
criminals.
Economic devastation was comparable with caused by Nazi armies, although amount of dead was less, but also in millions.
Questionable figures from the West flowed into Russia and tried to exploit still weak law system by raiding the companies.
Some of them were successful and amassed huge fortunes. Some ended being shot. Soros tried, but was threatened to be shot by Berezovsky
and choose to leave for the good.
Especially hard hit was military industrial complex, which was oversized in any case, but which was an integral part of Soviet
economy and employed many highly qualified specialists. Many of whom later emigrated to the West. At some point it was difficult
to find physics department in the US university without at least a single person form xUSSR space (not necessary a Russian)
In a keynote interview during the Stigler Center's
conference on concentration in America, Judge Posner said:
"You are not going to have people competing with the Koch
brothers." On antitrust, Posner said: "Antitrust is dead,
isn't it?"
"The real corruption is the ownership of Congress by the
rich," said Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, one of
the most prominent legal scholars of the last five decades,
during a keynote interview today at the Stigler Center's
conference on concentration in America.
Posner is one of the most influential antitrust scholars
of the last 50 years, and one of America's most prominent
legal minds. During a conversation with University of Chicago
Booth School of Business professor Luigi Zingales [one of the
editors of this blog], Posner harshly criticized the Supreme
Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, declared antitrust
"dead," and described the American judicial system as "very
crappy" and "not well-designed to get good people."
On the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision,
Posner said: "If you become a member of Congress, you'll get
a card from the head of your party that you will spend five
hours [each] afternoon talking to donors. That's not the only
time you spend with donors-they'll take you to dinner,
cocktails-but these five hours are important. The message is
clear: You are a slave to the donors. They own you. That's
[the] real corruption, the ownership of Congress by the
rich."
Later, remarking on the logic behind Citizens United,
Posner said: "The Supreme Court says there's no such thing as
spending too much money to support a political candidate,
because your money is actually speech-that's all
nonsense."...
[Much more at the link. Richard Posner is great. He is an
elite that does not seem elitist, a rare phenomenon. We need
more like this.]
He was a Republican who saw the light and speaks his mind. A
short time after the Internet and blogs came online he
started spouting off as if he didn't care what people think.
Now he had a larger forum. He was one of those old, honored
judges who has ruled on endless cases and suddenly enjoyed
being a public intellectual and calling a spade a spade.
Back in the days of monarchies, polo
was known as the sport of kings. Today, thanks to Citizens
United, politics in the US has become the sport of
billionaires.
Replete with phony facebook surveys, psychiatrists, fake
new, manipulation of opinion, ... and character rich plot:
Breitbart news
Cambridge analytica
Strategic Communication Laboratories
Citizens United
Reclaim New York
Jonathan Albright, an assistant professor of
communications at Elon University, in North Carolina,
recently published a paper, on Medium, calling Cambridge
Analytica a "propaganda machine."
David Bossie
Sam Nunberg
Michal Kosinski
Bit long. Might need a shade tree and one or two beers
"... Further, the Northern District of New York has jurisdiction over Albany, so the swampiest part of New York State politics did not lie in Bharara's jurisdiction. ..."
"... Obama was a rapacious doer for the .001%. ..."
"... That smirky dubya-esque smile on his face while on Sir Richard Branson's private island off of the coast of Madagascar says it all. "Fuck all of y'all, I got out and away with screwing the rest of the nation, not once, but twice!" ..."
"... Draining Wall Street is more challenging than cleaning out the Augean stables. ..."
"... Not for nothing, but Preet came out of Schumer's office who has parlayed being Wall Street's senator into dejure leadership of the Senate Dems and defacto control of the Democratic party. ..."
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, an associate professor
of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and c–founder of Bank Whistleblowers
United. Jointly published with New
Economic Perspectives
The New York Times' editorial board published an
editorial on March 12, 2017, praising Preet Bharara as the "Prosecutor Who Knew How to Drain
a Swamp." I agree with the title. At all times when he was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District
of New York (which includes Wall Street) Bharara knew how to drain the swamp. Further, he had the
authority, the jurisdiction, the resources, and the testimony from whistleblowers like Richard Bowen
(a co-founder of Bank Whistleblowers United (BWU)) to drain the Wall Street swamp. Bowen personally
contacted Bharara beginning in 2005.
You were quoted in The Nation magazine as saying that if a whistleblower comes forward
with evidence of wrongdoing, then you would be the first to prosecute [elite bankers].
I am writing this email to inform you that there is a body of evidence concerning wrongdoing,
which the Department of Justice has refused to act on in order to determine whether criminal charges
should be pursued.
Bowen explained that he was a whistleblower about Citigroup's senior managers and that he was
(again) coming forward to aid Bharara to prosecute. Bowen tried repeatedly to interest Bharara in
draining the Citigroup swamp. Bharara refused to respond to Bowen's blowing of the whistle on the
massive frauds led by Citigroup's senior officers.
Bharara knew how to drain the Wall Street swamp and was positioned to do so because he had federal
prosecutorial jurisdiction over Wall Street crimes. Whistleblowers like Bowen, who lacked any meaningful
power, sacrificed their careers and repeatedly demonstrated courage to ensure that Bharara would
have the testimony and documents essential to prosecute successfully some of Wall Street's most elite
felons. Bharara never mustered the courage to prosecute those elites. Indeed, Bharara never mustered
the courtesy to respond to Bowen's offers to aid his office.
The editorial lauds Bharara for his actions against public corruption in New York.
New Yorkers, who have had a front-row seat to his work over the last seven years, know him
for his efforts to drain one of the swampiest states in the country of its rampant public corruption.
We are all for rooting out public corruption. The editorial ignores three key facts. First, New
York politics are less corrupt than many other states, but Wall Street's leaders created the "swampiest"
region in American business. Further, the Northern District of New York has jurisdiction over Albany,
so the swampiest part of New York State politics did not lie in Bharara's jurisdiction. Second, Wall
Street CEOs created, and infest, the swampiest of regions over which Bharara had jurisdiction. They
led the epidemics of "control fraud" that hyper-inflated the housing bubble, drove the financial
crisis, and caused the Great Recession. Third, Bharara did not prosecute any of them even when whistleblowers
brought him the cases on platinum platters. Indeed, Bharara did not prosecute even low-level bank
officers who were minor leaders in implementing those fraud epidemics.
I will summarize briefly Bowen's story as it intersects Bharara. Bowen held a senior position
with Citigroup supervising a staff of several hundred professionals that conducted risk assessments
on roughly $100 billion in annual mortgage purchases – a majority of which Citigroup resold to Fannie
and Freddie or mortgage securitizers. Citigroup was exposed to enormous losses on these mortgages
because the sellers had strong incentives to provide false "reps and warranties" to Citigroup and
sell them fraudulently originated loans that were particularly likely to default and suffer larger
losses upon default. Citigroup could only sell these fraudulently originated mortgages to others
through making essentially the same fraudulent reps and warranties that it received from the original
sellers. Bowen's staff found originally that 60% of the loans it was buying had false reps and warranties.
He warned his superiors about the problem, but they responded by weakening Citigroup's already inadequate
underwriting by buying pervasively fraudulent "liar's" loans. Bowen put Citigroup's senior management,
including Robert Rubin, on written notice of the growing crisis and called for immediate intervention
to stem the crisis. Citigroup's senior management responded by removing Bowen's staff and responsibilities.
The incidence of fraud grew to 80 percent.
Bowen was blowing the whistle internally at Citigroup and acting exactly as he was supposed to
do – as Citigroup articulated what an officer should do in such circumstances. He was not looking
for money or a lawsuit. He was the opposite of a disgruntled employee. He had never gone public.
Citigroup's top leaders forced Bowen out – for doing exactly the right think according to Citigroup's
own policies. Bowen did eventually blow the whistle to the public about the Citigroup's top leadership
and the banks hundreds of billions of dollars in sales of mortgages through false reps and warranties.
Those sales, because of the losses they caused to Fannie and Freddie, were substantial contributors
to Fannie and Freddie's failures and the public bailout of both firms. Bowen met with the SEC staff
and Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) in several districts to provide them with the critical facts
and documents. Bowen also testified before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), which
made multiple criminal referrals against Citigroup, including a referral based on Bowen's testimony.
Bowen was the perfect witness for a criminal prosecution of Citigroup's senior managers and for an
SEC enforcement action against Citigroup for securities fraud.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) in Denver, the Eastern District of New York (where Loretta Lynch
was then the U.S. Attorney), and Bharara's office told Bowen that the Department of Justice (DOJ)
had never sent the criminal referrals that FCIC made about Citigroup to them. Bowen met with the
AUSAs to assist them in what he had expected to be a series of prosecutions in 2016. Phil Angelides,
FCIC's Chairman, made public in 2016 the fact that the FCIC had made a criminal referral about Citigroup
based on Bowen's testimony before the inquiry. Bowen was by 2016 one of the best-known and most respected
whistleblowers in America. FCIC's chair found his testimony about Citigroup's leaders highly credible,
leading him to make the criminal referral, but DOJ's leadership not only refused to prosecute, but
also buried the criminal referrals to discourage any U.S. Attorney from prosecuting Citigroup's fraudulent
leaders.
AUSA Jonathon Schmidt (San Francisco) called Bowen on July 10, 2010. Bowen gave him everything.
Schmidt was excited and said that they were going to pursue the claims that Bowen had laid out, particularly
Citigroup's fraudulent reps and warranties. Bowen challenged Schmidt, telling him that I believed
that once he talked to DC DOJ that Bowen would never hear from him again. Schmidt promised he would
be back to Bowen within a week. Bowen never heard from him again.
Alayne Fleischmann, also one of the most famous whistleblowers to emerge from the crisis, provided
vital information and documents to DOJ prosecutors about frauds led by JPMorgan's senior managers.
Fleischmann continued to seek to aid a DOJ prosecution after the Attorney General transferred responsibility
for the case to Bharara's office. No prosecution has occurred.
Bharara is like every other federal prosecutor and the SEC's top leaders. Bowen met with the SEC
staff and five Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) in four different districts (including Bharara's)
to provide them with the critical facts and documents. Each failed to prosecute the elite Wall Street
officials who drove the three epidemics of fraud that drove the financial crisis. What is different
is that because his office had jurisdiction over the elite frauds and the staff to conduct sophisticated
investigations and prosecutions he could have drained the Wall Street swamp. Bharara simply had to
take advantage of the courage and competence of whistleblowers like Bowen and Fleischman who brought
him cases against the top managers of two of the world's largest banks on a platinum platter. Bharara
also could have taken advantage of the expertise and experience of regulators and prosecutors who
worked together to produce over 1,000 felony convictions in "major" cases against financial executives
and their co-conspirators in the savings and loan debacle. Bharara (and Lynch and their counterparts)
failed to take either approach.
Bharara knew how to drain the Wall Street swamp. He had the facts, the staff, and the jurisdiction
to drain the Wall Street swamp. Bharara refused to do so.
Sorry to say it but the situation as it stands now makes mob actions against the financial
elites a rational choice.
