Financial oligarchy as amoral and criminal neoliberal elite
Rephrasing Mark Twain: It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal
class except financial oligarchy
Patients receiving emergency medical care would no longer get surprise medical bills from providers outside their insurance network
under a rule issued Thursday by the Biden administration.
The long-awaited rule is the first to follow the so-called No Surprises Act, passed in December 2020 by Congress that sought
to protect patients from receiving significant medical bills when they are unwittingly treated by an out-of-network doctor, lab,
or other type of provider.
The rule seeks to implement key parts of the legislation protecting patients from being billed by out-of-network doctors who provide
treatment at in-network hospitals, as well as protecting them from surprise bills for both emergency and nonemergency care. The
interim final rule will
undergo 60 days of public comment and largely go into effect on Jan. 1, 2022, when the law takes effect.
"No patient should forgo care for fear of surprise billing," said Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra in a statement.
"Health insurance should offer patients peace of mind that they won't be saddled with unexpected costs."
Congress and policy makers
have sought to tackle surprise medical bills because patients are paying more out-of-pocket for their care, and many out-of-network
charges can occur when patients are unaware that they are being treated by a provider who isn't covered by their health insurance.
Out-of-network charges have added to medical debt and rising out-of-pocket payments for consumers: An April 2021 study in the
journal Health Affairs found that patients receiving a surprise out-of-network bill for emergency physician care paid more than 10
times as much as in-network emergency patients paid out-of-pocket .
The interim final rule is expansive. Emergency services, regardless of where they are provided, would have to be billed at lower,
in-network rates without requirements for prior authorization.
The rule also bans higher out-of-network cost-sharing, such as copayments, from patients for treatment they receive either
in an emergency or nonemergency situation. Under the rule, any coinsurance or deductible can't be higher than if such services were
provided by an in-network doctor.
The interim final rule also stipulates that patients can't be charged out-of-network for "ancillary" care, which can happen when
an out-of-network anesthesiologist or assistant surgeon provides treatment at an in-network hospital.
Regulations that will be released at a later time will implement a procedural process so medical providers and insurers can arbitrate
out-of-network payment disputes, a solution that was so contentious it threatened to scuttle passage of the No Surprises Act. Insurers
raised concerns that arbitration could put them at a disadvantage and instead favored linking out-of-network reimbursement to a benchmark
rate.
The legislative fight over the No Surprises Act that spurred the interim rule was contentious. The American Medical Association
and some state medical associations worried it could financially hurt small physician practices that were still reeling from the
pandemic. The American Hospital Association supported the arbitration provision but raised concerns about the possibility for uneven
enforcement of the law.
The bill will lead to "dangerous, unintended consequences, right in the middle of a surging pandemic," according to a Dec. 15,
2020, letter to then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) from conservative groups such as Action for Health.
Cost-sharing includes deductibles, copayments paid at the time of treatment, and coinsurance, which is the percentage of a bill
that consumers pay that isn't covered by insurance. Patients are paying increasingly more for their own care because cost-sharing
has increased over time, research shows. Most workers also face additional cost-sharing for a hospital admission or outpatient surgery.
Sixty-five percent of workers with employer-sponsored coverage have coinsurance and 13% have a copayment for hospital admissions,
according to a 2020 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Out-of-network charges from anesthesiologists, pathologists, radiologists and assistant surgeons increase spending by $40 billion
annually, according to researchers at the Yale School of Public Health.
Congress in its legislation sought to protect patients from unknowingly receiving care from an out-of-network provider. To that
end, the rule bans other out-of-network charges without advance notice.
The regulations issued Thursday will take effect for healthcare providers and facilities Jan. 1, 2022. For group health plans,
health-insurance issuers and Federal Employees Health Benefits program carriers, the provisions will take effect for plan, policy
or contract years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2022.
Please not that stent insertion is often unnecessary procedure performed not to save the life of the patient but to earn money.
The system is criminal indeed.
Non-profits hospitals those day are also governed by Wall-street sharks.
Please note that Abdominal CT scan with insurance like CIGNA would cost you $300-$600 out of the pocket depending on the
facility.
Notable quotes:
"... abdominal and pelvic scan at Avera St. Luke's cost $6,422, the highest out of a wide range of rates the Avera hospital charges for that service ..."
"... Some dominant local and regional nonprofits, including Mass General Brigham, based in Boston, and Avera, based in Sioux Falls, S.D., billed the uninsured at their general hospitals some of their highest prices while also setting some of the most restrictive financial-aid policies for free care nationwide, according to tax filings, Turquoise data and patients' medical bills. ..."
"... "It's really criminal, the mess that our current system is in," said Mary Daniel, chief executive of ClaimMedic, which helps patients negotiate payment with hospitals. "It is a deliberate attempt for these hospitals to gouge the uninsured." ..."
"... for expensive procedures like angioplasty and drug-coated stenting, the difference in the cash price within a single county can be over $100,000. ..."
"... The cash prices for patients who must pay for their own care can be equal to the sticker prices or sometimes represent a percentage lopped off that top rate. Sometimes, those cash rates are also applied to people who have some form of insurance but get a service that the insurance doesn't cover. ..."
"... The quarter of hospitals with the most generous free-care policies write off the entire bill for those with monthly incomes under about $2,600 a month, and even up to roughly $6,400 a month, for a one-person household, the Journal found. ..."
"... Those that rank in the quarter of hospitals with the most-restrictive policies draw the line at or below about 160% of the federal threshold for poverty, disqualifying for free care patients with monthly income of more than around $1,700 for a one-person household, according to a Journal analysis of nonprofit hospital tax filings. ..."
"... A patient paying cash at the hospital for the stenting procedure is charged $84,792. Local insurer Fallon Health spends $36,755 for the procedure under one of its health-maintenance organization plans. A Medicare insurance plan from Aetna, part of CVS Health Corp. , pays $16,648. ..."
"... Patients who don't qualify for financial aid at nonprofit hospitals also aren't protected by pricing limits under federal law. The Affordable Care Act requires nonprofit hospitals to cap prices for patients who qualify for financial aid. ..."
"... Hospitals apply financial aid and discount policies inconsistently, say consumer advocates and patients. Offers may be one-time-only, or discounts may emerge only when a skilled negotiator is pushing for them. ..."
"... In January 2018, Joannie Berthiaume spent two days at Broward Health Imperial Point hospital in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and got emergency surgery to remove her appendix. She was uninsured and the hospital charged Ms. Berthiaume its highest prices. Her bill totaled about $42,000, including a $6,033 abdominal CT scan. For that same scan, an Aetna subsidiary gets a 24% break, according to the newly public data from Broward Health. That discount would have meant a fee of around $4,600 for the scan, based on the price charged in 2018. ..."
"... "If you charge me $42,000 and your costs are justified, how can you knock it in half in a matter of minutes," Ms. Berthiaume says. "You must be overcharging." ..."
"... High cash prices inflate bills that uninsured patients often struggle to pay. Hospitals collected 5% of the amount they billed uninsured patients before writing off bills after a year of seeking payment, according to Crowe LLP, an accounting, technology and consulting firm, based on an analysis of 600 client hospitals. That is compared with collecting 40% of bills sent to patients with insurance for amounts owed under deductibles, copays and other out-of-pocket costs, based on a separate analysis by Crowe of about 1,500 hospitals. ..."
"... Hospitals closely track their "payer mix," or the mix of patients with commercial insurance, Medicare, Medicaid and the uninsured, who might be unlikely to ever pay for their treatment. That could play a role in how hospitals set prices. ..."
"... Resolve also offered about $8,000, or slightly more than the company estimated Medicare would pay, for Mr. Macias's $24,800 emergency-room bill at Avera St. Luke's, Mr. Pan said. The hospital said no, and despite denying financial aid, offered to reduce the bill by 50%, Mr. Pan said. The amount excluded another $34,994 he owes Avera's heart hospital. ..."
"... Have you or someone you know faced a challenging hospital billing situation? Tell us about your experience in the form below. ..."
The 32-year-old's abdominal and pelvic scan at Avera St. Luke's cost $6,422, the highest out of a wide range of rates the Avera
hospital charges for that service based on the new data. The price billed to Mr. Macias was roughly three times the best deal negotiated
by an insurance company.
Another scan of his chest came to $4,194, approximately $280 to $2,800 more than any prices negotiated between St. Luke's and
an insurer. The prices for identical scans performed at Avera's heart hospital were also among the highest that the hospital charged. His total hospital bills came to $59,800.
... ... ...
Services including emergency-room visits, imaging scans and procedures such as an angioplasty and stenting often performed on
heart-attack patients have been identified by researchers and federal data as commonly needed in emergencies by those without insurance.
The Journal analysis looked at the 1,550 hospitals in the Turquoise data that released both insurance and cash-payment rates.
Among the Journal's findings:
Hospitals routinely bill uninsured patients at their highest rates. About 21%, or 319, of the hospitals did so for the majority
of the services included in the analysis. At 171 of those hospitals, the cash rate was higher than all of the rates billed to
insurers, or tied for the highest rate, for every service in the analysis. That was true at some hospitals owned by major systems
including Sanford Health and Yale New Haven Health System.
On average, across the 1,166 hospitals that included rates for Medicare Advantage plans in their disclosures, the fees for
uninsured patients were 3.6 times the average rates paid by the Medicare Advantage plans. Medicare rates are typically set by
the government to at least cover hospital costs and are considered a baseline for comparing prices. Rates for Medicare Advantage
plans, which are administered by private insurers, are generally close to these mandated prices.
Some dominant local and regional nonprofits, including Mass General Brigham, based in Boston, and Avera, based in Sioux
Falls, S.D., billed the uninsured at their general hospitals some of their highest prices while also setting some of the most
restrictive financial-aid policies for free care nationwide, according to tax filings, Turquoise data and patients' medical bills.
Cash prices, which haven't been available publicly to help patients choose where to seek medical care, often vary widely even
among hospitals in the same county. In the 270 counties where at least two hospitals have disclosed their cash prices, the average
spread between the lowest and highest rates for a complex emergency-room visit is $1,852.
In Shelby County, Tenn., home to Memphis, the spread for that type of ER visit is $2,054. It would cost an uninsured patient $884
at any of the three Baptist Memorial Health Care hospitals; $1,480 at Regional Medical Center; $2,653 at Saint Francis Hospital-Memphis;
and $2,938 at Saint Francis Hospital-Bartlett.
... ... ...
Hospitals that offer additional discounts for the uninsured don't always automatically make the cuts to patient bills, leaving
cash-pay patients with significantly higher charges, the Journal found. It can take long negotiations, often by hiring lawyers or
professional advocates, to bring about reduced charges.
... ... ...
Those discounts slash bills by an average of 85% off its top price, the company said in a recent statement to the Journal. But
patients must apply to receive the discount. The vast majority of cash prices for emergency services at Tenet hospitals reviewed
by the Journal instead reduced bills by 20% to 30%.
"It's really criminal, the mess that our current system is in," said Mary Daniel, chief executive of ClaimMedic, which
helps patients negotiate payment with hospitals. "It is a deliberate attempt for these hospitals to gouge the uninsured."
The differences between the prices for uninsured people and insurance companies can be wide.
At Ephraim McDowell Regional Medical Center in Danville, Ky., an uninsured person getting a stent after a heart attack could be
billed around $66,226 for the procedure. An Anthem Inc.
health-maintenance organization plan would pay just $17,895 at the hospital, and the insurer's Medicare plan even less -- $12,445.
Ephraim McDowell Health said the cash prices are the highest rates but that it offers discounts and bill forgiveness for those
who qualify for financial assistance. In a written statement, the hospital system said, "it is rare that an uninsured patient would
pay the total gross charge amount due to the variety of financial assistance programs available."
Eligibility under the program cuts off at three times the federal poverty level, according to the hospital system, which is an
annual income of $38,640 for a single person.
Prices typically haven't been publicly available before now. Yet for expensive procedures like angioplasty
and drug-coated stenting, the difference in the cash price within a single county can be over $100,000.
The reasons for high cash prices are complex and, even to many healthcare experts, baffling.
Hospitals typically have a sticker price, often called the "chargemaster" price, that can be the starting point for negotiations
with insurers. Discounts off that sticker price tend to be steeper for those that bring large volumes of patients. Insurance plans
offered under government programs like Medicare and Medicaid get even lower rates, tied to prices mandated by federal and state agencies.
The cash prices for patients who must pay for their own care can be equal to the sticker prices or sometimes represent a percentage
lopped off that top rate. Sometimes, those cash rates are also applied to people who have some form of insurance but get a service
that the insurance doesn't cover.
Will Fox, who advises hospitals on pricing as an actuary with Milliman Inc., says hospitals often keep cash prices above the rates
negotiated by big insurers.
"They don't want to give away too much of a discount because they really want the best discounts to go to these larger volume
negotiated insured rates," he said. "Somebody walking off the street, we'll give you a 20% discount, but we're going to give our
favorite customer, who sends us millions or even billions of dollars in business, we're going to give them a much bigger discount."
Yale New Haven Health offers cash prices that represent a discount off sticker rates, but it keeps them above all of the prices
negotiated by insurers, says Pat McCabe, the system's senior vice president of finance. "We didn't want there to be that tension,
for an insurer to look at that data and say, 'you're providing better rates to uninsured patients than you are to our insureds, how
do we justify that to our members and/or employer partners?' "
For individuals who struggle to pay, financial aid is hard to get at some hospitals with high cash prices, the Journal analysis
found. That is true even among the nearly 3,000 nonprofit hospitals that get tax breaks on the condition they give back to the community.
Hospitals typically set household income limits for financial aid, with free care for patients below a cutoff.
The quarter of hospitals with the most generous free-care policies write off the entire bill for those with monthly incomes
under about $2,600 a month, and even up to roughly $6,400 a month, for a one-person household, the Journal found.
Those that rank in the quarter of hospitals with the most-restrictive policies draw the line at or below about 160% of the
federal threshold for poverty, disqualifying for free care patients with monthly income of more than around $1,700 for a one-person
household, according to a Journal analysis of nonprofit hospital tax filings.
Brigham and Women's Hospital, affiliated with Harvard Medical School, falls in this most-restrictive group, with income cutoffs
for free care at $1,610 a month for a one-person household. For 12 of 17 emergency services at Brigham and Women's reviewed by the
Journal, its highest rates are for uninsured patients, and insurance companies pay significantly less.
Brigham and Women's Hospital, in Boston, Mass., is among the group of nonprofit hospitals with the most-restrictive income cutoffs
for free care.
A patient paying cash at the hospital for the stenting procedure is charged $84,792. Local insurer Fallon Health spends $36,755
for the procedure under one of its health-maintenance organization plans. A Medicare insurance plan from Aetna, part of
CVS Health Corp. , pays $16,648.
Mass General Brigham, the system that includes Brigham and Women's, said in a written statement it has policies to prevent
someone without insurance from paying full price.
Some hospitals, including Brigham and Women's, also partially discount patients' bills for some who earn too much for free care.
Others write off bills that are large relative to a patient's income. But policies vary widely. The most-restrictive quarter of hospitals
cut off discounts at 2.5 times the federal poverty level, the Journal found.
Patients who don't qualify for financial aid at nonprofit hospitals also aren't protected by pricing limits under federal
law. The Affordable Care Act requires nonprofit hospitals to cap prices for patients who qualify for financial aid.
Hospitals apply financial aid and discount policies inconsistently, say consumer advocates and patients. Offers may be one-time-only,
or discounts may emerge only when a skilled negotiator is pushing for them.
In January 2018, Joannie Berthiaume spent two days at Broward Health Imperial Point hospital in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and
got emergency surgery to remove her appendix. She was uninsured and the hospital charged Ms. Berthiaume its highest prices. Her bill
totaled about $42,000, including a $6,033 abdominal CT scan. For that same scan, an Aetna subsidiary gets a 24% break, according
to the newly public data from Broward Health. That discount would have meant a fee of around $4,600 for the scan, based on the price
charged in 2018.
Ms. Berthiaume, who is Canadian but was living in Florida at the time of her illness while finishing graduate school, went in
person to Broward Health to ask about the bill. She was told it could be cut in half, to about $21,000 total -- if she paid in full
right then. Ms. Berthiaume, then working in a part-time bookkeeping job, says she couldn't do that. The hospital later continued
to seek the full amount, including in letters sent by a law firm and reviewed by the Journal.
"If you charge me $42,000 and your costs are justified, how can you knock it in half in a matter of minutes," Ms. Berthiaume
says. "You must be overcharging."
Ms. Berthiaume hired attorney Jacqueline Grady to negotiate on her behalf, and in October 2019 the hospital offered to accept
$20,000, in addition to $2,000 she had already paid, if she paid within 16 days. Ms. Berthiaume declined.
Broward Health declined to comment on the details of Ms. Berthiaume's case, although she signed a consent form allowing the hospital
system to do so. The hospital system said that U.S. citizens and people with a permanent U.S. residence who come to its hospitals
for unplanned care, and don't qualify for its financial assistance program, are offered a discounted rate.
In the pricing data files Broward Health has disclosed under the federal transparency requirement, the cash prices are shown as
Broward's highest rates. However, the hospital system pointed the Journal to a consumer tool on its website that displays lower prices
for self-pay patients. Broward Health said in a written statement that the tool "provides the most current pricing for consumers,"
and "discounted prices may not be reflected" in the data files. The system didn't respond to questions about the reasons for the
discrepancy.
High cash prices inflate bills that uninsured patients often struggle to pay. Hospitals collected 5% of the amount they billed
uninsured patients before writing off bills after a year of seeking payment, according to Crowe LLP, an accounting, technology and
consulting firm, based on an analysis of 600 client hospitals. That is compared with collecting 40% of bills sent to patients with
insurance for amounts owed under deductibles, copays and other out-of-pocket costs, based on a separate analysis by Crowe of about
1,500 hospitals.
Hospitals closely track their "payer mix," or the mix of patients with commercial insurance, Medicare, Medicaid and the uninsured,
who might be unlikely to ever pay for their treatment. That could play a role in how hospitals set prices.
For Mr. Macias, debt from Avera hospitals plus other bills related to his November hospitalization amount to about 75% of his
annual income, according to Resolve Advocates, one of a growing number of companies that patients hire to negotiate hospital medical
bills on their behalf.
Mr. Macias, a superintendent for a construction company, suffered a potentially life-threatening tear in the lining of his largest
artery. He said he has largely recovered.
Avera's hospital in Aberdeen charged him the highest price for some emergency room services, according to a review of medical
bills for Mr. Macias and the Journal's analysis of Avera's negotiated rates with insurers.
Avera in some cases has multiple contracts with a single insurer and said the prices it made public are the average price it charges
an insurer for each service.
The Avera Heart Hospital of South Dakota, in Sioux Falls, gave Mr. Macias a 20% discount. Even with the discount, some of the
heart hospital prices were in the top third of what the hospital charged patients with insurance for some services.
Mr. Macias, a superintendent for a construction company, earned too much for free care at Avera, where the income cutoff is among
the lowest nationally for nonprofit hospitals, ranking in the bottom quarter, according to the Journal analysis.
But he appears to qualify for other financial assistance, such as a partial discount based on income or because Mr. Macias's medical
debts are large when compared with his household finances, said Resolve's chief executive, Braden Pan.
Avera rejected the request, saying that Mr. Macias could have had workplace health benefits but didn't enroll, according to Resolve.
Mr. Macias said in an interview that he missed the sign-up after miscommunication with his former employer. Buying insurance in the
marketplace was too costly, he said.
Avera also rejected an appeal, after factoring in his assets alongside his income, according to Resolve. Mr. Macias said he needs
his years of savings for a house down payment.
Resolve also offered about $8,000, or slightly more than the company estimated Medicare would pay, for Mr. Macias's $24,800
emergency-room bill at Avera St. Luke's, Mr. Pan said. The hospital said no, and despite denying financial aid, offered to reduce
the bill by 50%, Mr. Pan said. The amount excluded another $34,994 he owes Avera's heart hospital.
Mr. Macias, citing his unhappiness about the fight, told the Journal he wouldn't give Avera permission under federal privacy laws
to speak about his interactions with it.
"Health care delivery comes with a cost -- and when individuals have the means to pay, it allows us resources to help those
most in need," Lindsey Meyers, a spokeswoman for Avera, said in a written statement. "We have thoroughly reviewed the case you
have mentioned and identified that all processes were followed as described, and we made every effort to work with the patient."
Mr. Macias said he has largely recovered with new blood-pressure medication and months of rehab exercises he devised on his own.
He now lives in Austin, Texas, with his fiancée and their children, ages 6 and 3. Avera's debt collectors call constantly, he said.
"They're still blowing me up."
"... While general medical care is single payer in Canada, dental services are not. For major work on teeth, it is cheaper to fly to Mexico. The downside is for Mexicans -- such practices will drive the costs up in Mexico. ..."
"The art of medicine consists of amusing the patient while nature cures the disease."
"No, I mean I'm sorry that you've inherited such a miserable, collapsing Old Country. A place where rich
Bankers own everything, where you've got to be grateful for a part-time job with no benefits and no retirement
plan, where the most health insurance you can afford is being careful and hoping you don't get sick
Cory Doctorow;
Homeland
"Until fairly recently, every family had a cornucopia of favorite home remedies–plants and household items
that could be prepared to treat minor medical emergencies, or to prevent a common ailment becoming something much
more serious. Most households had someone with a little understanding of home cures, and when knowledge fell
short, or more serious illness took hold, the family physician or village healer would be called in for a
consultation, and a treatment would be agreed upon. In those days we took personal responsibility for our
health–we took steps to prevent illness and were more aware of our bodies and of changes in them. And when illness
struck, we frequently had the personal means to remedy it. More often than not, the treatment could be found in
the garden or the larder. In the middle of the twentieth century we began to change our outlook. The advent of
modern medicine, together with its many miracles, also led to a much greater dependency on our physicians and to
an increasingly stretched healthcare system. The growth of the pharmaceutical industry has meant that there are
indeed "cures" for most symptoms, and we have become accustomed to putting our health in the hands of someone
else, and to purchasing products that make us feel good. Somewhere along the line we began to believe that
technology was in some way superior to what was natural, and so we willingly gave up control of even minor health
problems."
Karen Sullivan;
The Complete Family Guide to Natural Home Remedies: Safe and Effective Treatments for
Common Ailments
No, I haven't abandoned Uncle Volodya, or shifted my focus to American administration; what follows is a guest
post on the American healthcare system, by our friend UCG. As I've mentioned before – on the occasion of his
previous guest post, in fact – he is an ethnic Russian living in the Golden State.
As an American in America, naturally his immediate concern is going to be healthcare in America; but there are
lessons within for everyone. Don't get me wrong – doctors have done a tremendous amount of good, and medical
researchers and many others from the world of medicine have made tremendous advances to which many of us owe their
lives. Sadly, though, once a field goes commercial, the main focus of attention eventually becomes profit, and
there are few endeavors in which the customer base will be so desperate. While there are obvious benefits to
'socialized medicine' such as Canada enjoys and American politicians scorn as 'Commie' – enough to earn the
admiration of many – it results in such a backlog for major operations that those who don't like their chances of
dying first, and have the money or can somehow get it, often flee to America, where you can get a good standard of
medical care without running out of time waiting for it.
Without further ado, take it away, UCG!!
Healthcare in America
This article is my opinion. My hope is that others will do their own research on America's Healthcare Industry,
because this is an issue that needs to be addressed, and for this article to be a mere starting point in this
research. The reason for my citations is so that you, the reader, can verify them. Once again, this is my opinion.
I write this in the first paragraph, so that I can avoid stating "in my opinion" before every sentence.
I tore my ab wall a month ago and didn't think much of it until my pain kept worsening. I went to an
immediate care facility to rule out a hernia (I had all the symptoms) and they told me to get to ER ASAP. I go to
the ER and they give me a CT scan and one x-ray and say it's not a hernia and let me go. Fast forward to today and
I got a bill for $9,200 and $3,900 of it is out of pocket. $9,200 for two tests???? No pain meds were
administered; it was literally those two tests. What should I do to contest it? I will be calling tomorrow to
demand an itemized bill, but is there anything else I should do in the meantime?
All of these took me a few minutes on Google to find, and another few minutes to post. The reason I chose that
reddit, is because one of the readers offered an ingenious solution:
Next time you hurt yourself – book a
return ticket to NZ – go to accident and emergency, say you're a tourist and you hurt yourself surfing, pay
nothing – fly home and pocket $8,000 in spare change.
If that was me, I'd spend at least $2,000 on tourism in
New Zealand. You guys have that system, so you clearly deserve the money! Anyone interested in a startup?
But I am not done with examples just yet. Shana Sweney
described her experience in the emergency room
:
I delivered in 15 minutes. During that time, the
anesthesiologist put a heart rate monitor on my finger and played on his phone. My bill for his services was
$3,000. $200/minute. I talked to the insurance company about it – and since I ran my company's benefit plans, I
got a little further than most people, but ultimately, that was what their contract with the hospital said so
that's what they had to pay. Regardless of if he worked 15 minutes or 3 hours. Similarly, my twins were born
prematurely and ended up in the NICU for 2 weeks. While the NICU was in-network for my insurance, for some
mysterious reason, the neonatologists that attended the NICU were out of network. I think that bill was $16k and
they stopped by to see each kid for an average of about 30 min/day.
$984.157 billion. That's $984,157,000,000. That is how much money I believe the United States wastes on
Healthcare. Not spends; wastes. As in money down the drain. The astute reader figured out that equates to
five percent of America's 2016 GDP
. Said reader is
absolutely correct. How did I estimate such a gargantuan amount?
According to the OECD data
,
in 2013 the United States spent 16.4 percent of its GDP on Healthcare; the two next biggest spenders, Switzerland
and the Netherlands spent 11.1 percent. Even if one was to give the United States the benefit of doubt, and claim
that the United States healthcare is just as efficient as that of Switzerland or the Netherlands – which is most
likely not true according to
an
article from Business Insider
, but even if it was – that meant that the United States wastes 5.3% of its GDP
on healthcare. Wastes. I just want to make sure that the amount of this alleged legalized corruption, which will
most likely reach a trillion dollars by 2020, is noted.
Let me place those funds into perspective: it's almost as much as the amount that
the rest of the World spends
on the military, combined
. The SCO member states, including China, Russia, India, and Pakistan spent
roughly $360 billion on the
military
. The wasted amount is equivalent to the GDP of Indonesia, and
greater than the GDP of Turkey
or Switzerland
. In 2016, the US Federal Government spent $362 billion, or 36.8% of the wasted amount,
to run all Federal Programs
, including the Department
of Education and NASA, with the exception of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Veteran's Affairs, the military,
and net interest on the US debt. All other Federal Programs were covered with the $362 billion. The US Federal
Debt
stands at $20.4 trillion
, meaning that the debt can be paid off in
30 years, merely if the Healthcare Waste is eliminated.
But why stop there? The US Housing Crisis started partly because loans were allowed to be taken out without the
20% down payment. Could this funding, if applied directly to the housing market, stop the 2008 Great Recession?
Absolutely, and
all the Federal Government had
to do
was to gear these funds towards down payment on subprime mortgage loans to meet the 20 percent barrier.
I can go on and on about what can be accomplished, like making collegiate attendance free, or at least very
inexpensive, or drastically improving the quality of education, paying off the national debt, reinvesting into the
economy, reinvigorating the rural sector, and so on, and so forth. A trillion dollars is a lot of money.
Lobbyists, the Media and the Waste
Any guess how much was spent on lobbying by the Healthcare, Insurance, Hospitals, Health Professionals, and
HMOs?
How about 10.5 billion dollars?
I knew
that was your guess! That's a lot of money, and that does not include "speaking fees", or when a politician who
constantly made calls beneficial to the Healthcare Lobby gets $150,000 to speak in front of an audience after they
retire from politics. Obama made a speech in front of Wall Street,
netting $400,000
. And by pure coincidence,
only one
Wall Street Broker was jailed
as a result of the scandal. That $10.5 billion is just a tip of the iceberg,
because "speaking fees" are notoriously hard to track, and not included in said amount.
Obama genuinely tried to reform US Healthcare to the Swiss Model. He was going to let Wall Street slide, he was
going to let Neocons conduct foreign policy, just please, let him have healthcare! First, the lobbyists laughed in
his face. Second, they
utilized the Blue Dog Coalition
to block Obama's attempt at Healthcare Reform, until it was phenomenally
nerfed, and we have the disaster that we have today. As a result, Obama's Legacy, Obamacare is having major
issues, including the rise of racism.
Obamacare helped the poor, (mostly minorities,) at the expense of the middle class, (mostly whites,) thus
transferring funding from whites to minorities. While the intent was not racial, it is being
called out
as racial by the mainstream media
. This probably suits the lobbyists, because if the debate is about racism,
one cannot have a genuine discussion about Healthcare Reform.
Racism strikes both ways. Samantha Bee came out with a
"fuck you
white people"
message right after the election. Jon Stewart, without whom she probably wouldn't have her own
show, pointed out that it was simply economics,
like the
healthcare insurance premium increase
, that brought Donald Trump to power. Interestingly enough, James
Carville made the same argument when Bill Clinton beat George Bush, but when Hillary Clinton lost, Carville was
quick to blame Russia. These delusions on the Left are letting the Right mobilize stronger than ever before. And
all of this takes away from the Healthcare Debate.
In an attempt to blame Trump's Election on white racism, rather than basic economics, numerous outlets simply
fell flat. For instance,
Eric Sasson writes
:
white men went 63 percent for Trump versus 31 percent for Clinton, and white women went
53-43 percent. Among college-educated whites, only 39 percent of men and 51 percent of women voted for Clinton
What's more, these people hadn't suffered under Obama; they'd thrived. The kind of change Trump was espousing
wasn't supposed to connect with this group.
Let's start with the banks. Medical students graduate with an average of
$416,216 in student debt
.
The
average interest rate
on said loan is
seven percent. Roughly 20,055 students
go through this
program, per year
. Presuming a twenty year loan, the banks are looking at about $7.185 billion in interest
payments. It really is a small fraction of the cost. Prescription drug prices are another story. In 2014, Medicare
spent $112 billion on
medicine for the elderly
. Oh la la! Cha-ching. I would not be surprised if at least half of that was wasted
on drug price inflation. You know the health insurance companies? It's a great time to be one, since profits are
booming – to the tune of
$18 billion in
projected revenue
for 2017.
Of course the system itself is quite wasteful, with needless hours spent on paperwork, claim verification,
contractual review, etc, etc, etc. Humana's revenue was
$54.4 billion
,
Aetna's was
$63.2
billion
, Anthem's was
$85 billion
,
Cigna's was
$39.7
billion
, and UnitedHealth's was
$184.8 billion
. Those
are just the top five companies. None of them ia a mom-and-pop shop or small business store. Do any of these
insurers support Obamacare? Even if they do, it is
without much enthusiasm
. They are leaving, and leaving quite quickly. Thirty-one percent of American counties
will have
just one healthcare insurer
. Welcome to a monopoly that is artificially creating itself. And despite the
waste,
28.2 million
Americans remain uninsured
. Mission accomplished!
Who else benefits? Those who hire illegal immigrants instead of American workers, since illegal immigrants cost
the United States roughly
$25 billion
in Healthcare spending
. Meanwhile those who hire them can avoid certain types of taxes and not have to cover
their Healthcare; communism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us. Of course that is just a rough estimate,
since this spending is also quite hard to track.
The Future
The problem with changing Healthcare is that too many people have their hands in the proverbial pie. There is
not a single lever of power that isn't affected by Healthcare, and most of the levers that are affected, benefit
quite a bit. Insurance companies will fight to the death, because Universal Healthcare will be their death knell.
Banks will defend it, because who doesn't want to make billions from student loans? Medical schools too – since it
lets them charge higher and higher tuition. Pharmaceutical companies can use the increase in Healthcare
expenditure to justify their own price hikes, even though a major reason for those price hikes is artificial
patent based monopoly.
What is an artificial monopoly? In my opinion, it's when a patent is utilized to prevent competitors from
manufacturing the same exact drug. In less than a decade, the price of Epi-Pen soared from $103.50 to $608.61.
When asked the justify said increase,
one of
the reasons provided by the CEO
was that
the price went up because we were making investment; as I said,
about $1 billion over the last decade that we invested in the product that we could reach physicians and educate
legislatures.
"Reaching" doctors and legislators; I wonder, how was said "education funding" spent? According
to US News, a website that is extremely credible when it comes to internal decision making within the United
States,
drug companies have long courted doctors with gifts
, from speaking and consulting fees to educational
materials to food and drink. But while most doctors do not believe these gifts influence their decisions about
which drugs to prescribe, a new study found the gifts actually can make a difference – something patient advocates
have voiced concern about in the past. Do you feel educated? Would you feel more educated if I paid you a
$150,000 consulting fee? What about $400,000? What? It's just consulting; no corruption here!
Everyone knows that this is going on. But there is not going to be change. Why not? The same reason that there
was not change with Harvey Weinstein, until Taylor Swift came along. Remember how I said that almost everyone has
their hands in the Healthcare Pie? It was not much different with Weinstein. Scott Rosenberg explained
why it took so long for people to speak out against Harvey
, and the reasons were numerous. First, Harvey gave
many people their start in Hollywood, and treated all of his friends like royalty. That drastically increased
their loyalty. Second, he ushered the Golden Age of the 1990s, with movies like Pulp Fiction, Shakespeare in Love,
Clerks, Swingers, Scream, Good Will Hunting, English Patient, Life is Beautiful – the man could make phenomenal
movies. Third, even if one was willing to go against his own friends, workers, mass media, and so on, there was no
one to tell. There was no place to speak out. Fourth, some of the victims took hefty settlements.
That fourth reason enabled mass media to portray rape victims as gold diggers. Rape Culture is alive and well.
In California, a Judge
gave minimal sentencing to a convicted rapist
, because he was afraid a harsher sentence would damage the
rapist's mental psyche for life. Uh dude, from one Californian to another, he, uh, raped. His mental psyche is
already damaged; for life. That's the kind of pressure that Rose McGowan had to deal with. She had
a
little kerfuffle with Amazon
, and she thinks it was partially because of Harvey Weinstein. How many times had
the word "socialism" been thrown around to describe Universal Healthcare? Switzerland has it – are they Socialist?
Enter Taylor
Swift
. In order to destroy allegations that women are filing sexual harassment claims as gold diggers, she
sued her alleged sexual assaulter for a buck; one dollar. She won. Swift stated that the lawsuit was to
serve
as an example to other women who may resist publicly reliving similar outrageous and humiliating acts.
On top
of that, Weinstein was no longer as popular as he used to be, and an avenue to tell the story, an outlet was
created. The additional prevalence of the internet caused the stories of Weinstein's sexual abuse to leak. Within
a month, the giant fell.
Something similar is needed to change Healthcare in America. But until that comes along, racism will increase,
the cost of Healthcare will rise, emergency room costs will most likely double every ten years, and the future
remains bleak. As if that was not enough, more and more upper class Americans, (like yours truly,) are seeking
treatment abroad. It cost me less money to lose five weeks of wages, spend three weeks partying in Eastern Europe,
(Prague to be more specific,) after my two weeks of treatment, buy a roundtrip plane ticket, and stay in a five
star, all-inclusive hotel, than the cost of the same treatment in the US. If anyone wants to utilize this as a
startup – let me know!
Of course its effects on Healthcare will hurt, since it is a huge chunk of business that will be traveling
across the Atlantic. But what can be done to stop it? One cannot stop Americans from traveling to other countries.
One cannot force the poor to work for free. Perhaps this is the change that is needed to make those who benefit
from the Healthcare Waste realize that this cannot continue. Perhaps not. What we do know, is that Obamacare
insured the poor,
at
the expense of the middle class
. And that is regarded as a failure in America.
"In trying to show that he was successfully managing the Obamacare rollout, the
president last week staged a high-profile White House meeting with private health insurance executives -- aka
Obamacare's middlemen. The spectacle of a president begging these middlemen for help was a reminder that
Obamacare did not limit the power of the insurance companies as a single-payer system would.
****The new law instead cemented the industry's profit-extracting role in the larger health system -- and it
still leaves millions without insurance."*** (THAT is the Achille's lower torso of the ACA)
Exactly! That's why I stated that they're now oligapolizing the market, and will slowly start to increase
their insurance rates and profits once again.
(Socialist or not..the WSWS writers continue to state that which NEEDS to be hammered home)
"The vast wealth of the financial oligarchy, expressed in their ownership of massive corporations, must
be seized and expropriated, while the complex technologies, supply chains, and advanced transportation
systems must be integrated in an organized, planned manner to harness the anarchic force of the world
economy and eliminate material scarcity.
Amazon is a prime example. Its supply lines and delivery systems could distribute goods across the world,
bringing water, food, and medicine from each producer according to his or her ability, to each consumer
according to his or her need.
The massively sophisticated computational power used by the technology companies to censor and blacklist
political opposition could instead be used for logistical analysis to conduct rescue and rebuilding missions
in disaster zones like Houston and Puerto Rico. Drones used in the battlefield could be scrapped and rebuilt
to distribute supplies for building schools, museums, libraries, and theaters, and for making Internet
service available at no cost for the entire world.
The ruling class and all of the institutions of the political establishment stand inexorably in the way of
efforts to expropriate their wealth. What is required is to mobilize the working class in a political
struggle against the state and the socio-economic system on which it is based, through the fight for
socialism.
Eric London "
Advanced technology is helpful but not essential for a humane and just society. Its what we believe and
feel that matters. FWIW, I like socialism on a national/international level and individual accountability
on a personal level.
While general medical care is single payer in Canada, dental services are not. For major work on teeth, it
is cheaper to fly to Mexico. The downside is for Mexicans -- such practices will drive the costs up in Mexico.
Mark, today's posting provided is a nice change of pace to a topic of local impact (for me at least). UGC
presented a good overview peppered with supporting data.
In an earlier career incarnation, I worked as a systems analyst involved with development of online
systems for state social services. Data showed that our systems were able to administer a comprehensive
health care program for social services recipients for about 3-4% of the cost of services. Private medical
insurance providers required approximately 20% of the cost of services to provide similar services. Yet,
private providers were supposedly driven by invisible market forces to maximum efficiency. BS. In fact, they
are driven by greed and they found it much easier to maximize profits by colluding with politicians and
health care providers. That is the trouble with free markets – its just so damn easy to cheat and cheaters
are never in short supply.
One more thing, prescription drugs costs may exceed $600 billion in the US by 2021:
That would be nearly $2,000 per year for every American!
If a tiny fraction of that amount were spent on prevention, education, improved diets and other similar
initiatives, the population ought to be healthier and richer. But, greed overpowers the public good every
time. The US health care system is a criminal enterprise in my opinion. The good that it does is grossly
outweighed by greed and exploitation of human suffering.
I agree with that. Plus, it seems like they have an entire staff dedicated to giving their "customer" the
run around. A friend of mine had to deal with several different departments regarding his healthcare
bill. The billing office told him that they only deal with billing questions, and that for explanations
for the bill, he should call the doctor's office. The doctor's office told him to call the hospital,
since that's where the service took place. The hospital told him to call his primary doctor, who sent him
there, and his primary doctor referred him back to the specialist, where he was referred back to the
billing department, which promptly told him that they're closing for the day, since he spent 6 hours
being transferred from one department to the next.
I find it terribly silly that we should even consider med student's debt as an excuse. First, American
doctors are the best paid professionals in the country. Internists make a median 190 thousand a year, and
they are among the worst paid specialties. I cannot possibly see the problem with paying your income for 5
years, knowing that you get access to a caste that will allow you make good money into your eighties.
Second, the debt is not that high as you claim. Harvard Medical School tuition is 64 thousand. You can rent
across the street with 20 thousand a year – I currently live there.
Third, med students know all this. The reason why they borrow far more is because they know they can
afford it. I went to med school somewhere in a developing world. We shared toilets in the dorm. As a matter
of fact, most under-30s in Boston live in shared accommodation. The outliers? Med students. Even the lowly
Tufts and BU students that I met own cars and live by themselves, mainly in new buildings across the street
from their hospitals.
Every time I go to the doctors, I am thinking how I am going to sue their asses if they make a mistake.
It's not an excuse. It's a bill. When you rent an apartment, did you know that most landlords also factor
in the property tax when figuring out what your rent payment should be? Similarly, the interest payments
on the doctoral students' loans are passed off to the consumer, and that is yet another reason why
Healthcare is so expensive. That's why I think that medical school should be free for those students who
promise to charge their patients no more than x amount of money.
Interesting article. Looks like the rot in the US is terminal. But Canada and its "socialized" medicine is
not far behind. Operating an emergency ward with only one doctor doing the rounds at the rest of the
hospital during the night is absurd. But that is what major Canadian hospitals do. Don't bother going to
emergency at 2 am unless you are literally dying. Wait until 7 am when the day day crew arrives and you can
actually receive treatment.
The problem in Canada, as in the USA, is overpaid doctors and not enough of them (because they are
overpaid). Instead of paying a doctor $300,000 per year or more, the system needs to have 3 or more doctors
earning $100,000 per year. Then there is no excuse about being overworked and "requiring" a high
compensation. Big incomes attract crooks and not talent. If you want to be a doctor then you should do 5
years of low income work abroad or at home. That would weed out a lot of the $$$ in the eyeballs leeches. A
nasty side effect of having overpaid doctors and living adjacent to the US, is that they act like a mafia
and extort the government by threatening to leave to the USA. I say that the Canadian provinces should make
all medical students sign binding contracts to pay the cost difference between their Canadian medical
education and the equivalent in the USA if they decide to run off to America.
At the undergraduate level, the physics courses with the highest enrollment are aimed at streams going
into medicine. There are hordes of money maker wannabes trying to make it big in medicine. But they are all
nearly weeded out and never graduate from medical school. So the system maintains the fake doctor shortage
and racket level salaries. On top of this, hospitals pay a 300% markup for basic supplies (gauze, syringes,
etc). It is actually possible for private individuals to pay the nominal price so this is not just a theory.
Clearly, there is no effort to control costs by hospital administrations since basic economics would imply
that hospitals would pay less than individuals for these items due to the volume of sales involved. At the
end of the day North American public medicine is a non-market bloating itself into oblivion since the
taxpayer will always pay whatever is desired. That is, the spineless politicians will never crack the whip.
This is part of the problem in Canada. One way to help deal with it in my view, beyond simply cutting
doctors' fees (which any government with the political will to do so can do) is to simply make it easier
for International Medical Graduates to get licensed in Canada. Canada has legions of immigrants (and
could have pretty much however many more it likes) with full medical qualifications who would be thrilled
to work for much less than the current pay rates. It's a scandal how many qualified doctors we have in
Canada driving taxis rather than practicing medicine. If we just took advantage of the human resources we
already have, we could easily say to doctors who threaten to leave for the US, "Fine, go. We've got 10
guys from India lined up to do your job." This isn't to say that doctors shouldn't be very well-paid.
Anyone who has ever known someone in med school knows it's hell. But doctors would be very well-paid at
half the rates they're getting now.
Another part of the problem is an over-reliance on hospitals. There
are a lot of people in the hospitals more in "holding" than anything else, because there's no space in
the proper facilities for them (The book "Chronic Condition" talks about this). The problem with this is
that the cost per day to keep someone in the hospital is much higher than in other kinds of facilities.
This is an entirely unnecessary loss.
For all that though, the Canadian system is leaps and bounds better than the American. We spend a
vastly smaller percentage of our GDP on health care, and in return achieve higher health outcomes, as
measured by the WHO. If we were willing to spend the kind of money the Americans do on health care, we
could have patients sleeping in golden beds even with the structural flaws of our current system. That's
worth constantly remembering, because some of the proposals for health reform floating around now lean in
the direction of privatization, and we've seen where that road leads.
Before he retired from politics, Keith Martin was my MLA, and he was also a qualified MD. He used to
rail against the convoluted process for certification in medicine in Canada, while others complained
that we were subject to an influx of doctor-immigrants from India because Canada required less time
spent in medical school than India does. I never checked the veracity of that, although we do have
quite a few Indian doctors. My own doctor – in the military, and still now since he is in private
practice – is a South African, and he explained that he had gone in for the military (although he was
always a civilian, some military doctors are military members as well but most are not) because the
hoop-jumping process to be certified for private practice in Canada with foreign qualifications was
just too onerous.
Unsurprisingly, I completely agree on the subject of privatization, because it
always leads to an emphasis on profit and cost-cutting. I don't know why some people can't see that.
Thanks very much UCG, for your article. Very interesting reading for us Australians as the Federal
Government eventually wants to shove us kicking and screaming into a US-style privatized healthcare
insurance model.
Funnily enough I'm currently considering changing my private health insurer. I'm with Medibank Private at
present but considering maybe going with a smaller non-profit health fund like Australian Unity or Phoenix
Health Fund.
I was just about to post along the lines of "I don't know if Jen has experienced this in Australia but
here in the UK ." so I'll finish the thought. In the UK, successive governments, not just Conservative
ones, have been trying to dismantle the NHS and move us to the American system. It is pure ideology – no
amount of the very abundant evidence of the inefficiencies of the US system, its waste etc makes any dint
in the enthusiasm of those pressing for change.
Thank you Jen! My advice: don't let the Government cajole you into wasting your money on Corporate Greed.
Share the article with your fellow Australians, if you must, but don't let our wasteful system be
replicated. Interestingly enough, one of my friends, Lytburger, send me a meme right after Ukraine
adopted America's Healthcare System, it said: "ISIS refused to take responsibility for Ukraine's
Healthcare Reform!" I'd be happy to provide other data or answer questions about the Healthcare System
here.
As for insurance, I'm not sure if Australia has the in-network and out-of-network rules. Does it?
Whatever insurance you get, make sure that it has good coverage. If you own a home in the US, and you end
up in a hospital's emergency room that's not covered by your insurance, the hospital can take your house
under certain circumstances. Ironically, even the Government cannot. All of my real property is in
various Trust Accounts, just in case, and I make sure that I have insurance where all major hospitals are
in-network and that's the best I can do.
This is s very interesting insight into healthcare in the USA. The cost is shocking.
I live in the UK and the healthcare system is paid for from taxation.
When it was established over 70 years ago the health service would be available to all and financed entirely from taxation, which meant that people
paid into it according to their means.
It was the best thing in my view that government has ever done.
Good healthcare should be available to all and not dependent on peoples ability to pay. However there always a private healthcare system that ran alongside it
And over the years it had been unpicked as successive governments have tried to privatize it. Claiming
they will save the taxpayer money
– opticians and dentistry have become part private after 18 if you are employed.
Which many people do not mind.
-Elderly care was also privatised as it's the most expensive
-care for the disabled also is a issue for local councils
-Mental health became care in the community – society's problem!
Privatisation has meant profits for businesses, poor services to vulnerable groups.
And yet still more and more taxation is needed for the NHS!
The issue of more money was even part of the Brexit debate as it was stated that leaving the EU would mean
more money for the NHS which people are proud of.
There was a quote I was thinking of using in the lead-in, but decided in the end not to since I didn't
want to have too many and it might have become confusing. It related that you would get the best medical
care of your lifetime – after you died, when they were rushing to save your organs, for transplant.
Obviously this would not be true if you were not an organ donor (at least in this country) or died as the
result of general wasting away so that you had nothing left which would be particularly coveted. But this
is a major issue in medicine in some countries and there have been various lurid tales of bodies being
robbed of their organs without family permission, bodies of Ukrainian soldiers harvested of their organs
and rackets in third-world countries where the poor or helpless are robbed of organs while they are
alive. From my standpoint, since I haven't done much research on it, I have seen little proof of any of
them despite plenty of allegation, but it is easy to understand that traffic in organs to those who will
pay anything to live a little longer would be tremendously profitable, and the potential for
disproportionate profit seldom fails to draw the unscrupulous.
As I alluded in the lead-in, Canada has
what is sometimes described as 'socialized medicine' and alternatively as 'two-tier healthcare' although
I have never seen any real substantiation for the latter charge. My mom had an operation for colon cancer
some time back, and she paid nothing for the hospitalization or the operation. My father-in-law is
scheduled for the same operation as soon as he gets his blood-sugar low enough, and he already had one
for a hernia and removal of internal scar tissue from an old injury – again, we paid nothing. He had a
nurse come here for a couple of months, once a week, to change his dressing (because the incision would
was very slow to heal because he is diabetic – nothing. That's all great, from my point of view, and I've
paid into it all my life without ever using it because I was covered by the government under federal
guidelines while I served in the military, although I was a cheap patient because I never had to be
hospitalized for anything and was almost never even sick enough not to come to work. But the great
drawback to it, as I said, is the backlog which might mean you have to wait too long for an operation.
And in my small practical experience – the two cases I have just mentioned – both were scheduled for
surgery within a month of diagnosis. So perhaps the long wait is for particular operations such as heart
or brain surgery.
Thank you very much for a very interesting article UCG! Quite the horror story. I've heard quite a few about
the US over the years from people I know too. I think one of the BBC's former America correspondent gave an
interview to the Beeb as he was leaving America a few years back (MAtt Frei?) and was asked what were the
best and worst things about living there. The worst was certainly healthcare.
I've also read that
healthcare costs for the self-employed, independents, freelancers can also be crushing in the land of the
free where everyone can become rich. Has this changed? I would have thought that those were the ideal
Americans, making it off their own back, but apparently not.
There's also another issue that is not addressed: an ageing population. This is a very current theme and
it is now not at all unusual for people to live another 30 odd years after retirement. Now how on earth will
such people manage their healthcare for such a period? Will they have to hock absolutely everything they
have? America is already at war with itself (hence the utmost need to for
foreign
enemies), but
nothing is getting done. Just more of the same. Meanwhile the Brits are trying to copy the US through
stealth privatization of their health system. It might work as well as privatizing its rail service
Thanks for an interesting post, UCG. Hopefully this will stimulate some ideas on how to fix the American
healthcare system, which seems to be badly broken.
Broken for us but working perfectly for Big Pharma and insurance companies. That is a fundamental reason
why it will be extremely difficult to "fix" because it ain't broken as a money making machine.
With health care in general, there's a bit of a trade-off. The most cost-efficient systems, like the system
in Sweden for example, are fairly regimented and don't leave much room for individual choice (unless someone
pays out of pocket for treatment completely outside the public system). On the other hand, systems that give
people a little more choice, like the system in Germany, tend to be a little on the pricey side. I think,
given American political culture, something along the lines of the German model is much more likely to
attract widespread public support. In any case, it's still cheaper than the American system, and achieves
some of the best results in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany
Quite different from my expectation of spartan if not rudimentary medical care and overworked staff in
a small Russian town. The blog on schools was interesting as well. Given where Russia was in the 90's
compared to now, it is easy to understand the strong popular support for the government and Putin in
particular.
Off topic but just saw a 2-3 minute piece on CBS news (a very long story for an American
national news show) about a Russian woman (former Playboy "model') who is challenging Putin. The
reporter assured us the if she became too popular, Putin would never allow her to win. The last time
Russia was allowed to protest, according to the reported was back in 2011 where the masses were
demanding change. The implication being that a subsequent crackdown has suppressed further protest.
The piece showed her speaking to a group (the camera view was such that is was impossible to
determine the audience size but it had to be at least 10 and possibly up to 30 people). The reporter
also speculated that the woman coud be a Kremlin plant to create a fake opposition. Just a mishmash of
a story all in all.
Speaking as someone who has been hospitalized 3 times in Russia and still live
to talk about, I have no complaints.
In the twilight years of the USSR everything was deficit, including medicine, and the hospitals were
often dilapidated, understaffed and lacking modern equipment. It was socialized medicine, of course, but you
only got the basics for "free". They would not let you die, but if you wanted any "extras", you had to pay
or provide "gifts" to the staff. The doctors were and still are good, but were grossly underpaid.
I was first in hospital here, in isolation because I had diphtheria, in 1993. They saved me. I thought my
number was up. When I was recovering, a nurse asked me when my wife would visit me.
"I have no wife."
"Your friends, then?"
"No friends. I only arrived here 3 weeks ago."
"You're going to be hungry!"
Our first child was born in 1999. The maternity wing of Moscow Hospital №1, opened 1837, was nightmarish.
I paid the anaesthetist so that he could ensure that my wife did not suffer during her labour: it was a
long, slow painful birth.
Our last child was born in 2008: brand new hospital; my wife had her own room; everything state-of
the-art. I paid nothing. My wife came out healthy with a healthy baby. I gave the obstetrician a "present"
after delivery.
A bribe? Not in my opinion: just a token of gratitude for a job well done.
I broke my left collarbone at the dacha that same year. I was in a village/small town (Ruza) hospital. It
was only 2-years old. There were problems because I have broken both collarbones before. Anyway, the
orthopaedic surgeon did a good job, and I didn't pay anything: emergency treatment is free for British
citizens, likewise Russians in the UK. A remnant of when the UK and the USSR were glorious allies against
the Beast.
I have also had varicose veins removed. Only 2 days in hospital. A job well done. I gave the surgeon a
present. He didn't ask me for one, but I thought it was right that I do so.
There have been great improvements in treatment and medical technology here. And the doctors and nursing
staff are well trained and competent.
Not perfect -- nothing is -- but more than satisfactory.
Yes, you do hear horror stories, as you do about the British National health Service, but all in all,
satisfactory.
And there is a private health system now financed by private insurance.
And I have had dental treatment here "on the state": no complaints -- and "free", paid by taxation.
An old Russian colleague of mine has lived in Germany many years now, but he comes back to Moscow to see
an orthodontist.
"They are just as good as in Germany, sometimes have even trained there, and much, much cheaper", he
says.
PS I paid the anaesthetist so he could get the best stuff to help a woman in labour and was unavailable
on the state health service. I forget what it was called now: some German manufactured stuff, I suppose.