I know that such ideas are an essential part of the Libertarian Dream State, but, what else is
left to do then either submit or fight?
As is the case in our politics now, reform is no longer an option.
Of course the NYT defines the liberal version of draining the swamp. Government actors are
already considered bad eggs. But the upper echelons of elite Wall St firms sit on the boards of
America's cultural and educational institutions and are culturally liberal, so whatever they may
have done was done with no ill intent nor malice. Black exposes this as completely bogus in a
short editorial but the leading pundits will be pounding on Russia, Hillbillies, and Russia some
more.
Dang, NC needs those up arrows so I could show my approval. The philanthropy fig-leaf of America's
elite hides a plentitude of warts. Too many people are duped by these 'pillars of community.'
Prof. Black loses some credibility when he writes,
First, New York politics are less corrupt than many other states
Evidence? Links to studies? Anything?
Given the national trends of the last few decades (many of them originating from Wall Street
or Wall Street-owned politicians in D.C.), the NYS economy would have been fighting some very
strong headwinds in any case. But the cesspool in Albany helped convince a lot of businesses and
individuals to make their futures elsewhere.
Parents in NYS know that their children's adult lives will (if they're lucky) be spent somewhere
else.
Yes, Preen is a fraud, but Albany was and remains a very corrupt place and the state suffers
because of it.
Recall Bill Black's work during the S & L crisis across the country. I'm one who was involved
with the economic class of Americans who were likely to have their savings in CDs in the fraudulent
institutions in the swamp that Black was instrumental in draining. And, pertinent to this piece
about Citi, I recently met a group of former Citi mid-level execs who were laid off during the
mortgage mess: they rec'd golden parachutes, stock options, and never had to work again.
I couldn't paste the link successfully but this is from the Center for Public Integrity: New
York GRADE:D-(61)RANK:31ST
So 19 states are worse than New York. More than a few in other words, and only 3 states scored
higher than a D+. At any rate, the swamp in Albany was not under Bhahara's jurisdiction anyway,
as Black points out.
I have great respect for the work that Prof. Black did in the past and the work he continues
to do.
But public corruption can be incredibly damaging to government functions
in the short and medium run, and corrosive to trust in government in the long run.
To suggest that NYS doesn't have a serious problem is not helpful.
I would much rather have the USA for SDNY devoting limited resources to going after that,
even if it might be publicity-seeking bigfooting of the USA in Albany,
rather than crusading against insider trading.
Even though I agree that Bharara, Breuer and Holder (and the czar they all worked for)
were a disaster for the rule of law in this country.
Further, the Northern District of New York has jurisdiction over Albany, so the swampiest
part of New York State politics did not lie in Bharara's jurisdiction.
Bill Black has all the credibility he needs. This is a classic propaganda technique to focus
on unimportant minor points to impeach an otherwise very import essay. People here know better
than to listen to that.
The Obama Administration prevented any investigations, let alone prosecutions, of Wall Street
and large scale mortgage fraud. Obama's 50 State Solution was sold as consolidation of multiple
state efforts, which were making good progress, into a single, streamlined and comprehensive federal
effort that would take the burden off the states. It was a lie.
Preet Bharara was fired by Trump and has gotten a lot of sympathetic press over his firing.
And he has certainly done many good things. But when it came to the biggest financial crimes in
the history of the world he followed his orders, failed to do his job, and kept his mouth shut
as the criminals reaped hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of American families suffered.
And he is still keeping his mouth shut. But other than that .
+1,000,000! Obama was a rapacious doer for the .001%.
That smirky dubya-esque smile on his
face while on Sir Richard Branson's private island off of the coast of Madagascar says it all.
"Fuck all of y'all, I got out and away with screwing the rest of the nation, not once, but twice!"
There's not one politician who doesn't deserve pitchforks and lamposts. Tar and feather these
folk!
Good essay by a man I highly respect, but I, too, noted long ago that New York State politics
are real down and dirty. It's the home of Wall Street, so how could it be otherwise?
It is all theater. We read Wikileaks exposures. There are crimes or at least valid reasons
for investigations.
We get teasers that investigations will happen.
They never do.
The political and corporate leadership class is immune from prosecution except for passing fine
monies back and forth.
These people are completely corrupt and have greatly participated in corrupting our society and
its cultures.
I have always found the Richard Bowen story particularly fascinating and infuriating. His memo
to Rob Rubin is unbelievable. Frontline also did a piece on the failure to prosecute the banks.
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission took testimony from Bowen but then locked it up under
seal for five years. Do we have any rational explanation for this other than that the system is
that corrupt. I am a cynic but this still shocks me to the point where I can't fathom that it
is really this bad.
"Bharara knew how to drain the Wall Street swamp. He had the facts, the staff, and the jurisdiction
to drain the Wall Street swamp. Bharara refused to do so."
If my memory serves me, perhaps, like Neil Barofsky (SIGTARP), he had lunch with Larry Summers
where it was explained to him that if he wanted to have a $$$career after leaving government it
would be wise to let things slide ( i.e. see Lanny Breuer).
Bahara did what he was told by Obama. That's the end of it.
Anyone who wants to deify Obama – and I know far too many people who do – are completely ignoring
Obama's and Bahara's criminal neglect to hold the banks and Wall St truly accountable.
Recall Jamie "Presidential Cufflinks" Dimon basically thumbing his snooty nose at the hoi poloi.
What? Me, worry? Sucks to be you, great to be me.
These crooks will never do a perp walk, and Bahara made sure that they didn't. All the whining
about Bahara being "fired" by Trump is ignoring these inconvenient truths.
I'm no Obama apologist, but if Bahara indited someone on Wall Street just how was Obama going
to explain firing him? If either had an ounce of integrity the right people would be in jail.
Some manufactured scandal or leak regarding improper or compromising behaviour, well before
the ball trully got rolling on prosecuting our criminal elite forcing Obama to step in and either
move him down, sideways or outright let go to ensure the integrity of the office.
Citigroup (previously Citibank, etc) has always been corrupt. They were caught money laundering
for drug cartels in the 1980s and terrorism back in the 1990s and should have been shut down forever
both times. They weren't.
The only conclusion I can come to is that Citigroup is a heavily exposed to CIA activity. It
sounds like a loony conspiracy theory until you look at the history of Riggs Bank, BCCI, etc and
realize that historically its in the realm of possibility. So yes, its entirely possible.
It doesn't sound at all loony to me, sd. I think the current mess goes all the way back to
the 50s. In defiance of financial prudence, in 1954, the rich guys went to DC, like some super
mercenary army (pun intended) and threw what was called "The Bankruptcy Ball" which everyone who
was anyone attended, all decked out in tuxedos and gowns. Catherine Graham's autobiography. And
I think it marks a point in time when our government became blood brothers with the banks. A relationship
that saw us through the Cold War – which had already bankrupted us – and the Vietnam War which
was an awful and senseless debacle; and on through till the USSR finally said "enough" – at which
point our government and the banks were one. One big mess. We should have had the integrity at
that point, 1990, to fix things. But we couldn't because our capitalist economy, upon which most
of the world had become addicted, would have failed without the crazy growth that the banksters
provided so, god. Talk about a mess. But that's just my opinion.
Ah, yes, the ol' "Bank of Crooks and Criminals, Intl." I remember them and good old Clark Clifford.
Boy, that guy died just in time, huh? Good times! / sarc
Well said, Professor Black. The Southern District of New York was the biggest crime scene in
the U.S. during Bharara's tenure as United States Attorney, and he was the man in charge of the
Holder doctrine, printing "Get Out of Jail Free" cards for the donor class. Of course, Bharara
is ambitious enough not to take a multi-million dollar desk at Covington like Holder and Breuer
did. Bad optics. He's going to academia, as a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at NYU School
of Law. How noble!
NOT. Naked Capitalism readers recognize NYU as what Pam Martens called "a tyrannical slush
fund for privileged interests" where Obot Flexian grifters roost in luxury:
Not for nothing, but Preet came out of Schumer's office who has parlayed being Wall Street's
senator into dejure leadership of the Senate Dems and defacto control of the Democratic party.
Picking off egregious individuals like Madoff, who can be described as "bad apples" while ignoring
systemic fraud is the playbook.
"... Lately certain unrepentant members of that disgraced profession, some of whom claim to be the consciences of the liberal establishment, have been expressing concern about the disrepute of the 'experts' and the need to allow the technocrats to take control of policy and the economy. ..."
"... Brad DeLong, by the way, banned me from his site comments noting, 'Alan Greenspan never made a decision with which I disagreed.' Since then even Alan Greenspan has admitted he does not agree with some of his decisions, in a sniveling and sneaky kind of a non-apologetic way. ..."
"... But the specific factual point from Brad's piece that got me going was this: ..."
"... "Merton and Scholes's financial math was correct, and the crash of their hedge fund did not require any public-money bailout" ..."
"... I think it is less than trivial to know where and how the B-S risk model fails as math, as illustrated so well by Benoit Mandelbrot in his book The Misbehaviour of Markets. The math fails in its selection choice of variables and assumptions. Naseem Taleb has made a cottage industry and a personal fortune understanding this error. ..."
Ok I have to admit that the title alone got me into a cranky mood. Lately certain unrepentant
members of that disgraced profession, some of whom claim to be the consciences of the liberal establishment,
have been expressing concern about the disrepute of the 'experts' and the need to allow the technocrats
to take control of policy and the economy.
Granted, they may look like the lesser of two evils in some cases, as in the current nascent administration,
and in their own minds. But their policy consensus and economic recommendations of the past
thirty years or so, starting with the Fed chairmanship of Alan Greenspan at least, only look good
in their own selective memories. Brad DeLong, by the way, banned me from his site comments noting,
'Alan Greenspan never made a decision with which I disagreed.' Since then even Alan Greenspan
has admitted he does not agree with some of his decisions, in a sniveling and sneaky kind of a non-apologetic
way.
For everyone else this cycle of growing inequality, policy skews to the wealthy few, and asset
bubbles and bust that serve as wealth transfer mechanisms has been particularly trying.
But the specific factual point from Brad's piece that got me going was this:
"Merton and Scholes's financial math was correct, and the crash of their hedge fund did not
require any public-money bailout"
Yeah, right. Let's put aside the nicety of a Fed brokered bailout of LTCM by Wall Street money
as technically not requiring public bailout money, in order to save the financial system from an
epic overleveraged mispricing of risk based on that correct math.
I think it is less than trivial
to know where and how the B-S risk model fails as math, as illustrated so well by Benoit Mandelbrot
in his book The Misbehaviour of Markets. The math fails in its selection choice of variables
and assumptions. Naseem Taleb has made a cottage industry and a personal fortune understanding this
error.
And what makes it most egregious is that the error hs been known among those with mathematical
minds for some time. I myself read Mandelbrot's book in 2001 and said, 'holy shit.'
Let's be clear. This was not some dumb error on the part of these fellows, or some sneaky
trick. They could not resolve their math without making a certain assumption, and they did
it openly and consciously. And as the write of the essay below notes, there has not been anything
better produced yet to his knowledge.
It is not the theory itself that is 'bad.' It is the use and misuse to which it is put by
opportunists and financial predators in misrepresenting it.
But the people who use the assumptions on risk contained in the model don't care. Like
the efficient market hypothesis, it is an intellectual fig leaf that covers an epic era of
looting and plundering bases on what is essentially a con game. If you assume that risk is a rare
event, you can persuade the regulators and the very important people to let you run on leverage at
extreme levels, especially if you can use other people's money.
Like some of the other accepted truths from the turn of the century greed is good crowd, it is
a meme with which to silence the protests and permit the widespread mispricing of risk in order to
reap enormous short term profits for a very few wealthy insiders. This had been going on for
so long that it is almost accepted as a normal way of doing business.
Here is what an essay in
Criticality had to say about the Merton-Scholes math. I suppose that the sophist would
say that the math was indeed right. It was just the assumptions they used to construct the
model was wrong. So 3+5 does equal 8. Its just that in the real world case there
were three more factors that were tossed aside and ignored because they messed up the path to the
more easily determined and reassuring result.
"This implies that rather than extreme market moves being so unlikely that they make little contribution
to the overall evolution, they instead come to have a very significant contribution. In a normally
distributed market, crashes and booms are vanishingly rare, in a pareto-levy one crashes occur
and are a significant component of the final outcome.
It has taken years for this to be taken
seriously, and in the mean time financial theory has gone on using the assumption of normally
distributed returns to derive such results as the Black-Scholes option pricing equation, ultimately
winning an Nobel Prize in Economics for the discoverers Scholes and Merton (Black having already
died), not to mention Modern Portfolio theory (also winning Nobels). That modern finance ignored
Mandelbrot's discovery and went onto honor those working under assumptions shown to be false has
clearly annoyed Mandelbrot immensely and as mentioned previously he spends much of the book telling
us of his prior discoveries and how he was ignored.
It is like allowing tobacco companies to widely distribute their products while a bevy of hired gun
experts and media pundits and PR organizations promote the theory that tobacco is not a highly addictive
substance that causes a wide range of debilitating diseases, including cancer. They know
damn well that it is and it does, but they do not give a damn as long as the money is rolling in.
And pity the fool who tries to stand up and tell the truth.
And so to has it been with the Banks.
Indeed, the PR campaign and political donations they handled through their intermediaries during
the 1990s to deregulate and overturn Glass-Steagal has to be one of the great propaganda accomplishments
of the twentieth century. And the follow on campaign for the US to invade Iraq in retribution
for 9/11 is not far behind it for the twenty first.
The greater point is not that the B-S model is based on faulty assumptions that greatly diminish
the potential risks. Rather it is how such 'laws' of economics are so often of a dodgy, optionated
and theoretical nature such that taking them as a given in forming public policy is a huge mistake
in judgement.
Why? Because they may embody assumptions about what is true, and what is a priority, and
what our principles and objectives may be, and propagate those assumptions (biases) into a general
policy of our society that ends up causing great harm to many innocent participants. Indeed,
as Obama said, there is a great need to discussion and understanding. It is just that it cannot
be monopolized by a particular group of insiders who adhere to certain assumptions and professional
courtesies of their own, dare I say it, class.
So there are my two corrections to the mainstream media and their writing of the public record-
to suit themselves and their wealthy patrons. It seems like modern America spends an
enormous amount of its intellectual capital and time on finding ways to scam the public. If
we could somehow reorder the paybacks on financial corruption to even a third of what it is today
we could probably cure cancer in five years or less. That is what it would take to 'make
America great again,' for real and not just in the funny papers.
I would like to again stress that I am not finding fault with either of the two bloggers involved,
both of whom I enjoy and admire for what they do. Mark Thoma is a class act, and even when
he disagrees is very fair and open minded about it. And he keeps this site in his blogroll
despite some special interests who have argued for its removal. That is more than I can say
for some others.
Rather, I am trying to correct a couple of things from the broader media that seem to be factually
wrong, purposely, and further, to help caution the reader that things that appear in the mainstream
media written by bona fide members of the certified and qualified professional establishment
cannot always be taken at face value.
The deterioration of the quality of the news is startling. I think it has a lot to do with
the takeover of the media by a relatively few number of large corporations (thank you Slick Willy)
Yeah, there is a lot of nutty stuff on the internet and in blogs. I spend a lot of time assessing
it and avoiding it where I can. But to say that the mainstream is somehow authoritative, objective
and pure is self-serving baloney at best, and a thin veneer for official propaganda when it serves
the purpose at worst.
By age 30, about 22% of American sons will be working for the same employer at the same time as
their fathers. But how does that compare with other countries?
Who's your daddy? Nepotism throughout the world. Data: World Economic forum.
Hi everyone, how are you? If your name is Ivanka (there really aren't that many of you), then
maybe you had a great week. Maybe you got a new job with your dad with perks like access to classified
information from the US government (chances are much higher if your last name is Trump).
Which brings me to the subject of this week's DIY fact check: nepotism. Let's find out how many
Americans get a $110 denim shoe in thanks to their old man. And while we're at it, let's find out
whether nepotism is more prevalent in the United States than other countries.
Step 1: Find out how many people get a job with the help of their father. I know, I know, I know
– "what about the nepotistic mothers?" I hear you ask (or at least I hope you're asking). Well, being
able to influence a company's employment decisions requires power and, for a long time, most women
haven't had that kind of power in the workplace. So no historical data, buddy.
I Google "nepotism US data" and get nowhere. So I search for "nepotism statistics" instead (nothing),
"nepotism study" (nada) and "nepotism prevalence" (zilch).
After a bunch more dead ends I spot that the Census Bureau is quoted in a number of places,so
I add that to my search. I end up with this 2014 research paper. It turns out that I was struggling
to find data because the Census Bureau doesn't use the word nepotism. Instead, it titled the paper
Fathers, Children, and the Intergenerational Transmission of Employers. Interesting.
The study finds that "fathers and sons work together at the same employer more commonly than would
be predicted by mere chance". That chance part is important, not least because when people get caught,
they might claim it was coincidence rather than corruption.
According to its analysis of data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, the Census
Bureau found that by the time they're 30, about 22% of sons will be working for the same employer
at the same time as their fathers (and an extra 6% of sons work for an employer that their dads recently
worked for but left).
That's a lot higher than I would have thought, but maybe I had lower expectations of getting help
from my dad because I'm a woman. The same study found that only 13% of daughters work at the same
place as their dads by the time they're 30 (and an extra 4% work for a former employer of their dads).
Lucky Ivanka, eh?
Step 2: Find out if nepotism is more or less common elsewhere in the world. Yet again, I really
struggle here – it's almost like governments don't have an interest in publishing data on national
nepotism.
I end up finding a PDF floating on the internet. It's just one page, with no date, no sources,
but it seems to be exactly what I need: a table of international data titled "impact of nepotism".
Now I need to figure out where it came from. After getting nowhere for a while, I do something you
should try sometime too: I ask for help.
Remember, the results you see on the internet are often different from what someone else will
see because search engines take into account things like your location and web history. So I ask
my colleague Jan Diehm to try to search for the title of the table, too – "1.29 impact of nepotism"
(please don't send all your research requests to poor Jan – you could ask anyone to repeat your steps
and see if they have more luck than you).
She finds something I didn't: the table is mentioned in this research paper, along with a note
that it comes from the World Economic Forum's 2006-2007 indicators. That's all the information she
needed to be able to track down the original PDF.
There are a couple of things we should keep in mind if we want to figure out how reliable these
numbers are. For one thing, they're quite old (it doesn't look like the World Economic Forum still
measures nepotism), so things might have changed a lot. When these figures were collected, George
W Bush was president and Gmail was only two years old.
Another thing to keep in mind is that this survey doesn't measure nepotism itself, but rather
the perception of nepotism among business executives that were surveyed in 110 countries. That's
not ideal, but it's understandable given the difficulty of measuring illicit activity accurately.
That said, the list is interesting. It ranks countries on their levels of nepotism from seven
(no influence) to one (enormous influence). The US has a score of 4.2, putting it in 63rd place out
of 125 countries evaluated, behind Kazakhstan, Egypt and South Africa (to give just a few arbitrary
examples) and waaay behind Germany and the UK (to give a few more). The Czech Republic, where Ivanka's
mother was born, received the same score as the United States.
I suggest you peruse the list in full, especially if you're thinking about setting up an international
business.
The graphic on this article was amended on 24 March 2017 after criticism from readers in the comment
thread below. We regret any offense the original version caused.
Would you like to see something fact-checked? Send me your questions! [email protected]
/ @MonaChalabi
"... Stewart criticized Republicans leaders such as Senator Mitch McConnell and the House speaker, Paul Ryan, for the hypocrisy of ensuring the government is stuck at a standstill and then claiming that government doesn't get anything done. ..."
"... "They're not draining the swamp," he said. "McConnell and Ryan – those guys are the swamp." He also added: "I will guarantee you Republicans are going to come to Jesus now about the power of government. ..."
"... The same country with all its grace and flaws and volatility and insecurity and strength and resilience exists today as existed two weeks ago. The same country that elected Donald Trump elected Barack Obama ..."
"He's not a Republican. He's a repudiation of Republicans. But they will reap the benefit of his
victory, in all of their cynicism," Stewart told
CBS's This Morning co-host Charlie Rose on Thursday.
Stewart criticized
Republicans leaders
such as Senator Mitch McConnell and the House speaker, Paul Ryan, for the hypocrisy of ensuring the
government is stuck at a standstill and then claiming that government doesn't get anything done.
"They're not draining the swamp," he said. "McConnell and Ryan – those guys are the swamp." He
also added: "I will guarantee you Republicans are going to come to Jesus now about the power of government.
... ... ...
"I don't believe we are a fundamentally different country today than we were two weeks ago," Stewart
told Rose.
"The same country with all its grace and flaws and volatility and insecurity and strength and
resilience exists today as existed two weeks ago. The same country that elected Donald Trump elected
Barack Obama," said Stewart.
The comedian also criticized liberals for lumping all Trump supporters into the category of "racist".
... ... ...
"Like, there are guys in my neighborhood that I love, that I respect, that I think have incredible
qualities who are not afraid of Mexicans, and not afraid of Muslims, and not afraid of blacks. They're
afraid of their insurance premiums," he said. "In the liberal community, you hate this idea of creating
people as a monolith. Don't look at Muslims as a monolith. They are the individuals and it would
be ignorance. But everybody who voted for Trump is a monolith, is a racist. That hypocrisy is also
real in our country."
"... I think Trump's "national neoliberalism" (or as I called it before "bastard neoliberalism") regime is no less corrupt then classic [neoliberalism]. So this mechanism represents "Clear and present danger" to the society. ..."
Frankly, I don't see how institutional tweaks could
greatly improve things. Banning ministers from taking jobs
after leaving office would risk deterring competent and
younger people from politics. And making them personally
liable for bad policy would raise tricky problems of
distinguishing between bad luck and bad judgment, would run
into Campbell's law, and would disincentivize radical
policies, as ministers would prefer to fail
conventionally....