My wife said it was the norm in Romania to provide small gifts to bureaucrats – too small to be
considered a bribe but a necessary gesture of appreciation. Its not entirely different from the custom
of bringing a small gift when visiting friends (bottle of wine, flowers, box of chocolate, etc.).
Very much so; I'm sure I mentioned before the controversy surrounding my marriage in Russia; the
waiting period that must follow an application to marry is 30 days (I guess this is a period during
which anyone opposing the marriage may make their case), while a tourist visa is also for a maximum
of 30 days. Therefore, I could not legally remain in Russia long enough to get married. Sveta was
very matter-of-fact about it; we would just, she said, announce that she was pregnant, which is one
of the exceptional conditions which will override the waiting period.
I said she would never get
a doctor to sign a certificate that she was pregnant if she was not. Within a week she had her
choice of three. We gave the doctor who furnished the certificate some flowers and a box of
chocolates. I never considered it a bribe, and still do not, and the gift followed the act. We
would have gotten the certificate anyway.
I notice that Russians typically take such a gift with them whenever they visit friends;
Ukrainians do, too. They never arrive empty-handed, and it seems much more a ritualized courtesy.
It seem odds to me how Russia or Romania can be stifling bureaucratic (as ME can attest) yet
rules will often be bent with hardly a blink to facilitate a reasonable request.
The healthcare system in a country probably reflects the dominant elements in said country's culture. Our
family's longtime GP was a buffoon. In my interactions with him his enthusiastic "hands-on" gung-ho approach
caused several problems, not least when I visited him to get a "line" certifying I was unfit for work a week
after a total hip replacement operation (he insisted on examining the wound and re-dressing it with a
dressing whose adhesive I had been tested for in hospital and deemed allergic to it; fun and games, anxiety
and discomfort ).
Nevertheless he made an immediate decision to admit a close relative of mine for surgery on the basis of
his examination of her.
The problem with conspiracy theories (CIA invented term to whitewash CIA participation in
killing of JFK) that some of them in ten to twenty years no longer viewed as conspiracies. They
enter mainstream.
An online poll this week from Ipsos reported 15% of Americans agree that the government,
media and financial worlds are controlled by Satan-worshiping pedophiles. Not 15% of
Republicans or conservatives, but of Americans. That's a lot.
... ... ...
America is a lonely place. When you hold to a conspiracy theory, you join a community.
You're suddenly part of something. You have new friends you can talk to on the internet ...
... One of the enduring and revealing songs of America asks "Which side are you on / Which
side are you on? / You go to Harlan County / There is no neutral there / You'll either be a
union man / Or a thug for J.H. Blair."
... ... ...
Conspiracy believers don't believe what the mainstream media tell them. Why would they?
Newsrooms are undergoing their own revolution, with woke progressives vs. journalistic
traditionalists, advocacy versus old-school news values. It is ideological. "We are here to
shape and encourage a new reality." "No, we are here to find and report the news." It is
generational: The young have the upper hand and the Slack channel. The woke are winning.
...
When you think your country has grown completely bizarre...Think of what normal human beings
have been asked to absorb the past year. The whole country was shut down and everyone was told
to stay in the house. They closed the churches, and the churches agreed. There was no school
and everyone made believe""really, we all made believe!""screens were a replacement. A bunch of
13-year-old girls in the junior high decided they were boys and started getting shots, and no
adults helped them by saying, "Whoa, slow down, this is a major life decision and you're a
kid." The school board no longer argues about transgender bathrooms, they're on to transgender
boys wanting to play on the girls team. Big corporations now tell you what you should think
about local questions, and if this offends you, they don't care. There were riots and protests
last summer and local government seemed overwhelmed.
The problem with conspiracy theories (CIA invented term to whitewash CIA participation in
killing of JFK) that some of them in ten to twenty years no longer viewed as conspiracies. They
enter mainstream.
An online poll this week from Ipsos reported 15% of Americans agree that the government,
media and financial worlds are controlled by Satan-worshiping pedophiles. Not 15% of
Republicans or conservatives, but of Americans. That's a lot.
... ... ...
America is a lonely place. When you hold to a conspiracy theory, you join a community.
You're suddenly part of something. You have new friends you can talk to on the internet ...
... One of the enduring and revealing songs of America asks "Which side are you on / Which
side are you on? / You go to Harlan County / There is no neutral there / You'll either be a
union man / Or a thug for J.H. Blair."
... ... ...
Conspiracy believers don't believe what the mainstream media tell them. Why would they?
Newsrooms are undergoing their own revolution, with woke progressives vs. journalistic
traditionalists, advocacy versus old-school news values. It is ideological. "We are here to
shape and encourage a new reality." "No, we are here to find and report the news." It is
generational: The young have the upper hand and the Slack channel. The woke are winning.
...
When you think your country has grown completely bizarre...Think of what normal human beings
have been asked to absorb the past year. The whole country was shut down and everyone was told
to stay in the house. They closed the churches, and the churches agreed. There was no school
and everyone made believe""really, we all made believe!""screens were a replacement. A bunch of
13-year-old girls in the junior high decided they were boys and started getting shots, and no
adults helped them by saying, "Whoa, slow down, this is a major life decision and you're a
kid." The school board no longer argues about transgender bathrooms, they're on to transgender
boys wanting to play on the girls team. Big corporations now tell you what you should think
about local questions, and if this offends you, they don't care. There were riots and protests
last summer and local government seemed overwhelmed.
"... After Epstein's 2019 arrest, it emerged that Epstein had "directed" Bill Gates to donate $2 million to the MIT lab in 2014. Epstein also allegedly secured a $5 million donation from Leon Black for the lab. Ito was forced to resign his post as the lab's director shortly after Epstein's 2019 arrest. ..."
"... Epstein appears to have become involved with Brockman as early as 1995, when he helped to finance and rescue a struggling book project that was managed by Brockman. ..."
"... According to former Israeli intelligence operative Ari Ben-Menashe, Bill Clinton had been the main focus of Epstein's sexual blackmail operation in the 1990s, a claim supported by Epstein victim testimony and Epstein's intimate involvement with individuals who were close to the former president at the time. ..."
"... Despite tensions arising from the Clinton administration's pursuit of Microsoft's monopoly in the late 1990s, the Gates and Clinton relationship had thawed by April 2000, when Gates attended the White House " Conference on the New Economy ." Attendees besides Gates included close Epstein associate Lynn Forester (now Lady de Rothschild) and then secretary of the treasury Larry Summers, who has also come under fire for his Epstein ties. ..."
"... Huffington Post ..."
"... Huffington Post ..."
"... Black was deeply tied to Epstein, even having Epstein manage his personal "philanthropic" foundation for several years, even after Epstein's first arrest. ..."
"... Indeed, 2013 was also the year that the Gates mansion systems engineer, Rick Allen Jones, began to be investigated by Seattle police for his child porn and child rape collection, which contained over six thousand images and videos. Despite the gravity of his crime, when Jones was arrested at the Gates mansion a year later, he was not jailed after his arrest but was merely ordered "to stay away from children," according to local media reports. From Melinda's perspective, this scandal, combined with Bill Gates's growing association with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein may have posed a threat to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's reputation, well before Epstein's 2019 arrest. ..."
"... Evening Standard ..."
"... The likely reason for the continued cover-up of the true extent of Epstein's ties to Gates has much more to do with Gates's company Microsoft than with Bill Gates himself. While it is now permissible to report on ties that discredit Gates's personal reputation, the information that could tie his relationship with Epstein and the Maxwells to Microsoft has been omitted. ..."
"... If, as the Evening Standard ..."
"... This is hardly an isolated incident, as similar efforts have been made to cover up (or memory hole) the ties of Epstein and the Maxwells to other prominent Silicon Valley empires, such as those led by Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk . One key reason for this is that the Epstein network's blackmail operation involved not only sexual blackmail but electronic forms of blackmail ..."
"... That Isabel and Christine Maxwell were able to forge close business ties with Microsoft after having been part of the front company that played a central role in PROMIS-related espionage and after explicitly managing their subsequent companies with the admitted intention to "rebuild" their spy father's work and legacy, strongly points to the probability of at least some Microsoft products having been compromised in some fashion, likely through alliances with Maxwell-run tech companies. The lack of mainstream media concern over the documented ties of the Epstein network to other top Microsoft executives of the past, such as Nathan Myhrvold, Linda Stone, and Steven Sinofsky, makes it clear that, while it may be open season on the relationship between Bill Gates and Epstein, such is not the case for Microsoft and Epstein. ..."
"... The ties of Epstein and the Maxwells to Silicon Valley, not just to Microsoft, are part of a broader attempt to cover up the strong intelligence component in the origin of Silicon Valley's most powerful companies. Much effort has been invested in creating a public perception that these companies are strictly private entities despite their deep, long-standing ties to the intelligence agencies and militaries of the United States and Israel . The true breadth of the Epstein scandal will never be covered by mainstream media because so many news outlets are owned by these same Silicon Valley oligarchs or depend on Silicon Valley for online reader engagement. ..."
"... Perhaps the biggest reason why the military/intelligence origins and links to the current Silicon Valley oligarchy will never be honestly examined, however, is that those very entities are now working with breakneck speed to usher in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which would make artificial intelligence, automation, mass electronic surveillance, and transhumanism central to human society. One of the architects of this "revolution," Klaus Schwab, said earlier this year that rebuilding and maintaining trust with the public was critical to that project. However, were the true nature of Silicon Valley, including its significant ties to serial child rapist and sex trafficker Jeffery Epstein and his network, to emerge, the public's trust would be significantly eroded, thus threatening what the global oligarchy views as a project critical to its survival ..."
"... What a menace these philanthropic organizations are to the ordinary and lowly. These billionaire creeps never stop plotting and figuring out even more ways to stomp on people and push their creepy agendas, which remain forever hidden. ..."
It further appears that Bill Gates, then head of Microsoft, made a personal investment in
CommTouch at the behest of Isabel Maxwell. In an October 2000
article published in the Guardian , Isabel "jokes about persuading Bill Gates to
make a personal investment" in CommTouch sometime during this period.
The Guardian article then oddly notes, regarding Isabel Maxwell and Bill Gates:
"In a faux southern belle accent, [Isabel] purrs: 'He's got to spend $375m a year to keep
his tax-free status, why not allow me to help him.' She explodes with laughter."
Given that individuals as wealthy as Gates cannot have "tax-free status" and that this
article was published soon after the creation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
Isabel's statements suggest that it was the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, which
manages the foundation's endowment assets, that made this sizable investment in CommTouch.
Furthermore, it is worth highlighting the odd way in which Isabel describes her dealings
with Gates ("purring," speaking in a fake Southern accent), describing her interactions with
him in a way not found in any of her numerous other interviews on a wide variety of topics.
This odd behavior may be related to Isabel's previous interactions with Gates and/or the
mysterious relationship between Gates and Epstein during this time.
Isabel Maxwell as
CommTouch President
After 2000, CommTouch's business and clout expanded rapidly, with Isabel Maxwell
subsequently crediting investments from Microsoft, led by Gates, and Paul Allen for the
company's good fortune and the success of its effort to enter the US market. Maxwell, as quoted
in the 2002 book Fastalliances , states that Microsoft viewed CommTouch as a key "distribution
network," adding that "Microsoft's investment in us put us on the map. It gave us instant
credibility, validated our technology and service in the marketplace." By this time,
Microsoft's ties to CommTouch had deepened with new partnerships, including
CommTouch's hosting of Microsoft Exchange .
Though Isabel Maxwell was able to secure lucrative investments and alliances for CommTouch
and saw its products integrated into key software and hardware components produced and sold by
Microsoft and other tech giants, she was unable to improve the company's dire financial
situation, with CommTouch netting a loss of
$4.4 million in 1998 and similar losses well into the 2000s, with net losses totalling $24 million in 2000 (just one
year after the sizable investments from Microsoft, Paul Allen and Gates). The losses continued
even after Isabel formally left the company and became president emeritus in 2001. By 2006, the
company was over $170 million in debt. Isabel Maxwell left her position at CommTouch in 2001
but for years retained a sizable amount of CommTouch stock valued at the time at around $9.5
million . Today, Isabel Maxwell is, among other things, a " technology pioneer " of the World
Economic Forum.
Another indication of a relationship between Epstein and Gates prior to 2001 is Epstein's
cozy ties with Nathan Myhrvold, who joined Microsoft in the 1980s and became the company's
first chief technology officer in 1996. At the time, Myhrvold was one of Gates's closest
advisers, if not the closest, and cowrote Gates's 1996 book, The Road Ahead , which
sought to explain how emerging technologies would impact life in the years and decades to
come.
In December of the same year that he became Microsoft's CTO, Myhrvold traveled on Epstein's
plane from Kentucky to New Jersey, and then again in January 1997 from New Jersey to Florida.
Other passengers accompanying Myhrvold on these flights included Alan Dershowitz and "GM,"
presumably Ghislaine Maxwell. It is worth keeping in mind that this is the same period when
Gates had a documented relationship with Ghislaine's sister Isabel.
In addition, in the 1990s, Myhrvold traveled with Epstein in Russia alongside Esther Dyson , a digital
technology consultant who has been called "the most influential woman
in all the computer world." She currently has close ties to Google as well as the DNA testing
company 23andme and is a member of and
agenda contributor to the World Economic Forum. Dyson later stated that the meeting with
Epstein had been planned by Myhrvold. The meeting appears to have taken place in 1998, based on
information posted on Dyson's social media accounts.
One photo features Dyson and Epstein, with a time stamp indicating April 28, 1998, posing
with Pavel Oleynikov, who appears to have been
an employee of the Russian Federal Nuclear Center. In that photo, they are standing in front of
the house of the late Andrei Sakharov, the Soviet nuclear scientist and dissident, who is
alleged to have had ties to US intelligence.
Sakharov and his wife, Yelena Bonner, were supporters of Zionist causes
.
The photos were taken in Sarov, where the Russian Federal Nuclear Center is based. That same
day, another photo was taken that
shows Epstein inside a classroom full of teens, apparently also in Sarov, given the time
stamp.
Another Dyson
image , one without a visible time stamp but with a caption stating the photo was taken "at
Microsoft Russia in Moscow" in April 1998, shows Nathan Myhrvold. Dyson's caption further
states, "This was the beginning of a three-week trip during which Nathan and a variety of
hangers-on (including a bodyguard) explored the state of post-Soviet science." Epstein appears
to be one of the "hangers-on," given the photographs, dates, and the described purpose of the
trip.
Myhrvold and Epstein apparently had more in common than an interest in Russian scientific
advances. When Myhrvold left Microsoft to cofound Intellectual Ventures,
Vanity Fair reported that he had received Epstein at the firm's office with "young
girls" in tow who appeared to be "Russian models." A source close to Myhrvold and cited by
Vanity Fair claimed that Myhrvold spoke openly about borrowing Epstein's jet and
staying at his homes in Florida and New York. Vanity Fair also noted that Myhrvold has
been accused of having sex with minors provided by Epstein by none other than Harvard law
professor Alan Dershowitz, who stands accused of the same crime and who had previously flown
with Myhrvold on Epstein's private plane.
In addition, a former colleague of Myhrvold's at Microsoft later developed her own ties to
Epstein. Linda Stone , who joined
Microsoft in 1993 and worked directly under Myhrvold, eventually became a Microsoft vice
president. She introduced Epstein to Joi Ito of the MIT Media Lab after Epstein's first arrest.
"He has a tainted past, but Linda assures me that he's awesome," Ito later said in an email to
three MIT staffers. In Epstein's famous little black book, there are several phone numbers for
Stone, and her emergency contact is listed as Kelly Bovino, a former model and alleged Epstein
coconspirator. After Epstein's 2019 arrest, it emerged that Epstein
had "directed" Bill Gates to donate $2 million to the MIT lab in 2014. Epstein also
allegedly secured a $5 million donation from Leon Black for the lab. Ito was forced to resign
his post as the lab's director shortly after Epstein's 2019 arrest.
Nathan Myhrvold , Linda Stone , Joi Ito, Esther Dyson , and Bill Gates were all members of the Edge
Foundation community (edge.org website), alongside several other Silicon Valley icons. Edge,
which is described as an exclusive organization of intellectuals " redefining who and what we are ," was created by John
Brockman, a self-described "cultural impresario" and noted literary agent. Brockman is best
known for his deep ties to the art world in the late 1960s, though lesser
known are his various "management consulting" gigs for the Pentagon and White House during
that same period. Edge, which
the Guardian once called "the world's smartest website," is an exclusive online
symposium affiliated with what Brockman calls "the Third Culture." Epstein appears to have
become involved with Brockman as early as 1995, when he helped to finance and rescue a
struggling book project that was managed by Brockman.
Edge, however, is more than just a website. For decades, it was also instrumental in
bringing together tech executives, scientists who were often Brockman's clients, and Wall
Street financiers through its Millionaires' Dinner, first held in 1985. In 1999, this event
rebranded as the Billionaires' Dinner, and Epstein became intimately involved in these affairs
and the Edge Foundation itself. Epstein was photographed attending several of the dinners as
was Sarah Kellen, Ghislaine Maxwell's chief "assistant" and coconspirator in the
Epstein/Maxwell-run sex trafficking and blackmail scheme.
Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft and
Jeffrey Epstein at the 2000 Edge Billionaires' Dinner Source: https://www.edge.org/igd/1200
From 2001 to 2017, Epstein
funded $638,000 out of a total of $857,000 raised by Edge. During this period, there were
several years when Epstein was Edge's only donor. Epstein stopped giving in 2015, which was
incidentally the same year that Edge decided to discontinue its annual Billionaires' Dinner
tradition. In addition, the only award Edge has ever given out, the $100,000 Edge of
Computation prize, was awarded in 2005 to Quantum computing pioneer David Deutsch -- it was
funded entirely by Epstein. A year before he began donating heavily to Edge, Epstein had
created the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation to "fund and support cutting edge science around the
world."
Since the Epstein scandal, regular attendees of the Billionaires' Dinner, sometimes called
the Edge annual dinner, have referred to the event as an "influence operation." If one follows
the money, it appears it was an influence operation largely benefitting one man, Jeffrey
Epstein, and his network. The evidence points toward Myhrvold and Gates as being very much a
part of that network, even before Epstein's involvement in Edge increased
significantly.
It is worth exploring the ties between the "philanthropic" endeavors of Bill Gates and Bill
Clinton in the early 2000s, particularly given Epstein's and Ghislaine Maxwell's ties to the
Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative during that period. According to
former Israeli intelligence operative Ari Ben-Menashe, Bill Clinton
had been the main focus of Epstein's sexual blackmail operation in the 1990s,
a claim supported by Epstein victim testimony and Epstein's intimate involvement with
individuals who were close to the former president at the time.
Bill Gates at the White
House Conference on the New Economy in 2000, Source: LA Times
Despite tensions arising from the Clinton administration's pursuit of Microsoft's
monopoly in the late 1990s, the Gates and Clinton relationship had thawed by April 2000, when
Gates attended the White House " Conference on
the New Economy ." Attendees besides
Gates included close Epstein associate Lynn Forester (now Lady de Rothschild) and then
secretary of the treasury Larry Summers, who has also come under fire for his Epstein
ties. Another attendee was White House chief of staff Thomas "Mack" McLarty, whose special
assistant Mark Middleton met with Epstein
at least three times at the Clinton White House. Middleton was fired after press reports
surfaced detailing his ties to illegal donations linked to foreign governments that had been
made to Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign. Another participant in the conference was Janet
Yellen, Biden's current Secretary of the Treasury.
Gates spoke at a conference panel entitled "Closing the Global Divide: Health, Education and
Technology." He discussed how the mapping of the human genome would result in a new era of
technological breakthroughs and discussed the need to offer internet access to everyone to
close the digital divide and allow the "new" internet-based economy to take shape. At the time,
Gates was backing a
company , along with American Telecom billionaire Craig McCaw, that hoped to establish a
global internet service provider monopoly through a network of low-orbit satellites. That
company, Teledesic, shut down between 2002 and 2003 and is credited as being the
inspiration for Elon Musk's Starlink.
Bill Clinton and Bill Gates entered the world of philanthropy around the same time, with the
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation launching in 2000 and the Clinton Foundation, in 2001. Not
only that but Wired described the
two foundations as being "at the forefront of a new era in philanthropy, in which decisions --
often referred to as investments -- are made with the strategic precision demanded of business
and government, then painstakingly tracked to gauge their success."
Other media outlets, however, such as the Huffington
Post , challenged that these foundations engaged in "philanthropy" and asserted that
calling them such was causing "the rapid deconstruction of the accepted term." The
Huffington Post further noted that the Clinton Global Initiative (part of the Clinton
Foundation), the Gates Foundation, and a few similar organizations "all point in the direction
of blurring the boundaries between philanthropy, business and non-profits." It noted that this
model for "philanthropy" has been promoted by the World Economic Forum and the Milken
Institute. It is also worth noting that several of Epstein's own "philanthropic" vehicles were
also created just as this new era in philanthropy was beginning.
The Milken Institute was founded by
Michael Milken , the notorious Wall Street "junk bond king," who was indicted on 98 counts
of racketeering and securities fraud in 1989. He served little prison time and was ultimately
pardoned by Donald Trump. Milken committed his crimes while working alongside Leon Black
and Ron Perelman at Drexel
Burnham Lambert before its scandalous collapse. Black was deeply tied to Epstein, even
having Epstein manage his personal
"philanthropic" foundation for several years, even after Epstein's first arrest.
Perelman was a major Clinton donor whose 1995 fundraiser for the then president was attended by
Epstein and whose companies offered jobs to Webster Hubbell and Monica Lewinsky after their
respective scandals in the Clinton administration. Like Gates, Milken has transformed his
reputation for ruthlessness in the corporate world into one of a "prominent philanthropist."
Much of his "philanthropy" benefits the Israeli military and illegal Israeli settlements in
occupied Palestine.
Years after creating their foundations, Gates and Clinton discussed how they have "long
bonded over their shared mission" of normalizing this new model of philanthropy. Gates
spoke to
Wired in 2013 about "their forays into developing regions" and "cites the close
partnerships between their organizations." In that interview, Gates revealed that he had met
Clinton before he had become president, stating, "I knew him before he was president, I knew
him when he was president, and I know him now that he's not president."
Also in that interview, Clinton stated that after he left the White House he sought to focus
on two specific things. The first is the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), which he
stated exists "thanks largely to funding from the Gates Foundation," and the second is the
Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), "where I try to build a global network of people to do their
own thing."
The Clinton Health Access Initiative first received an $11
million donation from the Gates Foundation in 2009. Over the last twelve years, the Gates
Foundation has donated more than $497 million to CHAI. CHAI was initially founded in 2002 with
the mission of tackling HIV/AIDS globally through "strong government
relationships" and addressing "market inefficiencies." The Gates Foundation's significant
donations, however, began not long after CHAI's expansion
into malaria diagnostics and treatments. Notably, in 2011, Tachi Yamada, the former president
of the Gates Foundation's Global Health program, joined CHAI's board alongside Chelsea
Clinton.
Bill Gates and Bill Clinton at the annual Clinton Global Initiative in 2010
Regarding the CGI, Epstein's defense lawyers argued in
court in 2007 that Epstein had been "part of the original group that conceived of the
Clinton Global Initiative," which was first launched in 2005. Epstein's lawyers described the
CGI as a project "bringing together a community of global leaders to devise and implement
innovative solutions to some of the world's most pressing challenges." The Gates Foundation
gave the CGI a total of $2.5 million between 2012 and 2013 in addition to its massive donations
to the CHAI and an additional $35 million to the Clinton Foundation itself. In addition to the
Gates Foundation donations, Gates's Microsoft has been intimately involved in other
"philanthropic" projects backed by Clinton.
In addition to these ties,
Hillary Clinton established a partnership between the Clinton Foundation and the Gates
Foundation in 2014 as part of the Clintons' No Ceilings initiative. That partnership sought to
"gather and analyze data about the status of women and girls' participation around the world"
and involved the two foundations working "with leading technology partners to collect these
data and compile them." Months before the partnership was announced, Gates and Epstein met for
dinner and discussed the Gates Foundation and philanthropy, according to the
New York Times . During Hillary Clinton's unsuccessful run for president in 2016,
both Bill and Melinda Gates were on her
short list as potential options for vice president.
In addition, Epstein attempted to become involved in the Gates Foundation directly, as seen
by his efforts to convince the Gates Foundation to partner with JP Morgan on
a multibillion-dollar "global health charitable fund" that would have resulted in hefty
fees paid out to Epstein, who was very involved with JP Morgan at the time. Though that fund
never materialized, Epstein and Gates did discuss Epstein becoming involved in Gates's
philanthropic efforts. Some of these contacts were not reported by the mainstream press until
after the Bill and Melinda Gates divorce announcement. Yet, as mentioned, it was known that
Epstein had "directed" Gates to donate to at least one organization -- $2 million in 2014 to
the MIT Media Lab.
Recent revelations about Gates and Epstein meetings that took place between 2013 and 2014
have further underscored the importance Epstein apparently held in the world of billionaire
"philanthropy," with Gates reportedly claiming that Epstein was
his "ticket" to winning a Nobel Prize.
Norwegian media, however, reported in October 2020 that Gates and Epstein had met the Nobel
Committee chair, which failed to make a splash in international media at the time. It is worth
asking if Epstein managed to arrange such meetings with other individuals who also coveted
Nobel Prizes and if any such individuals later received those prizes. If Epstein had such
connections, it is unlikely that he would use them only once in the case of Bill Gates, given
the vastness of his network, particularly in the tech and science worlds.
The year 2013 is also when Bill
and Melinda Gates together met with Epstein at his New York residence, after which Melinda
allegedly began asking her soon-to-be ex-husband to distance himself from Epstein. While the
stated reason for this, in the wake of the Gateses' divorce announcement, was that Melinda was
put off by Epstein's past and his persona, it could potentially be related to other concerns
about Melinda's reputation and that of the foundation that shares her name.
Indeed, 2013 was also the year that the Gates mansion systems engineer, Rick Allen
Jones, began to be investigated by Seattle police for his child porn and child rape collection,
which contained over six thousand images and videos. Despite the gravity of his crime, when
Jones was
arrested at the Gates mansion a year later, he was not jailed after his arrest but was
merely ordered "to stay away from children," according to local media reports. From Melinda's
perspective, this scandal, combined with Bill Gates's growing association with convicted
pedophile Jeffrey Epstein may have posed a threat to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's
reputation, well before Epstein's 2019 arrest.
2013 was also the year that the Maxwells become involved in the Clinton Foundation. That
year, Ghislaine Maxwell's TerraMar Project, which officially supported UN Sustainable
Development Goals as they relate the world's oceans,
made a $1.25 million commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of an effort to
form a Sustainable Oceans Alliance. TerraMar shut down shortly after Epstein's 2019
arrest.
Isabel Maxwell and Al Seckel at the World Economic Forum's 2011 Annual Meeting
Notably, Ghislaine's TerraMar Project was in many ways the successor to Isabel Maxwell's
failed Blue World Alliance, which was also ostensibly focused on the world's oceans. Blue World
Alliance was set up by Isabel and her now deceased husband Al Seckel, who had hosted a
"scientific conference" on Epstein's island. The Blue World Alliance also went under the name
Globalsolver Foundation, and Xavier Malina, Christine Maxwell's son, was listed as
Globalsolver's liaison to the Clinton Foundation. He was previously an intern at the Clinton
Global Initiative.
Malina
later work ed in the Obama administration at the Office of White House Personnel. He now
works for Google. It is also worth noting that during this same period, Isabel Maxwell's son,
Alexander Djerassi ,
was chief of staff at the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs in the Hillary Clinton–run State
Department.
While the Gates Foundation and the Clinton Foundation intermingled, and the latter had ties
to Epstein and Maxwell, it also appears that Epstein had significant influence over two of the
most prominent science advisers to Bill Gates over the last fifteen years -- Melanie Walker and
Boris Nikolic.
A screenshot from a 2019 presentation Melanie Walker gave for Rockefeller
Foundation, where she is a fellow. Source: YouTube
Melanie Walker , now a celebrated neurosurgeon, met Jeffrey Epstein in 1992 soon after she
graduated from college, when he offered her a Victoria's Secret modelling job. Such offers were
often made by Epstein and his accomplices when recruiting women into his operation and it is
unclear if Walker ever actually worked as a model for the Leslie Wexner-owned company. She then
stayed at a New York apartment building associated with Epstein's trafficking operations during
visits to New York, but it is unclear how long she stayed there or at other Epstein-owned
properties. After she graduated from medical school in 1998, she became Epstein's science
adviser for at least a year. By 1999, she had grown so close to Prince Andrew that she
attended
a Windsor Castle birthday celebration hosted by the Queen along with Epstein and Ghislaine
Maxwell. During this period, Melanie appears on Epstein's flight logs under her birth name , Melanie
Starnes , though it looks like "Starves" on the flight logs.
The close relationship between Prince Andrew and Melanie Walker came under scrutiny after
Epstein's former housekeeper at the Zorro Ranch property, Deidre Stratton,
stated in an interview that Prince Andrew had been "given" a "beautiful young neurosurgeon"
while he stayed at Epstein's New Mexico property. Given that only one neurosurgeon was both
close to Prince Andrew and a part of Epstein's entourage at the time, it seems highly likely
that this woman "gifted" to Andrew was Melanie Walker. According to Stratton, Andrew "kept
company" with this woman for three days. The arrangement was set up by Epstein, who was not at
the property at the time. The exact timing of the stay is uncertain, but it likely took place
between 1999 and 2001.
"At the time, Jeffrey had this, she supposedly was a neurosurgeon, quite young, beautiful,
young and brilliant, and she stayed in the home with him At one point we had all these
different teas and you could pick the teas that you wanted and she asked me to find one that
would make Andrew more horny.
I'm guessing she understood her job was to entertain him because I guess, the fear, I
don't know; the fear would be that Andrew would say, "No I didn't really find her that
attractive." . . . He would tell Jeffrey that and then she would be on the ropes.
I'm guessing that, another theory is, that Jeffrey probably had her on retainer and she
knew what her job would be, should be, to make these people happy. . . . Sex was all they
thought about. I mean, I know for sure that Jeffrey would ideally like three massages a
day."
Sometime later, Walker moved to Seattle and began living with then Microsoft executive
Steven Sinofsky, who now serves as a
board partner at the venture capital firm Andreesen Horowitz. Andreesen Horowitz notably
backs Carbyne911, the Israel intelligence-linked precrime start-up funded by Epstein and his
close associate, former prime minister of Israel Ehud Barak, as well as another Israeli
intelligence-linked tech company led by Barak,
called Toka . Toka recently won contracts with the governments of Moldova, Nigeria, and
Ghana through the World Bank, where Melanie Walker is currently a director and a former special
adviser to its president. It is unclear when, how and under what circumstances Walker met
Sinofsky.
After moving to Seattle to be with Sinofsky and after a brief stint as a "practitioner in
the developing world" in China with the World Health Organization, Walker was hired as a senior
program officer by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in 2006. Given that the main feature
of Walker's resume at the time was having been a science adviser to another wealthy
"philanthropist," Jeffrey Epstein, her hire by the Gates Foundation for this critical role
further underscores how Bill Gates, at the very least, not only knew who Epstein was but knew
enough about his scientific interests and investments to want to hire Walker. Walker went on to
become deputy director for Global Development as well as a deputy director of Special
Initiatives at the foundation. According to
the Rockefeller Foundation , where she is a fellow, Walker later advised Gates on issues
pertaining to neurotechnology and brain science for Gates's
secretive company bgC3 , which Gates
originally registered as a think tank under the name Carillon Holdings. According to
federal filings,
bgC3's focus areas were "scientific and technological services," "industrial analysis and
research," and "design and development of computer hardware and software."
During her time at the Gates Foundation, Walker introduced Boris Nikolic, Gates's science
adviser, to Epstein. Today, Melanie Walker is the cochair of the World Economic Forum's Global
Future Council on Neurotechnology and Brain Science, having previously been named a WEF Young
Global Leader. She also advises the World Health Organization, which is closely linked to Bill
Gates's "philanthropy."
At the WEF, Walker wrote an article in 2016 entitled "
Healthcare in 2030: Goodbye Hospital, Hello Home-spital ," in which she discusses how
wearable devices, brain-machine interfaces, and injectable/swallowable robotic "medicines" will
be the norm by 2030. Years before COVID-19 and the Great Reset–inspired efforts to change
health care in just this way, Walker wrote that while the dystopian scenario she was painting
"sounds crazy . . . most of these technologies are either almost ready for prime time, or in
development." Of course, a lot of those technologies took shape thanks to the patronage of her
former bosses, Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Gates.
In the case of Boris Nikolic, after being introduced to Epstein through Walker, he
attended
a 2011 meeting with Gates and Epstein where he was photographed alongside James Staley,
then a senior JP Morgan executive, and Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and a
close Epstein associate. Nikolic was chief adviser for science and technology to Bill Gates at
the time, advising both the
Gates Foundation and bgC3. According to the mainstream narrative, this is supposed to be the
first time that Gates and Epstein had ever met. In addition, this may have been when Epstein
pitched the joint Gates Foundation–JP Morgan "global health charitable fund."
The 2011
meeting at Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan mansion attended by James E. Staley, Larry Summers,
Jeffery Epstein, Bill Gates and Boris Nikolic
In 2014, Nikolic " waxed
enthusiastic " about Epstein's supposed penchant for financial advice ahead of a public
offering for a gene-editing company that Nikolic had
a $42 million stake in . Notably, both Nikolic and Epstein were clients of the same group
of bankers at JP Morgan, with Bloomberg later reporting that Epstein regularly helped those
bankers attract wealthy new clients.
In 2016, Nikolic cofounded Biomatics capital, which invests in health-related
companies at "the convergence of genomics and digital data" that are "enabling the development
of superior therapeutics, diagnostics and delivery models." Nikolic founded Biomatics with
Julie Sunderland, formerly the director of the Gates Foundation's Strategic Investment
Fund.
At least three of the companies backed by Biomatics -- Qihan Biotech , eGenesis , and
Editas -- were cofounded by George Church, a Harvard geneticist with deep ties to Epstein
and also closely associated with the Edge Foundation. Biomatics investment in Qihan Biotech is
no longer listed on the
Biomatics website. Church's Qihan Biotech seeks to produce human tissues and organs inside pigs
for transplantation into humans, while eGenesis seeks to genetically modify pig organs for use
in humans. Editas produces CRISPR gene-editing "medicines" and is also backed by the Gates
Foundation as well as Google Ventures.
After Epstein's death in 2019, it was revealed that Nikolic had been named the "successor
executor" of Epstein's estate, further suggesting close ties to Epstein despite Nikolic's
claims to the contrary. After details of Epstein's will were made public, Nikolic did not sign
a form indicating his willingness to be executor and
did not ultimately serve in that role.
Despite the relatively abrupt shift in the mainstream media regarding what is acceptable to
discuss regarding the Jeffrey Epstein–Bill Gates relationship, many of these same media
outlets refuse to acknowledge much of the information contained in this investigative report.
This is particularly true in the case of the Evening Standard article and Bill Gates's
odd relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell's sister Isabel and CommTouch, the company Isabel
previously led.
The likely reason for the continued cover-up of the true extent of Epstein's ties to
Gates has much more to do with Gates's company Microsoft than with Bill Gates himself. While it
is now permissible to report on ties that discredit Gates's personal reputation, the
information that could tie his relationship with Epstein and the Maxwells to Microsoft has been
omitted.
If, as the Evening Standard reported, Epstein did make millions out of his
business ties with Gates prior to 2001 and if Gates's ties to Isabel Maxwell and the Israeli
espionage–linked company CommTouch were to become public knowledge, the result could
easily be a scandal on a par with the PROMIS software affair. Such a disclosure could be very
damaging for Microsoft and its partner the World
Economic Forum , as Microsoft has become a key player in the WEF's Fourth Industrial
Revolution initiatives that range from digital identity and vaccine passports to efforts to
replace human workers with artificial intelligence.
There are clearly powerful actors with a vested interest in keeping the Epstein-Gates
narrative squarely focused on 2011 and later -- not necessarily to protect Gates but more
likely to protect the company itself and other top Microsoft executives who appear to have been
compromised by Epstein and others in the same intelligence-linked network.
This is hardly an isolated incident, as similar efforts have been made to cover up (or
memory hole) the ties of Epstein and the Maxwells to other prominent Silicon Valley empires,
such as those led by
Jeff Bezos and
Elon Musk . One key reason for this is that the Epstein network's blackmail operation
involved not only sexual blackmail but electronic forms of blackmail , something used to
great effect by Robert Maxwell on behalf of Israeli intelligence as part of the PROMIS
operation. Given its nature, electronic forms of blackmail through illegal surveillance or
backdoored software can be used to compromise those in power with something to hide, but who
were uninclined to engage in the exploitation of minors, such as those abused by Epstein.
That Isabel and Christine Maxwell were able to forge close business ties with Microsoft
after having been part of the front company that played a central role in PROMIS-related
espionage and after explicitly managing their subsequent companies with the admitted intention
to "rebuild" their spy father's work and legacy, strongly points to the probability of at least
some Microsoft products having been compromised in some fashion, likely through alliances with
Maxwell-run tech companies. The lack of mainstream media concern over the documented ties of
the Epstein network to other top Microsoft executives of the past, such as Nathan Myhrvold,
Linda Stone, and Steven Sinofsky, makes it clear that, while it may be open season on the
relationship between Bill Gates and Epstein, such is not the case for Microsoft and
Epstein.
The ties of Epstein and the Maxwells to Silicon Valley, not just to Microsoft, are part
of a broader attempt to cover up the strong intelligence component in the origin of Silicon
Valley's most powerful companies. Much effort has been invested in creating a public perception
that these companies are strictly private entities despite their deep, long-standing ties to
the intelligence agencies and militaries of the United
States and
Israel . The true breadth of the Epstein scandal will never be covered by mainstream media
because so many news outlets are owned by these same Silicon Valley oligarchs or depend on
Silicon Valley for online reader engagement.
Perhaps the biggest reason why the military/intelligence origins and links to the
current Silicon Valley oligarchy will never be honestly examined, however, is that those very
entities are now working with breakneck speed to usher in the Fourth Industrial Revolution,
which would make artificial intelligence, automation, mass electronic surveillance, and
transhumanism central to human society. One of the architects of this "revolution," Klaus
Schwab, said earlier this year that rebuilding and maintaining trust with the public was
critical to that project. However, were the true nature of Silicon Valley, including its
significant ties to serial child rapist and sex trafficker Jeffery Epstein and his network, to
emerge, the public's trust would be significantly eroded, thus threatening what the global
oligarchy views as a project critical to its survival .
I'm always impressed with the vigorous detail and documentation in your articles. What
a menace these philanthropic organizations are to the ordinary and lowly. These billionaire
creeps never stop plotting and figuring out even more ways to stomp on people and push their
creepy agendas, which remain forever hidden.
"... The two prison guards who allowed Jeffrey Epstein to die with nobody checking up on his safety (despite having been on suicide watch), are getting a slap on their wrists: 100 hours of community service and 6 months of pretrial supervision . This seems a very light penalty considering that they falsified documents attesting to their carrying out the duties that they neglected, and the profound consequences of their perjurious neglect of duty. Public confidence in the integrity of the Bureau of Prisons and the entire justice system has been tanked. ..."
"... But are the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York really interested in finding out if someone took advantage of (and possibly encouraged) the guards' negligence to assassinate Epstein, as so many believe? ..."
"... And that sort of self-protective instinct among federal employees, avoiding embarrassment, could extend to letting sleeping dogs lie when it comes to getting to the bottom of Epstein's activities with the rich, powerful, and famous. ..."
"... A few years ago, I would have been mildly hopeful that the two guards would spill the beans to prosecutors if Epstein didn't kill himself and there was some sort of conspiracy that disabled security cameras and kept the guards away as an assassin killed him. But after witnessing the behavior of the DOJ during the Trump presidency and after, In have no faith whatsoever in the integrity of its prosecution decisions. ..."
If there was a conspiracy to assassinate a man who knew compromising information about the
power elite, two of the lowest level conspirators are getting away with no jail time.
The two prison guards who allowed Jeffrey Epstein to die with nobody checking up on his
safety (despite having been on suicide watch), are getting a slap on their wrists: 100 hours of
community service and 6 months of
pretrial supervision . This seems a very light penalty considering that they falsified
documents attesting to their carrying out the duties that they neglected, and the profound
consequences of their perjurious neglect of duty. Public confidence in the integrity of the
Bureau of Prisons and the entire justice system has been tanked.
There is a faint ray of hope, however.
According to a
letter submitted to court seeking approval of the arrangement, the two guards, Michael
Thomas and Tova Noel, "will cooperate with a pending Department of Justice Office of Inspector
General review by providing truthful information related to their employment by the Bureau of
Prisons, including about the events and circumstances described in the Indictment."
Their cooperation will be enforced because the plea is a "deferred prosecution," meaning
that if their cooperation is deemed inadequate, they can be prosecuted to the full extent of
the law, likely meaning prison time. But are the prosecutors in the Southern District of
New York really interested in finding out if someone took advantage of (and possibly
encouraged) the guards' negligence to assassinate Epstein, as so many believe? We have
been told that Epstein had extensive video surveillance of the activities of his guests and
that his New York home was searched. Why has there been no sign of criminal prosecution of sex
with underage girls, as has been almost universally assumed to be taking place at his
mansion?
The guards may have benefited from consideration of their state of overwork due to short
staffing at the Manhattan facility. One was on a second consecutive 8-hour shift while the
other had worked mandatory overtime 5 days in a row. The prosecutors are not pushing a
narrative that would embarrass their fellow Justice Department colleagues at the Federal Bureau
of Prisons.
And that sort of self-protective instinct among federal employees, avoiding
embarrassment, could extend to letting sleeping dogs lie when it comes to getting to the bottom
of Epstein's activities with the rich, powerful, and famous.
A few years ago, I would have been mildly hopeful that the two guards would spill the
beans to prosecutors if Epstein didn't kill himself and there was some sort of conspiracy that
disabled security cameras and kept the guards away as an assassin killed him. But after
witnessing the behavior of the DOJ during the Trump presidency and after, In have no faith
whatsoever in the integrity of its prosecution decisions.
And now Esther Dyson comes into picture: "Myhrvold did, however, take a trip to Russia with tech journalist and conference host
Esther Dyson sometime in the 1990s, and spent time with Epstein there. When reached by The Daily Beast, Dyson said that Epstein
joined her and Myhrvold for a couple of days when their itineraries intersected in Sarov. The Microsoft executive had planned the
meetup with the financier, she said."
Notable quotes:
"... Gates' friendship with Epstein "who for years was accused of molesting scores of underage girls" still haunts Melinda, according to friends of the couple who spoke to The Daily Beast this week in light of the pair's divorce announcement, which had been weeks in the making. ..."
Normally if I want to quote a gossip rag, I go for Page Six.
Nevertheless: "Melinda Gates met
with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein alongside her husband, Bill, in New York City
and soon after said she was furious at the relationship between the two men, according to
people familiar with the situation.
The previously unreported meeting occurred at Epstein's Upper East Side mansion in September 2013, on the same day the
couple accepted the
Lasker-Bloomberg Public Service Award at The Pierre hotel and were
photographed alongside then-Mayor Mike Bloomberg.
The meeting would prove a turning point
for Gates' relationship with Epstein, the people familiar with the matter
say, as Melinda told friends after the encounter how uncomfortable she was in the company of
the wealthy sex offender and how she wanted nothing to do with him.
Gates'
friendship with Epstein "who for years was accused of molesting scores of underage girls" still haunts Melinda, according to friends of the couple who spoke to The
Daily Beast this week in light of the pair's divorce announcement, which had
been weeks in the making.
The split between Bill and Melinda Gates, announced last week, has been in the works for a
long time.
Ms. Gates consulted with divorce lawyers roughly two years before she filed for divorce from
Mr. Gates, saying their marriage was "irretrievably broken," according to people familiar with
the matter and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
The 56-year-old philanthropist has been working with lawyers at several firms since at least
2019 to unwind the marriage of more than 25 years, according to these people and the
documents.
The couple hasn't said what prompted the split. One source of concern for Ms. Gates was her
husband's dealings with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to the people and a
former employee of their charity, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Ms. Gates's concerns
about the relationship dated as far back as 2013, the former employee said.
... ... ...
In early 2020, Mr. and Ms. Gates surprised many people when they said they wouldn't attend
the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, an annual gathering of business and world
leaders that the power couple had attended for years.
Melinda Gates, whose 'people' are undoubtedly trying to distance her from Bill's
controversies, was reportedly 'furious' after the couple had an uncomfortable 2013 meeting with
Jeffrey Epstein - who by then was a convicted pedophile .
People 'familiar with the matter' tell the Daily
Beast , the previously unreported meeting was held at Epstein's Upper East Side mansion in
September, 2013, the same day the couple was awarded the Lasker-Bloomberg Public Service award
at the Pierre Hotel , where they were photographed with then-Mayor Mike Bloomberg.
According to said 'people', the 2013 meeting would "prove a turning point for the Gates'
relationship with Epstein,' with Melinda telling friends after the encounter how uncomfortable
she was to be hanging around the wealthy sex offender.
According to the New York
Times , Gates and Epstein met at least six times , including visits to Epstein's New York
mansion on 'multiple occasions,' staying at least once into the night.
So - the Gates' had no problem traveling across the country to meet with the convicted
pedophile - who named Gates adviser Boris Nikolic as a fallback executor in a will Epstein
amended just days before his August 2019 death in a Manhattan jail cell.
... ... ...
Gates hilariously claimed that he wasn't aware it was Epstein's plane!
In March 2013, Mr. Gates flew on Mr. Epstein's Gulfstream plane from Teterboro Airport in
New Jersey to Palm Beach, Fla., according to a flight manifest. Ms. Arnold said Mr. Gates --
who has his own $40 million jet -- hadn't been aware it was Mr. Epstein's plane . -
New York
Times
Meanwhile, employees of the Gates foundation also visited Epstein's mansion on multiple
occasions, while Epstein also "spoke with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and JPMorgan
Chase about a proposed multibillion-dollar charitable fund -- an arrangement that had the
potential to generate enormous fees for Mr. Epstein ," according to the Times .
In late 2011, at Mr. Gates's instruction, the foundation sent a team to Mr. Epstein's
townhouse to have a preliminary talk about philanthropic fund-raising, according to three
people who were there. Mr. Epstein told his guests that if they searched his name on the
internet they might conclude he was a bad person but that what he had done -- soliciting
prostitution from an underage girl -- was no worse than "stealing a bagel," two of the people
said.
How Gates and Epstein met , according to the New York Times ;
Two members of Mr. Gates's inner circle -- Boris Nikolic and Melanie Walker -- were close
to Mr. Epstein and at times functioned as intermediaries between the two men.
Ms. Walker met Mr. Epstein in 1992 , six months after graduating from the University of
Texas. Mr. Epstein, who was an adviser to Mr. Wexner, the owner of Victoria's Secret, told
Ms. Walker that he could land her an audition for a modeling job there , according to Ms.
Walker. She later moved to New York and stayed in a Manhattan apartment building that Mr.
Epstein owned. After she graduated from medical school, she said, Mr. Epstein hired her as a
science adviser in 1998.
Ms. Walker later met Steven Sinofsky, a senior executive at Microsoft who became president
of its Windows division, and moved to Seattle to be with him. In 2006, she joined the Gates
Foundation with the title of senior program officer.
At the foundation, Ms. Walker met and befriended Mr. Nikolic , a native of what is now
Croatia and a former fellow at Harvard Medical School who was the foundation's science
adviser. Mr. Nikolic and Mr. Gates frequently traveled and socialized together.
Ms. Walker, who had remained in close touch with Mr. Epstein, introduced him to Mr.
Nikolic, and the men became friendly.
Mr. Epstein and Mr. Gates first met face to face on the evening of Jan. 31, 2011 , at Mr.
Epstein's townhouse on the Upper East Side. They were joined by Dr.
Eva Andersson-Dubin , a former Miss Sweden whom Mr. Epstein had once dated, and her
15-year-old daughter. (Dr. Andersson-Dubin's husband, the hedge fund billionaire Glenn Dubin,
was a friend and business associate of Mr. Epstein's. The Dubins declined to comment.)
The gathering started at 8 and lasted several hours, according to Ms. Arnold, Mr. Gates's
spokeswoman. Mr. Epstein subsequently boasted about the meeting in emails to friends and
associates. "Bill's great," he wrote in one, reviewed by The Times.
"I didn't go to New Mexico or Florida or Palm Beach or any of that," claims Gates. "There
were people around him who were saying, hey, if you want to raise money for global health and
get more philanthropy, he knows a lot of rich people."
And it looks like Gates was one of Epstein's "rich people." According to the report, Gates
donated $2 million to MIT's Media Lab, which university officials described as having been
"directed" by Epstein .
According to Arnold, Gates' spokeswoman, "Over time, Gates and his team realized Epstein's
capabilities and ideas were not legitimate and all contact with Epstein was discontinued."
Perhaps 'Gates and his team' should have steered clear of the known pedophile in the first
place?
Yves here. Tom Engelhardt tries to get his arms around US weapons sales and use. The figures
are depressing, particularly in comparison to those of our nominal peers. And the intensity of
our fixation with killing has only grown only over time. Just look at TV. In its early, tamer
days, frontier shows like The Rifleman and Gunsmoke gave weapons top billing. Now in our
post-Vietnam, post Archie Bunker of greater realism, police shows have gory gunplay as their
prime offering, with big side portions of blowing things up and car chases/crashes. We even
have a prime time show, The Blacklist, where the lead is assured to shoot at least one person
every episode. Better to look at the fictionalized version, where we know no actors were hurt,
than clips of the real thing from the Middle East, which are oddly absent from news shows.
By the time you read this piece, it will already be out of date. The reason's simple enough.
No matter what mayhem I describe, with so much all-American weaponry in this world of ours,
there's no way to keep up. Often, despite the headlines that go with mass killings here,
there's almost no way even to know.
On this planet of ours, America is the emperor of weaponry, even if in ways we normally tend
not to put together. There's really no question about it. The all-American powers-that-be and
the arms makers that go with them dream up, produce, and sell weaponry, domestically and
internationally, in an unmatched fashion. You'll undoubtedly be shocked, shocked to learn that
the
top five arms makers on the planet -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon,
and General Dynamics -- are
all located in the United States.
Put another way, we're a killer nation, a mass-murder machine, slaughter central. And as
we've known since the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, there
could be far worse to come. After all, in the overheated dreams of both those weapons makers
and Pentagon planners, slaughter-to-be has long been imagined on a planetary scale, right down
to the latest intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) being created by Northrop Grumman at
the cost of at least $100 billion. Each of those future arms of ultimate destruction is slated
to be " the
length of a bowling lane " and the nuclear charge that it carries will be at least 20 times
more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. That missile will someday be capable
of traveling 6,000 miles and killing hundreds of thousands of people each. (And the Air Force
is planning to order 600 of them.)
By the end of this decade, that new ICBM is slated to join an unequaled American nuclear
arsenal of -- at this moment -- 3,800 warheads . And
with that in mind, let's back up a moment.
Have Gun -- Will Travel
Before we head abroad or think more about weaponry fit to destroy the planet (or at least
human life on it), let's just start right here at home. After all, we live in a country whose
citizens are armed to their all-too-labile fingertips with more guns of every advanced sort
than might once have been imaginable. The figures are stunning. Even before the pandemic hit
and gun purchases soared to record
levels -- about
23 million of them (a 64% increase over 2019 sales) -- American civilians were reported to
possess
almost 400 million firearms. That adds up to about 40% of all such weaponry in the hands of
civilians globally, or more than the
next 25 countries combined.
And if that doesn't stagger you, note that the versions of those weapons in public hands are
becoming ever more militarized and powerful, ever more AR-15 semi-automatic rifles, not .22s.
And keep in mind as well that, over the years, the death toll from those weapons in this
country has grown staggeringly large. As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof
wrote
recently , "More Americans have died from guns just since 1975, including suicides, murders
and accidents (more than 1.5 million), than in all the wars in United States history, dating
back to the Revolutionary War (about 1.4 million)."
In my childhood, one of my favorite TV programs was called Have Gun -- Will Travel
. Its central character was a highly romanticized armed mercenary in the Old West and its
theme song -- still
lodged in my head (where so much else is unlodging these days) -- began:
"Have gun will travel is the card of a man.
A knight without armor in a savage land.
His fast gun for hire heeds the calling wind.
A soldier of fortune is the man called Paladin."
Staggering numbers of Americans are now ever grimmer versions of Paladin. Thanks to a
largely unregulated gun industry , they're armed like no other citizenry on the planet, not
even -- in a distant second place
-- the civilians of Yemen, a country torn by endless war. That TV show's title could now be
slapped on our whole culture, whether we're talking about our modern-day Paladins traveling to
a set of Atlanta spas ; a
chain grocery store
in Boulder, Colorado; a real-estate office
in Orange, California; a convenience
store near Baltimore; or a home
in Rock Hill, South Carolina.
Remember how the National Rifle Association has always defended
the right of Americans to own weapons at least in part by citing this country's hunting
tradition? Well, these days, startling numbers of Americans, armed to the teeth, have joined
that hunting crew. Their game of choice isn't deer or even wolves and
grizzly bears , but that ultimate prey, other human beings -- and all too often themselves.
(In 2020, not only did a record
nearly 20,000 Americans die from gun violence, but another 24,000 used guns to commit
suicide.)