That's a disingenuous statement from Chris Dillow. Washington
revolving doors are the main mechanism of corruption of
government officials under neoliberalism.
I think Trump's "national neoliberalism" (or as I called
it before "bastard neoliberalism") regime is no less corrupt
then classic [neoliberalism]. So this mechanism represents "Clear and present danger" to
the society.
"... The recent revelations regarding the interactions between Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel and former Uber executive and Obama adviser David Plouffe suggest that the real action in the U.S. lobbying game takes place under the surface. The billions of dollars invested every year in lobbying, and the thousands of registered lobbyists, are only the tip of the influence-peddling iceberg. ..."
Uber, the Mayor's Private Email, and the Underground Lobbying
Complex
Posted on
February 28, 2017
by
Guy Rolnik
The recent revelations regarding the interactions between Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel
and former Uber executive and Obama adviser David Plouffe suggest that the real action
in the U.S. lobbying game takes place under the surface. The billions of dollars
invested every year in lobbying, and the thousands of registered lobbyists, are only the
tip of the influence-peddling iceberg.
In August 2014, David Plouffe was appointed as Senior
Vice President of Policy and Strategy at Uber, a position he held until May 2015 when he
became a Strategic Advisor for the company. The word "Lobbyist," however, never appeared
in his job description.
Before joining Uber, Plouffe held high profile and
successful positions as the manager of President Obama's 2008 campaign and later as his
advisor in the White House. "Lobbyist" did not appear in Plouffe's job title in Uber,
nor in his former jobs: It was only in April of 2016 that Plouffe had to
register himself
as a lobbyist with the Board of Ethics of the city of Chicago.
Plouffe's work as a lobbyist for Uber was revealed almost
by accident, when the Better Government Association, a Chicago-based watchdog focused on
government and public officials in Illinois, pushed for the public release of emails
that Mayor Rahm Emanuel sent and received from his personal email account while in
office. Among many other things, the emails revealed that, during 2015, Emanuel and
Plouffe exchanged emails regarding an important business interest of Uber.
The real nature of Plouffe's job is not surprising,
considering his career path and the business model of Uber.
Uber, the omnipresent ride hailing company, is also one
of the most valuable still-private startups in the world. As public rides are heavily
regulated in most markets, Uber's core task is to convince the many national and local
regulatory agencies in its various markets to let its drivers pick up passengers on
favorable terms compared to the incumbent services, which are usually very powerful,
politically-connected special interest groups. Although Uber is often hailed as a
technology company,
it is actually a
regulation play. Regulation is not just an important part of the business model, it is
the most
important part.
Over the years, Uber has increased its lobbying spending
considerably and earned itself a reputation for being very aggressive in its dealings
with regulation. According to OpenSecrets.org, from 2013 until 2016 Uber's
spending on lobbying ballooned
from a mere $50,000 to $1,360,000.
But these numbers, which get a lot of visibility in the
media on a daily basis, probably dramatically underestimate the size and clout of the
U.S. Lobbying-Industrial Complex. They do not account for state and municipal lobbying
like in the Plouffe-Emanuel case, and more importantly, they don't account for the
vast
activity that takes place in PR, "Strategic," "Advisory," and "Consulting" firms, and
the individuals who are engaged in lobbying directly with lawmakers, regulators, and
opinion leaders.
Uber is a good example: OpenSecrets' numbers look
miniscule compared to the lobbying activity that was exposed by investigative
journalists. In a December 14, 2014 article in
The Verge
titled "
Uber
Has an Army of At Least 161 Lobbyists and They're Crushing Regulators
," reporter
T.C. Sottek wrote: "Part of [Uber's] success-and what Uber makes headlines for-comes
from its ruthless playbook to frustrate the competition and to invade any market it
wants, even if it's facing a government-protected taxi monopoly. Less glamorous but no
less important: Uber appears to be completely dominating local politicians who get in
its way."
Six months later, on June 24, 2015,
Bloomberg
Businessweek's
Karen Weise published an article, "
This
Is How Uber Takes Over a City
," where she described the ferocity in which Uber
tackles regulation. "Over the past year," Weise wrote, "Uber built one of the largest
and most successful lobbying forces in the country, with a presence in almost every
statehouse. It has 250 lobbyists and 29 lobbying firms registered in capitals around the
nation, at least a third more than Wal-Mart Stores. That doesn't count municipal
lobbyists. In Portland, the 28th-largest city in the U.S., 10 people would ultimately
register to lobby on Uber's behalf. They'd become a constant force in City Hall. City
officials say they'd never seen anything on this scale."
Plouffe fit the bill because of top positions he held in
Barack Obama's campaign and administration. He was the manager of Obama's 2008
presidential campaign and later, between January 2011 and January 2013, worked again for
Obama, this time as a Senior Advisor.
While at Uber, as can be expected from his job title, he
helped the company tackle some regulatory issues. One such issue had to do with Uber's
plans to pick up passengers in Chicago's two international airports, O'Hare and Midway.
O'Hare is the fourth busiest airport in the world. In 2016, 78 million passengers
went through it
. In 2016, Midway's traffic totaled 22 million passengers. Their
combined traffic would put them close to the busiest airport in the world,
Atlanta's
Hartsfield-Jackson airport
.
One of the top figures Plouffe communicated with
regarding this issue was Emanuel, who is also a former close Obama ally: between January
2009 and October 2010 he was Obama's Chief of Staff. Also, Emanuel's brother, Hollywood
talent agent Ari Emanuel, is an
Uber investor
.
Later, in August 2016,
Uber
hired Emanuel's former chief of staff
Lisa Schrader. Her
LinkedIn
profile
states that she is currently Uber's Director of Public Affairs in Central
U.S.
Even though Emanuel is a highly visible public figure
holding an elected office, his connection with Plouffe was not readily visible. The
exchange between the two was revealed in December 2016 following two open records
lawsuits that alleged that Emanuel violated Illinois open records laws. It then also
became apparent that Emanuel used non-governmental email accounts to communicate with
Plouffe.
Two months later, the Chicago Board of Ethics, to which
all lobbyists report,
ordered
Plouffe to pay $90,000
in fines because he was not
registered as a lobbyist when he contacted Emanuel.
Chicago's definition of lobbying is easy to understand as
it is broad: "Lobbyist," the definition
reads
, "means any person who, on behalf of any person other than himself, or as any
part of his duties as an employee of another, undertakes to influence any legislative or
administrative action." This includes,
but is not limited to
, ten types of
activities, such as zoning, concession agreements, and the solicitation, award or
administration of a contract.
Currently, the city's Board of Ethics' lobbyist list has
8,518 records, two of which belong to Plouffe-one in which his listed employer is Uber
and one with no listed employer.
In
its decision
regarding Plouffe, the Chicago Board of Ethics wrote that "The evidence
before the Board is clear: Mr. Plouffe lobbied City officials via email on November 20,
2015, explicitly on behalf of the company, never reported that lobbying activity, and
did not register as a lobbyist with the Board of Ethics with that company as his client
until April 13, 2016-leaving a total of 95 business days between the date of lobbying
and the date of registration."
"... There is no need to assume nefarious motives under neoliberalism. They are the essence of the system, especially among the financial oligarchy. Wolf eats wolf and "Greed is good!" is the most typical mentality. ..."
"... In some way, it is close to the Italian mafia mentality. The mentality of organized mob. They put themselves outside and above the society. ..."
You can point to the fact that Delong says it, and then the
goalposts will move ... and they will complain he hasn't said
it often enough, or loudly enough, or recently enough, or
something.
People determined to assume nefarious motives
will usually succeed: evidence, logic and common sense be
damned.
There is no need to assume nefarious motives under
neoliberalism. They are the essence of the system, especially
among the financial oligarchy. Wolf eats wolf and "Greed is
good!" is the most typical mentality.
In some way, it is close to the Italian mafia
mentality. The mentality of organized mob. They put
themselves outside and above the society.
"... In any event, it was "intercepts" leaked from deep in the bowels of the CIA to the Washington Post and then amplified in a 24/7 campaign by the War Channel (CNN) that brought General Flynn down. ..."
"... But here's the thing. They were aiming at Donald J. Trump. And for all of his puffed up bluster about being the savviest negotiator on the planet, the Donald walked right into their trap, as we shall amplify momentarily. ..."
"... But let's first make the essence of the matter absolutely clear. The whole Flynn imbroglio is not about a violation of the Logan Act owing to the fact that the general engaged in diplomacy as a private citizen. ..."
"... It's about re-litigating the 2016 election based on the hideous lie that Trump stole it with the help of Vladimir Putin. In fact, Nancy Pelosi was quick to say just that: ..."
"... 'The American people deserve to know the full extent of Russia's financial, personal and political grip on President Trump and what that means for our national security,' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a press release. ..."
"... And Senator Graham, the member of the boobsey twins who ran for President in 2016 while getting a GOP primary vote from virtually nobody, made clear that General Flynn's real sin was a potential peace overture to the Russians: ..."
"... We say good riddance to Flynn, of course, because he was a shrill anti-Iranian warmonger. But let's also not be fooled by the clinical term at the heart of the story. That is, "intercepts" mean that the Deep State taps the phone calls of the President's own closest advisors as a matter of course. ..."
"... As one writer for LawNewz noted regarding acting Attorney General Sally Yates' voyeuristic pre-occupation with Flynn's intercepted conversations, Nixon should be rolling in his grave with envy: ..."
"... Yes, that's the same career apparatchik of the permanent government that Obama left behind to continue the 2016 election by other means. And it's working. The Donald is being rapidly emasculated by the powers that be in the Imperial City due to what can only be described as an audacious and self-evident attack on Trump's Presidency by the Deep State. ..."
"... Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale secret investigation of her political opponents, including 'intercepting calls' of her political adversaries. ..."
"... Yet on the basis of the report's absolutely zero evidence and endless surmise, innuendo and "assessments", the Obama White House imposed another round of its silly school-boy sanctions on a handful of Putin's cronies. ..."
"... Of course, Flynn should have been telling the Russian Ambassador that this nonsense would be soon reversed! ..."
"... But here is the ultimate folly. The mainstream media talking heads are harrumphing loudly about the fact that the very day following Flynn's call -- Vladimir Putin announced that he would not retaliate against the new Obama sanctions as expected; and shortly thereafter, the Donald tweeted that Putin had shown admirable wisdom. ..."
"... That's right. Two reasonably adult statesman undertook what might be called the Christmas Truce of 2016. But like its namesake of 1914 on the bloody no man's land of the western front, the War Party has determined that the truce-makers shall not survive. ..."
General Flynn's tenure in the White House was only slightly longer than that of President-elect
William Henry Harrison in 1841. Actually, with just 24 days in the White House, General Flynn's tenure
fell a tad short of old "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too". General Harrison actually lasted 31 days before
getting felled by pneumonia.
And the circumstances were considerably more benign. It seems that General Harrison had a fondness
for the same "firewater" that agitated the native Americans he slaughtered at the famous battle memorialized
in his campaign slogan. In fact, during the campaign a leading Democrat newspaper skewered the old
general, who at 68 was the oldest US President prior to Ronald Reagan, saying:
Give him a barrel of hard [alcoholic] cider, and a pension of two thousand [dollars] a year
and he will sit the remainder of his days in his log cabin.
That might have been a good idea back then (or even now), but to prove he wasn't infirm, Harrison
gave the longest inaugural address in US history (2 hours) in the midst of seriously inclement weather
wearing neither hat nor coat.
That's how he got pneumonia! Call it foolhardy, but that was nothing compared to that exhibited
by Donald Trump's former national security advisor.
General Flynn got the equivalent of political pneumonia by talking for hours during the transition
to international leaders, including Russia's ambassador to the US, on phone lines which were bugged
by the CIA Or more accurately, making calls which were "intercepted" by the very same NSA/FBI spy
machinery that monitors every single phone call made in America.
Ironically, we learned what Flynn should have known about the Deep State's plenary surveillance
from Edward Snowden. Alas, Flynn and Trump wanted the latter to be hung in the public square as a
"traitor", but if that's the solution to intelligence community leaks, the Donald is now going to
need his own rope factory to deal with the flood of traitorous disclosures directed against him.
In any event, it was "intercepts" leaked from deep in the bowels of the CIA to the Washington
Post and then amplified in a 24/7 campaign by the War Channel (CNN) that brought General Flynn down.
But here's the thing. They were aiming at Donald J. Trump. And for all of his puffed up bluster
about being the savviest negotiator on the planet, the Donald walked right into their trap, as we
shall amplify momentarily.
But let's first make the essence of the matter absolutely clear. The whole Flynn imbroglio
is not about a violation of the Logan Act owing to the fact that the general engaged in diplomacy
as a private citizen.
It's about re-litigating the 2016 election based on the hideous lie that Trump stole it with
the help of Vladimir Putin. In fact, Nancy Pelosi was quick to say just that:
'The American people deserve to know the full extent of Russia's financial, personal and political
grip on President Trump and what that means for our national security,' House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi said in a press release.
Yet, we should rephrase. The re-litigation aspect reaches back to the Republican primaries, too.
The Senate GOP clowns who want a war with practically everybody, John McCain and Lindsey Graham,
are already launching their own investigation from the Senate Armed Services committee.
And Senator Graham, the member of the boobsey twins who ran for President in 2016 while getting
a GOP primary vote from virtually nobody, made clear that General Flynn's real sin was a potential
peace overture to the Russians:
Sen. Lindsey Graham also said he wants an investigation into Flynn's conversations with a Russian
ambassador about sanctions: "I think Congress needs to be informed of what actually Gen. Flynn said
to the Russian ambassador about lifting sanctions," the South Carolina Republican told CNN's Kate
Bolduan on "At This Hour. And I want to know, did Gen. Flynn do this by himself or was he directed
by somebody to do it?"
We say good riddance to Flynn, of course, because he was a shrill anti-Iranian warmonger.
But let's also not be fooled by the clinical term at the heart of the story. That is, "intercepts"
mean that the Deep State taps the phone calls of the President's own closest advisors as a matter
of course.
This is the real scandal as Trump himself has rightly asserted. The very idea that the already
announced #1 national security advisor to a President-elect should be subject to old-fashion "bugging,"
albeit with modern day technology, overwhelmingly trumps the utterly specious Logan Act charge at
the center of the case.
As one writer for LawNewz noted regarding acting Attorney General Sally Yates' voyeuristic
pre-occupation with Flynn's intercepted conversations, Nixon should be rolling in his grave with
envy:
Now, information leaks that Sally Yates knew about surveillance being conducted against
potential members of the Trump administration, and disclosed that information to others. Even
Richard Nixon didn't use the government agencies themselves to do his black bag surveillance operations.
Sally Yates involvement with this surveillance on American political opponents, and possibly the
leaking related thereto, smacks of a return to Hoover-style tactics. As writers at Bloomberg and
The Week both noted, it wreaks of 'police-state' style tactics. But knowing dear Sally as I do,
it comes as no surprise.
Yes, that's the same career apparatchik of the permanent government that Obama left behind
to continue the 2016 election by other means. And it's working. The Donald is being rapidly emasculated
by the powers that be in the Imperial City due to what can only be described as an audacious and
self-evident attack on Trump's Presidency by the Deep State.
Indeed, it seems that the layers of intrigue have gotten so deep and convoluted that the nominal
leadership of the permanent government machinery has lost track of who is spying on whom. Thus, we
have the following curious utterance by none other than the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee,
Rep. Devin Nunes:
'I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,' he told
The Washington Post. 'The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his
phone calls recorded.'
Well, yes. That makes 324 million of us, Congressman.
But for crying out loud, surely the oh so self-important chairman of the House intelligence committee
knows that everybody is bugged. But when it reaches the point that the spy state is essentially using
its unconstitutional tools to engage in what amounts to "opposition research" with the aim of election
nullification, then the Imperial City has become a clear and present danger to American democracy
and the liberties of the American people.
As Robert Barnes of LawNewz further explained, Sally Yates, former CIA director John Brennan and
a large slice of the Never Trumper intelligence community were systematically engaged in "opposition
research" during the campaign and the transition:
According to published reports, someone was eavesdropping, and recording, the conversations of
Michael Flynn, while Sally Yates was at the Department of Justice. Sally Yates knew about this eavesdropping,
listened in herself (Pellicano-style for those who remember the infamous LA cases), and reported
what she heard to others. For Yates to have such access means she herself must have been involved
in authorizing its disclosure to political appointees, since she herself is such a political appointee.
What justification was there for an Obama appointee to be spying on the conversations of a future
Trump appointee?
Consider this little tidbit in
The Washington Post . The paper, which once broke Watergate, is now propagating the benefits
of Watergate-style surveillance in ways that do make Watergate look like a third-rate effort. (With
the) FBI 'routinely' monitoring conversations of Americans...... Yates listened to 'the intercepted
call,' even though Yates knew there was 'little chance' of any credible case being made for prosecution
under a law 'that has never been used in a prosecution.'
And well it hasn't been. After all, the Logan Act was signed by President John Adams in 1799 in
order to punish one of Thomas Jefferson's supporters for having peace discussions with the French
government in Paris. That is, it amounted to pre-litigating the Presidential campaign of 1800 based
on sheer political motivation.
According to the Washington Post itself, that is exactly what Yates and the Obama holdovers did
day and night during the interregnum:
Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale
secret investigation of her political opponents, including 'intercepting calls' of her political
adversaries.
So all of the feigned outrage emanating from Democrats and the Washington establishment about
Team Trump's trafficking with the Russians is a cover story. Surely anyone even vaguely familiar
with recent history would have known there was absolutely nothing illegal or even untoward about
Flynn's post-Christmas conversations with the Russian Ambassador.
Indeed, we recall from personal experience the thrilling moment on inauguration day in January
1981 when word came of the release of the American hostages in Tehran. Let us assure you, that did
not happen by immaculate diplomatic conception -- nor was it a parting gift to the Gipper by the
outgoing Carter Administration.
To the contrary, it was the fruit of secret negotiations with the Iranian government during the
transition by private American citizens. As the history books would have it because it's true, the
leader of that negotiation, in fact, was Ronald Reagan's national security council director-designate,
Dick Allen.
As the real Washington Post later reported, under the by-line of a real reporter, Bob Woodward:
Reagan campaign aides met in a Washington DC hotel in early October, 1980, with a self-described
'Iranian exile' who offered, on behalf of the Iranian government, to release the hostages to Reagan,
not Carter, in order to ensure Carter's defeat in the November 4, 1980 election.
The American participants were Richard Allen, subsequently Reagan's first national security adviser,
Allen aide Laurence Silberman, and Robert McFarlane, another future national security adviser who
in 1980 was on the staff of Senator John Tower (R-TX).
To this day we have not had occasion to visit our old friend Dick Allen in the US penitentiary
because he's not there; the Logan Act was never invoked in what is surely the most blatant case ever
of citizen diplomacy.
So let's get to the heart of the matter and be done with it. The Obama White House conducted a
sour grapes campaign to delegitimize the election beginning November 9th and it was led by then CIA
Director John Brennan.
That treacherous assault on the core constitutional matter of the election process culminated
in the ridiculous Russian meddling report of the Obama White House in December. The latter, of course,
was issued by serial liar James Clapper, as national intelligence director, and the clueless Democrat
lawyer and bag-man, Jeh Johnson, who had been appointed head of the Homeland Security Department.
Yet on the basis of the report's absolutely zero evidence and endless surmise, innuendo and
"assessments", the Obama White House imposed another round of its silly school-boy sanctions on a
handful of Putin's cronies.
Of course, Flynn should have been telling the Russian Ambassador that this nonsense would
be soon reversed!
But here is the ultimate folly. The mainstream media talking heads are harrumphing loudly
about the fact that the very day following Flynn's call -- Vladimir Putin announced that he would
not retaliate against the new Obama sanctions as expected; and shortly thereafter, the Donald tweeted
that Putin had shown admirable wisdom.
That's right. Two reasonably adult statesman undertook what might be called the Christmas
Truce of 2016. But like its namesake of 1914 on the bloody no man's land of the western front, the
War Party has determined that the truce-makers shall not survive.
We haven't had deep state (successfully) take out a President since JFK. I am sure they will
literally be gunning for Donald Trump! His election screwed up the elite's world order plans ...
poor Soros ... time for him to take a dirt knap!
Be careful Trump! They will try and kill you! The United States government is COMPLETELY corrupt.
Draining the swamp means its either you or they die!
Let us help Trump's presidency to make America (not globalist) great again.
Not only democrats rigged Primary to elect Clinton as presidential candidate last year even
though she has poor judgement (violating government cyber security policy) and is incompetent
(her email server was not secured) when she was the Secretary of State, and was revealed to be
corrupt by Bernie Sanders during the Primary, but also democrats encourage illegal immigration,
discourage work, and "conned" young voters with free college/food/housing/health care/Obama phone.
Democratic government employees/politicians also committed crimes to leak classified information
which caused former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn losing his job and undermined Trump's
presidency.
However middle/working class used their common senses voting against Clinton last November.
Although I am not a republican and didn't vote in primary but I voted for Trump and those Republicans
who supported Trump in last November since I am not impressed with the "integrity" and "judgement"
of democrats, Anti-Trump protesters, Anti-Trump republicans, and those media who endorsed Clinton
during presidential election and they'll work for globalists, the super rich, who moved jobs/investment
overseas for cheap labor/tax and demanded middle/working class to pay tax to support welfare of
illegal aliens and refugees who will become globalist's illegal voters and anti-Trump protesters.
To prevent/detect voter fraud, "voter ID" and "no mailing ballots" must be enforced to reduce
possible "voter frauds on a massive scale" committed by democratic/republic/independent party
operatives. All the sanctuary counties need to be recounted and voided county votes if recount
fails since the only county which was found to count one vote many times is the only "Sanctuary"
county, Wayne county, in recount states (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin) last year. The
integrity of voting equipment and voting system need to be tested, protected and audited. There
were no voting equipment stuck to Trump. Yet, many voting equipment were found to switch votes
to Clinton last November. Voter databases need to be kept current. Encourage reporting of "voter
fraud on a massive scale" committed by political party operatives with large reward.