As the rate of Covid-19 vaccination began to rise to remarkable levels in this country and
ever more public places reopened, the first mass public killings (defined as four or more
deaths in a public place) of the pandemic period -- in Atlanta and Boulder -- hit the news
big-time. The thought, however, that the American urge to use weapons in a murderous fashion
had in any way lessened or been laid to rest, even briefly, thanks to Covid-19, proved a
fantasy of the first order.
At a time when so many public places like schools were closed or their use limited indeed,
if you took as your measuring point not mass public killings but mass shootings (defined as
four or more people wounded or killed), the pandemic year of 2020 proved to be a record 12
months of armed chaos. In fact, such mass shootings actually surged by 47%. As USA
Today
recounted , "In 2020, the United States reported 611 mass shooting events that resulted in
513 deaths and 2,543 injuries. In 2019, there were 417 mass shootings with 465 deaths and 1,707
injured." In addition, in that same year, according
to projections based on FBI data, there were 4,000 to 5,000 more gun murders than usual,
mainly in inner-city communities of color.
In the first 73 days of
Joe Biden's presidency, there were five mass shootings and more than 10,000 gun-violence
deaths. In the Covid-19 era, this has been the model the world's "most exceptional" nation (as
American politicians of both parties used to love to call this country) has set for the rest of
the planet. Put another way, so far in 2020 and 2021, there have been two pandemics in America,
Covid-19 and guns.
And though the weaponization of our citizenry and the carnage that's gone with it certainly
gets attention -- President Biden only recently called it "an
international embarrassment" -- here's the strange thing: when reporting on such a binge of
killings and the weapons industry that stokes it, few here think to include the deaths and
other injuries for which the American military has been responsible via its "forever wars" of
this century outside our own borders. Nor do they consider the massive U.S. weapons deliveries
and sales to other countries that often enough lead to the same. In other words, a full picture
of all-American carnage has -- to use an apt phrase -- remained missing in action.
Cornering the Arms Market
In fact, internationally, things are hardly less mind-boggling when it comes to this country
and weaponry. As with its armed citizenry, when it comes to arming other countries, Washington
is without peer. It's the weapons dealer of choice across much of the world. Yes, the U.S. gun
industry that makes all those rifles for this country also sells plenty of them abroad and, in
the Trump years, such sales were only made easier to complete (as was the selling of U.S.
unmanned aerial drones to "less stable governments"). When it comes to semi-automatic weapons
like the AR-15 or even grenades and flamethrowers, this country's arms makers no longer
even need State Department licenses, just far easier-to-get Commerce Department ones, to
complete such sales, even to particularly abusive nations. As a
result , to take one example, semi-automatic pistol exports abroad rose 148% in 2020.
But what I'm particularly thinking about here are the big-ticket items that those five
leading weapons makers of the military-industrial complex eternally produce. On the subject of
the sale of jet fighters like the F-16
and
F-35 , tanks and other armored vehicles, submarines (as well as anti-submarine weaponry),
and devastating bombs and
missiles , among other things, we leave our "near-peer" competitors as well as our
weapons-making allies in the dust. Washington is the
largest supplier to 20 of the 40 major arms importers on the planet.
When it comes to delivering the weapons of war, the U.S. leads all its competitors in a
historic fashion, especially in the war-torn and devastated Middle East. There, between 2015
and 2019, it gobbled up
nearly half of the arms market. Unsurprisingly, Saudi Arabia was its largest customer,
which, of course, only further stoked the brutal civil war in Yemen, where U.S. weapons are
responsible for the deaths of thousands of
civilians
. As Pentagon expert William Hartung wrote
of those years, U.S. arms deliveries to the region added up to "nearly three times the arms
Russia supplied to MENA [the Middle East and North Africa], five times what France contributed,
10 times what the United Kingdom exported, and 16 times China's contribution." (And often
enough, as
in Iraq and Yemen , some of
those weapons end up falling into the hands of those the U.S. opposes.)
In fact, in 2020, this country's arms sales abroad
rose a further 2.8% to $178 billion. The U.S. now supplies no fewer than 96 countries with weaponry and controls
37% of the global arms market (with, for example, Lockheed Martin alone
taking in $47.2 billion in such sales in 2018, followed by the four other giant U.S.
weapons makers and, in sixth place, the British defense firm BAE).
This remains the definition of mayhem-to-come, the international version of that spike in
domestic arms sales and the killings that went with it. After all, in these years, deaths due
to American arms in countries like Afghanistan and Yemen have grown strikingly. And to take
just one more example, arms, ammunition, and equipment sold to or given to
the brutal regime of Rodrigo Duterte for the Philippine military and constabulary have
typically led to deaths (especially in its "war on drugs") that no one's counting up.
And yet, even combined with the dead here at home, all of this weapons-based slaughter
hardly adds up to a full record when it comes to the U.S. as a global mass-killing machine.
Far, Far from Home
After all, this country has a historic 800 or so military bases around the
world and
nearly 200,000 military personnel stationed abroad (
about 60,000 in the Middle East alone). It has a drone-assassination program that extends
from Afghanistan across the Greater Middle East to Africa, a series of "forever wars" and
associated conflicts fought over that same expanse, and a Navy with major aircraft carrier task
forces patrolling the high seas. In other words, in this century, it's been responsible for
largely uncounted but remarkable numbers of dead and wounded human beings. Or put another way,
it's been a mass-shooting machine abroad.
Unlike in the United States, however, there's little way to offer figures on those dead. To
take one example, Brown University's invaluable Costs of War Project has estimated that, from
the beginning of the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to late 2019, 801,000
people , perhaps 40% of them civilians, were killed in Washington's war on terror in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere. Of course, not all of those by any means
were killed by the U.S. military. In fact, some were even American soldiers and contractors.
Still, the figures are obviously sizeable. (To take but one very focused example, from December
2001 to December 2013 at TomDispatch , I was counting up
civilian wedding parties taken down by U.S. air power in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen. I came
up with eight well-documented ones with a death toll of nearly 300, including brides, grooms,
musicians, and revelers.)
Similarly, last December, Neta Crawford of the Costs of War Project
released a report on the rising number of Afghan civilians who had died from U.S. air
strikes in the Trump years. She found that in 2019, for instance, "airstrikes killed 700
civilians -- more civilians than in any other year since the beginning of the war." Overall,
the documented civilian dead from American air strikes in the war years is in the many
thousands, the wounded higher yet. (And, of course, those figures don't include the dead from
Afghan air strikes with U.S.-supplied aircraft.) And mind you, that's just civilians mistaken
for Taliban or other enemy forces.
Similarly, thousands
more civilians were killed by American air strikes across the rest of the Greater Middle
East and northern Africa. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which followed U.S. drone
strikes for years, estimated that, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, by 2019 such
attacks had
killed "between 8,500 and 12,000 people, including as many as 1,700 civilians -- 400 of
whom were children."
And that, of course, is just to begin to count the dead in America's conflicts of this era.
Or thought of another way, in this century, the U.S. military has been a kind of global
Paladin. Its motto could obviously be "have gun, will travel" and its forces and those allied
to it (and often supplied with American arms) have certainly killed staggering numbers of
people in conflicts that have devastated communities across a significant part of the planet,
while displacing an estimated 37 million people .
Now, return to those Americans gunned down in this country and think of all of this as a
single weaponized, well-woven fabric, a single American gun culture that spans the globe, as
well as a three-part killing machine of the first order. Much as mass shootings and public
killings can sometimes dominate the news here, a full sense of the damage done by the
weaponization of our culture seldom comes into focus. When it does, the United States looks
like slaughter central.
Or as that song from Have Gun -- Will Travel ended:
Paladin, Paladin,
Where do you roam?
Paladin, Paladin,
Far, far from home.
Far, far from home -- and close, close to home -- indeed.
The US is a failed experiment. It was always based in nihilism. What we are seeing is like
the rise in human sacrifices of the Mayans as their world was being eclipsed by the Spanish.
Ironically, "thoughts and prayers" are offered up at these sacrifices too. Did the Mayans
realize it was futile?
As more and more Americans realize that it is over and that the American dream is bunkum,
expect to see more carnage.
That figure of 400 Million guns in the USA is undoubtedly low, The late Kevin RC O'Brien
looked at production reports for various manufacturers and came up with the figure of 300
Million sold in the USA this century alone.
Sales of rifles aren't broken out by rifle type or model, but the best guess is that there
are somewhere between 10-15 Million AR 15 style rifles owned by us Citizens if you take into
account home made versions such as those made from 80% recievers or laminated wood.
The last reporting period was 2019 and a total of a little less than 400 murders were
committed by people using rifles of any kind, you ere 4 x as likely to be beaten to death
with fists and feet than killed by someone using any kind of rifle.
Want to reduce violent crime?
Reduce poverty, inequality and lack of opportunity, when the majority of the populace has a
stake in society they act like it, when they don't you get what we have.
TBH the article is a mess, and reading it is rather like being accosted by a stranger in a
bar with a strong personal agenda (" and another thing.")
But (as a non-Murkin) I just wanted to make the point that we're into American Exceptionalism
again, in this case of the negative rather than the positive kind. You get the feeling that
the author's knowledge of the outside world is pretty much limited to what's on CNN, and that
perhaps he doesn't actually know that the US isn't the only nuclear power in the world. And
so on.
How do you put an article like this into context?
Well, for a start, you wouldn't make comparisons with Yemen unless you had been to Yemen,
would you? There are lots of guns in Yemen (virtually the entire adult male population is
armed) but these are in addition to the massive holdings of the military. And we're talking
serious stuff here: AK47s are 7.62mm automatic weapons, and there are millions of them. It
was not uncommon for males you passed in the street to be carrying these weapons, and once
outside the cities (as in Afghanistan) they were everywhere. Shooting incidents were common,
the more so since, after midday, a lot of the male population was blasted out of its skull on
Khat, which is an amphetamine-like substance derived from chewing a local plant. There were
occasional clashes when security forces from different tribes opened fire on each other. Oh,
and many tribesmen in the city carry long bladed knives, and fatal stabbings in the street
are very common. All that's in peacetime, of course.
Second, as in the Yemeni example above, the vast majority of all the deaths in wars since
1989 have been from the use of Soviet, Russian and Chinese weaponry, often dating back to the
1970s. The wars in the DRC from about 1996-2000, involving seven nations and known as
"Africa's World War" killed anything between two and five million people, depending on how
you calculate the figures, and were almost exclusively fought with Soviet and Chinese
supplied weaponry. During the Cold War, the Soviets and Chinese flooded Africa with millions
of AK47s, Makarov automatic pistols, landmines, and 12.7 and 14.5mm heavy machine-guns. As
any African specialist will tell you, these were the real weapons of mass destruction,
because, unlike the F35, they actually work. Together with Soviet-era tanks and APCs, they
were also the principal weapons used in the fighting in Syria and Libya, and in Yemen before
(and mostly since) the Saudi-led intervention. Oh, and those photos you've seen of the
Myanmar military firing on the people? They use mostly weapons supplied by China.
This is not whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right. But I wish that, just
occasionally, writers from the US would take the trouble to do a bit of research about the
rest of the world. Perhaps it's true that there is a link between the sale of F35s to Japan
and gun violence among black youths in the inner cities, but that has to be argued, not just
assumed. I don't know how you measure these things, but I seriously doubt that the US is
somehow a uniquely psychopathically violent country. The author needs to get out more.
I assume the authors point is that there is an inherent violence to US culture, and it is
exporting it. There may well be some truth in this, but you can well look at plenty of other
places in the world where there is a cultural worship of violence (or there was at times
past) and it infected other nations. Japan and Germany as obvious examples. But on the
optimistic side of things, both those countries at least partially cured their addition to
worshiping militarism, although to be fair, the USAF had a major say in that.
The one thing that is often missing from this sort of analysis, is they way other
countries use the US's (and others) addition to militarism as a means of exerting control. An
obvious example is the Middle East, where the vast military expenditures are as much a means
of purchasing influence in Washington (and London and Paris and Moscow) as it is a way of
building up their respective militaries.
I think that may well be his point, or the point he's trying to make. I think it's true,
at least to some extent, but it's hardly a unique case, and there are plenty of other
societies in the world where you feel (correctly) much more threatened by violence than I
ever have in the US.
@David
Mr. Engelhardt is a US writer who understandably focuses on current US issues. He lays out
his point at the start: the U.S is "a mass-murder machine". He illustrates it by pointing out
how the US supplies weapons around the world, promoting, funding, and facilitating violence,
and itself slaughters people, directly and through proxies, by the millions. He also outlines
the remarkable violence prevalent in the U.S. These facts are undeniable.
With respect to context, of course the U.S. is not now, nor has it been in the past, the
source of ALL evil in the world. However It has been the source of a very large part of it in
the past century. From a practical point of view, what would be the point of Mr. Engelhardt
focusing on Russian and Chinese actions in, say, the 1980s, when his own country is engaging
in "mass murder" right now? It leads nowhere except to distract from current slaughter that
he may be able to help slow down.
The US as "a uniquely psychopathically violent country": the author does not actually say
that. Nonetheless the US is certainly a very violent country compared to other developed
countries and for that matter past imperialist countries. Collectively Britain, France,
Belgium, etc., etc., massacred millions, even tens of millions, of people in their empires
but to my knowledge were not especially violent at home. Germany was an exception to this.
The fact it slaughtered white people at home is what made its actions unacceptable to the
majority of the elites of most European countries.
The link between US violence abroad and at home: Chris Hedges has written about this. I
suggest you read what he has to say.
It is absurd to pretend that Russia or China is anything like as great a danger to peace
as the United States is. Forty four years ago Martin Luther King observed, ""As I have walked
among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails
and rifles would not solve their problems But they asked, and rightly so, 'what about
Vietnam?' They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its
problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I
could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without
having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own
government."
The US was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world then; it is an even greater
purveyor of violence today.
The only criticism I would make of the article is the disparagement of Palladin. Though
his business card read, 'Have Gun, Will Travel', in almost every episode the protagonist was
able to resolve the situation without killing anyone. The episodes are very entertaining, as
was his sidekick, Kim Chan (Kam Tong), who went by the extremely un-woke nickname of Hey
Boy.
I am always amazed at the hypocrisy of US politicians complaining of violence in the US
while ignoring or even approving of violence committed by the US outside the US borders.
I also support censoring violence in entertainment media.
Censoring anything, including displays of violence, would require state force, which is
based on the use of guns and other weapons -- another 'war to end war', I suppose.
According to the Violence Policy Center (about which I know nothing but will provisionally
trust), motor vehicle deaths still outnumber gun deaths, although guns are closing the gap.
[1] As I have been hit by private cars far more often than I have been shot at -- I ride
around on a bicycle as basic transportation, so the ratio is about 10:0 -- I'd like to
suggest that the proper metaphor for mortal violence in the US is the automobile, rather than
the gun. However, urban liberals like to focus on their political rivals, and gun fans tend
to be suburban or rural, so guns rather than vehicles are the choice of symbol. Yet again,
tribalism permeates every discussion, indeed, it seems, almost every thought.
"What Washington and its allies are doing is trampling over international law and kicking
it to the curb. Their conduct is that of rogue states who perceive themselves to be above the
law, entitled to act in whatever way they please with no accountability.
"Ironically, and sickeningly, the Americans, Europeans, Canadians, Australians and other
partners, talk loftily about respecting "values' and 'rules-based international order'. They
are the ones who are trashing any semblance of order. It is these NATO powers that have
launched numerous criminal wars of aggression without any mandate from the UN Security
Council. They have carried out covert regime-change operations which have unleashed mayhem
and terrorism. They impose unilateral sanctions on nations suffering from NATO's intrigues,
such as Syria and Venezuela. They run assassination programs and torture-renditions to black
sites around the world. Their troops kill Afghan civilians in cold blood after kicking down
their doors in the middle of the night. The United States rips up nuclear arms control
treaties with Russia, while sailing warships into Chinese territory."
So, under the tenets of International Law, both Russia and China have the right to
counter-attack and have. But the initial law breaking by the Outlaws must be stopped, and it
appears they must be forced to do so. And since two of the Outlaws sit on the UNSC, using
that organizations Article 7 powers won't do the job as the Veto will be invoked. IMO, the
only alternative is to turn to the UNGA and ask it to override the deadlocked UNSC and
warrant the arrest of the Outlaws by all UN member states wherever they may be.
I hope barflies take the time to read the editorial as it ends with an excellent news item
that's more than apt for our times.
Meanwhile Biden's son Hunter, the "smartest guy" his father knows, has his feet firmly in
his mouth in excerpts from an interview this Sunday about his 💻 that was full of
underage porn & business dealings involving his father when VPOTUS.
What are the facts that indicate that "China wants to dominate the entire world"? There is
little or no evidence of that. Just repeating this pabulum on and on doesn't make it true. It
just makes hoi polloi think it is true.
There is no specific speech or document that clearly states that China wants to dominate
the entire world. It is an inference from many things pieced together, some of which are:
1. China's behavior after it was admitted to WTO. When it happened in 1999, the
expectation was that they would open up their market to global firms. Instead, what happened
was rampant technology theft and currency manipulation. They manipulated their industrial
policy to deny foreign firms a level playing field that Chinese companies were given in other
countries.
2. The Belt and Road projects. These are basically debt traps for poorer countries in
Asia, Africa and Europe in the name of infrastructure development. They give soft loans to
these countries for economically unviable infra projects, and when they fail, the Chinese
take ownership. Kinda like loan sharks loaning money to gamblers.
3. They have started grabbing territory from all neighbours using salami tactics, showing
some old "maps" that was never agreed and claiming they own the area. (Google "Nine-dash
line").
Add to this the planting of spies using Confucius institutes, secretly paying many
academic researchers to steal technology (Example: Charles Lieber from Harvard), paying
newspapers to carry China Daily propaganda supplements (WaPo, NYT, LA Ttimes, The Boston
Globe, WSJ just for starters), the Houston embassy spying, They have done this stuff not just
to USA but most major countries in the world.
Now of course we can ask, "But where did they say they want to rule the world?". Well,
Hitler didn't either. In 1938, he solemnly swore to Neville Chamberlain, the British PM that
he had no intention of conquering another country. We all know what happened after that.
Naivete is dangerous in these situations. If a country acquires enough power, it will start
having imperial ambitions. It's human nature. Germany under Bismarck in 1880s tried to stay
away from conquering other countries as long as possible, but they couldn't resist the
temptation. Now none of this means China will try to dominate the world at any cost. If
others resist strongly enough, they will back off. But that's something we have to do, and
get others to do.
1. So China copied the way in which the US industrialized in the eighteenth and nineteenth
century. Following the Washington Consensus script has a history of leading to dependency
– Ha-Joon Chang has written some very good papers and books on the basic hypocrisy of
the West in this area. In the eighteenth century Britain protected its infant textile
industry against the Indian one with very high tariffs. They also stole woollen technology
from the Dutch.
2. This is Western propaganda, perhaps reflecting the IMF/World Bank efforts of yore upon
China. The "debt trap" BRI myth has been pretty much debunked among academic researchers, but
that doesn't fit the Western anti-China discourse.
3. Grabbing territory from all their neighbours? What territory? Compare the nine-dash line
mirrors to the declared hegemony of the US over the Caribbean and Central American nations
– backed up by repeated invasions and destabilizations (Haiti, Panama, Nicaragua,
Guatemala, Cuba etc.). Take a look at the US history of grabbing lands (the Philippines,
Puerto Rico, half of Mexico, Hawaii), China is exceedingly tame compared to US history, as
well as the US recent aggressions such as the illegal invasion of Iraq and destabilization of
Syria.
The MSM that you quote are the purveyors of fake news with no actual backing apart from
intelligence community briefings, the "stenographers of the intelligence community" as one
commentator put it. This is the classic propaganda designed to rile up the population to
support action against a new "enemy", very 1984.
1. Oh I know they are China is copying USA's policy in 18th and 19th century. That is what
is concerning. That is a successful playbook to gain a lot of economic power very quickly. Of
course the USA pointing fingers is hypocrisy. But that does not make this any less of a
threat.
2. Debunked by "academic researchers"? Care to share some sources? Multiple countries like
Malaysia, Kenya, Myanmar, Sierra Leone and Bangladesh have either cancelled projects or
trying to renegotiate them. The reason is because the projects are nothing but jobs and
demand creation programs for Chinese workers and companies. Contracts are awarded at inflated
rates to Chinese contractors without competitive bidding. Then they bring in workers and
equipment wholesale from mainland china. Some projects are economically viable, others are
just white elephants, like the highway in montenegro or a port/airport in Sri Lanka in the
middle of the jungle.
3. I am not denying what USA has done to other countries. China is just starting, so what
they do looks tame. Give them a little time.
I fully agree that the MSM are purveyors of fake news. I was referring to how they all
have taken Chinese money to print stuff favourable to them, and even articles entirely
written by Chinese foreign ministry. Now of course, they might change tack and start beating
the war drums if TPTB wants them to. That confirms my opinion that most MSM are just
mouthpieces for hire with no moral principles.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/07/china-plan-for-global-media-dominance-propaganda-xi-jinping
Please note, I am not defending all the terrible things America has done. Pointing out
that China is a threat need not come attached with any moral judgement on America.
Also, the proper response to China IMO should be more in economic policy than military
saber-rattling. Tariffs are just a start. Why are we not building more manufacturing in USA?
Sure, wages are high and prices will shoot up. But do we really need to import 15bn worth of
sneakers (that's about 200 mn pairs a year)? Let us make shoes in America that may cost twice
as mush, but three times more durable. Same with cellphones. Decrapifying products will go a
long way in making american manufacturing viable. But that requires great sacrifice by the
consumers. Shopping or goodies has been turned into a dopamine-drip. Investing class and
business are just as addicted to high profit margins & ROIs. Cut the dependence on China,
and watch them scramble to fix their internal issues like falling wages and unemployment. The
pity is we have lost the will as a nation to make such sacrifices.
I am not sure the will does not exist. I think the will might be suppressed and
thwarted.
We would need a Protectionist Party to explain everything you have touched on and run
candidates on that basis and on that program to see whether the diffuse and muffled will
might be uncovered and re-aggregated and recovered and weaponised for domestic political
re-conquest of government and hence of political economic policy.
I envision a delicious scenario-vision in which the Protectionist Party finally wins all
three branches and the Protectionist Party President makes a speech and at the end of that
speech, AND IN MANDARIN to to make sure the prime perpetrator of export aggression hears the
message and gets the point, the following phrase . . . . in MANDARIN, remember . . .
Hmmnm "If a country acquires enough power it will start having imperial ambitions?" I
agree completely with your statement. The rest seem pretty much what I have been reading in
the Washington Post and New York Times lately. I am not sure about their objectivity. One
thing is certain and that is that war talk very easily can slip into war. Having served in
the military for over 30 years and deployed many times the best advice I ever got was from
that political analyst Mike Tyson, "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face."
War talk with China and Russia and Iran and trying to cripple economies with sanctions never
has and never will work but we can always try to educate a new young generation of
politicians like Joe.
Nah. But I know we need a military to defend ourselves, especially if something that
happens on the other end of the world would make the supermarket shelves go empty in a jiffy.
I think we need to reduce external economic dependence and then cut the military to a
fraction of it's current size, just enough to patrol the borders and coasts.
The bulk of the "rampant technology theft" was their insistence on building the
requirement for specified technology transfers into the agreements that let companies set up
shop there. They had watched neocolonialist behavior long enough not to want to be locked
permanently into a subservient position. This part was of course not theft at all. For the
rest of it, yeah, industrial espionage is a thing. But one notes that the firms generally
stayed there.
Currency manipulation is only bad when the other guys do it. We have periodically
deliberately weakened the dollar to try to address balance of trade issues, and in the
aftermath of the '08 recession everybody was doing competitive devaluation, trying to
accomplish by that means what they would have tried tariffs for in an earlier era.
I haven't seen a decent scholarly piece that concurs with the propaganda about belt and
road loans as sinister debt traps.
Territorial disputes aside, most of those neighbors have China as a major trading partner,
and none of the disputes have gone hot. The neighbors are also not entirely lacking in power.
Russia and India are nuclear powers, and if Japan chose to field a more formidable military
it could easily do so.
One of the hardest and most disturbing lessons we've learned from the Nixon China gambit
was that capitalism doesn't necessarily lead to democracy. Nor is a democratic society a
prerequisite for capitalism to flourish.
That came much after the Nixon thaw with China, after the fall of Soviet Union. Francis
Fukuyama solemnly proclaiming "End of History" and all that. The turning point was China
being let into WTO in 1999. Clinton, Bush II and Obama swallowed that "capitalism leads to
democracy" idea hook, line and sinker.
Technology theft, spun any way, is still technology theft. Sure, Industrial espionage is
"a thing" that everyone does. So is currency manipulation. Since we feel guilty that USA
gained global power by doing all these, we should let others do it too, just to even the
scales? Foreign policy mixed with moral feelings is a recipe for disaster.
"....Yang responded sharply to the US officials and criticized Washington for both
domestic and foreign policy issues. "The United States uses its military force and financial
hegemony to carry out long arm jurisdiction and suppress other countries," he said. "It
abuses so-called notions of national security to obstruct normal trade exchanges, and incite
some countries to attack China."
"....The US took several steps ahead of the talks that made it clear the meeting would be
contentious. Blinken visited Japan and South Korea with Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin
earlier this week. While meeting with his Japanese and Korean counterparts, Blinken slammed
Beijing, accusing China of using "coercion and aggression" in the region. On Wednesday, the
US slapped sanctions on 24 Chinese and Hong Kong officials...."
using coercion and aggression - two very definitive qualities of American Imperialism post
WWII
Now they are pushing the "China genociding Uyghurs" lies to frame the minds of Americans
and people in the West and around the global to prepare a hot war against China.
Now they are pushing the "China genociding Uyghurs" lies to frame the minds of Americans
and people in the West and around the global to prepare a hot war against China.
There is no "Hot War" in preparation against China, this is simply procedural posturing in
the absence of any other means of relating to the Chinese civilisation.
The Zio-American empire is well aware this would mean a nuclear annihilation or at the
least a re-shuffling of the global order against their interests.
The US has developed no means of relating to civilizational challenges other than
violence, so it is merely cycling through the motions it knows of but with an understanding
that it cannot take them to their logical conclusion.
Thanks for your perspective, xot! Interesting insights.
trump changed that, suddenly the ugly side of the empire became visible
I've heard this about Trump a lot, but I've always wondered why Trump was the ultimate
catalyst for this epiphany. You would think that the Iraq War should have been that watershed
moment, or even Libya (and perhaps they were for many, like me). I suppose from the
perspective of inter-imperialist relations in the first world, a lack of decorum of the level
of Trump's is more anomalous and egregious than the imposition of death and destruction of
people in the global south.
I think that the presidency of Mr. Trump revealed the ugly side of the United States;
suddenly the gilded papier marche of America, carefully created by the best propaganda
techniques over 70 years, was shredded and USA was revealed to be a country just like so many
others.
It is up to American people, Judeo-Christians as well as others, to address the deep deep
social problems of the United States.
Despite a roomful of hot air amerikans will always be considered War Criminals by the
rest of us
I have to admit having become totally bored with the words which any gang of elites from
any nation whose population is far too large to have the types at the top comprehend much
less represent citizens' points of view, spout.
I get that there are fans of particular nations here, who believe some of these nation
states have more humane policies than other nation states, but all of them however humane are
essentially spouting toop down driven attitudes.
We know that amerika with its narrow & prescriptive "you can vote for anyone as long as
it is someone from one of these two virtually identical political organisations" system pays
little attention to their citizens' views. Unfortunately humans being humans, once a person
gains a little power their priorities focus on retaining & increasing power, so that
after time, no matter how egalitarian things may have been at the start, a shift to imbalance
between the governors and the governed is inevitable.
It is impossible to imagine that President Xi Jinping would do as Mao Zedong did and hand
power to the people, especially the nation's young people to trigger the 1966 Cultural
Revolution.
One thing is for sure though, that is however many may have died during the cultural
revolution, the casualties were confined to China's citizens and the casualties &
atrocities were infinitesimal compared to the murders, rapes and savagery committed by
amerika's war upon the people of Indochina.
IOW 50+ years ago China moved to resolve generational differences with an internal, domestic
debate, whilst amerika tried to resolve that issue by indoctrinating its young people into a
thoroughly racist anti-asian POV, then sent their youth to "kick out the jams" on the heads
of the people of Vietnam, Laos & Cambodia.
The results were horrific and since courtesy of TV, they were far better documented than the
horror inflicted upon the citizens of Korea less than a decade before have stuck in all
non-amerikans minds ever since.
I have sounded off here at MoA quite a few times that most amerikans view the Indochina
conflict negatively because it was such a waste of 'young amerikan' lives, rather than the
way the rest of us see it, that amerika butchered and raped their way through Indochina
without the slightest remorse.
Last week I stumbled across an old documentary released back in 1972 "Winter Soldier". The
film documents the
1971 Winter Soldier hearing held by Vietnam Vets Against War.
VVAW had tried to stop the Indochina slaughter by the standard means - protests, marches,
contacting politicians, all to no avail. So then they came up with the 'Winter Soldier'
hearing which had veterans of the war against the people of Indochina, telling their stories
of the atrocities they had committed.
The witnesses came from across the range of amerika's military; from grunts - surprisingly
most were volunteers rather than draftees, to a Marine captain who served as a helicopter
pilot.
These guys who returned to amerika lauded as heroes while deep down feeling nothing but
Guilt & shame,
make it clear that My Lai was no outlier, it was SOP.
It is also clear from what they tell us of their boot camp experience that racist
anti-asian indoctrination featured big time in their training which led them to regard all
Vietnamese as the enemy.
The behaviour got worse and worse, particularly rapes and the mutilation of children, once
the troops realised no one was would restrict their cruel antics against those they all
considered to be less than human. Senior officers either joined in or 'looked the other
way'.
Most of this documentary is in the form of testimony as cameras were generally kept away from
the 'fun' but even so I found just hearing the stories too much to bear.
Anyway although copies of 'Winter Soldier' do become available on You Tube from time to
time, they can be hard to find and are frequently taken down, so if anyone does want to know
what is commonplace for the brave amerikan military, they can download a copy of Winter
Soldier from here .
The hearings likely did the job eventually, in that the thugs in control of amerika got
the message that if the war continued, more and more truth about the scale & horror of
awful amerikan atrocities would become public and that would be counter to satiating these
elite thugs' greed inside and outside amerika. A peace agreement was signed and VVAW went
back to emphasising the damage done to amerikan soldiers rather than the horrors inflicted
upon a much, much larger Indochinese civilian population.
This is why BidenCorp are confidently denying their crimes while asserting all these other
nations are killers, simply because amerikans have never been required to comprehend the true
scale of the crimes amerika has committed upon their (mostly unjustly selected, amerikan
created) enemies.
All the words spouted by elites only ever reinforce prevailing attitudes. Change in the
way amerika views itself will only be effected when amerikans are forced to honestly consider
all the crimes which have been committed in their name.
I'm not holding my breath, neither do I see much point in any analysis of who said what to
whom as words are worthless in the face of fell deeds.
Epstein is also foreshadowed in the "Turner Diaries" in the person of "Kappy the Kike." On
the subject of Dr. Pierce and his works, the jews and their canp followers deleted hundreds
of hours of videos– first from YT then from every other video site– of Dr.
Pierce's weekly broadcasts set to some very skillful video editing.
One in particular named Wexner, Victoria's Secret, and how after buying Abercrombie and Fitch
he introduced "thongs for pre-teens" into their clothing line.
If you have never seen the aforementioned videos of dr. Pierce's broadcasts set to video,
highly recommend scouring various torrents until you find them
The FBI/SDNY reported they had seized DVD's from Epstein's Manhattan townhouse that were
labeled "Young [name] + name."
Why hasn't the FBI/SDNY arrested anyone found on the videotapes? Why haven't they
confirmed or denied future prosecutions? If they have the tapes, they can prosecute.
So what's the hold up?
According to former FBI Sibel Edmonds, the FBI and everyone else knew about Dennis Hastert
and they had video evidence. But the Clinton administration refused to prosecute because it
was better for them to use it as blackmail and political leverage.
Why hasn't Glenn Dubin andEva Andersson been arrested and charged for human trafficking?
There is already eyewitness testimony they had confiscated the passport of an underage girl
they had kidnapped and were holding against he will.
@restless94110
ated software that was then sold to governments and companies throughout the world. That
plot's success was largely due to the role of a close associate of then-President Ronald
Reagan and an American politician close to Maxwell, who later helped aid Reagan in the
cover-up of the Iran Contra scandal.
Perhaps the best illustration of how the connections between many of these players often
meld together can be seen in Ronald Lauder: a Mega Group member, former member of the Reagan
administration, long-time donor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel's
Likud Party, as well as a long-time friend of Donald Trump and Roy Cohn.
@restless94110
Mega Group members -- and B'nai B'rith, particularly its spin-off known as the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL). The Bronfman brothers were major donors to the ADL, with Edgar Bronfman serving
as the ADL's honorary national vice-chair for several years.
In addition, Max Fisher of the Mega Group founded the National Jewish Coalition, now known
as the Republican Jewish Coalition -- the main pro-Israel neoconservative political lobbying
group, known for its support of hawkish policies, and whose current chief patrons, Sheldon
Adelson and Bernard Marcus, are among Donald Trump's top donors.
It is now going on a year and a half since "financier" and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein died,
allegedly by hanging himself in a New York City prison. Since that time it has surfaced that
there were a number of "administrative" errors in the jail, meaning that Epstein was not being
observed or on suicide watch even though he had reportedly attempted to kill himself
previously. The suspicion that Epstein was working for Israel's external intelligence agency
Mossad or for its military intelligence counterpart also seemed confirmed through both Israeli
and American sources. A recent book
Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales written by Ari Ben-Menashe the former Israeli intelligence
officer who actually ran the Epstein operation, described inter alia how Epstein was
blackmailing prominent politicians on behalf of Israeli intelligence. Epstein had been
working directly for the Israeli government since the 1980's and his operation, which was
funded by Israel and also by prominent American Jews, was a classic "honey-trap" which used
underage girls as bait to attract well-known politicians from around the world, a list that
included Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton. The politicians would be photographed and video
recorded when they were in bed with the girls. Afterwards, they would be approached and asked
to do favors for Israel.
It doesn't take much to pull what is already known together and ask the question "Who among
the celebrities and top-level politicians that Epstein cultivated were actually Israeli spies?"
And of course there is a subplot. Assuming that Epstein was in fact involved in recruiting
and/or running high level American agents in an "influence operation" that may have involved
blackmail it is possible to come to the conclusion that he was killed in prison and that the
suicide story was just a convenient cover-up. The Epstein case remains "open" and under
investigation though it doesn't seem that anything is actually happening, the sure sign that
someone powerful in the Establishment is making sure that nothing incriminating surfaces.
Indeed, there already exists some evidence that Epstein was being protected when he was
convicted in Florida of sex crimes in 2008 and was given a sentence that was little more than a
slap on the wrist. After the fact, the U.S. Attorney for Miami Alexander Acosta involved in the
case reported that the arrest and sentencing were above his pay grade, that he had been told
that Epstein "'belonged to intelligence', and to leave it alone" a comment that apparently has
never been pursued by investigators.
That the Epstein investigation appears to be in reverse gear suggests that one or more
powerful Americans are still not implicated in the case but are concerned that that might
change, but there remains an accessory to what went on at the Epstein mansion in Manhattan and
on his private island in the Caribbean. That would be Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently in
prison in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn and will be tried in July. Like the
Epstein story in general, she has largely dropped off the media screen and one has to wonder
what "get out of jail free" card she might be holding.
It has long been assumed that Epstein video recorded the sexual encounters with the underage
girls that he used in his intelligence activity to blackmail prominent politicians among
others. It has been suspected that Ghislaine has at least some of those tapes hidden in a
secret location and may be using them to cut a deal with investigators and prosecutors. It now
appears that she briefly discussed the tapes with CBS News 60 Minutes producer Ira Rosen, also
making clear that there were tapes of both Bill Clinton and
Donald Trump . The conversation took place in 2016 and she reportedly told Rosen that,
given Trump's involvement in the upcoming election, she would not release any information
derived from the tapes relating to Clinton until after the election and she would only do so
while also exposing Trump. Up until now, she has done neither.
It has long been known that Epstein knew both the ex-and future presidents, though both have
denied knowing the sex offender well for obvious reasons. Clinton, for example, flew on
Epstein's Lolita Express private 727 at least 26 times and his presence at Epstein's island
refuge has also been well documented. Trump clearly knew Epstein but has denied having any
contact with him after his registration as a sex offender in 2008.
Ghislaine, for her part, was allegedly recruited young girls for Epstein to exploit and was
a partner in his activity, though she has denied any guilt. Numerous victims say otherwise. Her
lawyers have tried
a number of ploys to free her, including claims that she had been abused by prison staff
and that the jury being selected to try her will be "too white." Her brother Ian claimed
last week that she is enduring "brutal and degrading treatment" in prison with four guards
watching her at all times. He added that she has lost 20 pounds and "ability to
concentrate."
Ghislaine
also offered to post a $28.5 million bail or a $5 million bond for home arrest in which she
would wear an ankle monitor, but the judge decided that given her extensive resources she
constitutes a considerable flight risk even if she turns in her American, British and French
passports. She would also be able to flee to Israel based on her father Robert's religion and
service to that country and Israel does not normally extradite.
The most interesting aspect of the arrest, imprisonment and trial of Ghislaine Maxwell is
what it does not do. She basically is being tried on whether it can be confirmed that she was a
"pimp" for Jeffrey Epstein. Her father was an Israeli intelligence asset and it is believed
that he made the connection between Epstein and the Jewish state's military intelligence. But
no one in that New York court room in July will be asking that. Nor will there be any
revelations about Epstein's "intelligence connection" nor of the possibility that the Israelis
had their hooks in both a former and a future American president. None of that will be on the
table and meanwhile Ghislaine might have those possibly incriminating tapes squirreled away
somewhere. That is the really important stuff that I would like to have the answers to. The
fact that the answers are not forthcoming sounds a bit like a cover-up, doesn't it?
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023)
that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website ishttps://councilforthenationalinterest.orgaddress is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
Just imagine how differently the Epstein story would be covered by the media if Epstein
and Maxwell were ethnic Russians, and if Maxwell's father had received a State funeral in
Russia.
A recent book Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales written by Ari Ben-Menashe the former
Israeli intelligence officer who actually ran the Epstein operation,
He did that after being cut by the Israelis in the 80s for treason? Or he did
that while working with them on the Iran Contra scandal – must have been busy!
America is notorious for justifying or even undertaking with full knoeldege each and
every illegal activity as a necessity against foreign and domestic threat or for national
seciruty.
But often more than not,the secuirty is ignored and threat is not adderssed . Eptesin tape
,Ghisling – Quisling tapes arent going to disappear even if their lives are erased
from the memories of the victims ,politicians,or from their handlers.
I wonder ifSaudi and UAE royals also flew or if they flew the gilrs to London or Riyadh.
Theur capitulations to Israeli demands could only be explained as results of
manipulations.
I don't see that Epstein was so certainly an Israeli asset. Anyway- what could sex
blackmail achieve? Those politicians were already supportive of Israel. Why bother with
blackmailing them?
... ... ...
The entire affair is something truly- sleazy. And pathetically humiliating. One would
imagine that all those powerful guys could get laid as they wished, in any privately
arranged surroundings, fulfilling their geriatric sex fantasies. And here, all that is an
old-fashioned pimping via some sleazebag to get a piece of meat from runaway girls.
The deal Epstein received in Florida is nothing short of ..world shaking.
This creature's entire life was raping 13 year old girls who were white, poor and had no
fathers. Remember- they legally cannot give consent. It's an old bar exam troupe: Man has
16 year old girl execute notarized statement agreeing to sex , has her mother deposed, buys
her a 5 carat diamond, has a psych eval to make sure she is emotionally sophisticated
enough to have sex and then has sex with her. Legal? Never.
Legally, a human being is incapable of giving consent to have sexual intercourse under
the age of 18 in Florida.
When a few gumshoes and state Detectives began aggressively investigating Epstein-
Epstein hired Private Investigators to harass th em.
Let that sink in. He hired a PI to shine his headlights in a Detective's home at 3AM for
hours and blow his horn. If we did that, we would be getting our head kicked in at the jail
and probably be recorded as accidental death.
The naked brazenness of Epstein is prima facie evidence he was and is being protected
by the US government for the Israeli government . And he still is. His ferret faced
pimp Maxwell thought he would protect her and that is why she foolishly remained in
American -- -because she knew Epstein was alive and believed his power was her
talisman.
Who is that dumb? To believe a man who treated young girls like a masturbation dishrags
was going to be her hero?
@Bardon
Kaldian no sense. If Epstein was as 'connected ' as we are led to believe, why did he
leave Paris and return to the US to face arrest? Surely he would have been tipped off that
he was under investigation.
Then there is the $158 million Epstein was paid by Apollo Capital's Leon Black. As you
note a man with his wealth could rustle up his own stable of teeny boppers if that was his
desire. He had no need for an Epstein. Further the 'fees' he was paying Epstein were
raising eyebrows with other senior managers at Apollo.
Something sinister going on for sure but what could be so valuable for billionaires to
risk their reputations by associating with an Epstein?
The apparently irrational support for Israel and extreme Jewish causes on the part of
those highly placed in society has to be far more to do with blackmail than with mere
financial leverage as is generally believed. This thing is now on an industrial scale and I
should suppose 'they' can now get to just about anybody that they want to 'influence'.
A couple of pervs being useful to foreign intelligence services. The true source of all
his unlimited money doesn't seem to ever have been truly explained so it's quite possible
that the Israeli state was secretly subsidizing him from behind the scenes. Maxwell has
three passports? That's quite unusual. The trial will have a narrow focus on the pimping so
we'll never hear about anything beyond that so I have to agree with Mr Giraldi on that. I
can't agree with this Epstein is alive idea. It's like the mafia: he became just a
liability, knew too much and had outlived his usefulness. Dead people don't talk. They're
not in the business of rescuing people. Murder or suicide, he's dead.
There's been lots of speculation about the sexual depravities of the political class.
Where there's smoke there's fire. It's hard to see, though, what a foreign government could
get through blackmail that they couldn't get with old-fashioned bribery. Perhaps it works
best at the second tier of elites, inducing corporate heads to make investments here and
there, allowing technical knowledge to be transferred, letting them spy through internet
backdoors, etc.
@Bardon
Kaldian ith underage females (no pedophilia) for Anglo & Anglo-American elite with
a strong Jewish presence.
It's possible. But why would he have done that? Probably the business with the girls
costed millions. What would he get back from it? What have politicians payed him for the
service? Why would he do very expensive favours for politicians?
If your idea is right, there would be money involved in the business and there would be
many other "clients". But we never heard about them, only about a few names of politicians.
It seems that the Prince was more or less close to him, but this is apparently not the case
with other possible famous clients.
Mr. Girardi, Given your experience in world of espionage and time spent in the UK, could
you possibly take a shot at answering this?
OK– given who Robert Maxwell was and that his infamy went so far that even a teenage
American pleb like me knew about his raid on the pension funds and his "suicide" 20+ years
ago, how the hell did MI-5 not know?
Assuming MI-5 knew, how could they not call up The Royal Protection Squad and say to them:
" hey, mention to Randy Andy he is bringing mossad spies into the royal palaces and God only
knows what they could be planting in there."
Or is MI-5 so Jewed they dare not even mention the obvious?
The FBI grabbed the safe and its contents that were in Epstein's NYC townhouse that he got
from Leslie Wexner of the New Albany and Columbus Wexners.
The FBI, now in possession of all that Blackmail material, continues J. Edgar Hoover's
tradition of shakedown and manipulation of Gubbamint perverts.
Democracy In Action.
Thanks so much for writing this. Our politicians, business and civic leaders, and young
up-and-coming leading citizens all need to be forewarned that various intel agencies still
run honey-traps using secret recordings.
I imagine they watch a target's online life also. If a business magnate is sneaking around
on a website like Adultfriendfinder, or orders an expensive hooker from a website to come to
a hotel's penthouse in New York, these intel agencies may have ways of knowing this and
setting him up. They could have assets approach hin in the hotel bar also. Im grateful your
colum can serve as a warning, and hope its widely shared.
@anon
l case entails. The police chief did that because Epstein legal and investigative team were
running rings round the state police.
Extremely wealthy men are not what the legal system is set up for dealing with, so Epstein
got off lightly, compared to what the average man would have got. However it must be
borne in mind that his victims got paid very substantial compensation–totaling tens of
millions– as part of the deal, and Epstein was sent to prison as a sex offender and
publicly disgraced. Not a very impressive result for a centi-millionaire who also had high
level Deep State people intervening for him. Ditto Ghislaine.
First, a pedophile is a person who is attracted sexually to prepubescent females. Since
Epstein was not that then he is definitively not a pedophile.
Second, a pimp is a person, almost always male, who has a "stable" of 2 or more girls that
he sends out to have sex for money, all or most of which he takes. Since Maxwell is at most
accused of asking older teenagers–all of them within 18 months of or over the legal age
of consent, depending on the individual state and the individual country–if they would
go take money for sex, and since Maxwell did not take any part of the money the girls
received, and since the girls voluntarily had the sex for the money, it is definitively clear
that Maxwell was not a pimp, and there is no case at all against her.
Third and last, I followed the link referenced in regard to Maxwell saying that she had
tapes on Trump and Clinton, and that's not what she said. The source is murky and weird
anyway, but what there is of it is that it comes from a producer of 60 Minutes who no longer
works there but had a book to sell. He asked her a leading question ("There are tapes aren't
there?") and she gave a couple of noncommittal responses that neither admitted nor revealed
anything. It looks like the guy was trying to pump up his boring book to get more sales.
The fact is that your article is just regurgitated nonsense. Maxwell will walk. She should
have been given bail months ago. She wasn't running and she wasn't hiding before. Obviously
the felt strongly that she had done nothing illegal. And it's clear, she hadn't.
This is a complete waste of time and money. It is obvious that female prosecutors are
behind it. We can only hope and pray for justice. Don't let them get away with their
Stalinist show trials one day longer.
After the fact, the U.S. Attorney for Miami Alexander Acosta involved in the case
reported that the arrest and sentencing were above his pay grade, that he had been told
that Epstein " 'belonged to intelligence' , and to leave it alone" a comment that
apparently has never been pursued by investigators.
This is absolutely key. How has this not been followed up? How is Acosta able to live a
normal life without being hounded day and night to reveal who told him this? Which
intelligence agency? Why isn't this the subject of counter-intelligence investigations? Where
is Acosta now?
I believe the fact that Bill Clinton was recorded to have been on the Lolita Express
approximately 26 times illustrates that he was shown tapes very early on and thought "in for
a penny – in for a pound" and went back for more helpings. I am not surprised at all
that he was compromised as he is known to think with his lower regions, but for others, i.e.
Prince Andrew, surely he would be aware of Ashkenazi tactics – especially with
blackmail.
I think the blackmailed put themselves in a position to be blackmailed because they were
told that that was the way to join the insiders whose careers were guaranteed.
@Curmudgeon
n an act of prostitution at 17, or under the age of 18, even the day before his or her 18
birthday.
Although being a prostitute age 18 and over is legal in the UK; pimping pandering
soliciting for prostitution running a brothel and being the customer of a prostitute is still
illegal in England
If, as you say she was paid by Epstein $5,000 for sex with Andrew, Guiffre committed an
illegal act of prostitution . If Epstein paid her, that was pimping or money for sex; illegal
in the UK. If, as Guiffre claimed, the act of prostitution took place in Maxwell's home, that
was Maxwell committing the crime of running a brothel or house of prostitution.
but for others, i.e. Prince Andrew, surely he would be aware of Ashkenazi tactics
– especially with blackmail.
Question is, what the Hell werePrince Andrew's official "protection officers" doing? These
people are presumably managed by one or other of Britain's security services. They must have
known what Andrew was doing. Why, then, did the security service not intervene and warn
Andrew off Epstein's Island? Or was he doing a job for them -- spying on Epstein's spying
operation?
@Alden
n well and correctly the technicalities of the situation in the UK and that Guiffre, Maxwell
and Epstein were all guilty of some crimes relating to the illicit sex trade. But was Prince
Andrew guilty of anything? Unless he was soliciting for sex with Guiffre? He wasn't offering
her money, but if he knew she was being paid by Epstein and trafficked across borders by
Epstein and Maxwell? Of course he may have been using underage girls of this sex ring
elsewhere that we have not been told about. But you are right, Curmudgeon should know that
even transporting a grandmother across borders to engage in paid sex, i.e prostitution, is
sex/human trafficking and a crime in most countries.
Actually, if you read the 'Chicago Jewish News', October 24, 2008, the article by Pauline
Yearwood, entitled 'Obama and the Jews', you will find that Abner Mikva, Chicago Jewish
society stalwart, former Congressman, judge and Clinton apparatchik, declared Obama 'the
first Jewish President'. Obviously Clinton was just another useful Sabbat Goy idiot.
As we saw with Lavrov's latest interview, the gloves are coming off as China and Russia
escalate the diplomatic war in response to the "US-centered, racist, and mafia-styled
community" attacking them. The quote is from the Global Times Editor and deserves to be put
in full:
"Canada, the UK and Australia, three members of the Five Eyes alliance, have recently
taken action to put pressure on China. They have formed a US-centered, racist, and
mafia-styled community, willfully and arrogantly provoking China and trying to consolidate
their hegemony as all gangsters do. They are becoming a racist axis aimed at stifling the
development rights of 1.4 billion Chinese."
Despite the proven fact that there's only one race of humans--the Human Race--the 5-Eyes
nations continue to employ racism as a key tool of their so-called diplomacy. Again, the GT
Editor:
"Five Eyes alliance members are all English-speaking countries. The formation of four
states, except the UK, is the result of British colonization. Those countries share the
Anglo-Saxon civilization. The Five Eyes countries have been brought together by the US to
become the 'center of the West.' They have a strong sense of civilization superiority
. The bloc, which was initially aimed at intelligence sharing, has now become an organization
targeting China and Russia. The evil idea of racism has been fermenting consciously or
unconsciously in their clashes with the two countries."
And this "idea" is nothing new and has existed for centuries. My research led me to a 100+
year-old work, The Day of The Saxon , and to the work that suggested it, The Empire
of "The City" , both of which are freely available at The Archive. What is suggested by
them and the recent work ( Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy ),
reviewed by Pepe about the planning that resulted in the post-war Outlaw US Empire is that
Empire is merely the continuance of the global Saxon Empire that still exists, and that what
we're experiencing are the ongoing "political adjustments" that confer superiority to the
Saxons since that's what they seek. In updated parlance, that would be Full Spectrum
Dominance. As we know, the Chinese have already felt Saxon love and want no more of it and
have finally made the connection between past and present. The Editor again:
"With a common language, a common historical background, and a coordinated attack target,
such an axis is destined to erode international relations and allow hooliganism to rise to
the diplomatic stage in the 21st century." [My Emphasis]
Hooliganism, an apt term given its roots in British football. Do read the entire editorial
for there is much more commendable content. Those in the EU need to understand that they're
doing the Saxon's bidding even through the UK is no longer a member as NATO still remains and
is dominated by Saxons.
Chris Hedges, Just talkin' 'bout revolution [against the Borg? Chris can't quite bring
himself to name just who "they" are] on Jimmy Dore yesterday:
"These people...you know, quite literally, will kill us...not just us...I'm talking about
snuffing out the possibility of the next generation...my kids...and they have to be
stopped"
Astonishing lack of understanding of history, basic humanity and common sense.
It seems no one among the current group of "victors" has heard the phrase "win the battle but
lose the war."
With all the witch hunting and hate mongering going on, it also seems no one in authority has
heard "treat others as you would have them treat you."
Also applies to WEF Great Reset Masters of the Universe.
A huge amount of karma heading their way.
For those who read and study history, it has long been known that the CIA has placed their
operatives throughout every agency of the U.S. government, as explained by Fletcher Prouty in
The Secret Team ; that CIA officers Cord Myer and Frank Wisner operated secret programs to get
some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom among intellectuals, journalists, and
writers to be their voices for unfreedom and censorship, as explained by Frances Stonor
Saunders in The Cultural Cold War and Joel Whitney in Finks , among others; that Cord Myer was
especially focused on and successful in "courting the Compatible Left" since right wingers were
already in the Agency's pocket.
1 play_arrow
Ms No PREMIUM 14 hours ago (Edited) remove link
They are always leading you. They deal with different levels of awareness with different
narratives.
Did you ever stop and wonder for a single minute if one man, Rockefeller, was really the
single power behind standard oil? Ever hear of front men? Those are the ones meant to be
seen.
How few ever wonder who TF really controlled the CIA and it's precursor?
No, people stop right there. They think they are super informed by knowing Rockefeller and
the CIA. They try to hold the line there.
This suppression of conspiracy theory tactic, of trying to get people to fixate on
operation paperclip, which is a limited hangout nothingburger, is also really over used.
Ever hear of the Mossad Honeypot run by Epstein and other enemy foreign agents? How about
how the whole world watched the FBI cover it up?
Oh, that's way too hot to touch. Let's talk about standard oil and operation
paperclip.
Why was Epstein's island named Little St James? What did the feds bury there with that
heavy equipment? What Intel agency did Robert Maxwell and Mega group work for? Why doesn't
anybody mention that they are all Mossad
Oh yeah, there is the answer to all of it. Now let's go revisit those "anti-Semitic
conspiracy theories" on currency ownership.
Wall Street killed the truth squad and protected the profits from job and investment
offshoring. This is what happens to elected officials when they attempt to represent the
general interest rather than the special interests that finance political campaigns. The
public interest is blocked off by a brick wall posted with a sign that says get compliant
with the Establishment or get out of politics.
As for the "direct collision course" re the EU and Russia, the collision course has been
imposed by the Master-oligarchy of U. S. on the hapless vassal EU.