Trump knows whats coming. Rush Limbaugh said "I've known Trump for a long time, he is a winner
and I am sure none of this phases him at all. The media didn't create him, the media can't destroy
him."
Flynn has been there for several years. If he was such a threat why did they not take action
sooner since Soweeto appointed him in 2012? It must be that Soweto Obama is his spy buddy then,
both of them in league with the Russians since Obama has been with Flynn for a much longer time
he had to know if something was up.
The entire Russian spy story is a complete Fake news rouse.
I am wondering what they'll say tomorrow to draw attention awya form the muslim riots in Sweden.
If the news of Muslim riots in Sweden, then Trump will be even more vindicated and the MSM will
look even more stupid and Fake.
The Deep State has accentually lost control of the Intelligence Community via its Agents /
Operatives & Presstitute Media vehicle's to Gas Light the Masses.
So what Criminals at large Obama, Clapper & Lynch have done 17 days prior to former CEO Criminal
Obama leaving office was to Decentralize & weaken the NSA. As a result, Intel gathering was then
regulated to the other 16 Intel Agencies.
Thus, taking Centuries Old Intelligence based on a vey stringent Centralized British Model,
De Centralized it, filling the remaining 16 Intel Agenices with potential Spies and a Shadow Deep
State Mirror Government.
All controlled from two blocks away at Pure Evil Criminal War Criminal Treasonous at large,
former CEO Obama's Compound / Lair.
It's High Treason being conducted "Hidden In Plain View" by the Deep State.
It's the most Bizzare Transition of Power I've ever witnessed. Unprecedented.
Flynn did not tell Pence that Pence's best friend was front and center on the Pizzagate list.
That's what cost Flynn his job...it had fuck all do do with the elections.
"Mr. Friedman underscored problems of asymmetry in regulation: People who especially benefit from
a particular regulation will be inclined to lobby or bribe government officials for it. On the
other hand, members of the general public, who might suffer from such regulations, will not be
attentive to the many rules that affect them, each in a small way." -- Shiller article
This is the same Milton Friedman who assumed people had perfect information and expertise on
everything in the market. They were all electrical engineers who knew the exact schematics of
every toaster and refrigerator to know if it would burn down their house, but they had no idea
what any government regulations or policies were -- Hey, it's ok, and so scientific, to just assume
anything you want about human beings, as long as there's lots of math and internal consistency
and microfoundations -- And, of course, it makes libertarianism look better.
Editor
/
7 hours ago
February 19, 2017
We've
been awaiting the highly anticipated Wikileaks announcement for about a week now,
but we know that Julian Assange delayed the release of the supposed bombshell
files on Hillary Clinton. Apparently that's too long for another hacker to
wait. Infamous hacker, named Guccifer 2.0 hacked his way into the Clinton
Foundation databases and uncovered some of the most damning evidence to date of
the Clinton corruption. Here's his message below and he got impatient and did some
digging himself.
"Many of you have been waiting for this, some even asked me to do it. So, this
is the moment. I hacked the Clinton Foundation server and downloaded hundreds of
thousands of docs and donors' databases."
And here's what he uncovered
So it's a bunch of numbers. Here's what all that means.
When Barack Obama demanded that congress approves more bailouts in 2009-11,
it seems the big banks through the Clinton Foundation offered kickbacks to
Democratic politicians, including crooked Hillary, to make sure the bailout was
approved.
Somehow crooked Hillary also aided the big banks to bribe Democrat
politicians. Guccifer wrote, "DEMOCRATS FUNNELED
TARP FUNDS
BACK TO THEIR PACS! That's taxpayer bailout money that went
right to the pockets of Democrat PACs!"
Yup. That's right. Our money went right to the Democrats and their shady, back
handed, back alley deals with the big banks. How are these people still running
this country?
"Hillary Clinton and her staff don't even bother about the information
security. It was just a matter of time to gain access to the Clinton Foundation
server.
It looks like big banks and corporations agreed to donate to
the Democrats a certain percentage of the allocated TARP funds."
This is exactly why we cannot allow this kind of corruption and fraudulent
practice to continue in Washington. America is floundering and we have only the
Democrats to thank.
Not that Wikipedia gets everything right but here is a snippet of what it says about the Goldman
Sachs CEO:
'Blankfein testified before Congress in April 2010 at a hearing of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations. He said that Goldman Sachs had no moral or legal obligation to inform its clients
it was betting against the products which they were buying from Goldman Sachs because it was not
acting in a fiduciary role. The company was sued on April 16, 2010, by the SEC for the fraudulent
selling of a synthetic CDO tied to subprime mortgages. With Blankfein at the helm, Goldman has
also been criticized "by lawmakers and pundits for issues from its pay practices to its role in
helping Greece mask the size of its debts". In April 2011, a Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
report accused Goldman Sachs of misleading clients about complex mortgage-related investments
in 2007, and Senator Carl Levin alleged that Blankfein misled Congress, though no perjury charges
have been brought against Blankfein. In August of the same year, Goldman confirmed that Blankfein
had hired high-profile defense lawyer Reid Weingarten'
Weingarten helped in the defense of the Worldcom thieves. Why would anyone do business with
a company led by such an ethically challenged CEO?
libezkova -> pgl... February 04, 2017 at 07:12 PM
The problem here is probably deeper then personality of Blankfein.
There is such thing as system instability of economy caused by outsized financial sector and
here GS fits the bill. Promotion of psychopathic personalities with no brakes and outsize taste
for risk is just an icing on the cake.
> Why would anyone do business with a company led by such an ethically challenged CEO?
Why you are assuming the other TBTF are somehow better then GS?
"... One year after its decision in Citizens United, the US Supreme Court supplied a blueprint for canceling the dominance of the 1 percent over all levels of government that the Court had created with its decisions in Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United. ..."
"... In Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (2011) the Court upheld a portion of Nevada's Ethics in Government Law that prohibits an elected official from voting or taking any other official action when faced with a real or apparent conflict of interest. ..."
"... The case involved a city council member in Sparks, Nevada, Michael A. Carrigan, who had voted to approve a hotel/casino development project that would hire his election campaign manager as a consultant. After complaints were filed and an investigation held, Nevada's Commission on Ethics issued a written opinion censuring him. ..."
"... No member may vote upon any matter with respect to which the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in his or her situation would be materially affected by electioneering contributions or independent expenditures directly or indirectly from any one or more persons or entities that have a special pecuniary interest in the matter. ..."
The Supreme Court Supplied a Blueprint to Overcome Citizens
United -- We Just Need to Use It
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
By James Marc Leas, Truthout
A 2011 Supreme Court decision lights the way for local or
state governments to overcome Citizens United.
One year after its decision in Citizens United, the US
Supreme Court supplied a blueprint for canceling the
dominance of the 1 percent over all levels of government that
the Court had created with its decisions in Buckley v. Valeo
and Citizens United.
In Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (2011) the
Court upheld a portion of Nevada's Ethics in Government Law
that prohibits an elected official from voting or taking any
other official action when faced with a real or apparent
conflict of interest.
The case involved a city council member in Sparks, Nevada,
Michael A. Carrigan, who had voted to approve a hotel/casino
development project that would hire his election campaign
manager as a consultant. After complaints were filed and an
investigation held, Nevada's Commission on Ethics issued a
written opinion censuring him.
Voting Under the Influence Can Be Banned
The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the Commission's
decision based on the First Amendment reasoning in Citizens
United. But the US Supreme Court overturned the Nevada
Supreme Court. Explaining the 9-0 decision, Justice Antonin
Scalia wrote that voting on a city council or in the
legislature is an official act, not speech. The Court held
that the First Amendment reasoning in Buckley and Citizens
United "has no application when what is restricted is not
protected speech."
The Court thus held that "restrictions on legislators' voting
are not restrictions on legislators' protected speech." It
further said that "the procedures for voting in legislative
assemblies ... pertain to legislators not as individuals but
as political representatives executing the legislative
process."
Justice Scalia also noted that "the legislator casts his
vote 'as trustee for his constituents, not as a prerogative
of personal power.' In this respect, voting by a legislator
is different from voting by a citizen." Because "a legislator
has no right to use official powers for expressive purposes"
the court held that, unlike laws restricting election
spending, legislative recusal rules do not violate the First
Amendment, and the holdings in Buckley and Citizens United do
not apply.
Model Rule Update
Here is a 54-word model rule update based on the Nevada
law upheld by the US Supreme Court that may be adopted by a
state's senate, house or municipal government:
No member may vote upon any matter with respect to
which the independence of judgment of a reasonable person
in his or her situation would be materially affected by
electioneering contributions or independent expenditures
directly or indirectly from any one or more persons or
entities that have a special pecuniary interest in the
matter.
libezkova -> RGC... , January 26, 2017 at 09:22 AM
That's an interesting avenue of fighting corruption of elected officials, but it does not directly
repeals "Citizens United", which is about the corruption of the whole political process ("one dollar
-- one vote" mentality).
"... Most of the major changes he mentions are clearly and explicitly the consequence of policy changes, mostly by Republicans, starting with Reagan: deregulation, lower taxes on the wealthy, a lack of antitrust enforcement, and the like. ..."
This is frankly rather disingenuous. Most of the major changes he mentions are clearly and explicitly
the consequence of policy changes, mostly by Republicans, starting with Reagan: deregulation,
lower taxes on the wealthy, a lack of antitrust enforcement, and the like.
libezkova -> DrDick... January 25, 2017 at 09:29 PM
Read through the link and it's not nearly that simple, especially when you consider the fact that
some trends, though plausibly or certainly reinforced through policy, aren't entirely or even
primarily caused by policy.
I did not say they were the *only* factors, but they are the primary causes. If you look at the
timelines and data trends it is pretty clear. Reagan broke the power of the Unions and started
deregulation (financialization is a consequence of this), which is the period when the big increases
began. Automation plays a secondary role in this. what has happened is that the few industries
which are most conducive to automation have remained here (like final assembly of automobiles),
while the many, more labor intensive industries (automobile components manufacturing) have been
offshored to low wage, not labor or environmental protections countries.
Both parties participated in the conversion of the USA into neoliberal society. So it was a bipartisan
move.
Clinton did a lot of dirty work in this direction and was later royally remunerated for his
betrayal of the former constituency of the Democratic Party and conversion it into "yet another
neoliberal party"
Obama actually continued Bush and Clinton work. He talked about 'change we can believe in'
while saving Wall street and real estate speculators from jail they fully deserved.
Very true. Republicans were in the vanguard and did most heavy lifting. That's undeniable.
But Clinton's negative effects were also related to the weakening the only countervailing force
remaining on the way of the neoliberalism -- trade unionism. So he played the role of "subversive
agent" in the Democratic Party. His betrayal of trade union political interests and his demoralizing
role should be underestimated.
hile everyone's been gearing up for President Trump's inauguration, the Clinton Foundation made a
major announcement this week that went by with almost no notice: For all intents and purposes, it's
closing its doors.
In a tax filing, the Clinton Global Initiative said it's firing 22 staffers and closing its
offices, a result of the gusher of foreign money that kept the foundation afloat suddenly drying up
after Hillary Clinton failed to win the presidency.
It proves what we've said all along: The Clinton Foundation was little more than an
influence-peddling scheme to enrich the Clintons, and had little if anything to do with "charity,"
either overseas or in the U.S. That sound you heard starting in November was checkbooks being
snapped shut in offices around the world by people who had hoped their donations would buy access to
the next president of the United States.
And why not? There was a strong precedent for it in Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of
state. While serving as the nation's top diplomat, the Clinton Foundation took money from at least
seven foreign governments - a clear breach of Clinton's pledge on taking office that there would be
total separation between her duties and the foundation.
Is there a smoking gun? Well, of the 154 private interests who either officially met or had
scheduled phone talks with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state, at least 85 were donors
to the Clinton Foundation or one of its programs.
... ... ...
Using the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch in
August obtained emails
(that had been hidden from investigators) showing that Clinton's top
State Department aide, Huma Abedin, had given "special expedited access to the secretary of state"
for those who gave $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. Many of those were facilitated
by a former executive of the foundation, Doug Band, who headed Teneo, a shell company that managed
the Clintons' affairs.
As part of this elaborate arrangement, Abedin was given special permission to work for the State
Department, the Clinton Foundation and Teneo - another very clear conflict of interest.
As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said at the time, "These new emails confirm that Hillary
Clinton abused her office by selling favors to Clinton Foundation donors."
The seedy saga doesn't end there. Indeed, there are so many facets to it, some may never be
known. But there is still at least one and possibly four active federal investigations into the
Clintons' supposed charity.
Americans aren't willing to forgive and forget. Earlier this month, the IBD/TIPP Poll asked
Americans whether they would like President Obama to pardon Hillary for any crimes she may have
committed as secretary of state, including the illegal use of an unsecured homebrew email server. Of
those queried, 57% said no. So if public sentiment is any guide, the Clintons' problems may just be
beginning.
Writing in the Washington Post in August of 2016, Charles Krauthammer pretty
much summed up the whole tawdry tale
: "The foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised
as a charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money from the rich and the tyrannous to
be channeled to Clinton Inc.," he wrote. "Its purpose is to maintain the Clintons' lifestyle
(offices, travel accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections, produce favorable publicity
and reliably employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve today and at the coming Clinton
Restoration."
Except, now there is no Clinton Restoration. So there's no reason for any donors to give money to
the foundation. It lays bare the fiction of a massive "charitable organization," and shows it for
what it was: a scam to sell for cash the waning influence of the Democrats' pre-eminent power
couple. As far as the charity landscape goes, the Clinton Global Initiative won't be missed.
"... U.S. assistance to Chubais continued even after he was dismissed by Yeltsin as First Deputy Prime Minister in January 1996.
Chubais was placed on the HIID payroll, a show of loyalty that USAID Assistant Administrator Thomas A. Dine said he supported. ..."
"... Bill Clinton was all out after Russia, Talbot and his neocon advisors! ..."
"... The look the other way when the united Germany sent a brigade size armored set to Croatia to do Serbs. ..."
"... In Jul 1997 Poland, Hungary and Czech republic were entered in to NATO. ..."
"... Regarding Russia, Clinton was more interested in domination that development...a consistent theme in US history since its beginning.
..."
"... Instead of promoting democracy, the US rigged the 1996 election in favor of the drunkard Yeltsin. ..."
"... To hear the all the whining of Democrats and of the security state, the chickens may have come home to roost. ..."
"...Many people (myself included) have regretted that the Clinton administration has failed to seize the moment at the end
of the Cold War to create a more just international order that would be based on the rules of law, would not be dichotomic or
even Manichean one with its origin in the Cold War, and would include Russia rather than leave it out in the cold..."
[Was "Clinton administration has failed" a typo or a subtle semantic choice? Whereas "Clinton administration HAD failed" would
have past perfect tense, "has failed" is present perfect tense, suggesting the subject "Clinton administration" is the continuum
of compassionate conservatism beginning with Bill Clinton and ending with Barrack Obama. Semantics is why spelling is important.
It is also why reading is important.]
I personally have no idea what Branko Milanovic is going on about there. As far as I can tell Russia chose to be "out in the cold",
it wasn't excluded.
When the Soviet Union abruptly ceased to exist on December 25, 1991, it seemed that the West, particularly the U.S., finally
had what it had always wanted–the opportunity to introduce quick, all-encompassing economic reform that would remake Russia in
the West's own image.
By Janine Wedel, September 1, 1998.
Key Points
Since 1992, the U.S. and other donors have provided Russia billions of dollars in aid for radical economic "reforms," largely
defined as privatization of state-owned assets.
The chief beneficiary of these reforms has been a small clique of political and economic powerbrokers.
The Chubais clique typically instituted reforms through top-down presidential decree and a network of aid-funded "private"
organizations which has circumvented Russia's legislature.
When the Soviet Union abruptly ceased to exist on December 25, 1991, it seemed that the West, particularly the U.S., finally
had what it had always wanted–the opportunity to introduce quick, all-encompassing economic reform that would remake Russia in
the West's own image. To this end, the U.S., over the past seven years, has embarked upon a fairly consistent course of economic
relations with Russia. Three interrelated policies characterize this course: 1) the urging of radical economic "reforms," defined
largely as the privatization of state-owned assets, to restructure the economy; 2) the backing of a particular political-economic
group, or "clan," to do so; and 3) the provision of billions of dollars in U.S. and other Western aid, subsidized loans, and rescheduled
debt.
The United States has consistently supported President Boris Yeltsin and a Russian cadre of self-styled economic "reformers"
to conduct Western aid-funded economic reforms and negotiate economic relations with the West. U.S. support for Anatoly Chubais,
Yegor Gaidar, and the so-called "Chubais Clan" (a group of savvy operators dominated by a clique from St. Petersburg) has bolstered
the Clan's standing as Russia's chief brokers with the West and the international financial institutions. This support continues
to the present. And, the Chubais Clan–not the Russian economy as a whole–has been the chief beneficiary of economic restructuring
funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Throughout the 1990s, Chubais has been a useful figure for Russian president Boris Yeltsin: beginning in November 1991 as head
of Russia's new privatization agency, the State Property Committee (GKI), then additionally as first deputy prime minister in
January 1994, and later as the lightning rod for complaints about economic policies after the communists won the Russian parliament
(Duma) election in December 1995. Chubais made a comeback in 1996 as head of Yeltsin's successful reelection campaign and was
named chief of staff for the president. In March 1997, Western support and political maneuvering catapulted him to first deputy
prime minister and minister of finance. Although fired by Yeltsin in March 1998, Chubais was reappointed in June 1998 to be Yeltsin's
special envoy in charge of Russia's relations with international lending institutions.
Working closely with Harvard University's Institute for International Development (HIID), the Chubais Clan controlled, directly
and indirectly, millions of dollars in U.S. aid through a variety of institutions and organizations set up to perform privatization,
economic-restructuring, and related activities. Between 1992 and 1997, HIID received $40.4 million from USAID in noncompetitive
grants for work in Russia and was slated to receive another $17.4 million until USAID suspended HIID's funding in May 1997, citing
evidence that HIID principals were engaged in "activities for personal gain." In addition to receiving millions in direct funding,
HIID and the Clan helped steer and coordinate USAID's $300 million economic reform portfolio, which encompassed privatization,
legal reform, development of capital markets, and the creation of a Russian securities and exchange commission.
The preferred method of economic reform was top-down presidential decree orchestrated by Chubais. Shortly after Yeltsin became
the elected president of the Russian Federation in June 1991, the Federation's Supreme Soviet passed a law mandating privatization.
After several schemes were floated, the Supreme Soviet passed a program in 1992 intended to prevent corruption, but the one Chubais
eventually implemented contained none of the safeguards and was designed to encourage the accumulation of property in a few hands.
This program opened the door to widespread corruption and was so controversial that Chubais ultimately had to rely largely on
presidential decrees, not parliamentary approval, for implementation.
Instead of encouraging market reform, this rule by decree frustrated many market reforms as well as democratic decisionmaking.
Some reforms, such as lifting price controls, could be achieved by decree. But many other reforms advocated by USAID, the World
Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), including privatization and economic restructuring, depended on changes in law,
public administration, or mindsets, and required working with the full spectrum of legislative and market participants-not just
one group. The "reformers" set up still other means of bypassing democratic processes, including a network of aid-funded "private"
organizations controlled by the Chubais Clan and HIID. These organizations enabled reformers to bypass legitimate bodies of government,
such as ministries and branch ministries, and to circumvent the Duma.
Problems with Current U.S. Policy
Key Problems
U.S. officials and a team of Harvard advisers have embraced the "reformers'" dictatorial political methods, arguing they
alone are capable of instituting swift privatization and other economic restructurings.
While professing to support simply economic reform, U.S. policies have consolidated political and economic power in the
hands of one clique.
The $11.2 billion IMF bailout in July 1998 will intensify these abuses and has failed to stem Russia's financial crisis.
The privatization drive that was supposed to reap the fruits of the free market instead helped to create a system of tycoon
capitalism run for the benefit of a corrupt political oligarchy that has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars of Western
aid and plundered Russia's wealth.
Despite evidence of corruption and lack of popular support, many Western investors and U.S. officials embraced the "reformers"
dictatorial modus operandi and viewed Chubais as the only man capable of keeping the nation heading along the troublesome road
to economic reform. As Walter Coles, a senior adviser in USAID's Office of Privatization and Economic Restructuring program, said,
"If we needed a decree, Chubais didn't have to go through the bureaucracy," adding, "There was no way that reformers could go
to the Duma for large amounts of money to move along reform."
While this approach sounds good in principle, it is less convincing in practice because it is an inherently political decision
disguised as a technical matter. As Chubais Clan member Maxim Boycko himself acknowledged in a 1995 co-authored book on privatization,
"Aid can change the political equilibrium by explicitly helping free-market reformers to defeat their opponents . Aid helps reform
not because it directly helps the economy–it is simply too small for that–but because it helps the reformers in their political
battles."
In a 1997 interview, U.S. aid coordinator to the former Soviet Union, Ambassador Richard L. Morningstar, stood by this approach:
"If we hadn't been there to provide funding to Chubais, could we have won the battle to carry out privatization? Probably not.
When you're talking about a few hundred million dollars, you're not going to change the country, but you can provide targeted
assistance to help Chubais."
U.S. assistance to Chubais continued even after he was dismissed by Yeltsin as First Deputy Prime Minister in January 1996.
Chubais was placed on the HIID payroll, a show of loyalty that USAID Assistant Administrator Thomas A. Dine said he supported.
Much of this feels familiar to Russians raised in the Communist practice of political control over economic decisions–the quintessence
of the discredited Communist system. While professing simply to support reform, U.S. policies afforded one group a comparative
advantage and allowed much aid to be used as the tool of this group. Ironically, far from helping to separate the political and
economic spheres, U.S. economic aid has instead reinforced the interdependency of these spheres. Indeed, the activities of HIID
in Russia provide some cautionary lessons on abuse of trust by supposedly disinterested foreign advisers, on U.S. arrogance, and
on the entire policy of support for a single Russian group of so-called reformers.