Hunter Biden's laptop. The article is by Peter Van Buren, who indeed is not a nutcase.
Anyone here ever / currently a free lance? You'll love these details:
"for example, on September 28, 2018, Hunter ordered $95,000 transferred without
explanation), a "business" run by Jim Biden out of a residential address. Jim regularly
invoiced Hunter for office expenses and employee costs, as well as a monthly retainer cost of
some $68,000, plus other fees in the tens of thousands of dollars."
Sure: My accountant would have been ga-ga for that. Then there's this little tidbit in
which the CPA seems to believe that paying taxes is voluntary:
"The CPA's concern is that the IRS is sensitive to the fact that some try to conceal
income as loans to be written off as expenses later, especially if the amounts are large.
This can trigger an audit. If the loans are "forgiven," then they are income. If not
declared, that is potential fraud. The same note from the CPA indicates Hunter owes $600,000
in personal taxes and another $204,000 for Owasco and urges him to file a return even if he
is not going to pay the taxes."
The most charitable reading of the sleazy saga is that Joe Biden, one of the most powerful
men in the world, is an incredibly gullible idiot. (By
vasilis asvestas / Shutterstock)
Iread the files on Hunter Biden's laptop. They paint a sleazy picture of multi-million
dollar wire transfers, potential money laundering, and possible tax evasion. They raise serious
questions about the judgment and propriety of Jim Biden, the president-elect's brother, and Joe
himself. Call it smoke not fire, but smoke that should not be ignored. The files were supplied
to TAC by a known source previously established to have access.
Joe Biden is lucky a coordinated media effort kept Hunter out of the campaign. The FBI has
had the laptop since 2019, when they subpoenaed
the files in connection with a money laundering investigation. Federal investigators also
served a round of subpoenas on December 8, a month after the election, including one for Hunter
Biden himself. While the legal thrust of the investigation by the federal prosecutor in
Delaware is taxes, the real focus seems to be on Hunter's Chinese connections. This all comes
after the FBI has had over a year to examine some of the same files TAC looked at.
In the final weeks before the election, Hunter's laptop fell into Republican hands. The
story went public in the New York Post , revealing that Hunter Biden introduced his
father, then vice president, to a top executive at Ukrainian energy firm Burisma less than a
year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor
who was investigating the company. The meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that
Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, sent Hunter Biden about a year after
Hunter himself joined the Burisma board at a salary of $ 83,000
a month with no obvious work duties past making such introductions.
Nice work if you can get it, and to get it your dad better be vice president. If all that
alone does not meet the test of impropriety, we need a new test. Hunter Biden's value to
clients was his perceived access to the White House. His father Joe was at least a passive
participant in the scheme, maybe more than that.
The problem was many Americans never heard this story. Twitter led a social media charge to
not allow the information online. After years of salivating over every bit of Trump family
gossip, the mainstream media claimed the Biden story did not matter, or was Russian disinfo .
Surveys suggest the information could have swung the election if voters had known about it. One
survey showed
that enough people in battleground states would have changed their votes to give Trump 311
electoral votes and reelection.
No mind, really. As soon as it became clear Joe Biden was going to win, the media on all
sides lost interest in the laptop. The story became about the story. It devolved into think
pieces about the Orwellian role of social media and some online giggling about the sex tapes on
the laptop. But our short attention spans have consequences. The laptop still has a lot to tell
us.
00:11 / 01:00 Next Video First Panel, TAC's 7th
Annual Foreign Policy Conference What Does 2020 Mean For Foreign Policy Cancel Autoplay is
paused
Hunter's laptop was chock-a-block with video that appears to show Hunter smoking crack while
engaged in a sex act with a woman, as well as numerous other sexually explicit images. There's
evidence there that Hunter spent money on
escorts , some
$21,000 on cam sites, big plays on all sorts of
depravities . There is also Joe's car insurance information, Hunter's SSN, pages of call
logs, and lots of email addresses, bank account numbers, and personal information of prominent
people. None of the material is encrypted, just dumped on a standard MacBook Pro using the
password "Hunter02." The machine was regularly connected to the internet and might as well have
had an electronic sign on it saying "My dad is important, here's what you'll need to blackmail
me and others to get to him."
But there is more. The laptop shows Hunter, through a number of front companies, accepted
money from Chinese and Ukrainian entities and moved that money to the U.S. where it was
parceled out to other entities, including Joe Biden's brother. Some of it then went back to
Chinese hands. There is no way a simple read-through can tell if the money was legal consulting
fees or illegal money laundering and tax fraud. But it all smells bad: multi-million dollar
transfers to LLCs without employees, residences used as multiple business addresses, legal
tricks from Cyprus and the British Virgin Islands, and even a minor CIA connection.
Ask yourself if this demands more investigation. Ask yourself if voters might not have
benefited from knowing more about Joe Biden's side of all this.
The majority of the contents of the laptop are a jumbled record of Hunter's international
business ventures and financial records. Outstanding in the haystack are a large number of wire
transfers. Those with traceable addresses appear to be mostly anonymous shell companies run out
of lawyers' offices, with no employees and fuzzy public paper trails. One off the top involved
$259,845 traveling on April 2, 2018, from the Hudson West III in New York to a numbered account
held by Cathay Bank. Hudson West was created by Hunter Biden's own law firm, Owasco, with
several Chinese nationals, including a Ye Jianming associate, Gong Wendong. Ye Jianming is
chairman of CEFC China Energy, who reportedly
had close ties to both the Chinese government and the People's Liberation Army. He's been
arrested in China on corruption charges and has conveniently disappeared.
Biden in August 2018 also returned $100,000 back to CEFC in China via its own New York
subsidiary LLC, Hudson West V, whose listed address is 12 Foxwood Road, Great Neck, NY 11024.
That address is not a business office but instead a single family home worth over $6 million.
Phone records
suggest two people live there, including Gong Wendong. Money appears to move from physical
China to virtual Hunter back to virtual China in the U.S., starting and ending in accounts tied
to Gong Wendong after touching base with Hunter, a potential indicator of laundering. Chinese
money in China changed into Chinese money in America. Caution is needed; while what looks like
money laundering at first glance may indeed be so, it may be designed to hide the cash from the
Chinese government while staying inside American law, a quasi-legal service Hunter possibly
supplied.
That 12 Foxwood address shows up again on Biden's laptop as the mailing address for another
Gong Wendong venture, ColdHarbour Capital, which sent and received money to Biden. It is also
listed as the residence of Shan Gao, who appears to control accounts in Beijing tied to Hudson,
CEFC, and 12 Foxwood.
The most significant appearance of 12 Foxwood was as the mailing address for a secured VISA
card in the name of Biden's company, Hudson West III. The card is funded by someone unnamed
through Cathay Bank for $99,000 and guaranteed by someone's checking account held by Cathay
worth $450,000. Shared users of the card are Hunter and Gong Wendong. The card was opened as
CEFC secured a stake in a Russian state-owned energy company. Biden and others subsequently
used the credit card to purchase $101,291.46 worth of extravagant items, including airline
tickets and multiple items at Apple stores, pharmacies, hotels, and restaurants. A Senate
report
characterized these transactions as "potential financial criminal activity." Putting money on a
secured VISA card in lieu of a direct wire transfer to Biden may be seen by some as an attempt
to hide the source of the money and thus allow Biden not to claim it as income.
James Biden and Sara Biden were also authorized users of the credit card, though their
business connection to Hunter and Gong Wendong is unclear. Jim is Joe's brother, Sara his wife.
Jim over the years has been a nightclub owner, insurance broker, political consultant, and
investor. When he ran into financial
trouble having triple mortgaged his home, he was bailed out via loans from Joe and Hunter and
by a series of Joe's donors. Jim also received a loan of $500,000
from John Hynansky, a Ukrainian-American businessman and longtime donor to Joe Biden's
campaigns. This all was in 2015, at the same time the then-vice president oversaw U.S. policy
toward the country. As a senator, Joe Biden made use of a private jet owned by Hynansky's
son.
The 12 Foxwood address also appears on millions of dollars worth of bank transfers among
Cathay Bank, CEFC, and multiple semi-anonymous LLCs and hedge funds. One single transfer to
Hudson West III on August 8, 2017, represented the movement of $5 million from Northern Capital
International, which appears to be a
Chinese government-owned import-export front company.
Switch over to the CDB Bank folder and you see a wire transfer from Burisma for 36,000
euros, run through a bank in Cyprus, to Biden's own account on that island. Burisma is the one
company from the laptop that made the news. Hunter's role, what he actually did besides
introduce his father to other people, is still unclear.
Burisma must be an interesting place. Hunter's laptop partially exposes a complex web of
sub-companies in Cyprus and the British Virgin Islands such that figuring out who owns who is
near impossible. Hunter, speaking to his business partner, speculates about buying a Lithuanian
bank to receive the Ukrainian money, and he also notes that Joseph Cofer Black , former director
of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, sits on Burisma's board. Black previously served as vice
chairman at mercenary provider Blackwater Worldwide (now Academi).
All just business, right? Not everyone saw it that way. An email from Wells Fargo's
corporate compliance team (Wells Fargo handled many of the international wire transfers) asks
on September 20, 2018, what the actual business of Hudson West is, who its owners are, and
where it is located. Also asked is what the purpose of all the incoming wires is. It notes some
business accounts appear to be for personal expenses. It also questions numerous outgoing wires
to the Lion Hall Group (for example, on September 28, 2018, Hunter ordered $95,000 transferred
without explanation), a "business" run by Jim Biden out of a residential address. Jim regularly
invoiced Hunter for office expenses and employee costs, as well as a monthly retainer cost of
some $68,000, plus other fees in the tens of thousands of dollars.
There is no record of these questions being answered. It is possible to see the disbursal of
funds via credit card to Jim Biden as a way to diffuse the amounts away from Hunter, and via
Jim's invoices, a way to convert income from China into deductible business expenses for Hunter
in America, reducing his tax burden. The involvement of Lion Hall and Jim Biden also spreads
the money around, lowering its profile. If the invoices were shown to be fraudulent (i.e., Jim
did not actually consult for Hunter), the potential for tax fraud exists.
Besides Wells Fargo, others also had questions. Hunter's own CPA, preparing to file 2018
federal taxes, wrote to Hunter asking, "As far as Owasco [Hunter's law firm] is concerned there
were some receipts we classified as loans. Owasco received approximately $550,000 from Burisma
and paid about one half this amount to, I believe, someone named 'Devon.' I am not sure of the
payee The one half payment to 'Devon' was not recorded as income."
Devon is likely Devon Archer , co-founder and managing partner
of Rosemont Capital alongside Hunter. Who else was part of Rosemont? Christopher
Heinz , John Kerry's son. And, small world, Devon Archer sat on the board of Burisma
alongside
Hunter Biden. The CPA's concern is that the IRS is sensitive to the fact that some try to
conceal income as loans to be written off as expenses later, especially if the amounts are
large. This can trigger an audit. If the loans are "forgiven," then they are income. If not
declared, that is potential fraud.
The same note from the CPA indicates Hunter owes $600,000 in personal taxes and another
$204,000 for Owasco and urges him to file a return even if he is not going to pay the taxes.
Besides taxes, things did not always go well for Hunter. On March 6, 2019, he sent an email to
a friend saying, "Buddy do you have a cash app to send me $100 until wire goes. I have no money
for gas and I'm literally stuck at a rest stop on 95." He earlier had sought a $35,000 advance
from his regular "draw" out of Owasco. And keep an eye on Hunter's health -- he pays close to
$9,000 a quarter for life insurance.
Joe Biden is one lucky S.O.B. When the powers that be decided Barack Obama needed someone a
little more, you know, establishment, as his VP to calm voters, there was Joe, as white-bread
as the state he represented, vaulted into the White House that had otherwise eluded him. His
only controversial points came from having supported the status quo for so many years that it
had changed underneath him. Are we tough on crime, or do Black Lives Matter? Didn't matter to
Joe, just point him in the right direction so he knows what to agree with. And so in 2020, when
the Democrats realized exactly what kind of man they needed to wipe away the sins of two
dishonest and chaotic primaries, well, there was Joe again.
Joe was fortunate that the mainstream media memory-holed Hunter's story and conservative
media lost focus looking for a tweetable smoking gun when the truth was a bit too complicated
to parse out in a sentence or two. But there is still a story here.
The short version is there's a lot to suggest money laundering and tax fraud on Hunter's
part. The purpose of the money in and out was always unclear, with invoices for vague expenses
and lots and lots of "consulting." One could invent a legal explanation for everything. One
could imagine many illegal explanations. There is no way anyone could know the difference
without seeing Hunter's taxes, asking him questions, and doing some serious forensic
accounting. It is unlikely any of that will happen now that the election is over. Even to
Guiliani et al., it really doesn't matter any more. They took one shot, missed, and walked
away.
That will leave undigested the bigger tale of president-elect Biden, who ran in part on an
anti-corruption platform following the Trump family escapades. While Joe Biden no doubt regrets
what appears to have been a one-off meeting with the Burisma official, he did indeed take the
meeting as VP. It's always easier to apologize when caught than seek permission in advance in
Joe's world.
A 2017 email chain involving Hunter brokering an ultimately failed deal for a new venture
with old friend CEFC, the Chinese energy company, described a 10 percent set-aside for the "big
guy," whom former Hunter Biden partner Tony Bobulinski publicly identified as Joe Biden
. Joe also took Hunter to China with him on Air Force Two and met with Chinese leaders while
Hunter tried to make deals on his own. Joe also had Hunter and partner Devon Archer to the
White House only two days before they joined Burisma. It was Joe's donors and pals who bailed
out brother Jim over the years with sweetheart loans.
A lot of appearance of improprietous malarkey from a senior statesman who knows better. In
places like China and the Ukraine, where corruption is endemic, it is assumed the sons of rich
and powerful men have access to their father and that access is for sale. Hunter Biden traded
on those assumptions for millions of dollars, and Joe stood by understanding what was
happening. Every father wants to help his son, and Hunter, one can imagine, went to his dad
time after time pleading for just one more little favor to get him clear of his sordid past.
Joe, a decent man at heart, likely nodded. So a meeting. A handshake. An office visit, a posed
photo, whatever would help but was still plausibly deniable. Until the next time. Just one
more, Dad. Please?
Joe's larger role in all things Hunter needs to be questioned. Joe, as well as the Obama
State Department, knew about
Hunter's antics. Joe pretended Hunter's financial windfalls had nothing to do with their
relationship and were simply a constant series of coincidental lucky breaks for a ne'er-do-well
son who happened to fail upward while his dad was VP. Joe says he and his son never talked
about business. Maybe Joe assumed Hunter's Porsche was just a lucky find (his car payments are
on the laptop).
While, of course, Hunter is an adult with his own mind, his father was one of the most
powerful men in the world and yet apparently did nothing to stop what was going on among
Hunter, his brother Jim, the Chinese, the Ukrainians, and himself -- at minimum, the gross
appearance of impropriety over a period of years. Biden's defense has always been sweeping :
"My son did nothing wrong." That alone raises questions of judgment on the part of Joe Biden.
Not least because in a few weeks he becomes president of the United States. And if the
president does it, it's not illegal, right?
Maybe you can offer information that contradicts the assertions and alleged facts in
this article? Please make the effort to enlighten the rest of us. It'll force you to
seriously read the article and learn its contents in order to refute them. If you can't do
that then you haven't the courage to try and support your own assertions. It's hard to face
the possibility that you're wrong, but if you build a case maybe you'll actually change a
few minds here and there. As things stand right now you seem guilty to me of being "just
deluded enough to (not) believe it (the article) because it's what you want to (not)
believe."
That's exactly how I would have felt if Trump's kids had a strong appearance of selling
their father's influence for tens of millions of dollars! And if the Trump kids business
partners turned on them and gave testimony under oath to the FBI about it, and volumes of
documentary evidence supported it!
Nothingburger! I'm sure you and the media would have agreed with how I felt, and
completely ignored Trump corruption before the election. 'Cause that's the fair and
balanced media we all enjoy!
Silly vet. Trump's kids HAVE A STRONG APPEARANCE OF SELLING THEIR FATHER'S
INFLUENCE.
Have you been living under a rock? Why did Ivanka get several Chinese patents AT THE
SAME TIME Daddy was letting a Chinese company off the hook and hosting the Chinese leader
at Mar-A-Lago? Why is Jared Kushner jetting off to ME countries looking for investment
money while an active advisor in the West Wing? Why are Beavis and Butthead (Don Jr and
Eric) looking for foreign properties while Daddy is president?
Trump's children were actively involved in international business concerns long before
Trump ran for office. Hunter Biden is a low-life crack head who never achieved anything
until his daddy was VP. If you can't acknowledge the difference, you are incapable of
reason.
@Joe_Hubris Quite right, we all heard that donkey jr met with the Russians at Trump
Tower. There was ample evidence, before he let it out himself. But that wasn't exactly
conducting business, that was trying to steal an election.
Honest, Ivanka seems rather smart. Of course, Midlle Eastern money into Jared's businesses
will dry up, still, they'll save the furniture.
But, as soon as they are given the chance, Beavis and Butthead will do their best to blow
Trump Inc to smithereens and burn all that remains of it to the ground.
Oh, Hunter was in on the grift long before Joe became VP. He was brought into MBNA's
"Executive Training" program and made a member of the Board of AMTRAC while his daddy was
in the Senate.
I'm awake. Whenever there have been allegations of corruption against Trump's family,
I've tried to track the facts down (same as I've done with Biden, and before either of them
other candidates/Presidents).
There is one difference. My perception of major media the past four years is that with
Democrats, they've worked to minimize the damage on any story harmful to the left (Hunters'
laptop and Tara Reades' allegations of rape being prime examples), while any story
involving Trump they've exaggerated, left important facts out of their coverage, or
outright lied. So I believe that if there was any real corruption involving Trump, the MSM
would have covered it endlessly, just like they did with the bogus allegations of Trump
collaborating with the Russians to steal the election, and many other examples.
I'm not hiding from facts involving Trump family corruption. I just haven't seen
anything supporting it yet. I don't know if Jared Kushner was soliciting investment money
in the ME; that has been rumor and innuendo by his political enemies with no factual basis
so far. Ivanka having a fashion line and protecting it globally seems normal to me (China
is a huge market - bigger than the U.S.). Don Jr. and Eric seem like they're doing the same
things they were doing before DJT sought office, which is managing a normal business.
Everything about Hunter and Joe's brothers' business activities seem incredibly
suspicious to me, on the other hand.
Right! For example, I'm sure that Ivanka Trump got all of those lucrative licensing
deals in China SOLELY because of her amazing financial and business acumen!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Well,cwe know "covid"Joe isn't shy about doing business with them,bright? He said he had
more time with Chinese leaders than any modern president. And, using those chinese
connections,he had a virus made, and crazy Nancy Pelosi helped him spread it on her end of
the country. They used the impeachment, then the antics of the democratic socialists kicked
in, with Nancy calling him fat. And, when he tried to restrict flights from china, they
called him xenophobic and racist. Then distracted him more by inviting people to Chinese
new year! Before the virus, Trump was unstoppable. With ultra low unemployment rates, and
factories going strong, not to mention the legislation"Alzheimer's" Joe got going, causing
at least one man twenty years in prison for stealing a shovel! No one really considered
Biden to be a serious rival to trump then once they got the virus going, they used the
lowering of the presidents ratings and the virtual emptying of every other candidates, plus
the virus allowed them to get that mail in voting going, which is easier to tamper with
than electronic voting machines. Did you notice,with all the super sick people,we had the
highest turnout in history? Before you say it can't be true, another nugget to chew:right
before the election, about 90% of the bad things"Dirty" Joe did just know kinda "vanished
from social media!! We all know, if it shows up there, it never goes away, right? Wrong
when the democratic socialists control them...so in honoring Joe's greatest accomplishment,
I give to you....the JOVID virus...it's kinda...catchy, eh?but we need to shout out loud,
so he can hear, that everyone knows what he did last year! JOVID! JOVID! Put your hands in
the air like you just don't care and, with half the country hating this Biden clown we
should be as loud as Metallica in a phone booth!! Don't let them get away with it!!!!
Unlike Joe Biden's grifting clan, Trump's offspring had successful enterprises well
before their father entered into politics. And yes, in China and a number of international
countries also. Like their father, and unlike the Biden's, the Trump family didn't strike
it rich from political office. In fact, President Trump donated his entire presidential
salary of $400k/yr to charities all four years. Imagine Joe Biden doing that.
It is a sad state we find ourselves in today. Democrats whine about "white privilege"
against people who had nothing to do with slavery and in fact lost ancestors fighting it.
Meanwhile in a more real and present instance of privilege at the expense of other humans,
current vaccinations against Covid19 were developed using cell lines derived from aborted
human children. To my knowledge not a single vaccine is being offered that does not rest on
this heinous recipe.
By now, most people know that Leon Black has stepped down as CEO of Apollo Global Management
after ties to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, including paying the late Epstein $158 million for
"tax advice". We documented the details of Black's departure in
this piece , out earlier this week.
Now the question becomes: how deep does the rabbit hole continue to go?
Edwin Dorsey, founder of The
Bear Cave newsletter , posted an epic Tweet thread (you can follow Dorsey here ) back in December 2020 that - if
accurate - shows that more Epstein-related bombs could soon be going off.
"John J. Hannan, Apollo's cofounder and senior partner, donated $166k to Epstein in 1999.
Hannan also replaced Epstein on the Black Foundation Board in 2013," he notes.
Dorsey concludes: "If Harry Beller, Epstein's longtime notary/accountant, worked closely
with Black, Rowan, or Hannan this would take the story to a whole new level. My guess is there
is much more that has not been reported yet."
But thanks to Dorsey's digging, there may very well be more on the way.
Recall, the announcement of Black's departure came as Apollo revealed the conclusion of a
review by law firm Dechert into Black's relationship with Epstein, which reportedly "cleared"
Black and Apollo of any "involvement in criminal activities" with Epstein.
"I have advised the Apollo board that I will retire as C.E.O. on or before my 70th birthday
in July and remain as chairman, " Black said in a statement.
Over the past year and a half, Apollo CEO and founder Leon Black had been caught in a web of
allegations that he was "too close" to Epstein after it emerged Black had paid Epstein $158
million after he was released from jail.
And while Black published a letter in which he admitted that "it was a terrible mistake" to
associated with Epstein and "like many people I respected, I decided to give Epstein a second
chance," Black said last October, it wasn't nearly enough as some asset managers froze their
new capital allocations to Apollo. It eventually prompted Apollo to hire Dechert to conduct an
"independent review" of Black's dealings with Epstein to clear Black's - and Apollo's -
name.
Among the key findings of the Dechert report:
Apollo never retained Epstein for any services and Epstein never invested in any
Apollo-managed funds
Dechert found no evidence that Black was involved in any way with Epstein's criminal
activities at any time
Black "believed, and witnesses generally agreed, that Epstein provided advice that conferred
more than $1 billion and as much as $2 billion or more" in tax savings, the report states,
which - needless to say - is ridiculous for a person who was already surrounded by the biggest
tax experts on earth who also happened to be Black's employees. 11,410 33 NEVE
play_arrow
Cable Guy 45 minutes ago
Google Bill Clinton and Leon Black. Have fun. We live in a very corrupt country.....
1Y4NixfGQ4MbMO4f 1 hour ago remove link
Something is rotten in the state of denmark
cookiesanyone 56 minutes ago
EVERYTHING is rotten in the state of Denmark
End Times Prophecy 11 seconds ago
Thirty two years and counting since ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has been done. Even if 100% of the
world's no longer existent law enforcement layers were still in business you couldn't be much
more criminally incompetent, negligent or complicit than this.
YoodenVranx 8 minutes ago
Black "believed, and witnesses generally agreed, that Epstein provided advice that
conferred more than $1 billion and as much as $2 billion or more" i
Sure..by not releasing a few very particular photos, Epstein saved Black well in excess of
that.
joyful-feet 28 minutes ago
As if the psychopaths in Washington both D and R care one bit. They support these things.
Their lapdog enforcers will do what they tell them to do. There is no justice, they are just
crackdown arm to censor and attack those who threaten their power.
Jumanji1959 38 minutes ago
Jeffrey & Gisele say hello from the beaches of Tel Aviv.
46 Follow RT on Outgoing US
President Donald Trump has delivered his "parting gift" to the Moscow-led Nord Stream 2 gas
pipeline, with newly announced sanctions targeting a pipe-laying vessel and companies involved
in the multinational project.
The specialist ship concerned, named, 'Fortuna,' and oil tanker 'Maksim Gorky', as well as
two Russian firms, KVT-Rus and Rustanker, were blacklisted on Tuesday under CAATSA (Countering
America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) as part of Washington's economic war on Moscow.
The same legislation had been previously used by the US to target numerous Russian officials
and enterprises.
Russian energy giant Gazprom warned its investors earlier on Tuesday that Nord Stream 2
could be suspended or even canceled if more US restrictions are introduced.
However, Moscow has assured its partners that it intends to complete the project despite
"harsh pressure on the part of Washington," according to Kremlin press secretary Dmitry
Peskov. Reacting to the new package of sanctions on Tuesday, Peskov called them
"unlawful."
Meanwhile, the EU said it is in no rush to join the Washington-led sanction war on Nord
Stream 2. EU foreign affairs chief, Josep Borrell, said that the bloc is not going to resist
the construction of the project.
"Because we're talking about a private project, we can't hamper the operations of those
companies if the German government agrees to it," Borrell said Tuesday.
Nord Stream 2 is an offshore gas pipeline, linking Russia and Germany with aim of providing
cheaper energy to Central European customers. Under the agreement between Moscow and Berlin, it
was to be launched in mid-2020, but the construction has been delayed due to strong opposition
from Washington.
The US, which is hoping to sell its Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) to Europe, has hit the
project with several rounds of sanctions over scarcely credible claims that it could undermine
European energy security. Critics say the real intent is to force EU members to buy from
American companies.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
46 Follow RT on
Trends:
Fatback33 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:20 AM
The group that owns Washington makes the foreign policy. That policy is not for the benefit
of the people.
DukeLeo Fatback33 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:06 PM
That is correct. The private banks and corporations in the US are very upset about Nord
Stream - 2, as they want Europe to buy US gas at double price. Washington thus introduces
additional political gangsterism in the shape of new unilateral sanctions which have no merit
in international law.
noremedy 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:22 AM
Is the U.S. so stupid that they do not realize that they are isolating themselves? Russia has
developed SPFS, China CIPS, together with Iran, China and Russia are further developing a
payment transfer system. Once in place and functioning this system will replace the western
SWIFT system for international payment transfers. It will be the death knell for the US
dollar. 327 million Americans are no match for the rest of the billions of the world's
population. The next decade will see the total debasement of the US monetary system and the
fall from power of the decaying and crumbling in every way U.S.A.
Hanonymouse noremedy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:37 PM
They don't care. They have the most advanced military in the world. Might makes right, even
today.
Shelbouy 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:25 PM
Russia currently supplies over 50% of the natural gas consumed by The EU. Germany and Italy
are the largest importers of Russian natural gas. What is the issue of sanctions stemming
from and why are the Americans doing this? A no brainer question I suppose. It's to make more
money than the other supplier, and exert political pressure and demand obedience from its
lackey. Germany.
David R. Evans Shelbouy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:58 PM
Russia and Iran challenge perpetual US wars for Israel's Oded Yinon Plan. Washington is
Israel-controlled territory.
Jewel Gyn 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:34 AM
Sanctions work both ways. With the outgoing Trump administration desperately laying mines for
Biden, we await how sleepy Joe is going to mend strayed ties with EU.
Count_Cash 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:20 AM
The US mafia state continues with the same practices. The dog is barking but the caravan is
going. The counter productiveness of sanctions always shows through in the end! I am sure
with active efforts of Germany and Russia against US mafia oppression that a blowback will be
felt by the US over time!
Dachaguy 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:24 AM
This is an act of war against Germany. NATO should respond and act against the aggressor,
America.
xyz47 Dachaguy 42 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:20 PM
NATO is run by the US...
lovethy Dachaguy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:04 PM
NATO has no separate existence. It's the USA's arm of aggression, suppression and domination.
Germany after WWII is an occupied country of USA. Thousand of armed personnel stationed in
Germany enforcing that occupation.
Chaz Dadkhah 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:19 PM
Further proof that Trump is no friend of Russia and is in a rush to punish them while he
still has power. If it was the swamp telling him to do that, like his supporters suggest,
then they would have waited till their man Biden came in to power in less than 24 hours to do
it. Wake up!
Mac Kio 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:34 PM
USA hates fair competition. USA ignores all WTO rules.
Russkiy09 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:33 PM
By whining and not completing in the face of US, Russia is losing credibility. They should
not have delayed to mobilize the pipe laying vessel and other equipment for one whole year.
They should have mobilized in three months and finished by now. Same happens when Jewtin does
not shoot down Zio air force bombing Syria everyday. But best option should have been to tell
European vassals that "if you can, take our gas. But we will charge the highest amount and
sell as much as we want, exclude Russophobic Baltic countries and Poland and neo-vassal
Ukraine. Pay us not in your ponzi paper money but real goods and services or precious metals
or other commodities or our own currency Ruble." I so wish I could be the President of
Russia. Russians deserve to be as wealthy as the Swiss or SIngapore etc., not what they are
getting. Their leaders should stand up for their interest. And stop empowering the greedy
merchantalist Chinese and brotherhood Erdogan.
BlackIntel 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:27 PM
America i captured by private interest; this project threatens American private companies
hence the government is forced to protect capitalism. This is illegal
Ohhho 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:15 PM
That project was a mistake from the start: Russia should distance itself from the Evil
empire, EU included! Stop wasting time and resources on trying to please the haters and
keeping them more competitive with cheaper Russian natural gas: focus on real partners and
potential allies elsewhere!
butterfly123 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:58 PM
I have said it before that part of the problem is at the door of the policy-makers and
politicians in Russia. Pipeline project didn't spring up in the minds of politicians in
Russia one morning, presumably. There should have been foresight, detailed planning, and
opportunity creation for firms in Russia to acquire the skill-set and resources to advance
this project. Not doing so has come to bite Russia hard and painful. Lessons learnt I hope Mr
President!
jakro 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:37 AM
Good news. The swamp is getting deeper and bigger.
hermaflorissen 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:49 AM
Trump finally severed my expectations for the past 4 years. He should indeed perish.
ariadnatheo 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:06 PM
That is one Trump measure that will not be overturned by the Senile One. They will need to
amplify the RussiaRussiaRussia barking and scratching to divert attention from their dealings
with China
Neville52 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:01 PM
Its time the other nations of the world turned their backs on the US. Its too risky if you
are an international corporation to suddenly have large portions of your income cancelled due
to some crazy politician in the US
5th Eye 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:03 PM
From empire to the collapse of empire, US follows UK to the letters. Soon it will be
irrelevant. The only thing that remains for UK is the language. Probably hotdog for the US.
VonnDuff1 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:10 PM
The USA Congress and its corrupt foreign policy dictates work to the detriment of Europe and
Russia, while providing no tangible benefits to US states or citizens. So globalist demands
wrapped in the stars & stripes, should be laughed at, by all freedom loving nations.
Prince Andrew's chief
accuser was a prostitute who lied about her age and was paid "half a million" by disgraced
businessman Jeffrey Epstein, new court papers allege, according to the Telegraph.
Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who is now an advocate for victims of sex trafficking, has claimed
she had sex with the royal at least three times in 2001, when she was 17.
Giuffre claims this happened after she met with American financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was
charged with procuring underage and young women for powerful clients, together with his close
associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
According to the
report , Sharon Churcher, the journalist who first revealed that Giuffre was among
Epstein's victims, told New York publisher Tony Lyons that Giuffre lied about her age when she
met Epstein.
"She took a year off [her age]. Apparently she was 16, not 15, when she was recruited [by
Epstein]. But she'd been on the game for about a year then. Epstein's women were – he
basically had prostitutes," the paper quoted Churcher as saying about Giuffre, citing a
transcript of her conversation with Lyons.
Churcher was quoted as saying that Giuffre was "suing everybody," including Epstein's
lawyer, Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz. "The idea is that he will then pay her off. This
really is blackmail," she said, adding that Giuffre would "just move on to other
people" and that Epstein had "paid her off."
"She had settled with Epstein. She'd taken half a million, I think it was."
The journalist also reportedly suggested that Giuffre may have produced fake emails that
were later presented as having been written by Churcher.
In a comment to the Telegraph, Giuffre's lawyer, Chuck Cooper, said: "We are looking
forward to taking Ms. Churcher's deposition under oath."
Prince Andrew has denied ever having sex with Giuffre. He admitted to having been friends
with Epstein but claimed he had no idea at the time that the businessman was involved in sex
trafficking. In 2001, the prince was photographed wrapping his hand around Giuffre's waist in
Maxwell's London apartment.
Epstein was found dead in August 2019 inside a prison cell in New York, where he was
awaiting trial. Maxwell was arrested in July and charged with helping Epstein to procure
underage girls for sex trafficking.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
"... Band said he had no idea about Epstein's sex crimes back then but got enough bad vibes that he advised Clinton to end the relationship. But Clinton continued to socialize with Epstein and take his money. In 2006 Epstein donated $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton made more than two dozen trips on Epstein's jet around this time, Epstein's flight logs show. In January 2003, according to Band, Clinton visited Epstein's private Caribbean island, Little St. James. Band said it was one of the few trips he declined to go on in his time with Clinton. - Vanity Fair ..."
"... Chelsea Clinton had a relationship with Epstein and his alleged co-conspirator in an underage sex trafficking ring, Ghislaine Maxwell. ..."
"... Chelsea had ties to Epstein and Maxwell, Band said; he showed me a photo of Bill and Chelsea posing with Epstein and Maxwell at the King of Morocco's wedding. Chelsea remained friends with Maxwell for years after the press revealed Maxwell was a close associate of Epstein's. For instance, Chelsea invited Maxwell to her 2010 wedding at the Brooke Astor estate in Rhinebeck, New York, after Epstein had pleaded guilty in Florida to procuring sex from a minor. - Vanity Fair ..."
"... "Ghislaine had access to yachts and nice homes. Chelsea needed that ," said Band. ..."
"... Thanks again to WikiLeaks, we also know that Band was soliciting donations for Clinton through his PR and investment firm, Teneo in an sordid example of "pay for play" which most of the mainstream media refused to cover - which he worried about in an email to John Podesta, saying: " If this story gets out, we are screwed ." ..."
"... In 2011, Band says he instructed Bill Clinton's staffers to ban Maxwell 'from all Clintonworld events' to try and drive a wedge between Chelsea and Ghislaine . ..."
Bill Clinton's former top aide and
Chelsea Clinton nemesis Doug Band has told
Vanity Fair that former
President Bill Clinton did visit Jeffrey Epstein's infamous "pedo island" in January 2003, and that he was unable to push Epstein
out of Clinton's orbit since they flew to Africa together in 2002 aboard the the pedophile's (Epstein's) private 727, dubbed the
"Lolita Express."
Band said he had no idea about Epstein's sex crimes back then but got enough bad vibes that he advised Clinton to end the relationship. But Clinton continued to socialize with Epstein and take his money. In 2006 Epstein donated $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
Clinton made more than two dozen trips on Epstein's jet around this time, Epstein's flight logs show. In January 2003, according
to Band, Clinton visited Epstein's private Caribbean island, Little St. James. Band said it was one of the few trips he declined
to go on in his time with Clinton. -
Vanity Fair
Band - who revealed the Clinton Foundation's
'for-profit' activity and accused Chelsea Clinton of tapping Foundation funds to
pay for her wedding (known only because of WikiLeaks) - also says Chelsea Clinton had a relationship with Epstein and his alleged
co-conspirator in an underage sex trafficking ring, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Chelsea had ties to Epstein and Maxwell, Band said; he showed me a photo of Bill and Chelsea posing with Epstein and Maxwell
at the King of Morocco's wedding. Chelsea remained friends with Maxwell for years after the press revealed Maxwell was a close
associate of Epstein's. For instance, Chelsea invited Maxwell to her 2010 wedding at the Brooke Astor estate in Rhinebeck, New
York, after Epstein had pleaded guilty in Florida to procuring sex from a minor. -
Vanity Fair
"Ghislaine had access to yachts and nice homes. Chelsea needed that ," said Band.
Band notably created the
now-defunct
Clinton Global Initiative, which has helped to raise $74 billion for Clinton global charities, according to
Newsmax . Thanks again
to WikiLeaks, we also know that Band was
soliciting donations for Clinton through his PR and investment firm, Teneo in an sordid example of "pay for play" which most
of the mainstream media refused to cover - which he worried about in an email to John Podesta, saying: "
If this
story gets out, we are screwed ."
In response to Band's claims about Chelsea, a family spokesperson said that " Chelsea was on friendly terms with Maxwell because
of a mutual friend (Gateway computer founder Ted Waitt) and only took one yacht trip with Maxwell in 2009: "It wasn't until 2015
that Chelsea became aware of the horrific allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell and she hopes that all the victims find justice."
In 2011, Band says he instructed Bill Clinton's staffers to ban Maxwell 'from all Clintonworld events' to try and drive a wedge
between Chelsea and Ghislaine .
"I knew in telling everyone to stop including Ghislaine that Chelsea and her father would be very angry. It made it harder for
them to justify being close to her," said Band.
Ghislaine Maxwell was a voracious photographer who "constantly" snapped photos of topless
girls at Jeffrey Epstein's mansion and kept the pictures in an album, according to freshly
released court documents.
A former butler at Epstein's Florida home told lawyers that Maxwell was an "avid"
photographer who routinely took photos of scantily clad girls with a "special
camera".
Most of the images were taken poolside and were of "topless" young women, which
Maxwell would later store in an album she kept on her desk, according to former employee John
Alessi.
"She was very avid with photographs," Alessi said in federal court papers unsealed on
Saturday. "She had this high-tech camera. She was constantly taking photographs."
Alessi said most of the girls were European and some were American.
British socialite Maxwell is in a New York jail awaiting trial on multiple counts of
procuring girls as young as 14 for Epstein to abuse, and of allegedly abusing some of the girls
herself. The 58-year-old has denied all the charges she faces.
Alessi's statements to lawyers were made in June 2016 and were unsealed by a judge on
Saturday. They relate to a settled defamation case between Maxwell and Virginia Roberts
Giuffre, who claims she was coerced into having sex with Prince Andrew from the British royal
family.
The FBI wants to interview Prince Andrew but he has denied all claims of wrongdoing. A
lawyer representing Epstein's victims branded it "outrageous" that a year has passed
since the queen of England's second-eldest son publicly promised to cooperate with the US
authorities.
Lisa Bloom called on the royal to submit to an interview with the FBI, saying "it is
never too late to do the right thing."
Disgraced businessman Epstein was found dead in a New York jail in August 2019 while
awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. His death was officially ruled a suicide,
and intense speculation has surrounded the circumstances.
TheRealElDee 6 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 02:03 PM
Even Maxwell is still a fall guy for the many people who used Epstein's services. People like
Alan Dershowitz (who benefitted from the deal he made Epstein MORE than Epstein did) and well
known politicians who are said to include a British Prime Minister (they don't actually say
it's Blair) and other well known US Clintons called Bill. There had been no appetite under
Obama to pursue this and as Biden is about to take the reins I'm sure that this will not be
pressed as hard as it should be. I still think Maxwell will be convicted, but it will be left
there, as though she obtained the girls purely for Epstein to abuse and not any of the
hundreds of others who have walked away due to Dershowitz's deal. Enough money and you have
the power to buy your way out of anything..
neeon9 TheRealElDee 3 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 04:44 PM
There was a lot of Jewish secret service and CIA involved as well, blackmailing with honey
traps.
Cosmicwaffles 10 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 09:51 AM
I'm sure trump loved them! He, like many celebrities and politicians, was good friends with
epstein. In 2009, when an employee leaked epstein's personal address book it showed multiple
phone numbers for trump and his wife. Additionally, was uncovered that he left two phone
messages for epstein in November 2004 on a message pad obtained by investigators from
epstein's home. Republicans and democrats alike were and still are involved shows how broken
the system is
Big Tex 9 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 10:42 AM
We are tired of hearing the Prince Andrew stories. Tell us what is happening to all of the
Americans who did the same thing. Where are the stories about Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein,
Les Wexner, Kevin Spacey, and Bill Gates?
Cryptoid 34 minutes ago 22 Nov, 2020 07:45 PM
Female pedophiles are very,very common but mostly they fly under the radar.
Exclusive: How The Bidens Made Off With Millions In Chinese Cash
New
documents show that as regulators closed in, Hunter struck a fresh deal with his Chinese partners
World Food Program USA Board Chairman Hunter Biden speaks at the World Food Program USA's Annual McGovern-Dole Leadership
Award Ceremony at Organization of American States on April 12, 2016 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Paul Morigi/Getty Images for
World Food Program USA)
The Senate's
report
on
Hunter Biden's activities released several months ago, which was
spun
by
the New York Times as having shown "no evidence of wrongdoing," nevertheless had several important gaps in the business
activities of the troubled son of the former vice president.
Draft legal documents and 2017 bank records obtained by The American Conservative show at least $5 million was transferred to
Hunter and Jim Biden from companies associated with the Chinese conglomerate CEFC, with millions coming after the company had
come under legal scrutiny both in the United States and China.
CEFC official Patrick Ho was arrested in November 2017 and charged by the Southern District of New York with corruption, and
was convicted last year. In addition, on or about March 1, 2018, CEFC Chairmen Ye Jianming was arrested in China for economic
crimes and hasn't been seen since. CEFC assets in China were seized by Chinese state agencies. In the U.S., major
beneficiaries were Hunter and Jim Biden.
What the following documents show is that as regulators moved to seize CEFC's assets, Hunter Biden attempted to take control
of the company founded in partnership with it. Instead, after striking a deal with two CEFC employees in the U.S., the funds
were disbursed over the next six months to his and his uncle's companies until it was all gone, in total at least $5 million.
2017 Bank Records
On August 5, 2017, the Bidens and CEFC entered into a 50-50 limited liability company agreement (Hudson West III) between
Owasco, Hunter Biden's company, and Hudson West V (CEFC). The Sep 22, 2020 report from the Senate Judiciary Committee (the
"HGSAC Report") surmised an agreement like this, but a copy can be seen, for the first time
here
.
In early 2017, CEFC was ranked as one of the top 500 corporations in the world.
Hudson West III set up two bank accounts with Cathay Bank, with the first set up on or about August 5.
A
company associated with CEFC deposited $5 million into the account on August 8; no contribution was made by the Bidens.
On
Nov 2, 2017, CEFC Limited deposited a further $1 million into the account. (Subsequently, the Hudson West III account shows a
wire of $1 million back to CEFC Limited on Nov 21, followed a few days later on Nov 27 by a credit memo for $999,938. The
HGSAC Report interpreted the Nov 21 wire transfer as a return of the $1 million, but appear to have omitted consideration of
the credit memo apparently reversing the return).
The
net result is that CEFC and its affiliates deposited almost exactly $6 million into Hudson West III in 2017.
In the 5 months between August 8 and Dec 31, 2017, Hudson West III disbursed almost $1.6 million to Owasco (Hunter Biden) in
wire transfers and credit card binges by the Bidens. The transfers appear to have been structured as $165,000 in monthly
payments, plus two other payments of $400,000 and $220,387.
Collated
screengrabs from Hudson West III bank statements showing payments to Owasco (Wells Fargo Clearing Services LLC)
The HGSAC Report reported on the $99,000 credit card spree by the Bidens in early September 2017, but, in addition to that
spree, there was an additional $77,700 in credit card sprees, making a total of $176,700 for the five month period.
Figure
2. Screengrab from Hudson West III bank statements showing credit card disbursements
Total expenditures by Hudson West III in the five months were $1,947,439, of which $1,522,000 went to the Bidens (via Owasco
and credit cards).
Hudson
West III bank accounts contained more than $4 million in cash at the end of 2017.
March 2018 Deal
Shortly after the arrest of CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming on March 1, 2018, there appears to have been a rolling seizure of CEFC
assets. Even with the profligate spending by the Bidens, Hudson West III would still have had about $3.5 million in cash in
March.
On March 26, a Chinese-American employee who was fiercely loyal to Hunter suggested to him that Hunter and the two CEFC
employees in the U.S. (Mervyn Yan and Kevin Dong) figure out a way to appropriate the Hudson West III cash before it was
frozen by Chinese regulators or receivers:
you guys (You/Mervyn/Kevin)
figure out a way to have the money transferred to the right U.S. account before any restriction levied by Chinese
regulators or appointed new boss in charge of manage the enterprise Ye left behind.
In fact, Hunter had already begun the process of appropriating Hudson West III cash before a receiver could arrive. On March
18, Hunter's lawyer sent a letter to Mervyn Yan proposing that Hudson West V (the proximate CEFC entity) assign its interest
in Hudson West III to Owasco (Hunter), a transaction which would give control of all the cash to Hunter (see
here
,
and
here
).
On or about March 30, 2018, Hunter and the two Chinese appear to have worked out a different arrangement. Among the newly
available documents are redlined versions of an assignment agreement in which Hudson West V assigned its 50% interest in
Hudson West III to Coldharbour Capital Inc., with Kevin Dong the proposed signatory for Hudson West V, Mervyn Yan for
Coldharbour Capital and Hunter signatory for Owasco's consent to the assignment.
The HGSAC Report does not appear to have had access to these documents: they noted that ownership of Hudson West III at some
point was 50% Coldharbour, but does not appear to have been aware of the prior ownership of this interest by Hudson West V or
the assignment to Coldharbour in late March 2018.
During the next six months, the cash was completely drained into the accounts of Owasco and Coldharbour, spent on consulting
fees and expenses. According to the HGSAC Report, total payments from Hudson West III to Owasco amount to an astonishing
$4,790,375 by September 2018, when the Hudson West III accounts were totally depleted. In November 2018, Hudson West III was
dissolved by Owasco and Coldharbour.
From the 2017 bank records, we know that $1,444,000 had been transferred to Owasco in 2017 (excluding direct payment of credit
card sprees); thus, transfers to Owasco in the first eight months of 2018 were approximately $3,345,000.
The assignment of Hudson West V's interest in Hudson West III to Coldharbour and the dissipation of cash to the Hudson West
III managers would probably not have stood up to a determined receiver appointed by the Chinese parent company, but there
doesn't appear to have been any attempt by the parent company to stop or control the dissipation of Hudson West III's cash
reserves.
Lion Hall (Jim Biden)
Invoices
Included in the newly available material are invoices to Owasco and, separately, to Hudson West III from Jim Biden doing
business as Lion Hall Group. The HGSAC Report stated that, between Aug 14, 2017 and Aug 3, 2018, Owasco sent 20 wires totaling
$1,398,999 to Lion Hall Group. The newly available documents show that Jim Biden charged Owasco $82,500 per month as a
"monthly retainer for international business development":
Readers will recall that Hudson West III bank statements showed regular monthly payments of $165,000 for the last 5 months of
2017. The corollary is that Hunter split this regular monthly payment from Hudson West III 50:50 with Jim Biden. The HGSAC
Report notes that the payments to Lion Hall Group had been flagged by Owasco's bank (Wells Fargo) for potential criminal
activity. The new documents contain an inquiry email from Wells Fargo compliance, together with a reply from Hunter which was
unresponsive on the key compliance questions. By the time that Wells Fargo raised its compliance concerns, the Hudson West III
cash had been exhausted and with it, presumably the stream of 50-50 payments to Uncle Jim.
As noted above, in addition to the regular $165,000 monthly payments, Owasco received other large transfers in 2017 and
presumably in 2018. It is not known whether Uncle Jim split these 50-50 as well, or whether this was a side transaction by
Hunter.
Concurrent with this flood of
money from CEFC, Hunter continued to receive a lavish stipend from Burisma. Nonetheless, by the end of 2018, Hunter had
hundreds of thousands in tax liens. In March 2019, despite having received millions from Chinese business interests, Hunter
even had to plead with former partner Jeffrey Cooper to email him $100 for gas so that he wouldn't be stranded on the highway.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Arthur Bloom is editor of The American Conservative online. He was previously deputy editor of the Daily Caller
and a columnist for the Catholic Herald. He holds masters degrees in urban planning and American studies from
the University of Kansas. His work has appeared in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The
Spectator
(UK),
The Guardian, Quillette, The American
Spectator
,
Modern Age, and Tiny Mix Tapes.
email
Not by the Conservative press. But certainly by the Liberal press. I was born in a country
where all the news sources were owned by one of the political parties. Now I live in a
country where we have the
de facto
situation. In
America we are very good at setting the standard as the
de
jure
state of affairs, while ignoring the
de facto
state
of affairs. Every country has its share of hypocrisy. But there are few places, if any, where
it is institutionalized as America. We need to do much better. Despite what the Conservatives
say, the Liberal press used to try to do journalism. But they have given up.
I'm old enough to remember when CNN was a pretty middle of the road news organization.
But Fox came along and proved that naked partisanship, half-truths, innuendo, and
brightening up the hate centers of the brain was a far more profitable way of doing
business. CNN just had to compete.
We do have the Fox "News" Network (Most watched cable news channel, or so the
continually brag, and with TV/cable being where most Americans get their news from that
makes them a pretty big player) and One America "News" Network. Ad in the Sinclair
Broadcasting Network--they have no problem sending out canned od-eds supporting Trump
so they should have no ideological objection to pursuing this story. Perhaps they could
do some investigating and reporting instead of filling their airtime with
unsubstantiated accusations made by others that they take at face value.
Not to mention there are some print sources--The Washington Times, the NY Post, the
Orange County Register, Des Moines Register, etc.
Right? Between Fox News, the Murdoch owned papers, Breitbart, the Daiky
Caller/Wire, and Sinclair, the idea that right isn't represented in the media is
frankly insane. Even Q Anon has a better reach in Facebook than the NYT and they
are a pure distillation of conservatism.
"There is no conservative media" is an idea about as tethered to reality as
conservative media is in general.
This is news. Hunter Biden is most likely a crook. And a well-known watchdog group has just filed a
12-page complaint with DOJ requesting an investigation. Also check out this TV appearance on
Newsmax.
Hunter Biden is most likely a crook. But what a person "most likely is" is not news. I used
to watch Newsmax because it is good to hear about stories that the liberal press doesn't
cover. And it is good to get varying perspectives on news events even if the liberal press
covers them. But I can't take tv news any more. They are all mostly useless for people like
me who detest both political parties. I watch only Newsy. You should try if you are really
interested in news.
"watchdog group" you say? And that is supposed to me make me think that there is a difference
between that and the Republican Party? The liberals pioneered that trick. Now everyone uses
it. That is, name (effectively) an arm of the Democratic Party a "watchdog" and that is
supposed to give it credibility. But the trick is subject to our First Law of Politics.
Whatever tactic one party deploys, as long as it is successful, the other party will deploy
it. No matter how much they denounced it previously. At best, they will rename it. But
usually, they don't bother.
In any case, unless this "watchdog group" is alleging a crime there is no basis for a DOJ
investigation. What is the criminal accusation?
I'm not gonna lie, I didn't even waste my time reading this piece. Arthur seems to have all of a
sudden become interested in corruption (which likely didn't even happen) in a way he expressed no
interest in for the last 4 years. Forgive me if I don't vote him as an honest broker.
It's just so weak. This isn't an October surprise -- this is like a turkey surprise casserole
served two weeks after Thanksgiving. Even if this were a game-changing piece of reporting, it
seems a dubious tactic to release it on the morning of the election on a website that
probably gets less views than some random 16 year old dancing on Tik-Tok.
TAC's pivot over the last couple years into Brietbart territory is embarrassing. A lot of rightwing
media and personalities held out for awhile on Trump, but eventually saw where the wind was blowing
and jumped in the deep end. I hope no one on the principled right or left ever lets them forget it.
No shelter for scoundrels....
Thanks for publishing this. I hope more such pieces appear here in the next few weeks. TAC's regular
readers from the Left don't like it. Good. Rub their noses in it.
I was mentioning Hunter Biden and his Ukraine dealings back in 2014 but I don't have a public forum
outside email and social media and no one thought it of interest till his dad was running for
president against a man who by many accounts has been a crook his entire adult life, and proud of
it.
So Hunter failed to register as a foreign agent. Isn't that what Mike Flynn got busted for
along with some other Trump campaign officials? And hasn't Trump demanded his people all be
forgiven for their transgressions cause it wasn't really a bad thing?
Out of curiosity, among the hundreds if not thousands of websites you could be reading right now,
apart from thousands of decent monographs and works of fiction, why are you spending time this
morning at this "nutjob site," going so far as to login to the comments section to express to the
other presumably "nut job" readers that you're better than them?
This speaks VOLUMES about your worth as a human being. When you wake up around 3 AM over the next
few nights, it'll hit you. Let it sink in. Let it marinate. From such truths character is built.
It's pretty extreme. TAC comment section has become unusable bickering and taunts even after
blocking half the content. I don't know what they are hoping to accomplish other than
confirming our worst guesses about their character.
Exclusive? Of course! No one in their right mind would print it. And the enemy of the state-fake news
outlets are all looking for scoops and looking to win major awards and prizes for breaking a
story-----and for some reason all of these thousands of journalists did not get this "exclusive."
all unproved nonsense.Where is the indictment, when, after all Trump and Barr woprk hand in hand...simply
BS stuff to support Trump. Should Trump lose, watch the legal stuff that he will confront. Now worry
about that
When did this site turn into The Tucker Carlson show ? Please return to the thoughtful conservative
thought that you are know for. Sign of the times I guess and how internet culture can demean us all.
It's the same delusion they engaged in with Trump. They overweight the feelings of their in
group and underweight the population as a whole. Tucker doesn't actually have many viewers in
the scheme of winning a national election. He couldn't appeal to moderates.