The July 1998 IMF bailout of Russia represents an intensification of the very policies that have produced such abuses. The
$11.2 billion aid package for 1998, (with another $7.8 billion funds over three years pledged if Russia "stays on track"), is
supposed to put an end to Russia's financial crisis. Yet only a very few certain political-economic players–not the population
at large, including workers who have gone without wages for months–stand to reap any benefits.
Among those who spoke out against the bailout was Veniamin Sokolov, head of the Chamber of Accounts of the Russian Federation,
Russia's equivalent of the U.S. General Accounting Office. Sokolov, who has investigated the destination of some previous monies
from international lending institutions and aid organizations, argued, "All loans made to Russia go to speculative financial markets
and have no effect whatsoever on the national economy." And it is the Russian people who are responsible for repaying those loans.
The very call for an IMF bailout is a commentary on the failure of previous economic aid to Russia: If aid had been effective,
why were billions in IMF loans needed to prevent the country from falling into crisis? The IMF loan and accompanying hype were
intended to revive confidence in Russia's plummeting markets and give the government time to get its financial markets under control.
However, just weeks after the IMF deal was approved, investor confidence hit a new low and the Russian government was forced to
devalue the ruble.
For its part, USAID, which provided Russia with $95.7 million in economic aid in 1997 and another $129.1 million estimated
for 1998, is requesting from Congress $225.4 million in economic aid for Russia in 1999.
Toward a New Foreign Policy
Key Recommendations
In order to support its stated objectives of fostering sound economic development and democratic institutions, the U.S.
needs to reverse its current policies and practices in Russia.
The United States must accept that the future shape of Russia must and will be determined by the Russian people and adhere
to its basic principles such as participatory democracy and the rule of law.
Washington should recognize that a healthy banking and financial system depends on a revival of production and distribution
within Russia and should use its considerable influence with the World Bank and IMF to promote policies that address these
fundamental problems.
Given the continuing socioeconomic deterioration of Russia, what should the United States do? If the U.S. government wants
to adhere to its own declared objectives and help promote in Russia sound economic development and equitable growth as well as
viable and transparent democratic institutions, it has no option than to reverse its current policies and practices.
The U.S. role in creating a system of tycoon capitalism and the current economic meltdown, coupled with military policies such
as NATO expansion, have fueled anti-American sentiment in Russia. The first thing we should do, as Joseph Stiglitz, a leading
World Bank economist, correctly suggests, is to adopt "a greater degree of humility . (and) acknowledgement of the fact that we
do not have all of the answers." Washington must also accept that the future shape of Russia society will and must be determined
by the Russian people. U.S. policy should at least try to adhere to some of the principles that it preaches, such as participatory
democracy and the rule of law or even "no taxation without representation." In line this with, the U.S. must stop its policy of
support-at-all-costs for Yeltsin and the Chubais Clan, not only in USAID targets but also in U.S. influence in IMF and World Bank
lending.
Second, the U.S. government should recognize that a healthy banking and financial system cannot arise without a revival of
production and distribution in the "real" economy. Measures which emphasize increases in tax collections and reductions in government
expenditures under the current extremely depressed conditions simply guarantee accelerated decline of the real economy and social-political
chaos. The United States should use its great influence on the IMF andWorld Bank to reduce their pressure on Russia to pursue
such suicidal policies. Not only did the IMF bailout fail to restore confidence, but the business of international aid has been
fundamentally ill-conceived. As Veniamin Sokolov warned: "Giving more loans to the Yeltsin government is comparable to giving
a drug addict a fresh supply of narcotics. Any new loans will only go to the realm of financial speculation and to prop up support
for Boris Yeltsin. Russia does not need any further such lending." In sum, further aid will go to the same corrupt niches and
is likely to make the situation worse, not better.
Third, the U.S. should embark on a broad-based policy to encourage governance and the rule of law. It is essential that the
United States discontinue support of non-inclusive organizations and the bypassing of democratic process through decree. Some
U.S. aid funds have gone for "democracy building," including strengthening and revamping the judiciary. However, these efforts
have been a low priority and have been compromised and undermined by the practice of U.S. economic advisers encouraging the Chubais
Clan to enact swift economic reforms without approval of the Duma, Russia's popularly elected legislature.
The U.S. needs to adopt a pro-democracy stance that encourages institution-building and as broad a range of democratic positions
as possible. We must cease to select specific groups or individuals as the recipients of uncritical support, which both corrupts
our "favorites" and delegitimizes them in the eyes of their fellow citizens.
Fourth, President Clinton himself, other U.S. officials, and economic advisers need to establish contact and ties with a wide
cross-section of the Russian leadership–politicians, economists, and social and political activists–and not only with Yeltsin
and his allies. How Russian elites perceive the efficacy of U.S. aid programs and policies should be a source of concern, especially
because many Russians have questioned American intentions. Although a reversal of policy will require a long and resolute process
of diplomacy, Clinton administration officials can take steps by, for example, making efforts to meet with members of the Duma
and a diversity of Russian elites.
[What the US largely did at that point was disengage aid to Russia and set them adrift.]
It is not clear what Milanovic was trying to get at, but what Janine Wedel wrote about was how I came to understand the story.
Your writing makes Milanovic seem cogent. I am talking about your organization of ideas and your semantics, as well as his. Neither
of you get much across for the effort. Wedel can actually write. Whether she is right or not, I cannot say, but it is how I have
heard the story told from the beginning.
Looks like there was a desire to completely destroy Russian economics and turn Russia into vassal state by the USA ruling elite.
So the policy was not to help, but help to destroy.
Huge profits were made by devouring Russia and all xUSSR region and plunging the population into abject poverty. But eventually
it backfired.
Wow - Anne is not going to like this suggestion that Yeltsin was a drunkard. Of course you missed the real problem - his regime
of crony capitalism was incredibly corrupt. Stiglitz covered the damage that was done in a chapter entitled "Who Lost Russia".
Something else you never bothered to read.
Yeltsin's "regime of crony capitalism was incredibly corrupt"...Clinton's regime on a grander scale...which was why Clinton wanted
to rig the Russian election for Yeltsin?
Having been is Strategic Air Command, as well as a long time in the technical side of NORAD's mission I find Milanovic's concluding
statement utterly misguided.
"But note that the Cold War had one good feature: it was "Cold".
"Civilization"* could have ended in less than the time to watch an NFL football game.
My experiences in the cold war were really great!! The nuclear forces I supported were on 'immediate' launch alert, several
rumors abide about close calls from 'sensor errors and communication black out". Any of SAC's bomb wings could have its alert
Buffs in the air in single digit minutes!
It is safer to move NATO right up to Moscow! Neocon hyperbole from Milanovic selling the US military industrial complex' marketing
plans. Look how secure and prosperous the 'west' has been under the umbrella of $28T in US war spending.
It don't cause any concerns that NATO has organized former Warsaw pact against Russia.
It will be deceptively "Cold" until it goes thermonuclear over that brigade level trip wire.
ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , -1
Obama on cornering Russia is an extension of Wm Clinton.
Twenty-five years ago, Bill Clinton almost single-handedly sold the Democratic Party to Wall Street
making it the second neoliberal party in the USA (soft neoliberals) and betaying interest of working
class and middle class. The political base of the party became "neoliberal intelligencia" and minority
groups, such as sexual minorities, feminists (with strong lesbian bent) deceived by neoliberals part
of black community (that part that did not manage to get in jail yet ;-) , etc. Clintonism (aka "soft"
neoliberalism) as an ideology was dead after 2007, but still exists in zombie stage. and even counterattacks
in some countries.
The author is afraid using the term "neoliberalism" like most Us MSM. Which is a shame. In this
sense defeat of Hillary Clinton was just the last nail in the coffin of "soft neoliberalism" (Third
Way) ideology. Tony Blair was send to dustbin of history even earlier then that. Destruction of jobs
turned many members of trade unions hostile to Democrats (so much for "they have nowhere to go" Bill
Clinton dirty trick) and they became easy pray of far right. In this sense Bill Clinton is the godfather
of far right in the USA and he bears full personal responsibility for Trump election.
In foreign policy Clinton was a regular bloodthirsty neocon persuing glibal neoliberal empire led
by the USA, with Madeline Albright as the first (but not last) warmonger female Secretary of State
Notable quotes:
"... Twenty-five years ago, Bill Clinton almost single-handedly repositioned the Democratic Party
for electoral success, co-opting and defusing Republican talking points ..."
"... "New Democrat" he'd once exemplified was now extinct, a victim first of Clinton's own successes,
and then of the economic and social dislocations of the globalism whose inevitability he foresaw when
he predicted that Americans would one day "change jobs four or five times in their lifetimes!" ..."
"... Bill Clinton's "Third Way" ideology was also undone by sheer geopolitical realities ..."
"... ..."People thought she'd been conceived in Goldman Sachs' trading desk," says one veteran Clinton
aide ..."
"... his personal and sexual misconduct in office, and his and his wife's tendency toward legalistic
corner-cutting-a point Sanders also drove home, even as he disavowed any interest in "her damn emails."
..."
their quarter-century project to build a mutual buy-one, get-one-free Clinton dynasty has ended
in her defeat, and their joint departure from the center of the national political stage they had
hoped to occupy for another eight years. Their exit amounts to a finale not just for themselves,
but for Clintonism as a working political ideology and electoral strategy.
Twenty-five years ago, Bill Clinton almost single-handedly repositioned the Democratic Party
for electoral success, co-opting and defusing Republican talking points and moving the party
toward the center on issues like welfare and a balanced budget, in the process becoming the first
presidential nominee of his party since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win two consecutive terms.
... ... ...
"New Democrat" he'd once exemplified was now extinct, a victim first of Clinton's own successes,
and then of the economic and social dislocations of the globalism whose inevitability he foresaw
when he predicted that Americans would one day "change jobs four or five times in their lifetimes!"
Bill Clinton's "Third Way" ideology was also undone by sheer geopolitical realities --
there are almost no Blue Dog Democrats left after a generation of redistricting, primary challenges
and electoral defeats in the South
...while Hillary Clinton recognized the change intellectually, she seemed unable to catch up to
the practical realities of its political implications for her campaign
..."People thought she'd been conceived in Goldman Sachs' trading desk," says one veteran
Clinton aide
...Obama had not only largely overlooked the concerns of white working-class voters but, with
his health care overhaul, had been seen as punishing them financially to provide new benefits to
the poorest Americans. Fairly or not, he lost the public argument.
...Bill Clinton himself was far from an unalloyed asset in Hillary's campaign this year. The rosy
glow that had come to surround much of his post presidency, and his charitable foundation's good
works around the world, receded in the face of Trump's relentless reminders of his personal and
sexual misconduct in office, and his and his wife's tendency toward legalistic corner-cutting-a point
Sanders also drove home, even as he disavowed any interest in "her damn emails."
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.