An email from the famous hard drive indicates a Chinese state-owned company wanted an
introduction from Rosemont Seneca Hunter Biden, from ABC News Nightline one year ago (
Source )
Back in March, I wrote a
column in these pages about the Chinese business entanglements of major media companies in
the U.S. By far the most seriously entangled is Comcast, the owner of NBCUniversal, parent
company of NBC and MSNBC, which is in the process of opening a Universal Studios theme park in
Beijing.
Portions of Hunter Biden's hard drive have now been shared with TAC. On the drive is an
email from president of Rosemont Seneca Eric Schwerin, a company co-founded by Hunter and John
Kerry's stepson, saying that Chinese state-owned enterprise CITIC was hoping they would make
introductions with Universal employees and propose the Beijing theme park.
"They'd like an introduction to Universal (Comcast) as they'd like to open a Universal
Studios China theme park outside of Beijing," Schwerin writes. "As I said, that one should be
easy via Melissa Mayfield/David Cohen [two Comcast executives]."
"She said they'd like to pay us for our help on these -- I told her we'd discuss whether we
could do that -- but were sure we could figure something out even if it was success fee based
on the US side but that I would talk to you," Schwerin added.
To what extent this was followed up on is at this point unclear. However, what it indicates
is that a company founded by two Democratic political scions was willing to facilitate a deal
for their friendliest media network, a network that has been unrelentingly hostile to Trump and
more or less completely ignored recent Hunter Biden disclosures. If Hunter helped facilitate a
sweet deal like this, it's only fair that they scratch his back too.
00:13 / 00:59 ABOUT THE AUTHOR Arthur Bloom is
editor of The American Conservative online. He was previously deputy editor of the Daily Caller
and a columnist for the Catholic Herald. He holds masters degrees in urban planning and
American studies from the University of Kansas. His work has appeared in The Washington Post,
The Washington Times, The Spectator (UK), The Guardian, Quillette, The American Spectator ,
Modern Age, and Tiny Mix Tapes.
Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop contained a 'treasure trove of top-secret material,
including his father's private emails and mobile phone numbers,' and was protected by the
password "Hunter02", according to the
Daily Mail .
The younger Biden's MacBook Pro was full of 'classic blackmail material' between
compromising sexual material and the private information of not only the Bidens, but also Bill
and Hillary Clinton.
Hunter's passport, driver's license, social security and credit card numbers were also on
the laptop, which revealed that he spent $21,000 on a 'live cam' porn website (while claiming
he was too broke to pay his stripper baby-mama child support?).
Via the Mail :
The material, none of which was encrypted or protected by anything as basic as two-factor
authentication, includes:
Joe Biden's personal mobile number and three private email addresses as well as the
names of his Secret Service agents;
Mobile numbers for former President Bill Clinton, his wife Hillary and almost every
member of former President Barack Obama's cabinet;
A contact database of 1,500 people including actress Gwyneth Paltrow, Coldplay singer
Chris Martin, former Presidential candidate John Kerry and ex-FBI boss Louis Freeh;
Personal documents including Hunter's passport, driver's licence, social security card,
credit cards and bank statements;
Details of Hunter's drug and sex problems, including $21,000 spent on one 'live cam'
porn website and 'selfies' of him engaging in sex acts and smoking crack cocaine;
The article does not that while Hunter may have used his family name to boost deals with
Chinese and Ukrainian firms, there is nothing implicating Joe Biden in any wrongdoing (just a
massive like that he 'never spoke with Hunter' about his business dealings).
"'It's a data breach and dangerous to have this type of material floating around," one
former police commander told the Mail . "For someone prominent, there is not only a risk of
great reputational damage but also a risk of blackmail should the material fall into the wrong
hand s."
Hunter's laptop was filled with 11 gigabytes of material covering the period from when his
father was Vice President, to when Hunter dropped it off at a Mac Store in Wilmington,
Delaware. wee-weed up , 10 hours ago
"What laptop?" -- MSM
Macho Latte , 10 hours ago
The Progs are now using the MSM to broadcast the Biden corruption scandal so that they can
use it to justify elevating Queen Kam El Tow to POTUS very soon after the Biden inauguration.
He'll be gone before April 1. Queen Kami will give him a pardon within minutes of seizing
power. All investigations into the Criminal Elite will be disappeared and all evidence will
be destroyed.
Progs don't take a dump, son, without a plan.
- Admiral Painter
systemsplanet , 9 hours ago
FBI was planning on using Hunter's laptop as Biden's control file.
ImGumbydmmt , 5 hours ago
And they are BOTH (Hunter and Hitlery) still walking out and about the world as free
people.
Sessions?
Barr?
Durham?
Wray?
Riiiiight.
ballot box?
Cartridge box is all thats left folks
Kan , 4 hours ago
Clinton crime family is still doing the 501.3c TAX dodge for trillions of dollars from the
gates foundation and over 100 universities in the jUSSA.... many other fun things.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 9 hours ago
Exactly, plus there is no way that the NSA did not have the IP and MAC address of every
computer that had ever downloaded every email to and from Hunter Biden. The "Big Guy" had
been on the Senate Intelligence Committee and already knew this which is why he insisted on
verbal directions only.
What "voters" don't fully understand is that elected representatives are the first line of
"useful idiots" for deep state.
BGen. Jack Ripper , 10 hours ago
The FBI and CIA are the real national security nightmare
Vivekwhu , 10 hours ago
Spot on! Good luck in claiming back the US Republic from these traitors at the top. This
must start this Tuesday or it is all done for.
Macho Latte , 9 hours ago
Too many people succumb to the psychological warfare that has been raging against us for 5
decades. It is very difficult to break free from the indoctrination regardless of
intelligence or education. The backbone of the DemonRat organization is a very strong emotion
that overcomes all logic and reason. It is HATE. Today it is called by the gentle name of
Identity Politics. Nevertheless, it is still a hate based psychological manipulation. Women
need to hate men. Blacks need to hate everyone. Whites need to hate themselves. Everybody
needs to Hate Trump.
Argon1 , 5 hours ago
They have power, they are corrupt, but such things are not absolute. Which is why people
are made examples of in law (pour encourager les autres ), but enforcement is minimal. Number
of Federal employees 2 million, population 330 million, number of FBI employees 35,000 of
which we can say only a 3rd will be available some are office staff, sick and others have
long term commitments. So these riots would have meant FBI would have been deployed even if
not used etc or would have been at the Mexican border since the wall closing has allowed a
much tougher border regime.
Proudly Unaffiliated , 6 hours ago
As represented by FBIbook and DNCIA.
LetThemEatRand , 10 hours ago
Countdown to charges being brought against everyone who ever possessed the hard drives....
Certainly more likely than anyone with the last name Biden getting in trouble. MSM has
already declared that there is no evidence that Joe had any involvement in Hunter's business
deals, which is demonstrably false. There's the "Big Guy" emails; there's the fact that these
foreign entities kept paying Hunter millions for his "name," and they would not have
continued to do so if they were getting nothing in return; there's the fact that Bobulinksi
has proof that Joe attended meeting with Hunter's employers; and that's just scratching the
surface with what we know now.
ponchoramic , 10 hours ago
The laptop/ hard drives were abandoned for more than 90 days, transffering ownership to
the shop owner, by law!
hashr_syndicate , 2 hours ago
@ Caloot
Crack is not purified, it is just changed to a base form which lowers it melting point
allowing someone to smoke it, hence the term free base. Smoking allows for a faster uptake
into the body giving more or a rush. The only way you can get the same rush with coke is to
shoot it up. The closest you could come your statement of it being true is to perform an
acid/base extraction by turning it into crack and then filtering contaminants and then using
an acid to drop the carbon back off and returning it to cocaine.
cabystander , 6 hours ago
To quote Schumer (+/-): the intelligence agencies have six ways from Sunday of getting
you.
That can be extended to the Government, in general. In spades.
Gobble D. Goop , 9 hours ago
Apparantly, C. Wray has an interest in keeping the laptop suppressed:
"This has all been debunked and we're not going to dignify it by responding to it."
- The Democrat News Media Complex
Floki_Ragnarsson , 9 hours ago
The FBI has NEVER had America's interests at heart. Ruby Ridge ring a bell?
invention13 , 9 hours ago
No, the FBI has it's own interests at heart. I would love to see the files that J. Edgar
had on everyone in Washington.
edotabin , 9 hours ago
Why are you surprised? You are dealing with a culture so corrupt, so rabid, so evil....
These people smell worse, are dirtier than and are harder to remove than than 6 months of cat
urine in an abandoned house.
Anyone who has dealt with cat urine in abandoned and severely neglected houses knows how
extensive the steps required are to remove the rot/stench.
Hint: When you open the doors and windows and run outside, you can still smell it 30-40
yards away. I've even had to use a jackhammer at an angle to chisel it out from the concrete
slab.
TBT or not TBT , 7 hours ago
The D after the name is the tell. It's a party of racketeers, pervs and grifters seeking
more power. The very best of them are merely amoral cynical AF Machiavellians.
Vivekwhu , 10 hours ago
And the FBI kept all this secret while Trump was being impeached over a phonecall to the
Ukrainian president? Why? So they could blackmail and control another US President, as in
this vile corrupt Biden creature, when he was quietly elected next week? This is the only
possible explanation for Wray and his band of corrupt leaders.
Just how rotten is the FBI, uh, the premier law enforcement agency in the world???
radical-extremist , 9 hours ago
"We'll be prepared to issue comments on Hunter Biden's laptops after the election. For
right now our focus is on dangerous white supremacist militias and hate crime hoaxes."
- C. Wray, Director of the FBI
J J Pettigrew , 9 hours ago
And why did Christopher Wray sit on this for ten months?
Comey protected Hillary
Wray protects Biden
novictim , 9 hours ago
"'It's a data breach and dangerous to have this type of material floating around," one
former police commander told the Mail . "For someone prominent, there is not only a risk of
great reputational damage but also a risk of blackmail should the material fall into the
wrong hand s."
Show of hands:
Who thinks that the CCP spy chief that the Bidens were in business with did not already
have all of this blackmail material?
The Bidens kept the secrets from the USA and even screwed that up. But the Ukrainians,
Russians and Chinese Communist Party had all of this all along. That is why China Joe is such
a great alternative to Trump for them. China Joe is totally and completely compromised and
millions have already voted for him. Which would be funny if not for the insane Deep State
that also seems to be owned by the Communists.
radical-extremist , 9 hours ago
Biden is in no way compromised because any evidence the CCP goes public with will never be
reported on, except by maybe Fox News.
cjones1 , 9 hours ago
Mueller was FBI Director when both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden were committing national
security violations and money grubbing, "pay to play" diplomacy - 2012 election interference
by the IRS, etc., too!
This "Deep State" complicity in and enabling of such corruption runs several levels deep
in our intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
J J Pettigrew , 7 hours ago
Comey protected Hillary
Wray protects Biden
and as luck would have it...both Democrats.
And the attacks on the GOP elected President...fake and falsified with the assistance
of......
those who protected Biden and Hillary.
Remarkable for an apolitical entity such as the FBI.
Shut. It. Down. , 9 hours ago
Stripper mama's lawyer needs to file a subpoena for access to the hard drive.
No telling what assets Hunter was hiding while trying to weasel out of child support.
Should be good for another couple mil.
LetThemEatRand , 10 hours ago
Note that the FBI investigation into Hunter is for "money laundering," as opposed to
anything involving public corruption or influence peddling. That tells me that they are
carefully avoiding anything that would involve Joe. And we all know that a year or two from
now or whenever this story settles down, there will be a page 8 newspaper article about how
the FBI found insufficient evidence of any criminal activity by Hunter to justify
charges.
They keep using the same script, and it always ends in a twist ending involving anyone
you've ever heard of doing nothing wrong other than "poor judgment."
quanttech , 8 hours ago
Biden values - bomb children in countries that never attacked us. tell supporters they're
organic, grass-fed love bombs.
Trump values - bomb children in countries that never attacked us. tell supporters we're
withdrawing from the wars while INCREASING the bombings.
American values - duuuuuuuh i dont care as long as inocent children are being bombed.
duuuuuuuh i'm so sad they cancelled keeping up with the khardashians. duuuuuuuuuuuh i need a
chicken sandwhich but i'm too fat to get out of my lazyboy duuuuuh
SummerSausage , 9 hours ago
CIA trailed Hunter to brothels and drug dens when he was overseas. They knew.
Foreign countries sucked electronic information off Hunters computers and phones when he
was overseas. They knew.
Jill and Joe kept Hunter away from children. They knew.
Kerry's step son was in business with hunter. They knew.
Obama spied on everybody. He knew.
American media covered up for Hunter & Joe for years. They knew.
Looks like normal Americans were the last to know.
J S Bach , 9 hours ago
"There is not only a risk of great reputational damage but also a risk of blackmail should
the material fall into the wrong hands."
Yep... and with this knowledge... ANYONE who votes for Joe Biden is a traitor to this
country whether they like it or not.
From Dante's "Inferno"...
The ninth (deepest) circle of hell is reserved for traitors...
"9). Treachery: The deepest circle of Hell, where Satan resides. As with the last two
circles, this one is further divided, into four rounds. The first is Caina, named after the
biblical Cain, who murdered his brother. This round is for traitors to family. The second,
Antenora -- from Antenor of Troy, who betrayed the Greeks -- is reserved for
political/national traitors. The third is Ptolomaea for Ptolemy, son of Abubus, who is known
for inviting Simon Maccabaeus and his sons to dinner and then murdering them. This round is
for hosts who betray their guests; they are punished more harshly because of the belief that
having guests means entering into a voluntary relationship, and betraying a relationship
willingly entered is more despicable than betraying a relationship born into. The fourth
round is Judecca, after Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Christ. This round is reserved for
traitors to their lords/benefactors/masters. As in the previous circle, the subdivisions each
have their own demons and punishments."
Not to take all of this literally, but it shows the wisdom of our ancestors and the
intense acrimony they felt towards this most nefarious act.
freedommusic , 7 hours ago
Imagine what was on Weiners laptop.
So let's review boys and girls.
The FBI now has Anthony Weiner's and Hunter Biden's laptops.
If Law enforcement and the DOJ do NOT do the jobs they swore an oath to, then who does
that leave to uphold the Constitution and Rule of Law?
Chew on that for a moment...
jeff montanye , 7 hours ago
don't forget seth rich's phone and laptop never looked at by either the d.c. police or the
fbi.
corruption in washington d.c. is like the hindus' turtle akupara on the back of a larger
turtle, on the back of . . .
Christopher Wray is directly implicated in the laptop emails. He recieved a 14% stake in
Rosneft shares. Arrest everyone in DC and get some rope.
OpenEyes , 8 hours ago
Yes, it's coming out that Wray was actually on the other side of the table in Hunter's
negotiation for his Chinese "chairman" in the deal to buy into the Russian energy company.
Wray was working for the law firm representing the Russian energy company (he made millions
there before coming into the FBI). Not only was Wray aware of the crime, he was a player in
that deal. No wonder the laptop, and all other evidence, has sat untouched in a dark vault at
the FBI for almost a year.
I'm hoping that Trump fires Wray, Haspel and Barr on Wednesday regardless of the election
outcome. Then I'm hoping that Wray is facing an indigtment before Christmas.
Floki_Ragnarsson , 9 hours ago
What REALLY sinks the Bidens is having to account for all of that cash that they a) never
paid taxes on and b) Potato Head Joe NEVER declared on his financial disclosure forms as
required by law!
BinAnunnaki , 8 hours ago
They both go to jail for not registering under FARA.
Just like Michael Flinn
OllieHalsall , 9 hours ago
Giving evidence to a criminal organisation like the FBI is like asking Joe Biden to
babysit your 11 year old daughter.
You wouldn't do it would you!
American2 , 9 hours ago
Immediately, ask for Bill Clinton, or Jeffery Epstein as his replacement.
Someone Else , 8 hours ago
Landslide for Trump!
desertboy , 9 hours ago
Anybody who could think the Biden's would be played by the CCCP in China business dealings
is a conspiracy theorist.
And everyone knows Joe Biden is too smart to be co-opted by his son in his dealings,
anyway.
(straight-face delivery)
Nunny , 9 hours ago
Bada-bing
UnicornTears , 9 hours ago
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to screw things up"
The MagicNegro
Ision , 9 hours ago
I wonder if Hunter ever held a government job, or appointment, which involved the handling
of classified information? I have no idea.
But, exactly how did Hunter get TS information on his computer?
No matter. The National Security Act of 1947 applies. Since it does, multiple felonies
have been committed. How many people are involved in the commission of these felonies,
besides Hunter?
Just like Hillary's illegal servers...the existence of which automatically gives rise to
dozens of felonies...Hunter's felonies are automatic with the existence of ANY TS classified
information, found outside of officially controlled, and authorized, locations.
If anyone planned to deliberately deliver such information to unauthorized individuals,
additional felonies are involved.
There is simply no excuse, or defense.
I say this as a former NSA field agent. It appears Hunter should be in prison, along with
Hillary.
MTGOPLAYER , 9 hours ago
According to the FBI, as long as his intentions were pure, no crime was committed.
vasilievich , 9 hours ago
I can't begin to describe how shocked and angry I am - and I've been involved to the
extent of risk to my life.
I've had one US Army person say to me: You were in...!?
Invert This MM , 7 hours ago
The crime families like to keep together. There are pictures on the laptop of Hunter doing
Malia Obama. Her cocaine riddled credit card was in the picture. Hunter has a tattoo of the
Finger Lakes on his back. That region is suspected of being an area heavy into child
trafficking. These people are sick.
9.0onthericterscale , 9 hours ago
Demlibs keep screeching out 'Russia Russia Russia!' like they have Tourettes Syndrome.
They can't help it anymore .It's so far past the point of meaningfulness you gotta feel
sorry for the little +ards.
Mzhen , 9 hours ago
Hunter took three laptops to the repair shop. And they were all wet . Which appears to
indicate a deliberate attempt by someone to destroy the data. Before there were second
thoughts. This period of time coincided with the final breakup with Hallie.
almostnuts , 9 hours ago
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Hmmmm. Hiding assets from child support, all those cozy names with phone
numbers attached, passport info, ss info, 21,000$ in **** sites. This isn't going to well huh
Robert? Anyhow the fbi has you covered, but your drug habit is going to kill you because you
are a liability to a lot of people, places, and things. From now on Robert i'd beware of
pretty women in a foreign land and don't sleep in the same place every night. You may be well
connected, but you're marked for disposal. Tah, tah, be reading about you.
DavidJoshimisk , 7 hours ago
So if I understand this correctly.........Hunter and Jim Biden were front men for the
Biden Family operations and the Big Guy was calling the shots. So...Obama and the FBI knew
nothing of this? Seems unlikely.
Oilwatcher , 10 hours ago
Dude must be baked hard all the time to go off and leave data like that at a repair shop
instead of coughing up an $80 repair bill.
Anonymous IX , 10 hours ago
Exactly.
"Baked hard" + arrogance (with having always gotten away with no consequences for all his
illegal/immoral actions in the past).
Sometimes the powerful and mighty fall hard. Evidently, we're in one of those epoches. He
may suffer very little criminal action against him, but he'll never recover...nor will the
Bidens...from a scandal of this magnitude and distasteful revelations.
ponchoramic , 10 hours ago
He probably hates his Pop. I think it's in some of his texts. Def the blacksheep of
family. Prob why he was on drugs in the first place.
HUNTER Biden rented a pricey Los Angeles mansion for a party and allegedly "broke his
sober streak" after fighting with his new wife weeks ago, according to a new report. Joe
Biden's son ...
glasshour , 8 hours ago
The Bidens are compromised.
Detain. Interrogate. Jail.
OpenEyes , 9 hours ago
It's coming out that Wray was actually on the other side of the table in Hunter's
negotiation for his Chinese "chairman" in the deal to buy into the Russian energy company.
Wray was working for the law firm representing the Russian energy company (he made millions
there before coming into the FBI). Not only was Wray aware of the crime, he was a player in
that deal. No wonder the laptop, and all other evidence, has sat untouched in a dark vault at
the FBI for almost a year.
I'm hoping that Trump fires Wray, Haspel and Barr on Wednesday regardless of the election
outcome. Then I'm hoping that Wray is facing an indigtment before Christmas.
OpenEyes , 8 hours ago
And Fauci too. God, I hope he gets rid of that slime-ball.
Hunter Biden's Story Could Help Hillary Clinton To Become Vice President
The recently revealed business deals of Hunter Biden will strongly influence politics after
an eventual Joe Biden win in tomorrows election.
On October 15 the New York Post published a story on Hunter Biden based on data from
a laptop Joe Biden's son had left with a repair shop. The Biden family has not disputed that
the laptop or the data on it is genuine. Next to
the porn on the laptop there were thousand of emails which
describe shady deals with a (now defunct) large Chinese energy company , CEFC.
Twitter , Facebook and other media
like the Intercept tried to prevent the distribution of the story. They falsely
claimed that the information was 'hacked' or unproven. The censorship inevitably made the story
more prominent and increased the number of people who learned of it.
A week after the NY Post story ran Tony Bobulinski, a former business partner of
Hunter Biden,
went public with further allegations against him:
Tony Bobulinski, a former business associate of Hunter Biden, said Wednesday night that he
can confirm details regarding his overseas business dealings, including that a reference to a
"Big Guy" in a May 13, 2017 email did, in fact, refer to Democratic presidential nominee Joe
Biden.
In a lengthy statement, Bobulinski identified himself as the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings, a
firm he described as "a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye
and the Biden family." He added that Hunter Biden and James Gilliar, another business
associate, brought him on as CEO of the venture.
"Hunter Biden called his dad 'the Big Guy' or 'my Chairman,' and frequently referenced
asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing,"
Bobulinski said. "I've seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his
business. I've seen firsthand that that's not true, because it wasn't just Hunter's business,
they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line."
A number of outlets have each carried various snippets of the whole story of Hunter Biden's
very profitable dealings with foreign companies. That has created a confusing picture. Stephen
McIntyre, who has done useful investigative research on climate change, Russiagate, and the OPCW shenanigans in Syria, has
thankfully created a 19 pages long
timeline with all the Biden-China evidence that has so far seen the daylight. He
writes:
The Biden family was involved in two major Chinese deals:
a carried stake in Bohai Harvest Partners Investment Fund. Their interest in this deal
began in 2013. Hunter Biden, Devon Archer and James Bulger each had 10% interests. This
fund is still active. Bobulinski was not involved in this deal.
a second deal initiated in 2017 in which the Bidens received $5 million from Chinese
energy company CEFC and/or its officers. CEFC had, in a short period, become a huge company
and, even more quickly, disintegrated. This second deal was the one involving Patrick Ho,
who was arrested in Nov 2017 in US for corruption, Gongwen Dong and its chairman Ye
Jianming, who was arrested in China and/or disappeared in March 2018.
Nearly all of the interesting texts and emails from 2017 and Bobulinski's information
are limited to this second deal. These were only a small fraction of sleazy transactions by
Hunter Biden, Devon Archer and associates. Concurrent with this affair were transactions in
Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Russia as well as participation in major frauds by John Galanis and
Jason Sugarman in which Archer (but not so far, Hunter Biden) have been convicted. The texts
and emails have been released in a piecemeal and disorganized way. In this article, I'll
attempt to re-assemble a narrative of events for the CEFC affair.
...
Another timeline of the Hunter Biden affairs with slightly different material
has been collected by Seamus Bruner and John Solomon. They write:
The New York Post
broke news last week that Joe Biden himself may have benefited from his son's dealings.
The Post quoted a cryptic message from one of Hunter's partners, saying that "10 [percent]
held by H for the big guy?" The recipient of that message, Tony Bobulinski, says "there is no question"
that "H" stands for Hunter and the "big guy" is Joe Biden.
We gain further insight into the operations of Biden Inc. in emails provided to us by
Bevan Cooney, a former business associate of Hunter Biden. Cooney, who is currently in prison
for his role in the Indian Bond Scheme that is sending Hunter Biden business partner Devon
Archer also to jail, shared 26,000 emails that show what Hunter's role was in their business
ventures. The Biden name was considered "currency" for their foreign business ventures, and
was a "direct pipeline" to the Obama-Biden administration. Deals involving Hunter benefited
from the "Biden lift," the help that the name would provide in overseas dealings.
What might the Bidens' foreign benefactors have expected in return for all this largesse?
We can't say. But some may see a correlation between that foreign money and Joe Biden's
policy posture toward the sources of that money.
Stephen McIntyre has promised to update his timeline with the material revealed by the other
authors. As McIntyre is always diligent in his work his timeline can be taken as an
authoritative source.
While I am still digging through the above collections here my first thoughts on why these
matter.
The facts show that Hunter Biden and other traded on and profited from Joe Biden's position
by selling his 'influence' to foreign companies. It is likely that Joe Biden at least
indirectly also profited from that work.
A federal judge named Joe Biden as a possible "witness" along with his son Hunter in a
criminal fraud case last year that ended in the convictions of two of Hunter's business
partners, according to little-noticed court documents. The Democratic presidential
candidate's appearance on a witness list casts new doubt on his claims he knew nothing about
his son's shady business dealings.
As revenge for Russiagate the Republicans will use the affair to their utmost advantage.
There are only two ways for Joe Biden to prevent Republicans and independent media from
further digging into the affair and all the potentially illegal issues it reveals.
If Joe Biden loses the election the scandal will likely vanish as soon as he retreats
from the public view.
If Joe Biden wins the election the scandal will fester until he resigns.
The second case is especially interesting. Vice President candidate Kamala Harris has been
groomed by Hillary Clinton's inner circle since
2017 :
The Democrats' "Great Freshman Hope," Sen. Kamala Harris, is heading to the Hamptons to meet
with Hillary Clinton's biggest backers.
The California senator is being fêted in Bridgehampton on Saturday at the home of
MWWPR guru Michael Kempner, a staunch Clinton supporter who was one of her national-finance
co-chairs and a led fund-raiser for her 2008 bid for the presidency. He was also listed as
one of the top "bundlers" for Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign, having raised $3
million.
Should the somewhat demented Joe Biden leave 'for health reasons' soon after he has been
sworn into office Kamala Harris would become President. She then could use the 25th Amendment
to select Hillary Clinton as the new Vice President.
If, after a Biden win in the election, Hillary Clinton supporters in the liberul media stop
censoring the Hunter Biden affair or even start to further expose it we can be sure that such a
scheme is on the verge of being implemented.
Posted by b on November 2, 2020 at 19:07 UTC |
Permalink
Bingo. The Clintons are never too far away from all political shenanigans that go on in the
US. They and their cohorts were called the Southern Mafia for a reason.
A Joe Biden impeachment if guilty of payouts from China would be a victory of our
system of checks and balances. Still not voting for Trump.
Steele Dossier update I read that the primary source for Steele was Ms. Galkina,
basically a nobody creating fiction for pay and not a 'a high ranking Kremlin official'. Does
this mean that the Trump Shills like Don Jr, Hannity, Ingraham, et al will stop calling it
Russian misinformation sent to the Democrats to attack Donald Trump?
It explains why they chose Joe Biden as presidential candidate even though he is clearly not
up to the job. He is to be the expendable Trojan horse through which some very unpalatable to
the public people will gain power they otherwise would not have been able to.
This should worry those who will vote for Biden. What they are voting for and what they
are going to get is not the same thing.
Useful clarity, b, as always.
Not sure I can agree that Republican reps will drag this into the light post election.
My impression was that they didn't go into Ukraine defense at impeachment was that the
campaign finance / money laundering / influence peddling gravy train there, as elsewhere,
probably, was and is bipartisan.
I can buy everything B is saying, but who exactly will investigate President Biden if D's win
both Houses of Congress?
Bill Barr could start an investigation, if one has not already been started, but
government moves slowly so it is hard to see the Trump administration bringing charges before
Biden is sworn in.
But if Hillary wants to throw Biden under the bus after the election, well she could
probably do so.
The best arguments against life extension science are people like Clinton, Biden, and Pelosi.
Imagine them as speaker or senator or Supreme Court justice for the next 1000 years.
Wouldn't the 25th amendment be the desired method of transferring power to Harris? Although
it has always struck me a wee bit odd that the computer repairman called the FBI after making
a copy, which in turn he gave to Rudy Giuliana. Do all computer repairmen have Rudy on speed
dial by any chance? Sadly the weird of the whole scenario is very Clintonian. How long til an
Arkancide or two happens. Can't the Clintons just go away for good?
The democrats will investigate and kick Biden out. The democrats knew all along that this
stuff about Biden was real but they had no chance to win with the other losers. So, the order
was given to the others to drop from the race and let strawman Biden beat Bernie. If Biden
gets elected, they will bring all his dirt up, impeach him and govern from the shadows
through Kamala who has no principles and questionable character (e.g., slept with Willie to
move her career up).
Or maybe Harris poisons Biden to speed things up and invites Micky Mouse to become her vice
president.
Come on B, this is really clumsy, below your standard. We all know that Biden is corrupt,
but we also know that Tronald is even more corrupt, that he is a fascist who has filled every
post in his administration with the most disgusting reactionary you can find in the country.
And that means something. The man belongs to scrap iron. One cannot reject the bad in favor
of the even worse. That is irrational.
Yes, this has been hinted on by my local conservative radio host since Pelosi introduced
legislation re: removing unfit presidents about a month ago.
It was always about removing Biden, if he were elected, not Trump.
Biden has never struck me during his whole campaign of a genuine interest in the
presidency.
It has always seemed more like he was doing it begrudgingly for "the cause."
Contrast this to the emotion Trump exhibited during his 2016 run when he gripped and
nearly ripped his notes in anger after a debate with Hillary Clinton ended. Or how he sat
stone-faced during Obama's speech during a white house correspondence dinner where Obama tore
into Trump and the audience roared with laughter. Trump just stared right back.
These are pieces any sane person can put together with the understanding that these men
are all still subject to egoism and revenge. It is not all elites against us as some
simpletons wish to boil it down to. It is much more subtle and so you must use discernment
and study their tells and what gives their true desires away.
Hillary is so unlikely to have authored the Foreign Affairs article. Staff work. Whose staff?
Uninteresting to pursue. Other than that appearance Hills has been very quiet. Suspiciously
quiet. Could be that Obama or whoever succeeded in shutting her up, that would have been
daunting and just plain hard. Better bet is her health is failing.
In short, Mark Simon took initiative and gave $10,000 to a guy called
Crhistopher Balding , an associate professor at Beijing University and late moved to
Vietnam on Fulbright Scholarship, to prepare and disseminate the "Aspen dossier"
detailing supposed Chinese influence ops targeting the Biden family basing an the
"info/disinformation" from a supposed Swiss investigator Martin Aspen.
After NBC article exposes Martin Aspen is actually an AI-created persona, Jimmy Lai, who
depends on the support from USG to continue his anti-China activities in HK, publicly
distance himself from the whole operation, and his trusted lieutenant Mark Simon, a possible
CIA agent, announced his resignation from Apple Daily after Balding exposed his involvement.
Detail
here
Okay, sleazy and yet very normal (one might say habitual) corruption in a US political
family. But by 2017, Joe Biden was out of office, and there is nothing that suggests that he,
rather than his repulsive son, was profiting before that.
The stake in the Bohai Harvest Partners Investment Fund (2013) does not name Joe Biden as an
investor at all.
This may be why the FBI, the media, and even Glenn Greenwald in his article, say that
there is nothing in this pile of dog crap that implicates Joe Biden at this point.
All very plausible, all very Byzantine and decadent. The "United States of America" is in the
midst of decay and breakup, which will occur no matter who is "elected" or otherwise gains
power, legally or militarily. It is only a question of which "gang in power" -to use Murray
Rothbard's phrase- is running your successor state.
According to The New Yorker, in June 2013, "[Jonathan] Li, Archer, and other business
partners signed a memorandum of understanding to create the fund, which they named BHR
Partners, and, in November, they signed contracts related to the deal. Hunter became an
unpaid member of BHR's board but did not take an equity stake in BHR Partners until after
his father left the White House →".
The Aspen Dossier was peddled by Balding to right wing websites, which then first
published in mid-Sept and now got the momentum.
The notion that the Democrats will allow their party name to be associated with a deposed
Democrat President seems more than far-fetched.
Far more likely is that the "investigation" will drag on long enough to fade from public
view, then quietly pardon everyone.
This Biden to Harris to HRC seems much more like a plot for a fantasy/spy novel.
Meanwhile...we are being distracted by the Huntergate ...an autum of terror in being
prepared in Europe...
At least 150 private military contractors have been transported to Europe on
Pentagon-chartered flights over the last weeks, including from Benghazi, #Libya via #Malta
to Sofia, #Bulgaria
Harris could simply resign some weeks after Clinton II gets the VP, Harris could do so for
any reason but if it was me writing the script I would cook up some mumbo jumbo about "clean
slate", "not yet ready", "for the sake of blah-blah" and so on.
That way Harris can come back and fill the gap between Clinton II and Clinton III (no
prizes for guessing who).
Not that I don't think the US won't be gone long before that can happen or won't be in a
civil war if any of it does or maybe from Biden or the "election" alone.
I agree with many here: looks like a typical political elite family corruption (Roman-style
corruption).
But I have a theory: with Reagan's hegemony (1980-1992), the old Democrat elites were
wiped out. The Democratic Party came near to extinction, the USA almost becoming a
single-party nation. Reagan looked invincible, the consensus he commanded among the American
people incontestable. He easily elected his successor (George H. W. Bush).
The Democrats were reborn, like a Phoenix, thanks to a huge transformation: the rise of
the so-called "Southern Democrats". This newly-born faction, much more conservative, had one
clear leadership: Bill Clinton, from Arkansas.
Bill Clinton then surprisingly won against George H. W. Bush and got extremely lucky: he
got the USSR in tatters, ready for the sack. The ransacking of the Soviet Sphere marked the
only time after the post-war miracle (1945-1974) when the USA registered a trade surplus
(+38%).
This ransacking, in my theory, generated the rise of a new set of families of a new
Democrat elite. All of then are vassals to the Clinton family (as we can deduce from the de
facto fusion between the Clinton Foundation and the DNC), but each got the right to a piece
of the ex-Soviet cake. Victoria Nuland, for example, got the telecommunication industries of
the ex-Yugoslavia through her husband. My guess is the Bidens are part of this new, "Southern
Democrat" elite, hence their casual connections with ex-Soviet states and mafias.
Everything must have been done quickly and hastily, as Bill Clinton wasn't able to elect
his successor (Al Gore). This realization that "time was short" may explain the apparent
amateurish partition of the ex-socialist cake by those families. Hence the laptop
episode.
The Obama phenomenon may be easily explained: the crisis of 2008 prompted Wall Street to
enter the field because they needed the bailout (Bush's Congress blocked the bailout in
November 2008, putting the Texan on his knees) to pass as soon as January 2009. Hilary
Clinton was senator for New York (you cannot be elected in NY without Wall Street's consent),
so it wasn't that she was in any position to rig the DNC at that moment. Penny Pritzker
somehow convinced Wall Street moguls Obama (senator from Illinois, USA's second financial
center) was the better candidate to the task. Even then, Hilary competed with Obama, and
there were primaries, so the process wasn't as smooth as many alt-rightists like to tell us
today. Plus, Hilary was still young, so she had time: she may have calculated Obama would be
left to clean the shit from the crisis and she would reap the economic recovery as his
successor; that Obama survived and easily got reelected is merely one of those windfalls of
destiny.
Anyhow, the fact is that Obama disappeared after his second term and the Clintons came
back to the forefront of the Democratic Party. This is an indication he was more of a detour
on the party's project, the Southern Democrats never really losing grip. I don't think the
Bidens are, therefore, part of Obama's entourage, but of the Clinton's.
- When I read that Hillary Clinton has put out a job application then I almost want Trump to
win the presidential election of 2020.
- There was one person who said that the choice between Clinton and Trump (in 2016) and Biden
and Trump (in 2020) was the choice between having typhoid and having cholera.
Its aim is to use Shanghai FTA to covert Chinese Yuan to dollar to invest overseas.
(Somehow, I personally doubt this kind of funds could be used by rich Chinese tycoons and
corrupt officials to shift their illegal gains out of China.)
Obviously, it looks rather nepotism, but isn't it the fact that lots of relatives of the
American (Chinese, European, Japanes, etc.) politicians have been doing these kind dubious
business deals all the time?
"Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall
nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of
both Houses of Congress," Section 2 of the amendment explains.
Penny Pritzker? Where do you come up with this stuff? She's a nasty piece of work all
right but that she moved Wall Street or played kingmaker is just absurd.
Penny couldn't even manage basic South Side real estate swindles without buckets of help.
Including from Obama. Who has a long family pedigree and outranks Pritzkers in every way.
I read that the primary source for Steele was Ms. Galkina, basically a nobody creating
fiction for pay and not a 'a high ranking Kremlin official'. Does this mean that the Trump
Shills like Don Jr, Hannity, Ingraham, et al will stop calling it Russian misinformation
sent to the Democrats to attack Donald Trump?
You might have missed this, but it has been established by U.S. scientists that Russians
are not animals. Russians is a giant fungal mycelium that may form animal mimic fruiting
bodies colloquially known as "Russian individuals". Thus, while it may appear to you that
Galkina is a separate organism, in reality "she" is a mere outgrowth of Russians. Any action
taken by "her" is an action of the entire organism. That is why any time a Russian fruiting
body misbehaves, the sanctions are imposed on the entire mycelium. Hope this helps.
Suddenly , some of the woke liberals and MSM journos start to doubt the corrupt Chinese
billionaire Guo Wengui aka Miles Kwok, a fugitive, and MSM's mostly beloved master of Chinese
"leaker", is working for CCP(!) and begin to expose his undemocratic behavour:
I think Biden was chosen, because no one wanted him, as a 'consensus candidate' against
Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a much more existential threat to the 'establishment' than Donald
Trump. And yeah, sheep dog etc. the point is the ideas behind Sanders - to begin mitigation
of corporate power - is the enemy.
Hillary Clinton? If the plan is to seal the deal for a third party movement to actually
rival the two-party monopoly, then good plan.
Yeah, no doubt they suckered Hunter, then saved the laptop for October while making up a
story for how they got it. I have always felt - I won't say thought - that the whole story
stunk, it was just too convenient, the timing too perfect, the scandal too juicy, and Trump
is a vindictive person, it's payback. Perhaps they enhanced the contents a bit too. If there
is an investigation, it could be interesting.
B's prediction that Joe Biden being pushed out early during his first term as President,
either because of Hunter Biden's scandals or his own worsening dementia, to be replaced by
Kamala Harris as President who would then nominate The Klintonator as her VP, will depend on
Biden winning the Presidency.
The way the election seems to be going - I have seen some news that an Australian news
reporter in the US, monitoring the news polls and speaking to people, is confused because
while the polls predict a Biden win, the majority of the people he talks to (I presume he
travels quite a lot and speaks to people of very different backgrounds and communities) are
voting for Trump - the results may be very close, they will depend on votes coming from US
voters casting votes overseas or mail-in votes, the Electoral College voting may be very
close and I hazard that the final result may not be known until December.
Plenty of time then for both Democrats and Republicans to accuse each other of stalling on
the results, for fighting to break out all around the nation, and cities to try to enforce
lockdowns to the extent of calling in the military. Perhaps when civil war breaks out,
someone will propose some kind of unity government, Congress in its panic will agree and
somehow The Klintonator manages to wangle her way into the Presidency or a position as
Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State.
here is a post from someone at sst - jersey jeffersonian - quoting from a website... i don't
know if or how much of this is true, but it goes with all of this..
"It seems now that Chris Wray's FBI was sitting on the Hunter Biden laptop, too.
And probably, beyond permitting the whole impeachment farago to plow ahead by hiding
evidence supportive of President Trump's actions, or lack thereof, in Ukraine, because
certain activities in which Wray had been involved earlier might come back to haunt him. Here
is a passage quoted from James Kunstler's blog post of this morning on this point:
"...here's a strange Swamp sidelight to all this: CEFC's main exploit during the Biden
hook-up years was the purchase of a 14 percent stake in Russia's oil-and-gas giant, Rosneft,
to help China circumvent US sanctions on Russia's oil sales. Guess who was one of the lawyers
working for Rosneft: Christopher Wray, just before he became FBI director. And guess who has
been sitting on Hunter Biden's laptop since at least December of 2019. Oh, the FBI. And guess
what else: the Rosneft files have since been deleted by Mr. Wray's old law firm, King and
Spalding."
Recall here Biden's negotiations with the head of CEFC, Ho Chiping, to establish a
humongous LPG facility in Louisiana (see the referenced blog post for more information)."
here is the website link as well for the specific quote - The Awful Reckoning
When the last serious dispute about who had won a presidential election occurred, in 1876,
they had four months between the election and the inauguration of the new president to
resolve the matter, and then the dispute was only resolved at the last moment, just before
the inauguration date.
Now, with the inauguration date moved back from March to December, they will have
considerably less time to resolve a dispute.
An attempt to assess the importance of the known evidence, and a critique of media lies
to protect their favored candidate, could not be published at The Intercept Oct 29 675 380
I am posting here the most recent draft of my article about Joe and Hunter Biden -- the
last one seen by Intercept editors before telling me that they refuse to publish it
absent major structural changes involving the removal of all sections critical of Joe Biden,
leaving only a narrow article critiquing media outlets. I will also, in a separate post,
publish all communications I had with Intercept editors surrounding this article so you can see
the censorship in action and, given the Intercept's denials, decide for yourselves (this is the
kind of transparency responsible journalists provide, and which the Intercept refuses to this
day to provide regarding their conduct in the Reality Winner story). This draft obviously would
have gone through one more round of proof-reading and editing by me -- to shorten it, fix
typos, etc -- but it's important for the integrity of the claims to publish the draft in
unchanged form that Intercept editors last saw, and announced that they would not "edit" but
completely gut as a condition to publication:
Subscribe
TITLE: THE REAL SCANDAL: U.S. MEDIA USES FALSEHOODS TO DEFEND JOE BIDEN FROM HUNTER'S
EMAILS
Publication by the New York Post two weeks ago of emails from Hunter Biden's laptop,
relating to
Vice President Joe Biden's work in Ukraine , and subsequent articles from other outlets
concerning the Biden family's pursuit of
business opportunities in China , provoked extraordinary efforts by a de facto union
of media outlets, Silicon Valley giants and the intelligence community to suppress these
stories.
One outcome is that the Biden campaign concluded, rationally, that there is no need for the
front-running presidential candidate to address even the most basic and relevant questions
raised by these materials. Rather than condemn Biden for ignoring these questions -- the
natural instinct of a healthy press when it comes to a presidential election -- journalists
have instead led the way in concocting excuses to justify his silence.
After the Post's first article, both that newspaper and other news outlets have published
numerous other emails and texts purportedly written to and from Hunter reflecting his efforts
to induce his father to take actions as Vice President beneficial to the Ukrainian energy
company Burisma, on whose board of directors Hunter sat for a monthly payment of $50,000, as
well as proposals for lucrative business deals in China that traded on his influence with his
father.
Individuals included in some of the email chains have confirmed the
contents' authenticity . One of Hunter's former business partners, Tony Bubolinski, has
stepped forward on the record to confirm the authenticity of many of the emails and to insist
that Hunter along with Joe Biden's brother Jim were planning on including the former Vice
President in at least one deal in China. And GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who appeared in one of
the published email chains, appeared to confirm the
authenticity as well, though he refused to answer follow-up
questions about it.
Thus far, no proof has been offered by Bubolinski that Biden ever consummated his
participation in any of those discussed deals. The Wall Street Journal
says that it found no corporate records reflecting that a deal was finalized and that "text
messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski,
mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don't show either Hunter Biden or James Biden
discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture."
But nobody claimed that any such deals had been consummated -- so the conclusion that one
had not been does not negate the story. Moreover, some texts and emails whose authenticity has
not been disputed state that Hunter was adamant that any discussions about the involvement of
the Vice President be held only verbally and never put in writing.
Beyond that, the Journal's columnist Kimberly Strassel reviewed a stash of
documents and "found correspondence corroborates and expands on emails recently published
by the New York Post," including ones where Hunter was insisting that it was his connection to
his father that was the greatest asset sought by the Chinese conglomerate with whom they were
negotiating. The New York Times on Sunday reached a similar
conclusion : while no documents prove that such a deal was consummated, "records produced
by Mr. Bobulinski show that in 2017, Hunter Biden and James Biden were involved in negotiations
about a joint venture with a Chinese energy and finance company called CEFC China Energy," and
"make clear that Hunter Biden saw the family name as a valuable asset, angrily citing his
'family's brand' as a reason he is valuable to the proposed venture."
These documents also demonstrate, reported the Times, "that the countries that Hunter Biden,
James Biden and their associates planned to target for deals overlapped with nations where Joe
Biden had previously been involved as vice president." Strassel noted that "a May 2017
'expectations' document shows Hunter receiving 20% of the equity in the venture and holding
another 10% for 'the big guy' -- who Mr. Bobulinski attests is Joe Biden." And the independent
journalist Matt Taibbi published an
article on Sunday with ample documentation suggesting that Biden's attempt to replace a
Ukranian prosecutor in 2015 benefited Burisma.
All of these new materials, the authenticity of which has never been disputed by Hunter
Biden or the Biden campaign, raise important questions about whether the former Vice President
and current front-running presidential candidate was aware of efforts by his son to peddle
influence with the Vice President for profit, and also whether the Vice President ever took
actions in his official capacity with the intention, at least in part, of benefitting his son's
business associates. But in the two weeks since the Post published its initial story, a union
of the nation's most powerful entities, including its news media, have taken extraordinary
steps to obscure and bury these questions rather than try to provide answers to them.
The initial documents, claimed the New York Post, were obtained when the laptops containing
them were left at a Delaware repair shop with water damage and never picked up, allowing the
owner to access its contents and then turn them over to both the FBI and a lawyer for Trump
advisor Rudy Giuliani. The repair store owner confirmed this narrative in
interviews with news outlets and then (under penalty of prosecution)
to a Senate Committee; he also provided the receipt purportedly signed by Hunter. Neither
Hunter nor the Biden campaign has denied these claims.
Publication of that initial New York Post story provoked
a highly unusual censorship campaign by Facebook and Twitter. Facebook, through a long-time
former Democratic Party operative, vowed to suppress the story pending its "fact-check," one
that has as of yet produced no public conclusions. And while Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apologized
for Twitter's handling of the censorship and reversed the
policy that led to the blocking of all links the story, the New York Post, the nation's
fourth-largest newspaper, continues to be locked out of its Twitter account, unable to post as
the election approaches, for almost two weeks.
After that initial censorship burst from Silicon Valley, whose workforce and oligarchs
have
donated almost entirely to the Biden campaign, it was the nation's media outlets and former
CIA and other intelligence officials who took the lead in constructing reasons why the story
should be dismissed, or at least treated with scorn. As usual for the Trump era, the theme that
took center stage to accomplish this goal was an unsubstantiated claim about the Kremlin
responsibility for the story.
Numerous news outlets, including the Intercept ,
quickly cited a public letter signed by former CIA officials and other agents of the security
state claiming that the documents have the "classic trademarks" of a "Russian disinformation"
plot. But, as media outlets and even intelligence agencies are now slowly admitting, no
evidence has ever been presented to corroborate this assertion. On Friday, the New York Times
reported that "no
concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation" and the paper
said even the FBI has "acknowledged that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the
laptop."
The Washington Post on Sunday published
an op-ed -- by Thomas Rid, one of those centrists establishmentarian professors whom media
outlets routinely use to provide the facade of expert approval for deranged conspiracy theories
-- that contained this extraordinary proclamation: "We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if
they were a foreign intelligence operation -- even if they probably aren't."
Even the letter from the former
intelligence officials cited by The Intercept and other outlets to insinuate that this was
all part of some "Russian disinformation" scheme explicitly admitted that "we do not have
evidence of Russian involvement," though many media outlets omitted that crucial
acknowledgement when citing the letter in order to disparage the story as a Kremlin plot:
Despite this complete lack of evidence, the Biden campaign adopted this phrase used by
intelligence officials and media outlets as its mantra for why the materials should not be
discussed and why they would not answer basic questions about them. "I think we need to be
very, very clear that what he's doing here is amplifying Russian misinformation," said Biden
Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield about the possibility that Trump would raise the Biden
emails at Thursday night's debate. Biden's senior advisor Symone Sanders similarly warned on
MSNBC : "if the president decides to amplify these latest smears against the vice president
and his only living son, that is Russian disinformation."
The few mainstream journalists who tried merely to discuss these materials have been
vilified. For the crime of simply noting it on Twitter that first day, New York Times reporter
Maggie Haberman had her name trend all morning along
with the derogatory nickname "MAGA Haberman." CBS News' Bo Erickson was widely attacked even by
his some in the media simply
for asking Biden what his response to the story was. And Biden himself refused to answer,
accusing Erickson of spreading a "smear."
That it is irresponsible and even unethical to mention these documents became a pervasive
view in mainstream journalism. The NPR Public Editor, in an anazing
statement representative of much of the prevailing media mentality, explicitly justified
NPR's refusal to cover the story on the ground that "we do not want to waste our time on
stories that are not really stories . . . [or] waste the readers' and listeners' time on
stories that are just pure distractions."
To justify her own show's failure to cover the story, 60 Minutes' Leslie Stahl resorted to
an entirely different justification . "It can't be verified," the CBS reporter claimed when
confronted by President Trump in an interview about her program's failure to cover the Hunter
Biden documents. When Trump insisted there were multiple ways to verify the materials on the
laptop, Stahl simply repeated the same
phrase : "it can't be verified."
After the final presidential debate on Thursday night, a CNN panel mocked the story as
too complex and obscure for anyone to follow -- a self-fulfilling prophecy given that, as the
network's media reporter Brian Stelter noted with pride , the story
has barely been mentioned either on CNN or MSNBC. As the New York Times noted on
Friday : "most viewers of CNN and MSNBC would not have heard much about the unconfirmed
Hunter Biden emails.... CNN's mentions of "Hunter" peaked at 20 seconds and MSNBC's at 24
seconds one day last week."
On Sunday, CNN's Christiane Amanpour barely pretended to be interested in any journalism
surrounding the story, scoffing during an interview at requests from the RNC's Elizabeth
Harrington to cover the story and verify the documents by telling her: "We're not going to do
your work for you." Watch how the U.S.'s most mainstream journalists are openly announcing
their refusal to even consider what these documents might reflect about the Democratic
front-runner:
These journalists are desperate not to know. As Taibbi wrote on Sunday
about this tawdry press spectacle: " The least curious people in the country right now appear
to be the credentialed news media, a situation normally unique to tinpot authoritarian
societies."
All of those excuses and pretexts -- emanating largely from a national media that is all but
explicit in their eagerness for Biden to win -- served for the first week or more after the
Post story to create a cone of silence around this story and, to this very day, a protective
shield for Biden. As a result, the front-running presidential candidate knows that he does not
have to answer even the most basic questions about these documents because most of the national
press has already signaled that they will not press him to do so; to the contrary, they will
concoct defenses on his behalf to avoid discussing it.
The relevant questions for Biden raised by this new reporting are as glaring as they are
important. Yet Biden has had to answer very few of them yet because he has not been asked and,
when he has, media outlets have justified his refusal to answer rather than demand that he do
so. We submitted nine questions to his campaign about these documents that the public has the
absolute right to know, including:
whether he claims any the emails or texts are fabricated (and, if so, which specific
ones);
whether he knows if Hunter did indeed drop off laptops at the Delaware repair store;
whether Hunter ever asked him to meet with Burisma executives or whether he in fact did
so;
whether Biden ever knew about business proposals in Ukraine or China being pursued by
his son and brother in which Biden was a proposed participant and,
how Biden could justify expending so much energy as Vice President demanding that the
Ukrainian General Prosecutor be fired, and why the replacement -- Yuriy Lutsenko, someone
who had no
experience in law ; was a crony of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko; and himself
had a history of corruption allegations -- was acceptable if Biden's goal really was to
fight corruption in Ukraine rather than benefit Burisma or control Ukrainian internal
affairs for some other objective.
Though the Biden campaign indicated that they would respond to the Intercept's questions,
they have not done so. A statement they released to
other outlets contains no answers to any of these questions except to claim that Biden "has
never even considered being involved in business with his family, nor in any business
overseas." To date, even as the Biden campaign echoes the baseless claims of media outlets that
anyone discussing this story is "amplifying Russian disinformation," neither Hunter Biden nor
the Biden campaign have even said whether they claim the emails and other documents -- which
they and the press continue to label "Russian disinformation" -- are forgeries or whether they
are authentic.
The Biden campaign clearly believes it has no need to answer any of these questions by
virtue of a panoply of media excuses offered on its behalf that collapse upon the most minimal
scrutiny:
First , the claim that the material is of suspect authenticity or cannot be verified -- the
excuse used on behalf of Biden by Leslie Stahl and Christiane Amanpour, among others -- is
blatantly false for numerous reasons. As someone who has reported similar large archives in
partnership with numerous media outlets around the world (including the Snowden archive in 2014
and the
Intercept's Brazil Archive over the last year showing corruption by high-level
Bolsonaro officials ), and who also covered the reporting of similar archives by other
outlets (the Panama Papers, the WikiLeaks war logs of 2010 and DNC/Podesta emails of 2016), it
is clear to me that the trove of documents from Hunter Biden's emails has been verified in ways
quite similar to those.
With an archive of this size, one can never independently authenticate every word in every
last document unless the subject of the reporting voluntarily confirms it in advance, which
they rarely do. What has been done with similar archives is journalists obtain enough
verification to create high levels of journalistic confidence in the materials. Some of the
materials provided by the source can be independently confirmed, proving genuine access by the
source to a hard drive, a telephone, or a database. Other parties in email chains can confirm
the authenticity of the email or text conversations in which they participated. One
investigates non-public facts contained in the documents to determine that they conform to what
the documents reflect. Technology specialists can examine the materials to ensure no signs of
forgeries are detected.
This is the process that enabled the largest and most established media outlets around the
world to report similar large archives obtained without authorization. In those other cases, no
media outlet was able to verify every word of every document prior to publication. There was no
way to prove the negative that the source or someone else had not altered or forged some of the
material. That level of verification is both unattainable and unnecessary. What is needed is
substantial evidence to create high confidence in the authentication process.
The Hunter Biden documents have at least as much verification as those other archives that
were widely reported. There are sources in the email chains who have verified that the
published emails are accurate. The archive contains private photos and videos of Hunter whose
authenticity is not in doubt. A former business partner of Hunter has stated, unequivocally and
on the record, that not only are the emails authentic but they describe events accurately,
including proposed participation by the former Vice President in at least one deal Hunter and
Jim Biden were pursuing in China. And, most importantly of all, neither Hunter Biden nor the
Biden campaign has even suggested, let alone claimed, that a single email or text is fake.
Why is the failure of the Bidens to claim that these emails are forged so significant?
Because when journalists report on a massive archive, they know that the most important event
in the reporting's authentication process comes when the subjects of the reporting have an
opportunity to deny that the materials are genuine. Of course that is what someone would do if
major media outlets were preparing to publish, or in fact were publishing, fabricated or forged
materials in their names; they would say so in order to sow doubt about the materials if not
kill the credibility of the reporting.
The silence of the Bidens may not be dispositive on the question of the material's
authenticity, but when added to the mountain of other authentication evidence, it is quite
convincing: at least equal to the authentication evidence in other reporting on similarly large
archives.
Second , the oft-repeated claim from news outlets and CIA operatives that the published
emails and texts were "Russian disinformation" was, from the start, obviously baseless and
reckless. No evidence -- literally none -- has been presented to suggest involvement by any
Russians in the dissemination of these materials, let alone that it was part of some official
plot by Moscow. As always, anything is possible -- when one does not know for certain what the
provenance of materials is, nothing can be ruled out -- but in journalism, evidence is required
before news outlets can validly start blaming some foreign government for the release of
information. And none has ever been presented. Yet the claim that this was "Russian
disinformation" was published in countless news outlets, television broadcasts, and the social
media accounts of journalists, typically by pointing to the evidence-free claims of ex-CIA
officials.
Worse is the "disinformation" part of the media's equation. How can these materials
constitute "disinformation" if they are authentic emails and texts actually sent to and from
Hunter Biden? The ease with which news outlets that are supposed to be skeptical of
evidence-free pronouncements by the intelligence community instead printed their assertions
about "Russian disinformation" is alarming in the extreme. But they did it because they
instinctively wanted to find a reason to justify ignoring the contents of these emails, so
claiming that Russia was behind it, and that the materials were "disinformation," became their
placeholder until they could figure out what else they should say to justify ignoring these
documents.
Third , the media rush to exonerate Biden on the question of whether he engaged in
corruption vis-a-vis Ukraine and Burisma rested on what are, at best, factually dubious
defenses of the former Vice President. Much of this controversy centers on Biden's aggressive
efforts while Vice President in late 2015 to force the Ukrainian government to fire its Chief
Prosecutor, Viktor Shokhin, and replace him with someone acceptable to the U.S., which turned
out to be Yuriy Lutsenko. These events are undisputed by virtue of a video of Biden boasting in front of an
audience of how he flew to Kiev and forced the Ukrainians to fire Shokhin, upon pain of losing
$1 billion in aid.
But two towering questions have long been prompted by these events, and the recently
published emails make them more urgent than ever: 1) was the firing of the Ukrainian General
Prosecutor such a high priority for Biden as Vice President of the U.S. because of his son's
highly lucrative role on the board of Burisma, and 2) if that was not the motive, why was it so
important for Biden to dictate who the chief prosecutor of Ukraine was?
The standard answer to the question about Biden's motive -- offered both by Biden and his
media defenders -- is that he, along with the IMF and EU, wanted Shokhin fired because the U.S.
and its allies were eager to clean up Ukraine, and they viewed Shokhin as insufficiently
vigilant in fighting corruption.
"Biden's brief was to sweet-talk and jawbone Poroshenko into making reforms that Ukraine's
Western benefactors wanted to see as,"
wrote the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler in what the Post calls a "fact-check." Kessler
also endorsed the key defense of Biden: that the firing of Shokhin was bad for Burima, not good
for it. "The United States viewed [Shokhin] as ineffective and beholden to Poroshenko and
Ukraine's corrupt oligarchs. In particular, Shokin had failed to pursue an investigation of the
founder of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky," Kessler claims.
But that claim does not even pass the laugh test. The U.S. and its European allies are not
opposed to corruption by their puppet regimes. They are allies with the most corrupt regimes on
the planet, from Riyadh to Cairo, and always have been. Since when does the U.S. devote itself
to ensuring good government in the nations it is trying to control? If anything, allowing
corruption to flourish has been a key tool in enabling the U.S. to exert power in other
countries and to open up their markets to U.S. companies.
Beyond that, if increasing prosecutorial independence and strengthening anti-corruption
vigilance were really Biden's goal in working to demand the firing of the Ukrainian chief
prosecutor, why would the successor to Shokhin, Yuriy Lutsenko, possibly be acceptable?
Lutsenko, after all, had "no legal background as general prosecutor," was principally known
only as a lackey of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, was forced in 2009 to "resign as
interior minister after being detained by police at Frankfurt airport for being drunk and
disorderly," and "was subsequently jailed for embezzlement and abuse of office, though his
defenders said the sentence was politically motivated."
Is it remotely convincing to you that Biden would have accepted someone like Lutsenko if his
motive really were to fortify anti-corruption prosecutions in Ukraine? Yet that's exactly what
Biden did: he personally told Poroshenko that Lutsenko was an acceptable alternative and
promptly released the $1 billion after his appointment was announced. Whatever Biden's motive
was in using his power as U.S. Vice President to change the prosecutor in Ukraine, his
acceptance of someone like Lutsenko strongly suggests that combatting Ukrainian corruption was
not it.
As for the other claim on which Biden and his media allies have heavily relied -- that
firing Shokhin was not a favor for Burisma because Shokhin was not pursuing any investigations
against Burisma -- the evidence does not justify that assertion.
It is true that no evidence, including these new emails, constitute proof that Biden's
motive in demanding Shokhin's termination was to benefit Burisma. But nothing demonstrates that
Shokhin was impeding investigations into Burisma. Indeed, the New York Times in 2019 published
one of the most comprehensive investigations to date of the claims made in defense of Biden
when it comes to Ukraine and the firing of this prosecutor, and, while noting that "no evidence
has surfaced that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for
the prosecutor general's dismissal," this is what its reporters concluded about Shokhin and
Burisma:
[Biden's] pressure campaign eventually worked. The prosecutor general, long a target of
criticism from other Western nations and international lenders, was
voted out months later by the Ukrainian Parliament .
Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden , Mr. Biden's younger son, who
at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been
in the sights of the fired prosecutor general .
The Times added: "Mr. Shokhin's office had oversight of investigations into [Burisma's
billionaire founder] Zlochevsky and his businesses, including Burisma." By contrast, they said,
Lutsenko, the replacement approved by Vice President Biden, "initially continued investigating
Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma, but cleared him of all charges within 10 months of taking
office."
So whether or not it was Biden's intention to confer benefits on Burisma by demanding
Shokhin's firing, it ended up quite favorable for Burisma given that the utterly inexperienced
Lutesenko "cleared [Burisma's founder] of all charges within 10 months of taking office."
The new comprehensive report from journalist Taibbi on Sunday also strongly supports the
view that there were clear antagonisms between Shokhin and Burisma, such that firing the
Ukrainian prosecutor would have been beneficial for Burisma. Taibbi, who reported for many
years while based in Russia and remains very well-sourced in the region, detailed:
For all the negative press about Shokhin, there's no doubt that there were multiple active
cases involving Zlochevsky/Burisma during his short tenure. This was even once admitted by
American reporters, before it became taboo to describe such cases untethered to words like
"dormant." Here's how Ken Vogel at the New York
Timesput it in May of
2019:
"When Mr. Shokhin became prosecutor general in February 2015, he inherited several
investigations into the company and Mr. Zlochevsky, including for suspicion of tax evasion
and money laundering. Mr. Shokin also opened an investigation into the granting of lucrative
gas licenses to companies owned by Mr. Zlochevsky when he was the head of the Ukrainian
Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources."
Ukrainian officials I reached this week confirmed that multiple cases were active during
that time.
"There were different numbers, but from 7 to 14," says Serhii Horbatiuk, former head of
the special investigations department for the Prosecutor General's Office, when asked how
many Burisma cases there were.
"There may have been two to three episodes combined, and some have already been closed, so
I don't know the exact amount." But, Horbatiuk insists, there were many cases, most of them
technically started under Yarema, but at least active under Shokin.
The numbers quoted by Horbatiuk gibe with those offered by more recent General Prosecutor
Rulsan Ryaboshapka, who last year said there were at one time or another "
13 or 14 " cases in existence involving Burisma or Zlochevsky.
Taibbi reviews real-time reporting in both Ukraine and the U.S. to document several other
pending investigations against Burisma and Zlochevsky that was overseen by the prosecutor whose
firing Biden demanded. He notes that Shokhin himself has repeatedly said he was pursuing
several investigations against Zlochevsky at the time Biden demanded his firing. In sum, Taibbi
concludes, "one can't say there's no evidence of active Burisma cases even during the last days
of Shokin, who says that it was the February, 2016 seizure order [against Zlochevsky's assets]
that got him fired."
And, Taibbi notes, "the story looks even odder when one wonders why the United States would
exercise so much foreign policy muscle to get Shokin fired, only to allow in a replacement --
Yuri Lutsenko -- who by all accounts was a spectacularly bigger failure in the battle against
corruption in general, and Zlochevsky in particular." In sum: "it's unquestionable that the
cases against Burisma were all closed by Shokin's successor, chosen in consultation with Joe
Biden, whose son remained on the board of said company for three more years, earning upwards of
$50,000 per month."
The publicly known facts, augmented by the recent emails, texts and on-the-record accounts,
suggest serious sleaze by Joe Biden's son Hunter in trying to peddle his influence with the
Vice President for profit. But they also raise real questions about whether Joe Biden knew
about and even himself engaged in a form of legalized corruption. Specifically, these newly
revealed information suggest Biden was using his power to benefit his son's business Ukrainian
associates, and allowing his name to be traded on while Vice President for his son and brother
to pursue business opportunities in China. These are questions which a minimally healthy press
would want answered, not buried -- regardless of how many similar or worse scandals the Trump
family has.
But the real scandal that has been proven is not the former Vice President's misconduct but
that of his supporters and allies in the U.S. media. As Taibbi's headline put it: "With the
Hunter Biden Exposé, Suppression is a Bigger Scandal Than the Actual Story."
The reality is the U.S. press has been planning for this moment for four years -- cooking up
justifications for refusing to report on newsworthy material that might help Donald Trump get
re-elected. One major factor is the undeniable truth that journalists with national outlets
based in New York, Washington and West Coast cities overwhelmingly not just favor Joe Biden but
are desperate to see Donald Trump defeated.
It takes an enormous amount of gullibility to believe that any humans are capable of
separating such an intense partisan preference from their journalistic judgment. Many barely
even bother to pretend: critiques of Joe Biden are often attacked first not by Biden campaign
operatives but by political reporters at national news outlets who make little secret of their
eagerness to help Biden win.
But much of this has to do with the fallout from the 2016 election. During that campaign,
news outlets, including The Intercept, did their jobs as journalists by reporting on the
contents of newsworthy, authentic documents: namely, the emails published by WikiLeaks from the
John Podesta and DNC inboxes which, among other things, revealed corruption so severe that it
forced the resignation of the top five officials of the DNC. That the materials were hacked,
and that intelligence agencies were suggesting Russia was responsible, not negate the
newsworthiness of the documents, which is why media outlets across the country repeatedly
reported on their contents.
Nonetheless, journalists have spent four years being attacked as Trump enablers in their
overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal cultural circles: the cities in which they live are
overwhelmingly Democratic, and their demographic -- large-city, college-educated professionals
-- has vanishingly little Trump support. A
New York Times survey of campaign data from Monday tells just a part of this story of
cultural insularity and homogeniety:
Joe Biden has outraised President Trump on the strength of some of the wealthiest and most
educated ZIP codes in the United States, running up the fund-raising score in cities and
suburbs so resoundingly that he collected more money than Mr. Trump on all but two days in
the last two months....It is not just that much of Mr. Biden's strongest support comes
overwhelmingly from the two coasts, which it does.... [U]nder Mr. Trump, Republicans have
hemorrhaged support from white voters with college degrees. In ZIP codes with a median
household income of at least $100,000, Mr. Biden smashed Mr. Trump in fund-raising, $486
million to only $167 million -- accounting for almost his entire financial edge....One Upper
West Side ZIP code -- 10024 -- accounted for more than $8 million for Mr. Biden, and New York
City in total delivered $85.6 million for him -- more than he raised in every state other
than California....
The median household in the United States was $68,703 in 2019. In ZIP codes above that
level, Mr. Biden outraised Mr. Trump by $389.1 million. Below that level, Mr. Trump was
actually ahead by $53.4 million.
Wanting to avoid a repeat of feeling scorn and shunning in their own extremely
pro-Democratic, anti-Trump circles, national media outlets have spent four years inventing
standards for election-year reporting on hacked materials that never previously existed and
that are utterly anathema to the core journalistic function. The Washington Post's Executive
Editor Marty Baron, for instance,
issued a memo full of cautions about how Post reporters should, or should not, discuss
hacked materials even if their authenticity is not in doubt.
That a media outlet should even consider refraining from reporting on materials they know to
be authentic and in the public interest because of questions about their provenance is the
opposite of how journalism has been practiced. In the days before the 2016 election, for
instance, the New York Times received by mail one year of Donald Trump's tax returns and --
despite having no idea who sent it to them or how that person obtained it: was is stolen or
hacked by a foreign power? -- the Times reported on its
contents .
When asked by NPR why they would report on documents when they do not know the source let
alone the source's motives in providing them, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner David Barstow
compellingly
explained what had always been the core principle of journalism: namely, a journalist only
cares about two questions -- (1) are documents authentic and (2) are they in the public
interest? -- but does not care about what motives a source has in providing the documents or
how they were obtained when deciding whether to reporting them:
The U.S. media often laments that people have lost faith in its pronouncements, that they
are increasingly viewed as untrustworthy and that many people view Fake News sites are more
reliable than established news outlets. They are good at complaining about this, but very bad
at asking whether any of their own conduct is responsible for it.
A media outlet that renounces its core function -- pursuing answers to relevant questions
about powerful people -- is one that deserves to lose the public's faith and confidence. And
that is exactly what the U.S. media, with some exceptions, attempted to do with this story:
they took the lead not in investigating these documents but in concocting excuses for why they
should be ignored.
As my colleague Lee Fang put it on Sunday : "The partisan
double standards in the media are mind boggling this year, and much of the supposedly left
independent media is just as cowardly and conformist as the mainstream corporate media.
Everyone is reading the room and acting out of fear." Discussing his story from Sunday, Taibbi
summed up
the most important point this way: "The whole point is that the press loses its way when it
cares more about who benefits from information than whether it's true."
Glen, I just paid for a subscription so that I can say this one FACT. The PODESTA EMAILS
WERE NOT THE RESULT OF A HACK.
Please stop reporting this nonsense. The cover story was all part of the plan (approved by
HRC) to shift attention to a Trump-Russia collusion narrative that has always been fiction.
Guccifer 2.0 was created out of this same scheme. The meta data on the files prove that it's
impossible that those emails were hacked, they had to be downloaded on a local device
(thumbdrive most likely).
The FISA Abuse, the spying on Trump, The plan to implicate collusion, the Flynn frameup, the
Impeachment, The Mueller investigation were not the base crimes, those were all part of a cover
up. By you insinuating that the DNC server got hacked (which there is zero evidence for), you
are wittingly or unwittingly complicit in perpetuating the lie that it was. You're missing a
much, much bigger story here. The biden laptop isn't even the tip of the icebeg here.
Ask yourself this; "Why would dozens of high level DOJ, FBI, CIA and Whitehouse officials in
the Obama Administration put their careers on the line and commit literally hundreds of
felonies all in an effort to obstruct/neutralize Trump?" That is first question any true journo
should be asking right now.
I became a fan of yours when I was in law school at UC Hastings in 2003. Your the best, for
sure. But fuck...
I got to be honest...I'm glad the press is ignoring this story. There's just too much at
stake. Biden might be losing his edge, his family might be trading in his name, but who gives a
shit? The alternative is worse by light years.
And yeah, I don't trust the "people" out there to get it right. The "people" are rubes.
Those idiots voted for this piece of shit once before, they'll do it again, in a heartbeat.
More importantly, you really want to do Rudy Giuliani's work for him? I don't know, I don't
get it...why so eager to make the campaign's case for them? It's not a rhetorical question. I
just don't get it.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee confirmed Wednesday the
information exposed by former Hunter
Biden business associate
Tony Bobulinski that connects the former Vice President to companies and ventures in China.
But you wouldn't know it by following the main stream press.
Bobulinski's bombshell interview with Fox News host
Tucker Carlson Tuesday, along with Carlson's follow up exclusive on Wednesday, revealed
that Democratic candidate Joe Biden was aware of his son's business questionable overseas
business dealings. It should be a huge story. After all, Joe Biden has publicly denied knowing
about his son's business ventures in China, Ukraine and other parts of the world.
So why isn't this story on the front page of every newspaper and covered by every cable
network?
How is it possible that the majority of main stream media outlets, newspapers and cable
networks had no problem running unsubstantiated stories about President Donald Trump, his
family and his businesses only to find out later – without corrections- that the
information they published was bogus.
Here, there is an eye witness to the Biden family operations: Bobulinski. He has come
forward and shown his credibility. He has verified documents, photos, receipts from Hunter
Biden's hard drive that the FBI had obtained, along with President Trump's friend and personal
lawyer former New York City Mayor Rudy
Giuliani.
Why hasn't the FBI done anything with this before the election? The bureau has had it for
almost a year. Giuliani then did the only thing he could do – he turned over the
documents to The New York Post. Those documents obtained from Hunter Biden's laptop are the
massive breadcrumbs to a real political scandal.
These documents raise serious questions as to whether or not our possible future president
really is compromised by foreign adversaries, or whether or not he was using his position in
government to profit his family.
Still, it's only crickets from the main stream media. At the same time, big tech giants like
Twitter, Google and Facebook are also working diligently to squash the story and keep the truth
from the American people.
Tucker Carlson had the highest ratings – historic ratings – at Fox News Tuesday
night with more than 7 million viewers tuning in for the Bobulinski story. Yet, the Bobulinski
interview wasn't trending on Twitter, and in fact, it appeared that his story was non-existent
on the other networks.
Not even the Senators, who held a hearing on Wednesday, could get a straight answer from
Twitter's CEO
Jack Dorsey on why his platform banned The New York Post stories.
Sen. Ted Cruz said on Twitter "What @Jack told the Senate, under oath, is false."
"I just tried to tweet the @nypost story alleging
Biden's CCP corruption. Still Blocked."
Censorship in full force. However, this is not like the old
Soviet censorship – this is a bizarre new self-censorship by elitist leftists who
believe they know what's best for the American people.
Think about this – what if this story was about information these news agencies
discovered on Donald Trump Jr. or Eric Trump. How would they treat it?
Let's start with the most widely discussed and central to the issue of alleged corruption
was Hunter Biden's paid position on the board of Ukrainian energy giant Burisma Holdings.
Despite the fact Hunter Biden had no background in energy he was being paid more than $50,000 a
month and in some instances as much as $83,000 a month.
What about the most concerning connection for the Biden's with China's CEFC, an energy giant
that is compared to Goldman Sachs. It is directly connected to the Chinese Communist Party and
according to Bobulinski, as well as senior lawmakers investigating, possible used as leverage
against the Bidens by the communist government.
"Joe Biden and the Biden family are compromised" said Bobulinski in Tuesday night's hour
long interview with Carlson. He said he turned over evidence to the FBI and openly spoke about
his alleged meetings with then Vice President Joe Biden. Biden is referred to by his son Hunter
Biden in emails obtained by the FBI and first published by The New York Post as the 'Big Guy'
and or 'the Chairman.'
Bobulinski revealed that he "held a top-secret clearance from the NSA and the DOE. I served
this country for four years in one of the most elite environments in the world, the Naval
Nuclear Power Training Command, and to have a congressmen out there speaking about Russian
disinformation or Joe Biden at a public debate referencing Russian disinformation when he knows
he sat face-to-face with me, I traveled around the world with his son and his brother. To say
that and associate that with my name is absolutely disgusting to me ."
Joe Biden, however, has publicly denied having any financial gain from his son's, Hunter,
business ventures. He said at the second Presidential debate, "I have not taken a penny from
any foreign source ever in my life." However, Biden has refused to answer any questions
regarding the allegations or address some of the accusations against him or his son.
The American public has the right to know if their next president has been compromised by
their families business dealings with the communist Chinese. Moreover, many of the business
ventures his son was connected with were during his tenure as Vice President.
Our nation has been divided but not by President Trump. It's been divided by an army of
bureaucrats, liberal elites, the New Democratic socialists, special interests and more
importantly a biased partisan media.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
For now, Americans will be left in the dark. On Wednesday committee Chairman Sen. Ron
Johnson, R- WI, told The Daily Caller, that Bobulinski will not be called to testify before the
Nov. 3 elections. He said the committee is working to review all the information that has been
provided to the committee by Bobulinski.
The information has to be verified, as it is subject to the same false information to
Congress laws that verbal or written testimony does.
However, a Johnson spokesperson told the Caller that all the material provided by Bobulinski
to the committee is legitimate and verified .
The committee has "also" not come across any "signs" or evidence to suggest the content
Hunter Biden and Bobulinksi content is false , the spokesperson added.
It's tragic to think that if by chance – a small remote chance – that Biden
actually wins the election justice will never be served and our nation will fundamentally
change.
America will be at a crossroads on November 3. The main stream media is doing its part to
ensure that the American people are not informed, so it is up to you to vote your conscience
and seek out the truth.
Col. Leghorn CSA , 9 hours ago
I suggest enabling RICO charges against any media that conspires to hide the truth.
"... If you want a quick rundown of the Burisma op and Hunter's role in it, check out this 2019 report in the Wall Street Journal. This respectable news outlet might not have called what he did there as "corruption" or "graft," but that's exactly what it was: Hunter traded his dad's name and access for money. ..."
What's
truly scandalous about this whole Hunter thing is that it shows just how normalized elite
corruption is in our imperial society and how little anyone at the top cares.
Last week I stepped away from the Internet for 24 hours and came back to find the most
ridiculous thing took place: Twitter decided to just straight up censor a New York Post story that
weaponized Hunter Biden's boring rich kid degenerate life and his corrupt dealings in Ukraine.
This crude attempt at
censorship only inflamed interest in this obvious h
Glenn, was curious for your take on Yasha Levine's piece on the matter. As far as the
censorship angle goes, I think you are both in agreement, but as far as just how big a story
this really is, he seems to be a little more jaded. https://yasha.substack.com/p/yes-hunter-biden-is-corrupt-its-one
It's unclear at this point how much Joe knew about what was going on. For my part, I suspect
he knew but was not actually directing Hunter's activities. I actually also doubt that he has
any idea that a piece of the China deal was being held for him, if indeed it was.
That said, I think it is clear that he knew that Hunter was throwing the Biden name around
to gin up business deals and he didn't tell him to stop it.
I think it's also clear that the media in general is desperate to avoid any mention of the
story...which is, in my mind at least, the best argument to vote for Trump. A lapdog media is
no check on the crazy stuff that happens in DC
If you want a quick rundown of the Burisma op and Hunter's role in it, check out this
2019 report in the Wall Street Journal. This respectable news outlet might not have called what
he did there as "corruption" or "graft," but that's exactly what it was: Hunter traded his
dad's name and access for money.
So it's strange that people have been getting so worked up over this New York Post story.
Even if the emails end up being fake or some details were fudged, it's doesn't change anything
because they're riffing on something real. If Hunter hadn't sold his access to a Ukrainian
oligarch, there would be no story here -- fake emails or no. And that's what's truly scandalous
about this whole Hunter Biden thing: It shows just how normalized elite corruption is in our
imperial society and how little anyone at the top cares about it.
Watching liberals deflect this reality by screaming about some devious foreign plot to
subvert democracy well, it's hard to be shocked or outraged anymore. All you can do now is mock
it and laugh.
-- Yasha Levine
PS: Aside from all the other problems, screaming about "the Russians" every time Hunter's
corruption comes up is yet another example of the xenophobia and racism that's become totally
normalized among our liberal elite.
Each time I read about Hunter's scandal in Ukraine, I have to think of VP Joe Biden and his
family! They all, in this way, traded in VP Biden's name and position! So the real question is,
why is this behavior so widespread amongst these family members?! Honestly...without
cooperation from the VP, would that have happened to the degree it did?!
Let's see...."If you don't fire the prosecutor, you're not getting the one billion
dollars!"
Also, I see that you brushed on the fact that it might be corruption, but it's been
legalized: "But they also raise real questions about whether Joe Biden knew about and even
himself engaged in a form of legalized corruption."
So what Levine is saying is that - yeah it's bad, but it's not only legal - it's been going
on for years and across both parties.
from a purely political standpoint, the reason once credible liberal/mainstream sources seek
to suppress/malign right wing and conservative voices is simple: these voices would inform
policy as most americans would embrace those voices. most people want to hear tucker carlson
call looters...looters - especially when no one else is saying it. and want to see fair and
impartial handling of media. so every viewpoint is ignored, or derided...this isnt to say that
righwing voices are always correct - just that they appeal to a deep seated need that is
missing on the left: simplicity. not everything has to be analyzed to death. not everything has
shades of white supremacy. not everything reeks of...the list goes on and on. some things are
just simple. we need safety. we need a good economy. the truth is multiplex and evolving, and
not everything is just because a dark web of college educated journalist elitist say so. trump
and his supporters exist because of msm. they enabled him, they created this massive nationwide
gaslighting of simple straight forward policies and ideas that most people have held peacefully
for decades (like the fact that censorship is indeed bad). and if he wins, it'll be because of
the deeply corrupt media elites. and i hope he wins. they deserve it.
on this article, it looks like hunter did some shady stuff, but as for this story, it lacks
real credibility, and as a consumer of news in america, i'd ask the question why msm ran with
russiagate for 3 years with zero credible evidence but is silent now. the truth is simple. we
don't need to go further.
UPS has found
documents that went missing in transit to Tucker Carlson, putting to rest questions about the
whereabouts of a trove that the Fox News host had called "damning" of presidential candidate
Joe Biden's family.
"After an extensive search, we have found the contents of the package and are arranging
for its return," a UPS spokesman told the
Daily Beast on Thursday. "UPS will always focus first on our customers and will never
stop working to solve issues and make things right."
While the successful search resolved the issue of the documents' whereabouts, questions
remain about how they disappeared from a package sent to Carlson in California from a producer
in New York -- and who, if anyone, was behind it. Without naming the company involved or
specifically saying the papers were purposely targeted and stolen, Carlson suggested on his
show on Wednesday night that the disappearance wasn't coincidental.
"As of tonight, the [shipping] company has no idea and no working theory even about what
happened to this trove of material – documents that are directly relevant to the
presidential campaign just six days from now," Carlson said. The company's executives
"seemed baffled and deeply bothered by this, and so are we."
Carlson described the package as containing confidential documents about the Biden family
and said they were "authentic, real and damning." He said he asked a Fox producer in New
York to send the documents to him in Los Angeles, where he had traveled to interview former
Biden business associated
Tony Bobulinski on Tuesday. The package didn't show up on Tuesday morning, prompting UPS to
begin an exhaustive search.
Mainstream media critics mocked Carlson for saying the documents had disappeared, including
some who suggested that they never existed. HuffPost said Carlson "concocted yet another
conspiracy
theory " to explain the disappearance of documents related to what they called his
"conspiracy theory" about Biden's son, Hunter.
Carlson devoted his entire show on Tuesday night to the Bobulinski interview, which provided
more specific allegations about the Biden family's business dealings in China following an Oct.
14
New York Post report on the ventures. Although Bobulinski provided legal documents, text
messages and recordings to back up his claims, the interview was largely ignored by other
mainstream media outlets.
Tuesday night, we heard at length and on camera from one of the Biden family's former
business partners. His name is Tony Bobulinski. He's a very successful businessman and a Navy
veteran.
Bobulinski spoke to "Tucker Carlson Tonight" for a full hour. He told us he met two
separate times with Joe Biden himself. Not just with Joe
Biden's son or his brother, but with Joe Biden -- the former vice president and the man now
running for president -- to discuss business deals with the communist government of China .
That's a very serious claim, and whatever your political views, it's hard to dismiss it when
Tony Bobulinski makes it because Bobulinsky is an unusually credible witness. He's not a
partisan, he's not seeking money, he's not seeking publicity. He did not want to come on our
show.
But when Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and the Biden campaign accused Tony Bobulinski of
participating in a Russian disinformation effort, he felt he had no choice. That was a slander
against him and against his family. So Bobulinski came to us. He arrived with heaps of evidence
to bolster the story he was telling. He brought contemporaneous audio recordings, text
messages, e-mails, many financial documents.
By the end of the hour, it was very clear to us that Tony Bobulinski was telling the truth
and that Joe Biden was lying. We believe that any honest person who watched the entire hour
would come to the same conclusion.
Well, on Wednesday, a
Senate committee confirmed it . The Senate Homeland Security Committee reported that all of
Tony Bobulinski's documents are, in fact, real. They are authentic. They are not forgeries.
This is not Russian disinformation. It is real.
Bobulinski told a remarkable story. Joe Biden -- who, once again, could be president of the
United States next week, was planning business deals with America's most formidable global
opponent. And when he was caught doing it, Joe Biden lied. And then he went further. He
slandered an innocent man as a traitor to his own country. It is clear that Joe Biden did that.
That's not a partisan talking point uttered in bad faith on behalf of another presidential
campaign. It's true.
So the question is, what is Joe Biden's excuse for doing that? What is his version of this
story? Everyone has a version and we'd like to hear it, but we don't know what Joe Biden's
version of the story is, because no one in America's vast media landscape has pressed Joe Biden
to answer the question. Instead, reporters at all levels and their editors and their publishers
have openly collaborated with Joe Biden's political campaign. That is unprecedented. It has
never happened in American history.
Wednesday morning, the big papers completely ignored what Tony Bobulinski had to say. So did
the other television networks. Not a single word about Bobulinski appeared on CNN or anywhere
else. Newsweek decided to cover it, but came to the conclusion that the real story was about
QAnon somehow. This is Soviet-style suppression of information about a legitimate news story.
Days before an election, the ramifications of it are impossible to imagine. But we do know the
media cannot continue in the way that it has.
No one believes the media anymore and no one should. You should be offended by this, not
because the media are liberal, but because this is an attack on our democracy. You've heard
that phrase again and again, but this is what it looks like. In a self-governing country,
voters have a right -- an obligation -- to know who they're voting for. In this case, they have
the right to know the Democratic nominee for president was a willing partner in his family's
lucrative influence-peddling operation, an operation that went on for decades and stretched
from China and Ukraine all the way to Oman, Romania, Luxembourg and many other countries. This
is not speculation once again, and it's not a partisan attack. It's true, and Tony bobulinski
confirmed it.
Bobulinski met with Joe Biden at a hotel bar in Los Angeles in early May of 2017, and when
he did, Joe Biden's son introduced Bobulinski this way: "Dad. Here's the individual I told you
about that's helping us with the business that we're working on and the Chinese."
Now, written documents confirmed this is real. At one point, Joe Biden's son texted Tony
Bobulinski to say that Joe Biden, his father, was making key decisions about their business
deals with China.
CARLSON: When Hunter Biden said his chairman, he was talking about his dad.
BOBULINSKI: Correct, and what Hunter is referencing there is, he spoke with his father
and his father is giving an emphatic 'no' to the ask that I had, which was putting proper
governance in place around Oneida Holdings.
CARLSON: So, Joe Biden is vetoing your plan for putting stricter governance in the
company. I mean, and it's it's right here in the email.
BOBULINSKI: Yes, Tucker, I want to be very careful in front of the American people. That
is not me writing that. That is not me claiming that. That is Hunter Biden writing on his own
phone. Typing in that 'I spoke with my chairman,' referencing his father.
All this is spelled out in the clearest possible language in documents that Bobulinski
provided us, documents that subsequently federal authorities have authenticated as real.
On May 13, 2017, for example, Hunter Biden got an email explaining how his family would be
paid for their deal with the Chinese energy company. His father, Joe Biden, was getting
10%.
BOBULINSKI: In that email, there's a statement where they go through the equity, Jim Biden's
referenced as, you know, 10%. It doesn't say Biden, it says Jim. And then it has 10% for the
big guy held by H. I 1,000% sit here and know that the big guy is referencing Joe Biden. It's,
that's crystal clear to me because I lived it. I met with the former vice president in person
multiple times.
That was three years ago, and we still don't know where all that money went, because the
media haven't forced Joe Biden to tell us. But Tony, Bobulinski did add a telling detail. Joe
Biden's brother, Jim, saw his stake in the deal double from 10% to 20%. Was Jim Biden getting
his brother's share again? It might be worth finding out.
We also know that according to an email from a top Chinese official, this one written on
July 26, 2017, the Chinese proposed a $5 million dollar interest-free loan to the Biden family,
"based on their trust on [sic] BD [Biden] family." The e-mail continued, "Should this Chinese
company, CEFC, keep lending more to the family?" And indeed, CEFC was supposed to send another
$5 million dollars to the Bidens' business ventures. Apparently, that money never made it to
the business. Where did it go? A recent Senate report suggests it went to Hunter Biden
directly. And from there, who knows? Again, no one's asked.
Tony Bobulinski also told us he learned Hunter Biden became the personal attorney to the
chairman of CEFC, Ye Jianming, just as they were tendering 14% of a Russian state-owned energy
company. That was a deal valued at $9 billion dollars. It's pretty sleazy. It's pretty amazing,
actually, that this happened and no one noticed.
We're not going to spend the next six months leading you through a maze of complex financial
transactions. This isn't that complicated: Millions of dollars linked directly to the Communist
Party of China went to Joe Biden's family, and not because they're capable businessmen. Jim
Biden's one business success appears to have been running a nightclub in Delaware that
ultimately went under.
No, the Bidens were cut in on the world's most lucrative business deals, massive
infrastructure deals in countries around the world for one reason: Because Joe Biden was a
powerful government official willing to leverage his power on behalf of his family.
Now, if that's not a crime, it's very close to a crime and it's certainly something every
person voting should know about. The Bidens didn't do this once. They did it for decades. So
the question is, how did they get away with it for so long? Tony Bobulinski asked Jim Biden
that question directly. To his credit Jim Biden answered that question honestly.
BOBULINSKI: And I remember looking at Jim Biden and saying, 'How are you guys getting
away with this?' Like, 'Aren't you concerned?' And he looked at me and he laughed a little bit
and said, 'Plausible deniability.'
CARLSON: He said that out loud.
BOBULINSKI: Yes, he said it directly to me. One on one, in a cabana at the Peninsula
Hotel.
"Plausible deniability." In other words, "we lie." We get away with selling access to the
U.S. government, which we do not own, because we lie about what we're doing. And as we lie, we
try to make those lies plausible. That's why we call it "plausible deniability." That is the
answer that Joe Biden's brother gave when asked directly.
So the question is, what is Joe Biden's answer to that question? We wish we
knew.
ForFoxSake!!! 1 hour ago Everything that is happening right now is because Trump was
right about the swamp, the media, and the ruling class families who have been selling out
America for decades. ohhappyday657 1 hour ago Tucker is doing this country a great service. The
FBI doesn't seem to want to engage. Mr. Bobulinski is a patriot and we are lucky he came
forward. The Bidens need to be called out for their high crimes and misdemeanors. Joe should be
impeached for his time as VP. Thank you Tucker. resipsaloquitor ohhappyday657 29 minutes ago
You can smell the desperation on the Trump supporters. The lies, the distortions and the
grasping, pathetic search for the proverbial Hail Mary to salvage the quickly sinking ship. If
Mr. Bobulinski is the best you have the Democrats will 'trump' you with: 227,000 dead
Americans, close to 9 million more infected and an economy in tatters. The day of reckoning is
approaching and a dozen Bobulinskis won't change that. Trump and his unseemly administration
are doomed.
On Tuesday night, Tucker Carlson did something he'd never done before: he dedicated his
entire show to a single interview. The person he interviewed was Tony Bobulinski, an
experienced international businessman who found himself working with Hunter Biden, James Biden,
and others on a deal between the Biden group and CEFC, a Chinese energy company with ties to
the communist government and the military. Bobulinski powerfully confirms that Joe Biden was
deeply involved in the transaction, which had its beginnings when Joe was still vice
president.
Fox News has not yet uploaded (and may never upload) the interview in its entirety. However,
the four videos below bring together almost everything from the interview.
Tucker opened by making the point that he was dedicating his show to the Bobulinski
interview because the rest of the American media are assiduously ignoring the story,
downplaying it, or claiming it's a Russian smear. The leader of the Russian smear approach is,
naturally, Rep. Adam Schiff, a man who has all the hallmarks of a conscienceless psychopath.
Ironically, it was Schiff's smear about Hunter Biden's hard drive that led Bobulinski, a
Democrat, to go public with his story.
If you can't watch the interview, here's a brief overview:
Bobulinksi is a former naval officer with a Q clearance. That's an extremely high clearance
level for people working in the Department of Energy -- and Bobulinski worked in the Navy's
nuclear program. He comes from a military family and is very proud of that legacy.
After leaving the Navy, Bobulinski became an international businessman. His expertise led to
Hunter Biden and his people wooing Bobulinski to give them the business expertise they needed
to get their partnership up and running.
The partnership, SinoHawk, was intended to bring together CEFC and the Biden family. Both
Hunter and James Biden, after all, brought nothing to the table other than their last name and,
with it, the promise that China would have access to political influence at the highest level
of American government.
Bobulinski's name recently became public knowledge when James Gilliar, another businessman
working on SinoHawk, sent an email to Tony Bobulinski, setting out the terms Gilliar had been
negotiating with CEFC. What caught everyone's interest was the statement that Hunter would hold
"10[%] for the Big Guy." Bobulinski confirmed that Joe Biden was the "Big Guy."
At this point, Schiff, the media, and Joe Biden, none of whom ever denied the legitimacy of
the email, claimed that the whole thing was a Russian smear. This unfounded accusation got
Bobulinski's dander up. As a naval officer from a military family and a true patriot, being
smeared as a Russian agent was beyond the pale.
Bobulinski demanded that Schiff retract the insult, and when Schiff failed to do so, he went
public and did a full document dump. Bobulinski had saved everything -- every document, every
email, and every text.
That's the quick background to the interview with Carlson, during which Bobulinski said
that
Hunter and James Biden brought nothing to the deal other than the Biden family name.
What China wanted was the Biden family name.
Joe Biden was involved in the business deal, so much so that he had veto power over
negotiations.
In 2017, Bobulinski met Joe Biden twice when the Biden side of SinoHawk was courting him
to step in and act as CEO.
Bobulinski also spoke at length with James Biden, Joe's brother.
When Bobulinski asked James how they could get away with this kind of deal, which seemed
to be falling into dangerous territory, given that Joe could run again for president, James
announced, "Plausible deniability."
The Biden group stiffed Bobulinski, leaving him out of pocket for all his expenses while
channeling CEFC's money into another entity that did not involve Bobulinski.
If we had a decent media establishment, this story would be on every front page and at the
top of every news hour. Instead, Bobulinski is trying desperately to get Americans to know that
he is not a Russian agent and that Joe Biden was in bed with the communist Chinese government,
starting when he was vice president and continuing after he left the White House. This screen
shot from Memeorandum shows that
none of the legacy media outlets is touching the story:
(As an aside, and separate from the Bobulinski interview, a former CIA operations office
believes it's entirely possible that Biden
was already doing China's bidding in 2012, when the Obama administration gave China free
rein in the South China Sea.)
In case the embedded videos do not play, you can find them here ,
here ,
here ,
and here
.
We've always known that Joe Biden is an odd bird. Just think of the lies, the egotistical
boasting, the offers to fight people, the skinny-dipping, and the way he fondles and sniffs
little girls. He is a genuinely creepy man.
It speaks volumes about Washington, D.C. and the Democrat party that Joe spent 47 years in
the swamp and rose to the second highest office in the land. What we've learned now, though,
irrefutably and without any Russian hokum, is that Joe Biden is also a profoundly corrupt man
who willingly sold out America and her allies to enrich himself and his sleazy, incompetent
family.
Fox News has not yet uploaded (and may never upload) the interview in its entirety. However,
the four videos below bring together almost everything from the interview.
Tucker opened by making the point that he was dedicating his show to the Bobulinski
interview because the rest of the American media are assiduously ignoring the story,
downplaying it, or claiming it's a Russian smear. The leader of the Russian smear approach is,
naturally, Rep. Adam Schiff, a man who has all the hallmarks of a conscienceless psychopath.
Ironically, it was Schiff's smear about Hunter Biden's hard drive that led Bobulinski, a
Democrat, to go public with his story.
If you can't watch the interview, here's a brief overview:
Bobulinksi is a former naval officer with a Q clearance. That's an extremely high clearance
level for people working in the Department of Energy -- and Bobulinski worked in the Navy's
nuclear program. He comes from a military family and is very proud of that legacy.
After leaving the Navy, Bobulinski became an international businessman. His expertise led to
Hunter Biden and his people wooing Bobulinski to give them the business expertise they needed
to get their partnership up and running.
The partnership, SinoHawk, was intended to bring together CEFC and the Biden family. Both
Hunter and James Biden, after all, brought nothing to the table other than their last name and,
with it, the promise that China would have access to political influence at the highest level
of American government.
Bobulinski's name recently became public knowledge when James Gilliar, another businessman
working on SinoHawk, sent an email to Tony Bobulinski, setting out the terms Gilliar had been
negotiating with CEFC. What caught everyone's interest was the statement that Hunter would hold
"10[%] for the Big Guy." Bobulinski confirmed that Joe Biden was the "Big Guy."
At this point, Schiff, the media, and Joe Biden, none of whom ever denied the legitimacy of
the email, claimed that the whole thing was a Russian smear. This unfounded accusation got
Bobulinski's dander up. As a naval officer from a military family and a true patriot, being
smeared as a Russian agent was beyond the pale.
Bobulinski demanded that Schiff retract the insult, and when Schiff failed to do so, he went
public and did a full document dump. Bobulinski had saved everything -- every document, every
email, and every text.
That's the quick background to the interview with Carlson, during which Bobulinski said
that
Hunter and James Biden brought nothing to the deal other than the Biden family name.
What China wanted was the Biden family name.
Joe Biden was involved in the business deal, so much so that he had veto power over
negotiations.
In 2017, Bobulinski met Joe Biden twice when the Biden side of SinoHawk was courting him
to step in and act as CEO.
Bobulinski also spoke at length with James Biden, Joe's brother.
When Bobulinski asked James how they could get away with this kind of deal, which seemed
to be falling into dangerous territory, given that Joe could run again for president, James
announced, "Plausible deniability."
The Biden group stiffed Bobulinski, leaving him out of pocket for all his expenses while
channeling CEFC's money into another entity that did not involve Bobulinski.
If we had a decent media establishment, this story would be on every front page and at the
top of every news hour. Instead, Bobulinski is trying desperately to get Americans to know that
he is not a Russian agent and that Joe Biden was in bed with the communist Chinese government,
starting when he was vice president and continuing after he left the White House. This screen
shot from Memeorandum shows that
none of the legacy media outlets is touching the story:
In the aftermath of the widespread blowback amid Apollo clients, many of whom
have frozen their new capital allocations to the private equity giant in
response to recent reports that co-founder Leon Black had paid "suicided" pedophile Jeffrey
Epstein $50 million after he was released from jail, during a conference call on Thursday
morning discussing Apollo's third-quarter results, Black said he regretted doing business with
sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, even though other prominent people had done the same.
"Like many people I respected, I decided to give Epstein a second chance," Black said
Thursday during a conference call to discuss Apollo's third-quarter results.
"This was a terrible mistake", the former Drexel banker added pointing out the obvious,
although it still remains unclear just what "second chance" services Epstein provided to Black
that was worth a whopping $50 million in compensation, but we are confident we will find out
soon enough.
And in what may be the greatest example of "whataboutism" in modern history, Black said that
Epstein worked with many prominent individuals after he was released from jail, and that "the
distinguished reputations of these individuals gave me misplaced comfort."
In other words, if everyone is going to "picnics" on Epstein's underage girl island in their
private jets, it's all cool.
Laughably, Black - who is surrounded by the most brilliant financial minds of his generation
24/7 - has said he sought advice from Epstein for matters such as taxes, estate planning and
philanthropy.
Apollo hired law firm Dechert LLP to conduct a review that's expected to take 60 to 90 days,
according to people familiar with the matter.
That said, we doubt their reputations will be just as "distinguished" once it emerges just
what "services" underage girls Epstein was providing them.
Also on the call we learned that despite the posturing, Apollo's clients were not really
turned off by the ongoing scandal, and the PE giant raised another $4 billion in the third
quarter even though it expects fundraising to slow, co-founder Joshua Harris said on the
call.
October 28, 2020 Tucker Carlson's interview with Tony Bobulinski is must-see TV By
Andrea
Widburg
On Tuesday night, Tucker Carlson did something he'd never done before: he dedicated his
entire show to a single interview. The person he interviewed was Tony Bobulinski, an
experienced international businessman who found himself working with Hunter Biden, James Biden,
and others on a deal between the Biden group and CEFC, a Chinese energy company with ties to
the communist government and the military. Bobulinski powerfully confirms that Joe Biden was
deeply involved in the transaction, which had its beginnings when Joe was still vice
president.
Fox News has not yet uploaded (and may never upload) the interview in its entirety. However,
the four videos below bring together almost everything from the interview.
Tucker opened by making the point that he was dedicating his show to the Bobulinski
interview because the rest of the American media are assiduously ignoring the story,
downplaying it, or claiming it's a Russian smear. The leader of the Russian smear approach is,
naturally, Rep. Adam Schiff, a man who has all the hallmarks of a conscienceless psychopath.
Ironically, it was Schiff's smear about Hunter Biden's hard drive that led Bobulinski, a
Democrat, to go public with his story.
If you can't watch the interview, here's a brief overview:
Bobulinksi is a former naval officer with a Q clearance. That's an extremely high clearance
level for people working in the Department of Energy -- and Bobulinski worked in the Navy's
nuclear program. He comes from a military family and is very proud of that legacy.
After leaving the Navy, Bobulinski became an international businessman. His expertise led to
Hunter Biden and his people wooing Bobulinski to give them the business expertise they needed
to get their partnership up and running.
The partnership, SinoHawk, was intended to bring together CEFC and the Biden family. Both
Hunter and James Biden, after all, brought nothing to the table other than their last name and,
with it, the promise that China would have access to political influence at the highest level
of American government.
Bobulinski's name recently became public knowledge when James Gilliar, another businessman
working on SinoHawk, sent an email to Tony Bobulinski, setting out the terms Gilliar had been
negotiating with CEFC. What caught everyone's interest was the statement that Hunter would hold
"10[%] for the Big Guy." Bobulinski confirmed that Joe Biden was the "Big Guy."
At this point, Schiff, the media, and Joe Biden, none of whom ever denied the legitimacy of
the email, claimed that the whole thing was a Russian smear. This unfounded accusation got
Bobulinski's dander up. As a naval officer from a military family and a true patriot, being
smeared as a Russian agent was beyond the pale.
Bobulinski demanded that Schiff retract the insult, and when Schiff failed to do so, he went
public and did a full document dump. Bobulinski had saved everything -- every document, every
email, and every text.
That's the quick background to the interview with Carlson, during which Bobulinski said
that
Hunter and James Biden brought nothing to the deal other than the Biden family name.
What China wanted was the Biden family name.
Joe Biden was involved in the business deal, so much so that he had veto power over
negotiations.
In 2017, Bobulinski met Joe Biden twice when the Biden side of SinoHawk was courting him
to step in and act as CEO.
Bobulinski also spoke at length with James Biden, Joe's brother.
When Bobulinski asked James how they could get away with this kind of deal, which seemed
to be falling into dangerous territory, given that Joe could run again for president, James
announced, "Plausible deniability."
The Biden group stiffed Bobulinski, leaving him out of pocket for all his expenses while
channeling CEFC's money into another entity that did not involve Bobulinski.
If we had a decent media establishment, this story would be on every front page and at the
top of every news hour. Instead, Bobulinski is trying desperately to get Americans to know that
he is not a Russian agent and that Joe Biden was in bed with the communist Chinese government,
starting when he was vice president and continuing after he left the White House. This screen
shot from Memeorandum shows that
none of the legacy media outlets is touching the story:
(As an aside, and separate from the Bobulinski interview, a former CIA operations office
believes it's entirely possible that Biden
was already doing China's bidding in 2012, when the Obama administration gave China free
rein in the South China Sea.)
In case the embedded videos do not play, you can find them here ,
here ,
here ,
and here
.
We've always known that Joe Biden is an odd bird. Just think of the lies, the egotistical
boasting, the offers to fight people, the skinny-dipping, and the way he fondles and sniffs
little girls. He is a genuinely creepy man.
It speaks volumes about Washington, D.C. and the Democrat party that Joe spent 47 years in
the swamp and rose to the second highest office in the land. What we've learned now, though,
irrefutably and without any Russian hokum, is that Joe Biden is also a profoundly corrupt man
who willingly sold out America and her allies to enrich himself and his sleazy, incompetent
family.
Fox News has not yet uploaded (and may never upload) the interview in its entirety. However,
the four videos below bring together almost everything from the interview.
Tucker opened by making the point that he was dedicating his show to the Bobulinski
interview because the rest of the American media are assiduously ignoring the story,
downplaying it, or claiming it's a Russian smear. The leader of the Russian smear approach is,
naturally, Rep. Adam Schiff, a man who has all the hallmarks of a conscienceless psychopath.
Ironically, it was Schiff's smear about Hunter Biden's hard drive that led Bobulinski, a
Democrat, to go public with his story.
If you can't watch the interview, here's a brief overview:
Bobulinksi is a former naval officer with a Q clearance. That's an extremely high clearance
level for people working in the Department of Energy -- and Bobulinski worked in the Navy's
nuclear program. He comes from a military family and is very proud of that legacy.
After leaving the Navy, Bobulinski became an international businessman. His expertise led to
Hunter Biden and his people wooing Bobulinski to give them the business expertise they needed
to get their partnership up and running.
The partnership, SinoHawk, was intended to bring together CEFC and the Biden family. Both
Hunter and James Biden, after all, brought nothing to the table other than their last name and,
with it, the promise that China would have access to political influence at the highest level
of American government.
Bobulinski's name recently became public knowledge when James Gilliar, another businessman
working on SinoHawk, sent an email to Tony Bobulinski, setting out the terms Gilliar had been
negotiating with CEFC. What caught everyone's interest was the statement that Hunter would hold
"10[%] for the Big Guy." Bobulinski confirmed that Joe Biden was the "Big Guy."
At this point, Schiff, the media, and Joe Biden, none of whom ever denied the legitimacy of
the email, claimed that the whole thing was a Russian smear. This unfounded accusation got
Bobulinski's dander up. As a naval officer from a military family and a true patriot, being
smeared as a Russian agent was beyond the pale.
Bobulinski demanded that Schiff retract the insult, and when Schiff failed to do so, he went
public and did a full document dump. Bobulinski had saved everything -- every document, every
email, and every text.
That's the quick background to the interview with Carlson, during which Bobulinski said
that
Hunter and James Biden brought nothing to the deal other than the Biden family name.
What China wanted was the Biden family name.
Joe Biden was involved in the business deal, so much so that he had veto power over
negotiations.
In 2017, Bobulinski met Joe Biden twice when the Biden side of SinoHawk was courting him
to step in and act as CEO.
Bobulinski also spoke at length with James Biden, Joe's brother.
When Bobulinski asked James how they could get away with this kind of deal, which seemed
to be falling into dangerous territory, given that Joe could run again for president, James
announced, "Plausible deniability."
The Biden group stiffed Bobulinski, leaving him out of pocket for all his expenses while
channeling CEFC's money into another entity that did not involve Bobulinski.
If we had a decent media establishment, this story would be on every front page and at the
top of every news hour. Instead, Bobulinski is trying desperately to get Americans to know that
he is not a Russian agent and that Joe Biden was in bed with the communist Chinese government,
starting when he was vice president and continuing after he left the White House. This screen
shot from Memeorandum shows that
none of the legacy media outlets is touching the story:
A collection of confidential documents related to the Biden family mysteriously vanished
from an envelope sent to Fox News host Tucker Carlson , the host said on
Wednesday night.
Carlson's team allegedly received the documents from a source on Monday. At the time,
Carlson was on the West Coast filming an interview with Tony Bobulinski, the former business
partner of Hunter Biden and James Biden. Carlson requested the documents to be sent to the West
Coast.
According to Carlson, the producer shipped the documents overnight to California using a
large national package carrier. He didn't name the company, saying only that it's a "brand name
company."
"The Biden documents never arrived in Los Angeles. Tuesday morning we received word from our
shipping company that our package had been opened and the contents were missing," Carlson said.
"The documents had disappeared."
The company took the incident seriously and immediately began a search, Carlson said. The
company traced the package from when it was dropped off in New York to the moment when an
employee at a sorting facility reported that the package was opened and empty.
" The company's security team interviewed every employee who touched the envelope we sent.
They searched the plane and the trucks that carried it. They went through the office in New
York where our producers dropped the package off. They combed the entire cavernous sorting
facility. They used pictures of what we had sent so that searchers would know what to look
for," Carlson said.
"They far and beyond, but they found nothing."
"Those documents have vanished," he added.
"As of tonight, the company has no idea and no working theory even about what happened to
this trove of materials, documents that are directly relevant to the presidential campaign
just six days from now."
Executives at the shipping company were "baffled" and "deeply bothered" by the incident,
Carlson said.
Carlson's interview with Bobulinski aired on Tuesday night. In the interview, Bobulinski
opined that Joe Biden
and the Biden family are compromised by China due to the business dealings of Hunter Biden and
James Biden. Joe Biden has not publicly responded to Bobulinski's allegations, but during a
presidential debate on Oct. 22 said he had "not taken a penny from any foreign source ever in
my life."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Bobulinski provided more than 1,700 pages of emails and more than 600 screenshots of text
messages to Senate investigators and handed over to the FBI the smartphones he used during his
business dealings with the Bidens. The documents detailed a failed joint venture between a
billionaire tied to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and a company owned by Hunter Biden,
James Biden, Bobulinski and two other partners.
While the corporate documents don't mention Biden by name, emails sent between the partners
suggest that either James Biden or Hunter Biden held a 10 percent stake for the former vice
president. In the email, the stake is assigned to "the big guy," who Bobulinski says is Joe
Biden.
_arrow NoDebt , 3 minutes ago
I heard Tucker talk about this earlier tonight and realized we are FULLY controlled now.
Whatever the **** is going on, whether this is true or not doesn't matter. We are just
unwitting participants in some kind of TV reality show now. Everything is meaningless.
lwilland1012 , 5 minutes ago
Please tell me he was smart enough to make copies...
CatInTheHat , 1 minute ago
Ok.
What was IN the documents and from whom?
This is an inside job. Probably a never Trumper at Fox. There are a few.
quanttech , 3 minutes ago
If Trump loses, Fox will go full Dem. Trump will start TrumpTV, and Tucker will need a
job....
btw, Tucker should get the Nobel Peace Prize for keeping us out of Iran for the last 3.5
years.
Nona Yobiznes , 4 minutes ago
This story doesn't make sense. You sent confidential, highly sensitive documents via post?
Because Tucker was on the west coast? You couldn't scan them in? Were they originals, and are
there copies? This doesn't smell right.
icolbowca , 6 minutes ago
Takes a special kind of moron to send something like that via mail...
"... Biden's campaign earlier this month said Biden never had a meeting with an executive at a shady Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Holdings, while he was the vice president and his son sat on the board of the firm. A report from the New York Post, citing alleged Hunter Biden emails, suggested Hunter Biden had arranged a meeting between him, the executive, and Joe Biden. ..."
Delivery giant UPS
confirmed Thursday it found a lost trove of documents that Fox News' Tucker Carlson said would
provide revelations in the ever-growing scandal involving Joe Biden 's son Hunter and his overseas
business dealings.
UPS Senior Public Relations Manager Matthew O'Connor told Business Insider on Thursday
afternoon that the documents are located and are being sent to Carlson.
"After an extensive search, we have found the contents of the package and are arranging
for its return," he said in a statement.
"UPS will always focus first on our customers, and will never stop working to solve issues
and make things right. We work hard to ensure every package is delivered, including essential
goods, precious family belongings and critical healthcare."
It came after Glenn Zaccara, UPS's corporate media relations director, confirmed Carlson
used the company to ship the materials before they were lost.
"The package was reported with missing contents as it moved within our network," Zaccara
said before they were located. "UPS is conducting an urgent investigation."
During his Wednesday night broadcast, Carlson said that a UPS employee notified them that
their package "was open and empty apparently, it had been opened."
"The Biden documents never arrived in Los Angeles. Tuesday morning we received word from
our shipping company that our package had been opened and the contents were missing," Carlson
also remarked. "The documents had disappeared."
On Tuesday night, Carlson interviewed former Hunter Biden associate Tony Bobulinski, who
claimed that the former Democratic vice president could be compromised by the Chinese Communist
Party due to Hunter and brother James Biden's business dealings in the country.
Joe Biden has not responded to Bobulinski's allegations. Last week during his debate with
President Donald Trump, he said he had "not taken a penny from any foreign source ever in my
life."
Biden's campaign earlier this month said Biden never had a meeting with an executive at a
shady Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Holdings, while he was the vice president and his son sat
on the board of the firm. A report from the New York Post, citing alleged Hunter Biden emails,
suggested Hunter Biden had arranged a meeting between him, the executive, and Joe Biden.
It's now possible that a special counsel will investigate Joe Biden should he win the
presidency.
"You know, I am not a big fan of special counsels, but if Joe Biden wins the presidency, I
don't see how you avoid one," Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.)
said . "Otherwise, this is going to be, you know, tucked away, and we will never know
what happened. All this evidence is going to be buried."
UPS did not provide further details about the apparent mishap.
"... Hunter Biden is the modern equivalent of the pre-Reformation papacy selling indulgences. Cash in exchange for unfettered passage into the promised land ..."
"Former Biden insider Tony Bobulinski allegedly has a recording of Biden family operatives
begging him to stay quiet , or he will "bury" the reputations of everyone involved in Hunter's
overseas dealings.
According to The Federalist 's Sean Davis, Bobulinski will play the tape on Fox News'
"Tucker Carlson Tonight" on Tuesday , when Carlson will devote his show 'entirely' to an
interview with the Biden whistleblower."
"According to a source familiar with the planning, Bobulinski will play recordings of Biden
family operatives begging him to stay quiet and claiming Bobulinski's revelations will "bury"
the reputations of everyone involved in Hunter's overseas deals."
As The Federalist notes:
The Federalist confirmed with sources familiar with the plans that Bobulinski, a retired
Navy lieutenant and Biden associate, will be airing tapes of Biden operatives begging
Bobulinski to remain quiet as former Vice President Joe Biden nears the finish line to the
White House next week.
Bobulinski
flipped on the Bidens following a Senate report which revealed that they received a $5
million interest-free loan from a now-bankrupt Chinese energy company .
According to the former Biden insider, he was introduced to Joe Biden by Hunter, and they
had an hour-long meeting where they discussed the Biden's business plans with the Chinese, with
which he says Joe was "plainly familiar at least at a high level." " Zerohedge
--------------
First of all, Bobulinski is NOT a "retired Navy lieutenant." He is a former Navy
Lieutenant.
Well, folks, it's up to you to watch TC's show tonight if you want to learn about this.
Tucker's show is the most watched news show in the history of cable television, so the pain
should not be too great, pl
I don't watch cable TV so I'll have to depend on the objectivity of observers. I'll be
curious who / what is a "family operative"? are they traceable like a military
chain-of-command?
in related news, we can get a fix on the play between private / public behaviors & the
pace of Justice winding.
Tucker Carlson's show is my favorite news/commentary show. I try not to miss it. Because
of the fact that he seems to try hard to verify his sources--and the people he interviews, I
trust him. He also tries to provide guests from the left in an attempt to be fair.
He's definitely not a Hannity, who is the one who turns many off of FOX (though Hannity
comes right after Tucker).
Hunter Biden is the modern equivalent of the pre-Reformation papacy selling
indulgences. Cash in exchange for unfettered passage into the promised land .
Thank goodness the Federal Judge has allowed the lawsuit by the private citizen and
writer, based on the 1990s allegation, to procede without government interference. I'm sure
nobody will do that to democrats in the future. Meanwhile in the Flynn case the DOJ confirms
that the govenment documents and discovery exhibits are ture and correct. I'm sure Judge
Sullivan will procede expeditiously with granting the unopposed motion to dismiss that
case.
This story interests me because I believe he is the first to leave the sinking ship but
not the last.
There would be no reason for this if he thought Joe would win and the investigation would be
snuffed out.
If Trump wins there will most likely be a new version of "Let's Make A Deal" being aired on
the nightly news.
I am down to one package of popcorn. I need to restock.
Actually, indulgences were more akin to BitCoins. Especially after 1567, when His Holiness
the Pope finally officially banned them... but they had been still produced and sold in large
quantities. In France only Richeliue put a stop to this con.
Serve me my plate a Crow. Maybe.
He is saying now that he is 2nd generation military and that they pissed him off claiming he
was a Russian asset.
That is plausible.
Maybe it is both?
Regardless it seems he has a great deal of proof.
I was convinced during the interview. Bobulinsky seemed pretty convincing in his concern
for his own reputation, having been associated with the Biden "Mafia" in the first place.
It was clear during the interview that he had provided Tucker verification for his
claims.
I am more concerned that this revelation comes too late and that many, many people have
voted early. He referenced some hearings that will be held in Congress. I doubt that will
affect the election, given the slow pace of anything getting done in Congress. I voted early,
but I am not personally concerned because I did NOT vote for Biden; however, I am concerned
that those who voted early for Biden could not now change their votes.
SO, if I understand the situation correctly, Bobulinski was essentially sought after, used
and then screwed by the Bidens, which seems risky on the part of the clan. But I guess if Joe
wins the election, they will have gotten away with it as I can't imagine, in spite of any
damning evidence, the Bidens will suffer the same punishing rectal examination-like scrutiny
and vilification the Trump family's been subjected to.
Col Lang,
Hoping you write about your assessment of B and what he had to say.
I found him to be generally credible. All of his motives for singing largely make sense to
me. I think he's a patriot. Some good supporting evidence. He's sharp. I liked him. He's the
kind of guy I'd enjoy working with.
I don't know anything about the realm of international deal making and finance. I'm
wondering how a Navy O3 works his way to enjoying yachts in Monaco while making $millions. Is
he an Annapolis guy? Tight with the right classmates? Not a lot to be found on him via
Google.
He was no longer in the navy when he was messing around with the Biden familia. He was
probably in the Navy three or four years. He ought to lay off on that. I'll think it over
tonight.
Once Wray's FBI gets done with the Rusty Wallace Noose Case they'll have time to deep dive
the laptop he's had for almost a year.
Col.,
Bobulinski seemed awful polished during that interview. Almost too good to be true. Hunter
being a druggy and Burisma payments being real certainly lend an air to credibility.
Turns out Patrick Ho Hunters partner in CEFC had a FISA warrant on him when he was nabbed
in New York awhile back. His first call was to Hunter to seek legal advice and Hunter
represented him. So them scumbags in the FBI have been sitting on this for awhile and will
use it on Joe (if elected) when needed. Must be modus operandi at the FBI in gathering dirt
on all politicians via FISA's, Hoover is still there.
As with all of us Bobulinski is not lily white but is making an effort to clean his act and
those around him. Lily White always comes in degrees. Not much in the NY Times, Wash Post or
WSJ this morning but the WSJ deserves a little credit with McBurn's editorial.
Bobulinski obviously comes from a military family thus his harping on his Navy creds. Guess
when your in that much sunshine you fall back strongly on anything available.
I don't doubt his credibility and it's good that he at least got on Tucker Carlson to
provide some much needed answers, but he's not a known quantity and I have hard time
imagining his revelations will change minds.
I think the FBI sandbagging the whole affair is what holds back this story getting the
attention it deserves from the public. The president I'm sorry to say has been badly served
by Wray, Haspel, and company. I think he should have replaced them months ago and waiting
until reelection to do it may have been a mistake.
Tuesday night, we heard at length and on camera from one of the Biden family's former
business partners. His name is Tony Bobulinski. He's a very successful businessman and a Navy
veteran.
Bobulinski spoke to "Tucker Carlson Tonight" for a full hour. He told us he met two separate
times with Joe
Biden himself. Not just with Joe Biden's son or his brother, but with Joe Biden -- the
former vice president and the man now running for president -- to discuss business deals with
the communist government of China .
That's a very serious claim, and whatever your political views, it's hard to dismiss it when
Tony Bobulinski makes it because Bobulinsky is an unusually credible witness. He's not a
partisan, he's not seeking money, he's not seeking publicity. He did not want to come on our
show.
But when Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and the Biden campaign accused Tony Bobulinski of
participating in a Russian disinformation effort, he felt he had no choice. That was a slander
against him and against his family. So Bobulinski came to us. He arrived with heaps of evidence
to bolster the story he was telling. He brought contemporaneous audio recordings, text
messages, e-mails, many financial documents.
By the end of the hour, it was very clear to us that Tony Bobulinski was telling the truth
and that Joe Biden was lying. We believe that any honest person who watched the entire hour
would come to the same conclusion.
Well, on Wednesday, a
Senate committee confirmed it . The Senate Homeland Security Committee reported that all of
Tony Bobulinski's documents are, in fact, real. They are authentic. They are not forgeries.
This is not Russian disinformation. It is real.
Bobulinski told a remarkable story. Joe Biden -- who, once again, could be president of the
United States next week, was planning business deals with America's most formidable global
opponent. And when he was caught doing it, Joe Biden lied. And then he went further. He
slandered an innocent man as a traitor to his own country. It is clear that Joe Biden did that.
That's not a partisan talking point uttered in bad faith on behalf of another presidential
campaign. It's true.
So the question is, what is Joe Biden's excuse for doing that? What is his version of this
story? Everyone has a version and we'd like to hear it, but we don't know what Joe Biden's
version of the story is, because no one in America's vast media landscape has pressed Joe Biden
to answer the question. Instead, reporters at all levels and their editors and their publishers
have openly collaborated with Joe Biden's political campaign. That is unprecedented. It has
never happened in American history.
Wednesday morning, the big papers completely ignored what Tony Bobulinski had to say. So did
the other television networks. Not a single word about Bobulinski appeared on CNN or anywhere
else. Newsweek decided to cover it, but came to the conclusion that the real story was about
QAnon somehow. This is Soviet-style suppression of information about a legitimate news story.
Days before an election, the ramifications of it are impossible to imagine. But we do know the
media cannot continue in the way that it has.
No one believes the media anymore and no one should. You should be offended by this, not
because the media are liberal, but because this is an attack on our democracy. You've heard
that phrase again and again, but this is what it looks like. In a self-governing country,
voters have a right -- an obligation -- to know who they're voting for. In this case, they have
the right to know the Democratic nominee for president was a willing partner in his family's
lucrative influence-peddling operation, an operation that went on for decades and stretched
from China and Ukraine all the way to Oman, Romania, Luxembourg and many other countries. This
is not speculation once again, and it's not a partisan attack. It's true, and Tony bobulinski
confirmed it.
Bobulinski met with Joe Biden at a hotel bar in Los Angeles in early May of 2017, and when
he did, Joe Biden's son introduced Bobulinski this way: "Dad. Here's the individual I told you
about that's helping us with the business that we're working on and the Chinese."
Now, written documents confirmed this is real. At one point, Joe Biden's son texted Tony
Bobulinski to say that Joe Biden, his father, was making key decisions about their business
deals with China.
CARLSON: When Hunter Biden said his chairman, he was talking about his dad.
BOBULINSKI: Correct, and what Hunter is referencing there is, he spoke with his father
and his father is giving an emphatic 'no' to the ask that I had, which was putting proper
governance in place around Oneida Holdings.
CARLSON: So, Joe Biden is vetoing your plan for putting stricter governance in the
company. I mean, and it's it's right here in the email.
BOBULINSKI: Yes, Tucker, I want to be very careful in front of the American people. That
is not me writing that. That is not me claiming that. That is Hunter Biden writing on his own
phone. Typing in that 'I spoke with my chairman,' referencing his father.
All this is spelled out in the clearest possible language in documents that Bobulinski
provided us, documents that subsequently federal authorities have authenticated as real.
On May 13, 2017, for example, Hunter Biden got an email explaining how his family would be
paid for their deal with the Chinese energy company. His father, Joe Biden, was getting
10%.
BOBULINSKI: In that email, there's a statement where they go through the equity, Jim Biden's
referenced as, you know, 10%. It doesn't say Biden, it says Jim. And then it has 10% for the
big guy held by H. I 1,000% sit here and know that the big guy is referencing Joe Biden. It's,
that's crystal clear to me because I lived it. I met with the former vice president in person
multiple times.
That was three years ago, and we still don't know where all that money went, because the
media haven't forced Joe Biden to tell us. But Tony, Bobulinski did add a telling detail. Joe
Biden's brother, Jim, saw his stake in the deal double from 10% to 20%. Was Jim Biden getting
his brother's share again? It might be worth finding out.
We also know that according to an email from a top Chinese official, this one written on
July 26, 2017, the Chinese proposed a $5 million dollar interest-free loan to the Biden family,
"based on their trust on [sic] BD [Biden] family." The e-mail continued, "Should this Chinese
company, CEFC, keep lending more to the family?" And indeed, CEFC was supposed to send another
$5 million dollars to the Bidens' business ventures. Apparently, that money never made it to
the business. Where did it go? A recent Senate report suggests it went to Hunter Biden
directly. And from there, who knows? Again, no one's asked.
Tony Bobulinski also told us he learned Hunter Biden became the personal attorney to the
chairman of CEFC, Ye Jianming, just as they were tendering 14% of a Russian state-owned energy
company. That was a deal valued at $9 billion dollars. It's pretty sleazy. It's pretty amazing,
actually, that this happened and no one noticed.
We're not going to spend the next six months leading you through a maze of complex financial
transactions. This isn't that complicated: Millions of dollars linked directly to the Communist
Party of China went to Joe Biden's family, and not because they're capable businessmen. Jim
Biden's one business success appears to have been running a nightclub in Delaware that
ultimately went under.
No, the Bidens were cut in on the world's most lucrative business deals, massive
infrastructure deals in countries around the world for one reason: Because Joe Biden was a
powerful government official willing to leverage his power on behalf of his family.
Now, if that's not a crime, it's very close to a crime and it's certainly something every
person voting should know about. The Bidens didn't do this once. They did it for decades. So
the question is, how did they get away with it for so long? Tony Bobulinski asked Jim Biden
that question directly. To his credit Jim Biden answered that question honestly.
BOBULINSKI: And I remember looking at Jim Biden and saying, 'How are you guys getting
away with this?' Like, 'Aren't you concerned?' And he looked at me and he laughed a little bit
and said, 'Plausible deniability.'
CARLSON: He said that out loud.
BOBULINSKI: Yes, he said it directly to me. One on one, in a cabana at the Peninsula
Hotel.
"Plausible deniability." In other words, "we lie." We get away with selling access to the
U.S. government, which we do not own, because we lie about what we're doing. And as we lie, we
try to make those lies plausible. That's why we call it "plausible deniability." That is the
answer that Joe Biden's brother gave when asked directly.
So the question is, what is Joe Biden's answer to that question? We wish we
knew.
ForFoxSake!!! 1 hour ago Everything that is happening right now is because Trump was
right about the swamp, the media, and the ruling class families who have been selling out
America for decades. ohhappyday657 1 hour ago Tucker is doing this country a great service. The
FBI doesn't seem to want to engage. Mr. Bobulinski is a patriot and we are lucky he came
forward. The Bidens need to be called out for their high crimes and misdemeanors. Joe should be
impeached for his time as VP. Thank you Tucker. resipsaloquitor ohhappyday657 29 minutes ago
You can smell the desperation on the Trump supporters. The lies, the distortions and the
grasping, pathetic search for the proverbial Hail Mary to salvage the quickly sinking ship. If
Mr. Bobulinski is the best you have the Democrats will 'trump' you with: 227,000 dead
Americans, close to 9 million more infected and an economy in tatters. The day of reckoning is
approaching and a dozen Bobulinskis won't change that. Trump and his unseemly administration
are doomed.
" ... the former CEO of SinoHawk Holdings, which he said was the partnership between the
CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming and the two Biden family members.
"I remember saying, 'How are you guys getting away with this?' 'Aren't you concerned?'" he
told Carlson.
He claims that Jim Biden chuckled.
"'Plausible Deniability,' he said it directly to me in a cabana at the Peninsula Hotel," he
said.
In the interview, he outlines how an alleged meeting with Joe Biden took place on May 2,
2017.
Fox News first reported text messages that indicated such a meeting. Bobulinski said that
it was the Bidens, not him, who had pushed the meeting.
"They were sort of wining and dining me and presenting the strength of the Biden family to
get me engaged and to take on the CEO role to develop SinoHawk in the U.S. and around the world
in partnership with CEFC," he said.
He went at length into how Joe Biden arrived for a Milken conference, partly held at the
Beverly Hilton Hotel, and how he was introduced by Jim and Hunter Biden to the former vice
president.
"I didn't request to meet with Joe" Biden, he said. "They requested that I meet with Joe
[Biden ]. They were putting their entire family legacy on the line. They knew exactly what they
were doing."" FN
-----------
Bobulinski is a successful international business hustler. I know the type well. The Biden
familia wanted him in this China deal for the purpose of having him hold the reins of this
enterprise even as they looted it for the purpose of quickly enriching the fam.
A TV commentator remarked last night after watching the interview that this defection from
the Biden camp is reflective of an old business truth which can be stated as "don't screw your
partner if he has enough material to sink you."
I am unimpressed with selfless patriotism as Bobu's most basic motivation in sticking it to
Joe, Jimmy and Hunter Biden. A sense of betrayal in a business deal wrecked by the Bidens'
overwhelming greed and their desire to consolidate family riches as fast as they could is a
more plausible. motivation.
This does not mean that Bobu is not telling the truth. His collection of e-mails addressed
to him and incriminating memoranda is most impressive.
IMO, what has been revealed is a truth with regard to the Biden crime family. They are
nouveau riche grifters who will have a much grander stage for their efforts if Joe is elected
as a presidential figurehead. pl
Did Hunter Biden's young business partners bring anything of value to the table, or were
they just name brand ride-alongs too. Archer, Conley, Heinz, etc. Biden was running a very
leaky ship, with such a large but relatively unsophisticated and compromised entourage.
I am, and I'm sure this is not an original observation, because it's as the Col notes,
singularly unimpressed with the entire lot of them. Bobo, Jim B, Hunter B, Duncan Hunter, Joe
B, Bulger's nephew, I've seen more gravitas among bookies, juicemen, and fences, that I grew
up with in NYC. And I mean that. Not a throw away line. And THESE guys will run the show? And
Harris I find singularity creep, artificial, and somehow just down right inappropriate. I
would not select any of them to run a post office.
I got a little tired of the man making so much of his "service to his country." Not that
it isn't worth quite a lot and I respect him for it, but four years... I served six years,
and what I dwell on is how much I loved serving in submarines and the enormous degree that it
contributed to building my character. The degree to which my service benefited my country was
trivial. It benefited me enormously.
Like you, I think he is telling the truth in that interview.
After 4 plus years of the intelligence agencies and MSM looking under every conceivable
rock, you think that there is anything left to find about Trump? You are delusional and
headed for a massive case of buyer's remorse if swiss-cheese-for-brains gets in.
Thank you for asking that question. I was about to ask it myself. My understanding is that
Trump's children are working for him as he is President for little pay. They may be still
handling Trump business accounts; but it seems they work for his White House office and its
many functions--and for his campaign.
I still believe in the American middle class, the people who make American run. These are
the people at his rallies, wearing MAGA hats, and showing up in overflow numbers.
They are not people who are easily swayed by "false prophets."
Trump keeps pointing out how well our economy was doing UNTIL China sent the virus (and, I
DO believe they sent it). He promises the return of that economy.
That is why Biden now is totally into frightening people about COVID and pushing masks and
social distancing. He is afraid that Trump will indeed be able to bring back a good economy.
He doesn't know how to do that, as is clear by this desperate attempt to cover up his shady
dealings with first Ukraine and now China.
Where I live, a large percentage of our population are clearly very tired and bored with
the COVID scare. We still do as our DEMOCRAT Governor, who hails from the People's Republic
of Boulder, Colorado, and the University of Colorado, where Socialist, Marxist, and Ultra
Feminists rule in the Arts and Humanities. We call Boulder "forty square miles surrounded by
reality." Unfortunately, the Boulder/Denver triangle contains the largest voting block. We
used to be able to count on Colorado Springs, but the universities in that area and into
Pueblo have also been taken over by the leftists.
What is also clear is that Biden's real hope was to build his own family dynasty by using
the Presidency as nothing but a cash cow for him and his inept and useless son.
I don't care really what Bobulinski's motives were for coming forward with his documents
and emails, I'm just thankful that he did. I hope it wasn't too late. And I'm thankful he
chose Tucker Carlson's show as the place to do it.
Joe Biden doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb for someone with a JD. To wit: why didn't
he just offer that he's given his son some fatherly advice about business now and then?
Instead, he's repeatedly and categorically denied discussing ANYTHING with his son about his
business dealings, which we now know is provably false. I'm no lawyer but I'd think Joe's
repeated lying infers a tacit admission of guilt. Deniability doesn't seem plausible in this
case.
I'd even go so far as to infer that Joe's gotten away with business dealings of this
sordid sort for SO long that he's become sloppy (e.g., the braggadocio ON VIDEO of
withholding US aid to Ukraine until its solicitor investigating Burisma, which was paying his
son $50-80 thousand per month, was fired.) He obviously has the [justifiable] expectation of
never being held accountable.
Did anyone else clock his comment that he wasn't being paid, not even expenses, for all
these trips. He said he was funding them himself, presumably until the $5M arrived.
Then it didn't but the Bidens got their $5M. The Bidens arrogance just piles onto their
stupidity. Did they really think that kind of operator would take it lying down?
With one foot in Colorado Springs, I'd like to suggest that you may be overstating the
weight of the local colleges in ColSpr's growing Democrat numbers. El Paso county election
results have remained fairly reliably Republican, if not by as sure a margin as once.
Population growth may be more significant mover, the high rate of in-migration to
Colorado, esp Denver. The seven county Greater Denver-Boulder area, with a population of 3.3
million, grew 1.1% last year, and has grown as fast or faster in the previous ten years. In
number, the Denver population has grown faster than anywhere else in the state. In the past
ten years the population of Denver Co alone increased 21%.
Colorado Springs/ El Paso Co. has grown quickly in the same period, but not as much as
Denver. The current population of 720,000 increased 16% from ten years ago. A good part of
this growth has been driven by Denver's growth and skyrocketing housing prices. A house costs
much less in El Paso County.
Too many Denverites are choosing to commute an hour+ from ColSpr to Denver, as seen by the
explosion of new housing at the north end of El Paso County and the now-daily traffic crawl
at rush hour on I-25 between ColSpr and Denver. Just try to get up to the speed limit on that
stretch. The state is adding extra lanes as fast as it can. It appears that Denver attitudes
move in with many of these commuters. Is ColSpr fated to become a bedroom community?
Finally, Colorado appears to be one of the places attracting migrants from the blighted,
overbuilt, overdetermined coasts. Again, newcomers arrive with attitudes from the places they
left.
I am hoping that the open skies and spaces, the particular self-reliance of rural
Colorado, and the more democratic openness to citizen initiatives via the ballot will mellow
their views.
This level of population growth and shifting politics, lacking a concommitant growth in
productivity of local biz and industry, is not viewed with equanimity by older inhabitants of
ColSpr. IMO It would be best if Colorado remained independent, with reasonable political
compromise and collaboration between parties, as before it has been.
Is a comparable dynamic underway north of Denver in your direction?
In reference to Trump's reputation as a grifter, I offer the following sample:
- He paid $2 million in fines and had to close down the Trump Foundation for using it as a
personal piggy bank.
- The Eric Trump Foundation was forced to close for similar grift. It was funneling money
into Trump family businesses and accounts. It's wasn't like the family directly stole money
from kids with cancer, but it ended up doing just that.
- His friend Bannon's recent grift with his Build the Wall Foundation, along with Manafort's
tax and bank fraud convictions, and Cohen's conviction for paying hush money for Trump's
sexual escapades.
- The sham Trump University was forced to close with a $25 million settlement to two class
action lawsuits and a NY civil lawsuit.
None of this sunk Trump. What it did do was inure the American public to the increasing
shittyness of our politician's behavior. Hunter's antics would have caused Joe to withdraw
from public life ten years ago, but today it's just par for the course.
-
TTG
My friend, as I have told you before, you have no real knowledge of practice in the business
world. Nobody says Trump has sold the US for his family's profit.
RNC's national spokesperson Liz Harrington battled CNN's Christiane Amanpour for
refusing to engage with allegations of corruption against Joe Biden and his family after years
of hyping unverified Trump-Russia allegations.
"Why don't you want to report this? This is one of the most powerful families in
Washington," she asked. "And you're okay with our interests being sold out to profit Joe Biden
and his family, while we're suffering during a pandemic from communist China?"
Former Hunter Biden business associate Tony Bobulinski is going to turn over his electronic
devices and business records to the FBI and appear Friday before two Senate committees
investigating accusations centered on content from a laptop linked to Hunter.
"Tony Bobulinski will announce that he will turn his electronic devices and records of
business dealings with Hunter and Jim Biden over to the FBI"
Bobulinski, a retired Navy lieutenant and CEO of Sinohawk Holdings, will hold a briefing in
Nashville, Tennessee, as he attends Thursday night's debate as a guest of President Donald
Trump, Roberts also reported.
And both the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and Senate Finance
Committee will hear testimony from Bobulinski in their investigations into a purported
pay-for-play scheme that some have alleged also benefited former Vice President Joe Biden.
Committee Chairmen Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, issued the
following statement Thursday, announcing Bobulinski's cooperation Friday:
"As part of the committees' efforts to validate the authenticity of recently publicly
released emails involving the Biden family's international financial entanglements, we sent
letters to five individuals identified in the emails. Those letters were sent [Wednesday],
and the deadline is Oct. 23, 2020. So far, the committees have received a response only from
Mr. Tony Bobulinski, who appears to be willing to fully cooperate with our investigation.
"In fact, Mr. Bobulinski has already agreed to appear for an informal interview by the
committees tomorrow, Friday, Oct. 23, 2020."
Ted Crus: "This whole issue is not about Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden by all appearances has
led a troubled and challenging life. This whole inquiry is about Joe Biden who wants to be
President and whether Joe Biden was personally corrupt," Cruz said. "One of the most striking
things is what Joe Biden isn't saying... Biden has not denied that he personally met with the
Ukrainian oligarch he repeatedly swore he never met.
Former Vice President Joe Biden used his son Hunter Biden as a "bag man" and got 50% of the
"bribe money" from foreign entities, Rudy Giuliani told Newsmax TV .
Appearing Tuesday on "Greg Kelly Reports,"
Giuliani, who says he is in possession of a copy of a hard drive purportedly belonging to
Hunter Biden, said the current Democrat presidential nominee could have used several "flunkies"
as a "bag man" rather than his own son, but instead involved Hunter in a purported bribery
scheme with Chinese businesses.
"Ten percent of the money that was being whacked up, that was $10 million a year, and then
50% of the profits with three Chinese Communists, one of whom was a Chinese intelligence
operative -- that 10% of that was going to H. for 'the big guy,'" Giuliani said.
"The big guy" has been identified by a Fox News source as Joe Biden, and Giuliani said his
team has identified Joe Biden by other means as well.
Pressed by host Greg Kelly for more revelations, Giuliani demurred, saying he has only been
able to look through about half the hard drive so far.
Giuliani said the hard drive -- which he noted has never been denied as authentic by Joe or
Hunter Biden -- contains evidence of about "five major federal crimes" and "$30-40 million"
going to the Biden family as bribes.
The hard drive is said to have come from a laptop left at a Delaware repair shop by a man
described by the owner of the shop as Hunter Biden. It was never picked up, and the original
drive was given to the FBI.
In one purported email, Hunter Biden complains he receives no respect for his work, but
tells his family he will not make them pay him "half your salary" like "Pop" did.
"This is not about Hunter," Giuliani said, but about what a criminal and "horrible father"
Joe Biden is.
"These are major bribes in which he sold out the United States to China."
Important: See Newsmax TV now carried in 70 million cable
homes, on DirecTV Ch. 349, Dish Network Ch. 216, Xfinity Ch. 1115, Spectrum, U-verse Ch.
1220, FiOS Ch. 615, Optimum Ch. 102, Cox cable, Suddenlink Ch. 102, CenturyLink 1209, Mediacom
Ch. 277, Frontier 615 orFind More Cable Systems – Click
Here.
"... The "real issue" is the elite culture that produced and supports Biden. Looking at the family, you can tell it's just a bunch of degenerate mobster politicians. They're not even good at what they do. Who's behind them? Who is pushing Joe forward? ..."
"... It's a vampire squid of globo-homo kleptocracy and militant neoliberalism. Unfortunately the only other contender is our ziostooge DJT. ..."
"... I wouldn't call it the "elite culture" but one created by the CIA/FBI. They know who's doing what to whom and for how long and they've got the pictures, videos and confessions to prove it. If those agencies aren't shutdown or cleaned up, it won't matter who we elect...they will control them. ..."
"... It's a "culture" because it involves thousands of people: bureaucrats, journalists, politicians, attorneys, businessmen, bankers, and religious leaders. There is a conspiracy, but most of these people instictively know what to do and don't require orders. This basic class of people has been in power since Woodrow Wilson was put in the WH by Baruch and House. ..."
"... The politicians are like the Intel Agencies' zoo animals. ..."
A few days ago, the MSM and their political allies in the Democratic Party celebrated the
release of a "compromising" photo
appearing to show former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani with his hands down his pants. Giuliani
claimed that he was merely retucking in his shirt after removing some recording equipment, but
nevertheless, the whole news cycle played out in full view of the public as social media giants
like Twitter and Facebook looked the other way, allowing the photo, and links to news stories
covering the controversy (orchestrated by "Borat" prankster Sasha Baron Cohen) to circulate
widely.
However, just days later, a Chinese digital media company has published footage showing a
man who looks identical to Hunter Biden engaging in a sex fetish act with an unidentifiable
woman (along with a photo purporting to show what appears to be the same man engaging in sex
with a Ukrainian prostitute). But instead of allowing discussion and links to the video to
circulate, Twitter has scrubbed all links and photos related to the video and story, and is
suspending accounts that appear to be trying to spread the video or screenshots from the
footage.
Some background: Late Saturday afternoon, a mysterious link surfaced on Reddit purporting to
be the vaunted Hunter Biden sex tape - or at least, one of the Hunter Biden sex tapes (whispers
about more footage have so far gone unsubstantiated).
In it, a naked Hunter Biden can be seen, smoking crack, and laying with an unidentified
woman, possibly a prostitute. The woman's face is blurred out, making it impossible to tell
whether or not she appeared to be underage.
Footage of the sex act is preceded by footage of Guo Wengui at the national press club
raging over a Chinese takeover of the US, "9/11 times a thousand," he says, before
transitioning to a screed slamming Western politicians who collaborate with the CCP, and
warning about the dangers of American kleptocrats falling sway to CCP "influence" (blackmail
etc).
During the opening minutes if the video, Hunter can be heard complimenting the woman on her
technique. "That's so professional," Hunter exclaims. "You can't even find that on there," he
laughs as he gestures toward something off camera.
A few minutes in, the man who is allegedly Hunter Biden can be seen firing up a crack
pipe.
The reaction on Twitter was swift. Users who tried to share the link and photos were quickly
blocked (even though Twitter famously allows porn and nudity). Some cracked jokes about Hunter
Biden receiving what appeared to be a 'footjob', while shrugging off the video as simply
evidence that Biden has been victimized by revenge porn.
Others simply noted the disparity in treatment between the Hunter Biden story and the
"Borat" revelations about Giuliani, and wondered aloud how Twitter might be handling this if
those photos were of Donald Trump Jr., not Hunter Biden.
Of course, twitter didn't simply ignore the Giuliani photo; the news became one of the top
trending topics (thanks to the fact that Twitter's user-base skews toward young leftists).
At any rate, the group that released the footage and the above-mentioned screenshot are
promising to release more compromising material, while the MSM and Big Tech rallies to Hunter
Biden's defense.
rtb61 , 2 hours ago
It is not like you were not warned before hand and could have investigated how Biden stole
the primary through postal votes, when Gabbard by proposing new legislation to block that
electoral fraud. The corporate Democrats are utter ****e, worse than the Republicans and the
Libertarians are way better than the Republicans and of course in the USA the Greens are by
far the best of them all (what a real political party should look and of course be like and
just corruptly and ruthlessly attacked by the corporate Democrats showing how truly evil the
corporate Demcrats are, denying Americans democracy).
Krink26 , 3 hours ago
What a train wreck. The real issue is his father. He sold out the second highest seat in
the land. And he'd do it all again if he gets into the top spot.
TBT or not TBT , 3 hours ago
His dad had the presidential level judgement to bring this mess of a person on Air Force 2
diplomatic missions to corrupt countries to be the point man for family deal making. Stellar
judgement!
Propaganda Phil , 1 hour ago
What? You don't want to see pics of Hunter smoking crack in the White House?
Didymus , 3 hours ago
The "real issue" is the elite culture that produced and supports Biden. Looking at the
family, you can tell it's just a bunch of degenerate mobster politicians. They're not even
good at what they do. Who's behind them? Who is pushing Joe forward?
It's a vampire squid of globo-homo kleptocracy and militant neoliberalism. Unfortunately
the only other contender is our ziostooge DJT.
Gerrilea , 3 hours ago
I wouldn't call it the "elite culture" but one created by the CIA/FBI. They know who's
doing what to whom and for how long and they've got the pictures, videos and confessions to
prove it. If those agencies aren't shutdown or cleaned up, it won't matter who we
elect...they will control them.
Didymus , 2 hours ago
It's a "culture" because it involves thousands of people: bureaucrats, journalists,
politicians, attorneys, businessmen, bankers, and religious leaders. There is a conspiracy,
but most of these people instictively know what to do and don't require orders. This basic
class of people has been in power since Woodrow Wilson was put in the WH by Baruch and
House.
palmereldritch , 1 hour ago
The politicians are like the Intel Agencies' zoo animals.
is a game and tech journalist from the US. Aside from writing for RT, he hosts the podcast
Micah and The Hatman, and is an independent comic book writer. Follow Micah at @MindofMicahC
It's safe to say that Hunter Biden, the son of former vice president and current
presidential candidate Joe Biden, is having a rough time. After the contents of his laptop,
including details of his international business dealings, came into the public domain, it
transpired that the computer had been the
subject of a subpoena in a money-laundering investigation. Now, former business partners
are beginning to turn on him, and one of them has said that he's turning "
everything " over to the FBI and the Senate. Another one claimed that Biden was
consulted with regard to Hunter's foreign deals.
During the second and final presidential debate, Biden made a key mistake when it came to
addressing these issues. Instead of simply stating that he had no comment to make, he decided
to
blame Russia for the fact that Hunter's emails had been leaked from the laptop's hard
drive. Ah yes. So we're back to that old 'reliable' narrative. I'm assuming that Joe may have
missed the embarrassment that was the Mueller
investigation .
Maybe Biden doesn't like Russia. Whether he does or doesn't is inconsequential. It is a very
bad idea to blame his problems on a foreign power. In fact, it's not the proper behavior of
someone who wants to be president. Here's the truth. Hunter Biden's dealings across the pond
likely had some issues. It's hard to say exactly what these might be, because there's an
ongoing investigation. I don't think that Biden is so dumb that he doesn't realize that this
hurts his chances of the presidency. However, there is a big lack of responsibility here.
Blaming what's happening on anyone except Hunter is a bit silly. I'd even argue that it's
incredibly irresponsible.
What's even more obvious is the desperation. Biden and the Democrats in general want this
story, whatever it is, to be squashed. It's why you have seen so little coverage on
left-leaning TV networks. If Donald Trump Jr was in a similar situation it would be a story on
every single one of them, and likely the subject of a Don Lemon lecture or five.
What Biden may not realize is that when voters see something being blamed on Russia, they
tend to roll their eyes. It invokes the image of Boris and Natasha grabbing a laptop in the
hopes of finally grabbing the moose and squirrel. It's cartoonish. And what happens if the
worst-case scenario for Biden comes true and his son is indicted for something? Well, at that
point it's more than just a ' Russian disinformation campaign' . It's very real
indeed.
And this is where Biden could end up with plenty of egg on his face. If he and his son are
in trouble, then no amount of blaming another country is going to change that. And it wouldn't
surprise me if this becomes a major factor in the upcoming election. Why would you vote for
someone who can't, or won't, take responsibility for what is going on with their own
family?
What Biden needs to do at this point is come clean on what his level of involvement was, and
simply be a dad to his son instead of a politician. Then again, Biden has been a politician
longer than he's been a father, so it's hard saying which hat he plans on wearing for the next
two weeks.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
MakeAmericaFree 1 day ago The world is witness
to the blatant corruption and deceit at the highest levels of American government. Trump has
tried to clean things up and he has a lot more left to do. We should wish him well in those
efforts. I am starting to think Attorney General William Barr has capitulated though. Where are
all the indictments, Mr. Barr? Reply 14 ariadnatheo MakeAmericaFree 1 day ago Barr? The CIA
offspring? He does what he is told, not necessarily by his official boss SJMan333 1 day ago If
Joe is running against another regular Republican politician, Hunter Biden's corruption would
have been a non-issue. The US politics is a cesspool of corruption, money laundering, sex and
all forms of moral decay. Each politician is in it for self-serving purposes. Position, power,
money, etc etc. A big section of naive Americans believe their politicians are there to serve
the people's interests. Politicians from both sides of the aisle have a tacit understanding NOT
to cross a red line. They will never accuse their opponents of corruption. 'You make your
money, I make mine.' is their omerta. They put up huge shows of debating with each other in
public purportedly in defense of the people's welfare and benefits. Behind closed door, they
celebrate their loots from the nation's tax money and illegal brides from businesses in
camaraderie together. I don't like Trump. But his exposure of the alleged crimes of the Biden
family is something to be applauded, even he's doing it for self-serving purposes. DukeLeo 1
day ago Joe Biden is using Hillary's methods. Not wise. You don't use the same fraud twice.
shadow1369 DukeLeo 1 day ago Well the CIA have used the same lies for 75 years. White Elk
shadow1369 1 day ago Must be a bit worn out by now. Reply 2 shadow1369 White Elk 1 day ago You
would think so, you would also think that everybody would have seen through them by now, but
not at all. The CIA orchestrated coup in Kiev used exactly the same methods as the one they
orchestrated in Iran in 1953. The details of Operation Ajax are now publicly available, but few
bother to look into it. allan Kaplan White Elk 1 day ago Not worn out but perfected! Lois
Winters 1 day ago I am not surprised at anything Biden says after seeing his performance in
these debates. He is obviously a tired old man and relies on sheafs of notes with the same old
so called empathic statements to the citizens of America. It is a wonder that he's a
presidential candidate at all. After all the original candidates finally were eliminated, no
one but these two want this thankless job. allan Kaplan 1 day ago Now that the shameless "mind
managers" the msm propagandists are in the opens, we, the people (an old cliche) must start
making noises of holding these anti-American mouth pieces accountable. Compel to change the FCC
Rules to take away their broadcasting licensees, penalized those self proclaimed journalists of
zero integrities, jailed most of them, and never again allow such ego bloated nincompoops ever
to come near the radio and TV stations and banned them from entering any newspaper offices as
well. Other punitive measures must be enacted to deface and disregard these paid mouths of fake
news and disinformation msm Complex! I'm starting a business of manufacturing toilet bowls and
the pubic urinals with the faces impregnated into the ceramic of all those who exploited
American freedom of speech to advance their personal careers and that would certainly include
almost all the politicians and the tech giants etc. What do you think as a statement to test
the real FREE SPEECH?
there has been no gov accountability in the USA for any party since Abe
ponchoramic , 19 minutes ago
Only people who are genuinely interested in the skulduggery will understand the reality of
any political situation. The rest of the public will just scratch & sniff their way
through.
General public sentiment: It's politics, they're all the same. Bunch of liars. Lalala.
The Democrat party is an existential threat to the United States of America
Cheap Chinese Crap , 3 hours ago
And, no, I don't feel bad for R. Hunter Biden, nor is he a victim.
He is a WLLLING PARTICIPANT in his father's vast corruption schemes and lived mega-large
while the living was good.
The Devil doesn't steal souls. They are sold by their owners.
He could have walked away but he didn't.
And it makes me wonder how corrupt his brother was since that was Joe's fair-haired boy
until he died from spending too much time on a cell phone.
Make_Mine_A_Double , 2 hours ago
Yeahhhh, might have to revisit the autopsy and death certificate on that one.
Though Hunter didn't waste any time bangin' deceased bros wifey - what a fambly.
Anno Domini , 3 hours ago
The Hunter sex stuff merely illustrates that there is mega Kompromat on the Bidens. It
gets worse.
Here, just 2 weeks after DJT wins the White House, old Joe is recorded telling Ukraine's
leader to clean up the evidence BEFORE Trump gets wind of it. This is it. Pure guilt on
display-- it's always the coverup.
Means nothing without INDICTMENTS! Get off your keister and do something useful for once
in your life, Barr, you sad Swamp sack of garbage!
Totally_Disillusioned , 3 hours ago
The Bidens are so owned by the Chinese CCP it's almost unfathomable...and they are so
stupid.
aspnaz , 2 hours ago
Worrying about Russians while the CCP are infesting the country.
Totally_Disillusioned , 3 hours ago
Hunter is free and 21 yrs old and can engage in any sexual perversions with a consenting
adult. What he can't do however is sell his father's political influence to foreign govts.
That's treason.
quanttech , 3 hours ago
correct, and all the sex stuff takes the focus away from the financial crimes.
...For years, I watched one betrayal after another, as politicians like Joe Biden sold
out American Workers at every turn -- shattering the lives of millions of American families
while THEIR families raked in millions of dollars...
Excerpted from the book: 'Hidden Hand: Exposing How the Chinese Communist Party Is Reshaping
the World'
In 2018 the well-connected
Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin pointed out that China had been building networks of influence in
the United States over many years, and that the U.S. government "is preparing for the
possibility that the Chinese government will decide to weaponize" them to get what it wants.
(Although Beijing is not known to use Russian-style "active measures" in the West, deploying
them is only a matter of political calculation.)
One of the CCP's most audacious penetration operations, Chinagate in 1996, saw a top
intelligence operative meeting a naive President Clinton in the White House, along with
donations to the Clinton campaign made through people with ties to the Chinese military.
Beijing has been working to gain influence in the U.S. Congress since the 1970s. Through the
activities of the CCP's International Liaison Department, and Party-linked bodies like the
China Association for International Friendly Contact, China has made some influential friends.
Nevertheless, Congress has for the most part remained skeptical of China, although its voice
has been muted at times by the influence of "pro-China" members. The president, the White
House, the bureaucracy, think tanks, and business lobby groups have all been targeted by
Beijing, to good effect.
Democratic Presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden gestures as he speaks during the
final presidential debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., on Oct. 22, 2020. (Jim
Watson/AFP/Getty Images)
Until recently, almost all players in Washington D.C. and beyond were convinced by the
"peaceful rise of China" trope, and the value of "constructive engagement." The common belief
was that as China developed economically, it would naturally morph into a liberal state. This
view was not without foundation, because the more liberal factions within the CCP did struggle
with the hardliners, but in the U.S. it reinforced a kind of institutional naivety that was
exploited by Beijing. Many of those who stuck to this view even after the evidence pointed
firmly to the contrary had a strong personal investment in defending Beijing.
The billionaire businessman and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg was a late entrant in
the contest to become the 2020 Democratic Party candidate for U.S. president. He is the most
Beijing-friendly of all aspirants. With extensive investments in China, he opposes the tariff
war and often speaks up for the CCP regime.
Former Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg addresses his staff and the media
after announcing that he will be ending his campaign, in New York City, on March 4, 2020.
(Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
His media company has suppressed stories critical of CCP leaders, and Bloomberg himself
claimed in 2019 that "Xi Jinping is not a dictator" because he has to satisfy his
constituency.
The
Washington Post 's Josh Rogin argued that "his [Bloomberg's] misreading of the Chinese
government's character and ambitions could be devastating for U.S. national security and
foreign policy. He would be advocating for a naive policy of engagement and wishful thinking
that has already been tried and failed."
In May 2019 Joe Biden distinguished himself from all of the other candidates for the
Democratic Party's presidential nomination by ridiculing the idea that China is a strategic
threat to the United States. "China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man," he told a
campaign crowd in Iowa City. Biden had for years adopted a soft approach to China. When
President Obama's secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, was taking a tougher position towards
China's adventurism in Asia, Vice President Biden was urging caution. Biden had formed a warm
personal relationship with Xi Jinping when Xi was vice president and president-in-waiting.
Hunter Biden (R)
with then President Barack Obama (L) and Vice President Joe Biden during a college basketball
game at the Verizon Center in Washington on Jan. 30, 2010. (Mitchell Layton/Getty Images)
In his second term, Obama replaced Clinton as secretary of state with the more accommodating
John Kerry. The dynamics help to explain why Obama's 2012 "pivot to Asia" was a damp squib. The
United States stood back while China annexed islands and features in the South China Sea and
built military bases on them, something Xi had promised Obama he would not do. Breaking the
promise has given China an enormous strategic advantage.
Joe Biden cleaves to the belief, now abandoned by many China scholars and most Washington
politicians, that engagement with China will entice it into being a responsible stakeholder.
The University of Pennsylvania's D.C. think tank -- named, for him, the Penn Biden Center for
Diplomacy and Global Engagement -- aims to address threats to the liberal international order,
yet China is absent from the threats identified on its website
: Russia, climate change and terrorism. Biden has spoken about China's violation of human
rights but still clings to the idea of China's "peaceful rise."
So does it matter if Joe Biden has a different view of China? It does, because there is
evidence that the CCP has been currying his favor by awarding business deals that have enriched
his son, Hunter Biden. One account of this is given by Peter Schweizer in his 2019 book "Secret
Empires." Some of his key claims were subsequently challenged
and Schweizer refined them in an op-ed in the
New York Times (famous for fact-checking). In short, when Vice President Biden travelled to
China in December 2013 on an official trip, his son flew with him on Airforce Two. While Biden
senior was engaging in soft diplomacy with China's leaders, Hunter was having other kinds of
meetings. Then, "less than two weeks after the trip, Hunter's firm which he founded with two
other businessmen [including John Kerry's stepson] in June 2013, finalized a deal to open a
fund, BHR Partners, whose largest shareholder is the government-run Bank of China, even though
he had scant background in private equity."
The Bank of China is owned by the state and controlled by the CCP. Hunter Biden's exact role
in the company is disputed, but one expert has said that his share in it would be worth around
$20 million.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
However, the point here is not the ethics of the Bidens (as the news media have framed it)
but the way in which the CCP can influence senior politicians. This "corruption by proxy," in
which top leaders keep their hands clean while their family members exploit their association
to make fortunes, has been perfected by the "red aristocracy" in Beijing .
Cover of the book "Hidden Hand" by Clive Hamilton and Mareike Ohlberg.
In the crucial years 2014 and 2015, Beijing was aggressively expanding into the South China
Sea while Obama, Kerry, and Biden were sitting on their hands...
Exactly correct and some of the biggest enemies the USA has are inside the fence .
They include most MSM , "higher education ' , climate change con men , and all levels of
government
that are infiltrated or bought .
The intel agencies see the political gong show as theatre to be ignored unless they stage
a coup like the one on Trump .
Oldwood , 1 hour ago
Globalism is not nationalism. It pervades all economies, all borders.
This election is NOT a choice between democrat and republican. It is a war to retain
America as a constitutional sovereign republic versus capitulation to a globalist regime
comprised of unelected elitist organizations unaccountable to anyone. A illusory democracy
will remain, where voting will be simply a certification of indoctrinated themes and agendas,
and contradictory voices will be expunged as threats to peace and "harmony ", if acknowledged
at all.
NoDebt , 1 hour ago
In his second term, Obama replaced Clinton as secretary of state with the more
accommodating John Kerry.
Because there are some thing so distasteful even a Clinton won't do them?
Sinophile , 35 minutes ago
Neolib: Russia, Russia, Russia.....
Neocon: China, China, China.....
Redpilled: DC, DC,DC.....
Only one of the three admits the truth.
Russia did not destroy America.
China did not destroy America.
Washington DC destroyed Amerika.
Handful of Dust , 57 minutes ago
Allegedly, Bloomberg himself is in some of those videos of Pedo Parties with underage
Chinese girls.
The FBI will crucify a soccer Mom for trying to get her baby daughter into college, yet
ignores widespread pedophilia of some of our top politicians and their sons.
Soloamber , 1 hour ago
Biden was in political power the entire time millions of USA jobs were sent to China .
Pay back is a bitch especially when your kid gets rich from pay to play .
Whiskey Tango Texas , 1 minute ago
An anti-CCP group called "The New Federal State of China" is now releasing Hunter Biden
sex tape footage in order to show the depth of CCP infiltration and how compromised / owned
the Bidens are specifically.
Two China-bashing neocons getting an excerpt of drivel from their book printed in Falun
Gong's propaganda megaphone The Epoch Times - what an amazing coincidence.
Well, I suppose weekend Tyler must have bills to pay like anyone else...
East Indian , 1 hour ago
You may expose the hidden hand or any other part of anatomy, but people of America do not
seem to care or notice; if they ever notice, then that story is disappeared by the tech
giants; and if the story escapes black out, then a counter-story breaks, whereby America will
be caught doing the same things in China...
The time for taking a firm stand is approaching. Whosoever takes a firm stand will
survive...
Parrotile , 1 hour ago
Big drama! The Chinese are copying US decades-old policy!
Yes, Non-Communist China is certainly reshaping the World, despite the US's efforts to
stop them (which includes the US -made "China Virus" - NO credible evidence that there was
any "leak" from the Wuhan facility, but ZeroHedge just keeps on trotting out the anti-China
rhetoric to keep the Republican cretinocracy happy!)
America drops record quantities of munitions on those who don't bend the knee to their
"rulers", whilst China has the One Belt, One Road program (and by fortifying the Spratley
Island chain, has shown that they are very aware of how the US goaded Japan into the Pearl
Harbour incident.
China provides added value via trade, the US indulges in frank piracy.
When the end comes (and it will), may your God help you, since you may rest assured that
the rest of the civilised World will be cheering in the streets (and rightly so).
(This is the first in a series of articles exploring Hunter Biden and Chris Heinz's
business dealings with Chinese entities. Additional reporting and research have been provided
by RedState's Scott
Hounsell . Links to additional pieces are at the bottom.)
A nearly 60-page intelligence report dated October 2 and provided to RedState late
Wednesday, October 21 details the relationship between multiple Chinese State-Owned Entities
(SOE's) and companies owned by Hunter Biden, Chris Heinz (stepson of former Secretary of State
John Kerry), Devon Archer, James Bulger, and suspected Chinese intelligence asset Michael Lin.
Despite what Hunter Biden's attorney claimed in 2019 , Hunter started traveling to China
shortly before the Big Guy became Vice President and signed contracts with SOE's while the Big
Guy was Vice President.
According to Christopher Balding, Associate Professor at Peking University HSBC School of
Business Shenzhen – who notes that he did not vote for Donald Trump in 2016 and will not
be voting for him this year – who reviewed the report before publication:
Lost among the salacious revelations about laptop provenance is the more mundane reality
of influence and money of major United States political figures. Ill-informed accusations of
Russian hacking and disinformation face the documented reality of a major Chinese state
financial partnership with the children of major political figures. A report by an Asian
research firm raises worrying questions about the financial links between China and Hunter
Biden.
Beginning just before Joe Biden's ascendancy to the Vice Presidency, Hunter Biden was
traveling to Beijing meeting with Chinese financial institutions and political figures would
ultimately become his investors. Finalized in 2013, the investment partnership included money
from the Chinese government, social security, and major state-owned banks a veritable who's
who of Chinese state finance.
It is not simply the state money that should cause concern but the structures and deals
that took place. Most investment in specific projects came from state-owned entities and
flowed into state-backed projects or enterprises.
According to the report Hunter Biden made incredible profits for essentially doing nothing,
including a tidy sum off of a copper mine in the Congo and another healthy bundle for allowing
the Bank of China to allocate its share of an IPO in Hong Kong to his venture capital firm,
BHR. So he's either the world's savviest investor or there are some
shenanigans/influence-peddling going on.
These activities were directed by people at the highest levels of the Chinese Communist
Party, according to the report.
The entire arrangement speaks to Chinese state interests. Meetings were held at locations
that in China speak to the welcoming of foreign dignitaries or state to state relations. The
Chinese organizations surrounding Hunter Biden are known intelligence and influence
operatives to the United States government. The innocuous names like Chinese People's
Institute for Foreign Affairs exist to " carry out government-directed policies and
cooperative initiatives with influential foreigners without being perceived as a formal part
of the Chinese government."
Balding, an American who lived in China for nine years, says of the report's veracity:
I did not write the report and I am not responsible for the report. I have gone over the
report with a fine-tooth comb and can find nothing factually wrong with the report.
Everything is cited and documented. Arguably the only weakness is that we do not have
internal emails between Chinese players or the Chinese and Bidens that would make explicit
what the links clearly imply.
Hunter Biden still owns a 10% share of BHR, (conservatively) estimated value $50
million
Hunter Biden served on the board of Heinz and Archer's Rosemont Realty, a large US-based
commercial real estate firm that was then sold to a Chinese company
A Chinese company affiliated with Hunter Biden acquired electric vehicle technology and
assets from two US companies that were in bankruptcy and which had defaulted on
government-backed loans
Suspected Chinese intelligence asset – and Hunter Biden business partner and
frequent travel partner – Michael Lin had official meetings with Joe Biden while he was
Vice President
Balding says this information is easily discoverable, that "there is no secret method for
discovering this data other than actually looking," and that knowing how the Chinese government
operates, the links between Beijing and the Bidens are very worrisome:
Having lived in China for nine years throughout the Xi regime's construction of
concentration camps and having witnessed first hand their use of influence and intelligence
operations, the Biden links worry me profoundly.
Whether Joe Biden personally knew the details, a very untenable position, it is simply
political malpractice to not be aware of the details of these financial arrangements. These
documentable financial links simply cannot be wished away.
Arizona Republican Rep. Paul Gosar has called for defunding National Public Radio after the
outlet officially refused to cover the Hunter Biden laptop scandal (while happily peddling
anti-Trump rumors for years) - calling it a ' waste of
time. '
"It's time to defund @NPR. This is appalling. #DefundNPR," Gosar tweeted on Thursday.
Gosar joins a growing chorus of conservative voices who are furious over the outlet's
decision to censor perhaps the biggest political bombshell in decades .
NPR public editor Kelly McBride
published an inquiry on its website Thursday from a listener who did not understand why the
outlet was ignoring the story.
"Someone please explain why NPR has apparently not reported on the Joe Biden, Hunter Biden story in the last
week or so that Joe did know about Hunter's business connections in Europe that Joe had
previously denied having knowledge?" listener Carolyn Abbott asked.
McBride responded in saying there are "many, many red flags" in an investigation carried out
by the New York Post, which last week published reports that were sourced from the alleged
laptop hard drive. NPR then went on to repeat claims that Russia is attempting to interfere in
the election.
" Even if Russia can't be positively connected to this information, the story of how Trump
associates Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani came into a copy of this computer hard drive has not
been verified and seems suspect. And if that story could be verified, the NY Post did no
forensic work to convince consumers that the emails and photos that are the basis for their
report have not been altered," McBride said, adding: "But the biggest reason you haven't heard
much on NPR about the Post story is that the assertions don't amount to much."
Her response included a statement from NPR managing editor Terence Samuel.
" We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories , and we don't want
to waste the listeners' and readers' time on stories that are just pure distractions. And quite
frankly, that's where we ended up, this was a politically driven event and we decided to treat
it that way," Samuel said.
The claims that the reports are part of a Russian disinformation plot were dismissed by
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe.
The FBI, meanwhile, did not dispute Ratcliffe's statements earlier this week.
FBI Assistant Director Jill C. Tyson sent a letter to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of
the Senate Homeland Security Committee, in response to Johnson's request for more information
about the emails, reports around which have alleged that Hunter Biden tried to introduce a
Ukrainian businessman to his father when he served as vice president in the Obama
administration. The law enforcement agency
said it has "nothing to add at this time" to Ratcliffe's statement.
A number of conservatives and allies of President Donald Trump criticized NPR following its
decision to publish the inquiry .
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
" Wow. Foreign corruption from a major party is not considered news for taxpayer-funded
#fakenews NPR, " wrote the America First PAC on
Twitter in response.
It came as Twitter and Facebook also announced they would either block or limit the reach of
the NY Post's reports. White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany's account and a Trump
campaign account were also blocked. The Senate Judiciary Committee, as a result, voted to issue
subpoenas on Thursday to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to appear
before the committee after raising concerns about censorship and election interference.
Biden's campaign has
denied that he ever met with a Ukrainian gas company official, which was allegedly revealed
in a trove of emails that purportedly were found on a laptop hard drive belonging to his son,
Hunter, who sat on the company's board while his father was the vice president. The NY Post
also obtained a hard drive containing the emails from former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Other allegations have surfaced in recent reports over the days,
including from a former Hunter Biden associate who confirmed the legitimacy of an
email.
"The Attorney General of Delaware's office indicated that the FBI has 'ongoing
investigations regarding the veracity of this entire story.' And it would be unsurprising for
an investigation of a disinformation action involving Rudy Giuliani and those assisting him to
involve questions about money laundering, especially since there are other documented inquiries
into his dealings," the campaign said.
TheFederalistPapers , 22 minutes ago
I work way too hard to fund these ****ers. NPR is owned by the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting (CPB) and sneak a peek at their Board of Directors https://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/leadership/board
You have the F35 program and you believe corruption to be cultural? It sure is though, 85%
of oligarchs are of a certain.. tribal persuasion after all.
youshallnotkill , 5 hours ago
No, I don't think it's cultural, I think it's funny to pretend that you are protecting
culture when in fact you are protecting corruption. Your antisemitic smear nicely rounds out
the picture.
LibertarianMenace , 5 minutes ago
Facts have that unfortunate tendency to be, "anti-semitic, as you say, not me.
Vivekwhu , 5 hours ago
Stop denigrating the US [neoliberal] Dems. Corruption is not just part of the Dems
culture.
The more than 400-page deposition was released early Thursday after Maxwell lost an appeal
earlier in the week to keep the document sealed. Maxwell was charged by federal prosecutors in
early July for allegedly helping recruit and sexually abuse minors as part of a years-long
criminal enterprise run by Jeffrey Epstein.
Bloomberg @business A judge has
released hundreds of pages of Ghislaine Maxwell's testimony from a civil lawsuit by one of
her accusers. The documents are the only substantive public record from Maxwell about what
she said she did for her former boyfriend Jeffrey Epstein https:// trib.al/U50D55n
During the years that Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. was helping the credit card industry win
passage of a law making it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy protection, his son
had a consulting agreement that lasted five years with one of the largest companies pushing
for the changes...
It was a savage piece of legislation, and Joe Biden even worked to block an amendment that
would have offered bankruptcy protection to people with medical debt. The bill also blocked
people from discharging private student loan debt under bankruptcy. Total student loan debt
was under $400 billion in 2005; it surged in the wake of the law's passage and is now over
$1.5 trillion.
The bank was MBNA. I know from personal experience that MBNA charged a late penalty on
online payments for their credit card on the last day due, illegally calling the payment late
even though the Federal Reserve Bank has a rule that if you make payment before the cut-off
time on the last date due, your payment must be considered as processed that date. MBNA also
kept funds that should have been transferred to the state's Abandoned Property Fund, to boost
its bottom line while its criminal owners were trying to sell the bank to Bank of
America.
l. Joe Biden's compromising partnership with the Communist Part}' of China runs
via Yang Jiechi (CPC's Central Foreign Affairs Commission). YANG met frequently
with BIDEN during his tenure at the Chinese embassy in Washington.
2. Hunter Biden's 2013 Bohai Harvest Rosemont investment partnership was set-up
by Ministry' of Foreign Affairs institutions designed to garner influence with foreign
leaders during YANG's tenure as Foreign Minister.
3. HUNTER has a direct line to the Politburo, according to SOURCE A, a senior
finance professional in China.
4. Michael Lin brokered the BHR partnership and partners with MOFA foreign
influence organizations.
5. LIN is a POI for his work on behalf of China, as confirmed by SOURCE В and
SOURCE С (at two separate national intelligence agencies).
6. BHR is a state managed operation. Leading shareholder in BHR is a Bank of China
and BHR's partners are SOEs that funnel revenue/assets to BHR.
7. HUNTER continues to hold 10% in BHR. He visited China in 2010 and met with
major Chinese government financial companies that would later back BHR.
8. HUNTER's BHR stake (purchased for $400,000) is now likely be worth approx.
$50 million (fees and capital appreciation based on BHR's $6.5 billion AUM).
9. HUNTER also did business with Chinese tycoons linked with the Chinese military
and against the interests of US national security.
10. BIDEN's foreign policy stance towards China (formerly hawkish), has since turned
positive despite China's country's rising geopolitical assertiveness.
Hunter, Ivanka, and especially Kushner are essentially apples from the same goverment
corruption tree. The problem is much deeper the Biden Family of Trump family.
Former Hunter Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski has confirmed that an email published
in the
New York Post 's bombshell exposé is indeed genuine - something the Biden camp
hasn't disputed, and that the "Big Guy" described in one of those emails is none other than Joe
Biden himself . Bobulinski also says Joe Biden was lying when he said he and Hunter never
discussed business dealings.
"My name is Tony Bobulinski. The facts set forth below are true and accurate; they are not
any form of domestic or foreign disinformation. Any suggestion to the contrary is false and
offensive. I am the recipient of the email published seven days ago by the New York Post,
which showed a copy to Hunter Biden and Rob Walker. That email is genuine .'
-New York Post
Bobulinski issued the statement late Wednesday, affirming that, contrary to Joe Biden's
claims that he never discussed business dealings with Hunter, the former Veep actually profited
from his son's dealings, which were undertaken with the full support of the Biden family.
Bobulinski claims cash and equity positions and 10% stakes in dealings were set aside for "
the big guy ," - aka Joe Biden .
Bobulinski said: "I've seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about
business" - "I've seen firsthand that that's not true."
" I've seen firsthand that that's not true, because it wasn't just Hunter's business, they
said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line."
According to Bobulinski, he was the CEO of Sinohawk Holding, a holding company partnership
between now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co. and the Biden family. He said the Chinese weren't in
partnership for any kind of commercial purpose: they were there to pay for "influence" in the
US.
"I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI. They were
looking at this as a political or influence investment. Once I realized that Hunter wanted to
use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came
from the Chinese, I took steps to prevent that from happening"
In the final weeks of the presidential campaign, Joe Biden has labeled Hunter Biden's emails
as a "smear" campaign against him, and Democrats like Adam Schiff have accused these reports of
being linked to a Russian intelligence operation, even though intelligence officials have said
there's no evidence that this is true.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Here is Bobulinski's statement in full ( emphasis ours ):
My name is Tony Bobulinski. The facts set forth below are true and accurate ; they are not
any form of domestic or foreign disinformation. Any suggestion to the contrary is false and
offensive. I am the recipient of the email published seven days ago by the New York Post
which showed a copy to Hunter Biden and Rob Walker. That email is genuine .
This afternoon I received a request from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Government Affairs and the Senate Committee on Finance requesting all documents relating to
my business affairs with the Biden family as well as various foreign entities and
individuals. I have extensive relevant records and communications and I intend to produce
those items to both Committees in the immediate future.
I am the grandson of a 37 year Army Intelligence officer, the son of a 20+ year career
Naval Officer and the brother of a 28 year career Naval Flight Officer. I myself served our
country for 4 years and left the Navy as LT Bobulinski. I held a high level security
clearance and was an instructor and then CTO for Naval Nuclear Power Training Command. I take
great pride in the time my family and I served this country. I am also not a political
person. What few campaign contributions I have made in my life were to Democrats.
If the media and big tech companies had done their jobs over the past several weeks I
would be irrelevant in this story . Given my long standing service and devotion to this great
country, I could no longer allow my family's name to be associated or tied to Russian
disinformation or implied lies and false narratives dominating the media right now.
After leaving the military I became an institutional investor investing extensively around
the world and on every continent. I have traveled to over 50 countries. I believe, hands
down, we live in the greatest country in the world.
What I am outlining is fact . I know it is fact because I lived it. I am the CEO of
Sinohawk Holdings which was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman
Ye and the Biden family . I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and
Hunter Biden. The reference to "the Big Guy" in the much publicized May 13, 2017 email is in
fact a reference to Joe Biden. The other "JB" referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe's
brother.
Hunter Biden called his dad 'the Big Guy' or 'my Chairman,' and frequently referenced
asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing .
I've seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business. I've seen
firsthand that that's not true, because it wasn't just Hunter's business, they said they were
putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.
I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI. They were
looking at this as a political or influence investment. Once I realized that Hunter wanted to
use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came
from the Chinese, I took steps to prevent that from happening.
The Johnson Report connected some dots in a way that shocked me -- it made me realize the
Bidens had gone behind my back and gotten paid millions of dollars by the Chinese, even
though they told me they hadn't and wouldn't do that to their partners.
I would ask the Biden family to address the American people and outline the facts so I can
go back to being irrelevant -- and so I am not put in a position to have to answer those
questions for them.
I don't have a political ax to grind; I just saw behind the Biden curtain and I grew
concerned with what I saw. The Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to
make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist
controlled China.
God Bless America!!!!
All of which will likely be "muted" in tonight's highly anticipated debate.
Truther , 2 hours ago
So, a presidential candidate with 47 years of non-accomplishments, turns out to be a
CCP minion...
jumpnjon , 2 hours ago
And the amazing thing is they can't see how idiotic they are. Or they are just plain
EVIL.
FreeMoney , 2 hours ago
It is TDS or NPC "orange man bad."
No Democrat is voting FOR Biden. He is obviously corrupt and sun downing.
Trump is partially trying to wreck the existing system by eliminating regulation, and
unwinding bad trade or military support deals. He shoots holes in just about every
international organization that the lefties all love unconditionally, UN? WHO? NATO? WTO?
while openly discussing tearing apart the lefties favorite charity of open boarders,
unlimited welfare, and permanent communist voter block creation.
Democrats are voting against Trump.
Deck , 1 hour ago
The blind delusion and hypocrisy of trumptards never ends.
Which one of you MAGA-bots want to talk about Ivanka getting sweet business deals in
China when she flew there on your dime?
Which one of you wants to talk about trumps deals there, or Kushner's cushy job where
he has influenced policy that has harmed your families and communities?
Which one of you wants to talk about Trump's Chinese dealing or the taxes he pays
there, or that he sells EOs and state department favors at $250,000 a pop out of Mara
Lago?
Non of you care about these things, because both sides do them. The only reason you're
talking about this you want YOUR corrupt guy in there, but the reality is showing
favoritism to kids is as old as time, in politics and in the private sector.
Leroy Whitby , 1 hour ago
In the Biden family, they are both stupid and evil. They are nowhere near as smart as
the Obamas or Clintons. The Clintons are just evil. They have heard right and wrong at
church and otherwise, and chose to sell out their nation...
HellKitty , 1 hour ago
I am still having a hard time to understand why Biden Jr, left his MacBook (not only
one, but 3!) at the repair shop and never picked them up. I wish some criminal
psychologist stand up and explain that irrational behaviour.
Stormtrooper , 53 minutes ago
He was probably high on crack-cocaine when he dropped them off and couldn't remember
where he took them
AutoLode , 52 minutes ago
If hunter is making millions upon millions can't he buy a new MacBook Pro or dozens of
them if he's prone to spilling stuff on them
and none of his partners are smart enough to tell him to not let go of his hard drives
?
weird
CallingDrFraudschi , 1 hour ago
In order to make an equivalent analogy, you'd have to figure out a way to become
business partners with people in Ukraine and in China and make a personal profit from
leveraging your political connections all the while selling away the livelihoods of the
Americans you purport to support.
Whilst you may not like the way Trump files & "pays" taxes, it's all legal within
the tax code framework here in the US. Selling out your country for millions to Ukraine
& China however IS NOT.
That's treason and sedition!
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 1 hour ago
A WWE wrestling match. If you pretend it is anything else you are deluded.
Trump gets 4 more years, unless he demands more in exchange for putting up with the
abuse that Deep State is prepared to pay. Hence the delay in releasing final election
results. For now, it has to appear that it could go either way.
You think Deep State did not already know what the Bidens and the rest of the Obama
crew were up to in 2008-16? Of course they did... the extra grift they collect is part of
the reward system for doing as they are told.
DefinitelyNotAFed , 2 hours ago
The Clintons are more corrupt than the Biden's. So far, there is no evidence of human
trafficking of the kind the Clintons were/are involved in.
The Biden's real crime is being dumber and getting caught in their treasonous
corruption.
Pandelis , 43 minutes ago
Bobby Kennedy knew what he was up to and still continued on his fight. John might not
have known the full extent of what he was up against, but Bobby certainly did because he
saw what happened to his brother etc. It is a long subject it seems to me you are not as
tuned in as you think you are... there is plenty out there to read and learn the truth
from.
On trump's minions "communications logged, travel, meeting logged" ... for what??
anybody cares or able to check on them ... get real.
do they have a security clearance ... ever ask WHY was not able to obtain one?
without a security clearance and to have the power of the White House beyond you is
really corrupt to me ... a bag of money is nothing, here we are talking billions and
trillions
Ex-Oligarch , 1 hour ago
There's nothing "dirty" about exposing your competitor's misdeeds.
It is "fighting dirty" to accuse your competitor of things he didn't actually do .
There doesn't seem to be much dispute that the emails are genuine.
Also, the media seems to be starting up a counter-narrative that Trump should be
focusing on policy disputes rather than Biden's corruption. But Biden himself has been
avoiding policy issues because his party is split between far-left extremists and
moderates, and he can't afford to alienate either one. He has flip-flopped over and over
trying to appease both constituencies. Instead, his strategy has been to present a choice
of personalities, in the hope that the public is so fatigued from the constant hostility
directed towards Trump and the president's rough style that they will opt for him
instead, regardless of his policy positions.
knightowl77 , 1 hour ago
Except that the media was FINE with the Dems investigating Trump for 4 years for his
Alleged misdeeds.....the misdeeds that were actually done by Klinton & Hiden.
They even impeached Trump for allegedly doing what Biden actually did in the
Ukraine...This FARCE has gone on long enough, and It ALL must be exposed to the public
Now!
For 4 years they have accused Trump of everything that they themselves have actually
done. ENOUGH!
FreedomWriter , 43 minutes ago
That's a pretty weak strategy for Creepy Joe. Do you think it will stand up when his
son is arrested for CP possession, sexual assault, corruption, and human trafficking?
But then again, we are talking about Dem voters here.
gordo , 59 minutes ago
Hunter's laptop reveals
Joe Biden gets a 10-50% cut of the loot
Hunter banged his 14 year old niece Natalie while smoking his crack pipe and texted Joe
about it.
Joe Biden gets a cut of the Burisma loot
Joe Biden gets a cut of the Chinese loot
The CCP has all the dirt on Joe that makes Epstein look like amateur hour.|
Lesley Stahl "DISCREDITED HERSELF" She repeatedly cited the Senate GOP Report on Biden corruption
@realDonaldTrump : "Do you think it's OK for the mayor of Moscow's
wife to give him millions?" Lesley falsely says "no real evidence of that" It's in the VERY report she cites! 225K views 0:02
/ 2:14 1.4K 11.3K 25K
NPR covered the fake Steele Dossier. But won't cover the real Hunter Biden emails. "Journalism." Quote Tweet NPR Public Editor
@NPRpubliceditor · 12h Why haven't you seen any stories from NPR about the NY Post's Hunter Biden story? Read more in this week's
newsletter https:// tinyurl.com/y67vlzj2 Show this thread
THREAD. Lesley Stahl's completely ignorant and partisan and indefensible performance in this interview is an embarrassment to
journalists, while also very typical of journalists. Quote Tweet Byron York @ByronYork · 10h In '60 Minutes' interview, Trump
says the Obama administration 'spied on my campaign.' Leslie Stahl tells him, 'There's no real evidence of that.' 1/3 https://
facebook.com/153080620724/p osts/10165668067695725 Show this thread 1.3K 9.5K 21.2K
How would you like to run for president against an incumbent who did so well on foreign policy that the debates don't even need
to include that topic? That's actually happening. 349 6K 20.8K
Last night, Hunter Biden's business partner went *on the record* about corrupt foreign business deals involving the Democrat nominee
for President of the United States. How many mentions did the story get on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS this morning? ZERO. 2K
10K 20.1K
"Chinese Energy Firm Gives Biden Crime Family $5 Million "Interest-Free" Loan Through
Investment Vehicle Described as 'Consulting Fees' to Hunter Biden."
That Hunter must be a brilliant guy! He's being paid a fortune to sit on boards and
provide consulting to a number of institutions all over the world!
Enraged , 10 hours ago
An email dated May 15, 2017 sent from Jim, Joe's brother, to Hunter and his team revealed
the list of key domestic contacts for phase one target projects in the Biden family business:
Harris, D-Calif.; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.;
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo;
NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio; former Virginia Gov. Terry McCauliffe.
So, Joe... all of those incriminating emails on your son's laptop aren't proof of
"profiting off your family name", huh?
The lying never ceases with these wretches. It's all they know how to do.
Their father in hell awaits them all.
HANGTHEOWL , 2 hours ago
They know to just keep lying,,the media will cover for them and so will the
government,,,both sides will,,even though they will make it seem like they are doing
something about it,,,,,
snatchpounder , 2 hours ago
Yes the Biden crime family has years of experience yet Boobus Americanus will dutifully
line up and vote for the demented old crook.
radical-extremist , 2 hours ago
Because they know they're protected by the Democrat Media Complex.
Reaper , 3 hours ago
Hunter was his father's bagman.
Bay of Pigs , 2 hours ago
Joe's denial isn't going to work. Why?
Evidence, that's why.
markar , 1 hour ago
Hunter used daddie's name to bilk the poor Sioux tribe out of $60 mill in a fraudulent
bond deal. His partner Cooney took the fall and is now in prison for it. He's spilling the
beans. The other partner in the scam, Devon Archer lost his appeal and is going to prison in
Jan for the same crime. Where's Hunter?
BOOM! Rudy Giuliani Drops a Bomb -- Joe Biden Broke the Law by NOT Notifying Officials of
Hunter's Naked Crack Smoking and Sexual Abuse of Minors (VIDEO
In a Tuesday interview, former Vice President Joe Biden claimed that there was no basis
"whatsoever" to claims that his son, Hunter, profited off the family name .
When asked local Wisconsin TV station WISN if there was any legitimacy to comments by Sen.
Ron Johnson (R-WI) that Hunter " together with other Biden family members, profited off the
Biden name ," the former Vice President replied " None whatsoever, " adding (without finishing
the sentence) " This is the same garbage Rudy Giuliani, Trump's henchman... "
"It's the last ditch effort in this desperate campaign to smear me and my family."
Except, Hunter admitted he profited off his family name!
"If your last name wasn't Biden, do you think you would've been asked to be on the board of
Burisma?" asked ABC News ' Amy Robach in an October 15, 2019 interview.
"I don't know. I don't know. Probably not, in retrospect," said Hunter. " I don't think that
there's a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name wasn't Biden ," he
added, " because my dad was Vice President of the United States. "
"There's literally nothing, as a young man or as a full-grown adult that -- my father in
some way hasn't had influence over."
What's more, the former President of Poland and Burisma board member Aleksander Kwasniewski
said last
November that Hunter was picked to sit on the company's board because of his name .
"I understand that if someone asks me to be part of some project it's not only because I'm
so good, it's also because I am Kwasniewski and I am a former president of Poland. ... Being
Biden is not bad. It's a good name ," he said.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Let's also not glaze over the fact that both Joe and Hunter said that Joe had 'no knowledge'
of Hunter's international business dealings, while recently released emails from Hunter's
laptop prove that Hunter 'introduced' Joe to a top Burisma executive - a meeting Biden's camp
says never happened. Joe also met with a
CCP-linked delegation of Chinese investors arranged by Hunter and his business partners,
according to emails released by imprisoned ex-Hunter business associate, Bevan Cooney.
Banana Republican , 3 hours ago
I'll tell ya Joe -- it's not Hunter we're after. It's you.
And you're about to meet your well-deserved demise.
ALLLIVESSPLATTER , 3 hours ago
Isn't that what they said about Hillary.
Banana Republican , 3 hours ago
Good point. Then again, we don't hear much from her these days.
Awakened Saxon , 3 hours ago
Still alive. Still rich. Still unpunished. Still out of prison.
She won.
Joeman34 , 3 hours ago
BS, the fact that she never realized her ultimate dream of becoming President is proof
she lost. Fine, she's rich and she's not in prison where she should be. At least history
isn't tainted by another Clinton presidency. I still hold out hope her, and Bill's, day
of reckoning will come. It's just taking a lot longer than it should.
BorisTheBlade , 2 hours ago
Losing power for power-hungry people is a very punishment. She imagined herself first
female president and got her desire crushed. That must've hurt quite a bit, not that I
sympathize given how many people she crushed.
Biden's global pay for play schemes using his drug addict son as bagman spanned Ukraine,
Romania, Poland, Kazakhstan, and the grand daddy of all, China makes him a national security
risk. The fact he's this close to being president is a sad commentary on how far the country
has fallen into the abyss.
DefendYourBase4 , 51 minutes ago
what is sad is the FBI do nothing. The FBI is a criminal organization as far as i am
concerned, and they are not to be taken seriously. ive already had multiple visits with them
and i laugh in their face
markar , 1 hour ago
Joe Biden was the architect of a 1986 crime bill that specifically targeted Blacks with
very stiff sentences for small amounts of crack cocaine. Biden is the spawn of the KKK and a
long time racist. Look up his vile comments over the years including recently. That BLM
supports this scumbag is proof they care little about the well being of Black people.
Things just took a very dark turn in the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.
While the alleged crack, cronyism, corruption was enough to spark the biggest media
suppression in history, and no denials whatsoever from the Biden camp, the bombshell that Rudy
Giuliani just dropped, if true, is egregious to say the least (not just with regard Hunter
Biden but the law enforcement authorities who have allegedly had this information since before
Trump's impeachment but done nothing about it).
In an interview this evening with Newsmax TV, former NYC Mayor and current attorney to
President Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani announces he has turned over Hunter Biden's laptop
hard-drive to Delaware State Police due to pictures of underage girls and inappropriate text
messages.
In one of the texts, Hunter Biden allegedly says to his sister-in-law (also his lover) that
he face-timed a 14-year-old girl while naked and doing crack - "she told my therapist that I
was sexually inappropriate."
Giuliani adds, "this would be with regard an unnamed 14 year old girl," adding that "this is
supported by numerous pictures of underage girls."
Watch the full interview below (the above exchange begins around 5:20):
https://www.youtube.com/embed/coFx3ZDXWrg
Furthermore,
JustTheNews' John Solomon reports that former New York Police Department commissioner
Bernard Kerik joined him when he delivered photographs and text messages to the New Castle
County Police Department.
"I told them other details about what appears to be an inappropriate sexual relationship,"
he said in an interview. "They told me it would be investigated."
Law enforcement officials in Delaware told
Just the News that Giuliani's concerns have been forwarded to the state Department of
Justice.
"The FBI has had this for a long time," Giuliani said.
"No indication they did anything about this, so I went to the local police and said, 'What
are you going to do about this?'"
Perhaps the most damning statement from Giuliani, with regard the election, was the former
mayor alleging that:
"I will tell you the evidence I gave them states it was reported to Joe Biden. What did he
do about it?"
Before this is wholly dismissed as yet more Russian disinformation or 'Giuliani' lies, we
remind readers that
we previously reported that Hunter Biden's alleged laptop contents included a curious piece
of evidence - a photograph of an FBI subpoena which bears the signature of the agency's top
child porn investigator, special agent Joshua Wilson.
FBI agent Wilson's identity was confirmed by both
Western Journal and
Business Insider , the latter of which compared his signature to a 2012 criminal complaint
and concluded that it "clearly matches the unreversed signature on the subpoena published by
the New York Post ."
As BI notes:
It's unclear whether the FBI employs more than one agent named Joshua Wilson. But the
available evidence seems to show **the Joshua Wilson who signed the subpoena for Hunter
Biden's laptop, and the Joshua Wilson who investigates child pornography for the FBI, are the
same person**. This raises the possibility, not explored by the Post, that the FBI issued the
subpoena for reasons unrelated to Hunter Biden's role in Ukraine and Burisma.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
So why is the FBI's top child porn lawyer involved in the Hunter Biden laptop case? OANN 's
Chanel Rion says she's seen the contents of the hard drive, which includes "Drugs, underage
obsessions, power deals," which make "Anthony Weiner's down under selfie addiction look normal
. "
All of which now makes some sense, given Giuliani's alleged findings, and raises a stunning
question: if there is/was incriminating child porn on Hunter's computer, what has the FBI been
doing about it?
"... I always thought the Steele Dossier was poor trade craft; way too over the top. An example being jumping around on a bed and urinating on multiple prostitutes. It puzzled me why they would tell such far out stories. Why stretch credulity?. SWMBO's response was that such behavior is so ubiquitous and frequent among democrat elites that they just assume everyone is doing it. To them it's not far out in the least, it's just a typical Saturday night. I begin to think that she is on to something. ..."
A Bidengate summary from the Daily Mail"Documents appear to show Hunter Biden's
signature on $85 receipt for repair of laptops left at Delaware store at center of email
scandal - while other paperwork reveals FBI's contact with owner
A receipt from The Mac Shop in Wilmington, Delaware appears to show Hunter Biden's
signature for work on three laptops for $85
It has not been verified yet if that signature is actually Biden's
FBI paperwork also shows that shop owner John Paul Mac Isaac received a subpoena to
testify before the US District Court in Delaware in December 2019
Last week the New York Post published a report saying e-mails obtained from the laptop
show Joe Biden allegedly was in on his son Hunter's business deals
House Intel chair Adam Schiff said the 'smear' on Biden 'comes from the Kremlin'
DNI John Ratcliffe said the laptop is not a Russian disinformation campaign
Biden's campaign says the Democratic nominee engaged in no wrongdoing "
-------------
Well, pilgrims, he sure looks comfy in the tub. I still wonder who took the pictures. Was it
the gal in California who later sued him over paternity of her child/fetus, whatever.
Did he take the pictures himself? Interestingly, the Bidens have not denied the implicit
charge of corruption, bribery, etc., etc. that is the mass of incriminating e-mail traffic on
the hard drive. And then, there are the disgusting sex videos. Does anyone think that these
were faked?
SWMBO says that the Bidens have set a new standard for depraved and addled stupidity. As
usual, she is right. pl
It's interesting that Bidens, Epsteins, Clintons, Hollywood types, Weiners, et al engage
in all of the sordid behaviors that they accused Trump of in the "Steele Dossier" (and then
some).
I always thought the Steele Dossier was poor trade craft; way too over the top. An
example being jumping around on a bed and urinating on multiple prostitutes. It puzzled me
why they would tell such far out stories. Why stretch credulity?. SWMBO's response was that
such behavior is so ubiquitous and frequent among democrat elites that they just assume
everyone is doing it. To them it's not far out in the least, it's just a typical Saturday
night. I begin to think that she is on to something.
Rudy Guiliani and Steve Bannon stated this morning that more information will be
forthcoming within 24-48 hours. The Q folks are thinking that it will be released on Thurs
morning for maximum effect at the later in the evening debate. The Admiral who oversaw the
Bin Laden raid has endorsed Joe Biden in spite of being a pro life and 2nd amendment
advocate. Things are getting interesting to say the least.
Another oxymoron, like "government worker" - "intelligence" officials.
Self important parasites....oh wait....selfless patriots who "risk their lives every day" for
America.
The Bidens are not involved, one Biden is. Joe Biden is not responsible for his son's
idiocy. I do believe he has massive addiction issues but I need a lot more proof that he took
all 3 of his computers in for work and the bill was only $85.00. I need the name of that
repair shop it is much more expensive where I live.
"Don't worry about investors," [James Biden] said, according to the executive,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of retaliation.
"We've got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden."
End quote
Anybody claiming Politico is a Russian disinformation operation?
While I hope and pray for a Trump victory, I am not so sure that he will be able to
overcome systematic rigging. What is your opinion on the level of rigging that is going
on?
All sorts of worms from all over the place are crawling up and endorsing the slime ridden
corrupt Bidens. Who knows what sort of pressure must have been put on them to do that. And if
that is so, can you imagine the level of pressure the democrat machine must have put on those
who are in charge of conducting the election? Look at the commission on presidential debates
for God's sake. Absolutely, no hint of neutrality there!
The media is pulling the wool over everyone's eyes just like in the last election. The
polls are all for democrats, again, just like the last election. Methinks the difference this
time might just be the magnitude of vote rigging that the democrats will do. How much more
will that be versus the last time? Enough to swing the election?
BillWade:
That's the same (Obama) Admiral who said that Trump should be gone:
"......then it is time for a new person in the Oval Office -- Republican, Democrat or
independent -- the sooner, the better."
Like the other retired brass and "intelligence" officials, just more swamp creatures wailing
about an "outsider" disturbing their little world of endless losing wars and a foreign policy
of bending over.
NancyK, Which is worse, voting for someone with dementia or voting for someone pretending
to have dementia?
I haven't heard anything about Joe's brother or sister-in-law having a drug problem, have
you? Maybe they just have a pay to play problem, any thoughts?
Hillary certainly looked wonderful in her Chinese cut clothing in the 2016 debates. Joe's
got those nice 3 Red Flags going for him on his campaign poster, maybe he should wear a rice
farmer's hat to the upcoming debate, no?
I decided to vote today instead of Nov 5th as you had recommended. Did I do the right
thing?
You think Joe is innocent of all that has been done by his family? You think druggy Hunter
deserved to get a senior vice president position at MBNA straight after graduating from
college at $100k a year or that seat at Burisma at $50k a month? Do you think he deserved all
of that not because of his dad's influence but because he was so smart and because he
graduated from yale? If you believe all of that, you must be smoking some strong stuff.
Here is something you can read to improve your knowledge. This is not how a normal cv
looks like, for sure.
Brats like Hunter don't get these amazing deals because they are smart or create value for
their employers because of their work. He got these deals because it is a way of paying off
his father, the guy who then bats for these employers in the senate or the white house.
@ NancyK.. true - biden senior is not responsible for biden junior... however it seems
junior got the gig thanks daddys connections and willingness to fire the prosecutor so that
junior could continue to have the job! that is the part you appear to be turning a blind eye
to.... senior has major dirt on him due all this.. either you think it is a made up russian
propaganda set up, or you think it isn't... there is enough info at present to show that it
isn't a set up, but that daddy was using his position as vp unscrupulously or criminal
depending on how you want to filter it.. the fact the media want to push it under the carpet
with whatever excuse they provide, doesn't change any of it..
14 House seats in California GOP districts flipped a few weeks after the GOP "won" on
election night. It took that long for all the third party "harvested votes" to go through the
government employee union dominated election office verification procedures.
This election when the GOP turned tables and did their own "vote-harvesting" the Democrat
AG and Secy of State cried foul, sent the GOP a cease and desist letter to stop or face fines
and punishment. GOP said go pound sand. And the Dems had to back down since the law was too
vague to even be enforced.
Unfortunately this means the Democrats in this state will only double down on their "vote
harvesting". As if winning or losing California matters - except in the House. One guesses,
after the 2020 census California will lose a few House seats anyway, due to the state's
outflow of population and the reluctance of illegals to participate in the census in the
first place.
Don't forget, it was "term limits" that led to this one-party, one agenda domination of
this state. Never ever think "term limits" is an answer for anything.
Term limits only created a huge power vacuum, and in swooped the Democrat back public
sector unions running a steady string of revolving door talking head flunkies out of the
public sector union world, who immediately passed super-majority legislation that only
solidified their permanent domination. It happened so fast since 2000, few in the state knew
what hit them.
In 2016, they added "vote- harvesting" - allowing third parties to help fill out and
collect mail-in ballots and drop them off by the car loads, which technically must be checked
and verified, but in such volumes as to overwhelm the election offices - Cloward-Pivens on
steroids- a favorite technique of Barry Soetoro.
Is this 50 former Intel officials or 50 former national security parasites? Real Intel
officials should keep quite after retirement. National security parasites go to politics and
lobbying. One telling sign that a particular parson is a "national security parasite" is his
desire to play "Russian card"
From comments: "Did the 50 former intelligence officials find the Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction yet?"
Hours before Politico
reported the existence of a letter signed by '50 former senior intelligence officials' who say
the Hunter Biden laptop scandal "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information
operation" - providing "no new evidence," while they remain "deeply suspicious that the Russian
government played a significant role in this case," Tucker Carlson obliterated their (literal)
conspiracy theory .
According to the Fox News host, he's seen 'nonpublic information that proves it was Hunter's
laptop ,' adding " No one but Hunter could've known about or replicated this information ."
" This is not a Russian hoax. We are not speculating ."
TUCKER: "This afternoon, we received nonpublic information that proves it was Hunter's
laptop. No one but Hunter could've known about or replicated this information. This is not a
Russian hoax. We are not speculating." pic.twitter.com/cl2ktdmdVc
Meanwhile, the Delaware computer repair shop owner who believes Hunter dropped off three
MacBook Pros for data recovery has a signed work order bearing Hunter's signature . When
compared to the signature on a document in his paternity suit, while one looks more formal than
the other, they are a match.
Going back to the '50 former senior intelligence officials' and their latest Russia
fixation, one has to wonder - do they think Putin was able to compromise Biden's
former business associate , Bevan Cooney, who gave investigative journalist Peter Schweizer
his gmail password - revealing that Hunter and his partners were engaged in an
influence-peddling operation for rich Chinese who wanted access to the Obama
administration?
Did Putin further hack Joe Biden in 2011 to make him take a meeting with a Chinese
delegation with ties to the CCP - arranged by Hunter's group, two years they secured a massive
investment of Chinese money?
The implications boggle the mind.
Here's the clarifying sentences from the '50 former senior intelligence officials' that
exposes the utter farce of it all:
While the letter's signatories presented no new evidence , they said their national
security experience had made them "deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a
significant role in this case" and cited several elements of the story that suggested the
Kremlin's hand at work.
"If we are right," they added, "this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in
this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this."
"Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign."
And then there's the fact that no one from the Biden campaign has yet to deny any of the
'facts' in the emails. lay_arrow jin187 , 2 hours ago
Totally ridiculous. This ******** beating around the bush for both sides pisses me off.
Dump all the laptop contents on Wikileaks if it's real. Let the people sort it out. If you
say it's not real, prove it. If Biden wants me to believe it's not real, then stand behind a
podium, and say clear as day into a pile of cameras that's it's all a forgery, and that
you've done nothing wrong.
Instead we have Giuliani swearing he has a smoking gun, but as far as I can tell he's just
pointing his finger underneath his shirt. Biden on the other hand, keep using weasel words to
imply it's fake, but never denies it outright. It's almost like he's trying to hedge his bet
that no one will manage to prove it's real before he gets into office, and makes it
disappear.
Roacheforque , 7 hours ago
To play the "Russian Card" yet again should be beyond embarrassing. An insult to the
intelligence of anyone with an IQ over 80. And so it's harmful to the left wingnut
derangeables. Like Assad's chemical weapons and Saddam's WMDs, it is now code for pure
********. Not even code, just more like a signal.
A signal that say's "guilty as charged - we got nothin' but lies and BS over here".
East Indian , 4 hours ago
An insult to the intelligence of anyone with an IQ over 80.
They know their supporters wont find this insulting.
Kayman , 4 hours ago
@vulvishka.
538 ? North Korea has better propaganda.
Don't forget to go all in, like you did with Hillary.
Antedeluvian , 2 hours ago
Unfortunately, some very bright people are sucked into the conspiracy theory. I know one.
Very bright lawyer. She says, "I still think there is substantive evidence of Russian
collusion." I can point to a sky criss-crossed with chemtrails (when you see these
"contrails" crossing at the same altitude, this is one sure clue these are not from regular
passenger jet traffic) and she refuses to look up. She KNOWS I am an idiot (a PhD scientist
idiot at that) because I get news and analysis on the web from sites that just want to sell
me tee shirts and coffee mugs (well, she is partly right there!) whereas she gets her news
from MSNBC, a venerable and trustworthy news source.
4DegreesOfSeparation , 6 hours ago
More Than 50 Former Intel Officials Say Hunter Biden Smear Smells Like Russia
"If we are right," the group wrote in a letter, "this is Russia trying to influence how
Americans vote."
DescendantofthePatriots , 7 hours ago
That ****, James Clapper, signed his name at the top of this list.
Known liar, saboteur, and sneak.
The cognitive dissonance in our country is astounding. The fact that they would take these
people's opinion over hard fact is astounding.
No wonder why we're sliding down the steep, slippery slope.
strych10 , 8 hours ago
So... let me get this straight.
50, that's 10 times five, fifty former intelligence officials are going with a convoluted
narrative about a ludicrously complicated Russian Intelligence disinformation campaign
involving planted laptops and at least half a dozen patsies when the two words "crack
cocaine" explain the entire thing?
I'm not sure what's more terrifying; That these people think everyone else is dumb enough
to believe this or that they're actually retired intelligence officials
.
Who the actual **** is running this ****show? The bastard child of Barney Fife and
Inspector Clouseau?
Seriously, "Pink Panther Disinformation Operation" is more believable at this point.
Someone Else , 9 hours ago
This needs to get out, because a FAVORITE method of the Deep State, Democrats and the
media (but I repeat myself) is to parade some sort of a stupid letter with a bunch of
signature hoping to look impressive but that really don't mean a damn thing.
Notre Dame graduates against the Supreme Court nominee, Intelligence agents alleging
collusion, former State Department operatives against Trump. Its grandstanding that has been
overdone.
moneybots , 8 hours ago
The letter by 50 former intelligence officials is itself, disinformation.
otschelnik , 8 hours ago
Remember when Weiner's attorney turned over Huma's home laptop to SDNY/FBI with all of
Shillary's emails, and the FBI sat on it for a month and then Comey deep sixed them without
even looking at them?
So now the FBI subpeona'd Hunter's laptop and burried it? Deja vu all over again.
enough of this , 8 hours ago
The FBI and DOJ constantly hide behind self-serving excuses to refuse the release of
documents and, when forced to do so, they release heavily redacted files. They offer up the
usual pretexts to fend off public disclosure such as: the information you seek cannot be
disclosed because it involves an ongoing investigation, or the information you seek involves
national security, or our methods and sources will be jeopardized if the information you seek
is divulged to the public. But it seems the ones who would be most harmed by public
disclosure are the corrupt FBI and DOJ officials themselves
Cobra Commander , 7 hours ago
A short 4 years ago the FBI and CIA were all concerned about "Kompromat" the Ruskies might
have on Candidate Trump; concerned enough to spy on his campaign and open a
counter-intelligence operation.
There are troves of Kompromat material, actual emails and video, on Joe, Hunter, and the
whole Biden family; not made-up DNC-funded dossiers claiming a Russian consulate in
Miami.
Now when it's Candidate Biden, everyone be all like, "Meh."
Cobra!
The Fonz...before shark jump , 5 hours ago
we gotta listen to the 50 former intelligence agents...you know the ones that had lone
superpower status in the early 90s and then pissed it all away with 9/11 and infinity wars in
middle east hahahahah ok buddy lol... histories D students....
Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 7 hours ago
Signed by James Clapper and John Brennan;
You mean, the 2 Bozos who under the threat of perjury said there was NO evidence of
Russian Collusion and the Trump campaign................. and 2 hours later called Trump
'Putin's puppet' on CNN.............
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said on Monday that the information
published by The New York Post that allegedly came from Hunter Biden's laptop
is not part of a "Russian disinformation campaign."
Ratcliffe's comments came after Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the House Intelligence Committee
chairman, said the scandal surrounding the Bidens and a Ukrainian gas company is a "smear"
coming "from the Kremlin."
"Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign," Ratcliffe said
in an interview with Fox Business . "Let me be clear: The intelligence community doesn't
believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that. And we have shared no
intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress."
Ratcliffe said the FBI is now in possession of the laptop. He said the FBI's investigation
is "not centered around Russian disinformation."
Issues have been raised concerning the chain of custody of the laptop since two allies of
President Trump were involved, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and former White House
strategist Steve Bannon. But besides speculation from Schiff and the media, nothing ties the
laptop to Moscow.
The first email published by the Post last week purports Hunter Biden introduced his
father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive of the Ukrainian company Burisma
Holdings in 2015. Joe Biden has previously said that he never spoke with Hunter about his
overseas business dealings.
Rudy Giuliani talks about "sensitive" material on the laptop of Hunter Biden including
"numerous pictures" of underage girls and an alleged text message exchange he had with his
father where he admits to a relationship with a 14-year-old girl and creating an unsafe
environment for his children.
The former New York City mayor said he turned the laptop over to police in Delaware with
Bernard Kerik because he felt "uncomfortable" with it in his possession in an interview Monday
with Newsmax TV's Greg Kelly.
Giuliani narrated the text message in which Hunter talks about his former sister-in-law and
lover with the elder Biden:
Victor Davis Hanson: Will Our Next Revolution Be French, Russian, Maoist, Or
American?
Glenn Greenwald: Media and Intel Community Working Together To Manipulate The American
People
Trump Rips Coronavirus Coverage: "People Aren't Buying It CNN, You Dumb Bastards"
She told my therapist that I was sexually inappropriate. (Giuliani: This would be with an
unnamed 14-year-old girl.)
When she says that I Facetime naked with [the unnamed 14-year-old girl] and the reason I
can't have her out to see me is because I walk around naked smoking crack talking... girls on
face time. When she was pressed she said that [the unnamed 14-year-old girl] never said
anything like that but the bottom line is that I created and caused a very unsafe environment
for the kids.
"This is supported by numerous pictures of underage girls," Giuliani said after reading the
message.
"Bernie Kerik and I turned it over to the Delaware State Police because I'm very
uncomfortable with this. And I'm very uncomfortable with the fact that these underage girls
were not protected," he said.
Giuliani later said that this is not about Hunter Biden but exposing Joe Biden as
incompetent. "This is not about Hunter," Giuliani said, but about what a criminal and "horrible
father" Joe Biden is. Related Videos
When Bevan Cooney -- the former "junior" business partner to Hunter Biden and Devon Archer
-- went to jail in 2019, investigative reporter and New York Times bestselling author Peter
Schweizer thought he'd never gain access to the damning emails Cooney had promised. That all
changed three weeks ago when Schweizer was given complete access to Cooney's gmail
account.
POLL: Did you watch any of the 2020 Presidential Town Halls last night?
Schweizer joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Tuesday to describe just some of the
business deals revealed within these emails -- like Hunter working with an alleged Russian
criminal and with Chinese communists to secure their assets, or to secure one-on-one time with
his dad, then-Vice President Joe Biden. And all of this new information is completely separate
from the emails allegedly discovered on
Hunter Biden's laptop recently reported by the
New York Post.
"So, I want to make this clear. This [Cooney's emails] has nothing to do with what's on the
laptop It didn't come from [Rudy] Giuliani. It didn't come from anybody else, right?" Glenn
asked Schweizer.
That's absolutely correct," Schweizer confirmed.
He briefly explained how Cooney, a former Los Angeles nightclub owner, is currently serving
a prison sentence for his involvement in a fraudulent business bond scheme with Biden and
Archer. From prison, Cooney gave Schweizer written permission to access his Gmail account.
"This is really important," he noted. "We're not looking at printouts. Not looking at PDFs.
We're actually in his Gmail accounts themselves, sifting through these emails. And there's a
shocking amount of information about deals involving China, involving Russia, involving
all sorts of things they were trying to pull off ."
Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:
Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer told FNC's Sean Hannity
on Friday that evidence will be released before the election proving that Hunter Biden and
Russian oligarch Elena Baturina have more of a relationship than previously admitted.
Victor Davis Hanson: Will Our Next Revolution Be French, Russian, Maoist, Or
American?
Glenn Greenwald: Media and Intel Community Working Together To Manipulate The American
People
Trump Rips Coronavirus Coverage: "People Aren't Buying It CNN, You Dumb Bastards"
HANNITY: All right. So, we can bifurcate for people. This is all separate from what The New
York Post was reporting this week. This is separate from what we knew earlier, and it's
separate from Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley's report that they put out, 87 pages, which
talked about, well, Russian oligarchs, Kazakh oligarchs, the $3.5 million payment with the
former first lady of Moscow, Chinese nationals, $100,000 shopping spree, Russian nationals,
Kazakhs nationals, Ukrainian nationals.
How much money are we talking about here, and were all three of them involved in all of
these endeavors?
SCHWEIZER: Well, it kind of jumps around, but let me just make clear, these are all
separate emails from The New York Post and what the Senate did, but they all reinforce the
same.
I mean, to take, for example, Ms. Baturina, the Russian oligarch links to organized crime
that the Senate sent $3.5 million based on Treasury Department documents, we will be rolling
out a story in a couple of days demonstrating that their relationship, meaning Hunter and
Devon Archer's relationship with Elena Baturina goes way back and they were performing a
number of banking and other financial services for her, services that they had trouble doing,
by the way, because several banks did not want to work with her because the money was seen as
dirty.
HANNITY: So, literally, these nationals were allowed access to Biden inside the White
House according to these emails. I guess my next question is if both of Hunter's business
partners are convicted, how did he go scot-free?
SCHWEIZER: Well, that's the question, Sean. There was a trial in 2016, and we actually,
I've gone through the notes of that trial, and what it demonstrates is that Hunter Biden's
fingerprints are all over this. He has named repeatedly in the court trials, but he was never
charged by the prosecutors in New York.
A top Republican senator acknowledged the possibility that the FBI investigated whether
there was child pornography on a laptop and hard drive that allegedly belonged to Hunter
Biden.
Journalist Maria Bartiromo asked Sen. Ron Johnson, the chairman of the Senate Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, about
a Business Insider report that described faint handwriting on a subpoena served last
year to a Delaware business that was given a water-damaged MacBook Pro to repair but was never
retrieved and a hard drive with its contents. The hardware purportedly contained data about
foreign business dealings and other matters related to the son of former Vice President Joe
Biden.
The subpoena appeared to show the FBI agent who served it was someone named
"Joshua Wilson." There was a Joshua Wilson, according to a Star-Ledger report published
last year , who was an FBI agent based in New Jersey who spent nearly five years
investigating child pornography, but it remains unclear if this is the same Wilson and what
exactly the bureau was investigating.
Bartiromo twice asked Johnson, a lead congressional investigator, if he knows of any
connection on her Fox News program, Sunday Morning Futures .
"I think you just made the connection. Again, this is what the FBI, I think, has to come
clean about," the Wisconsin Republican said in his first reply. Johnson was
alluding to his letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray about the laptop sent last
week.
Pressed a second time after his initial response, the senator said he could not comment any
further.
"I don't want to speculate, other than to say that -- what I said publicly before. Our
report uncovered so many troubling connections, so many things that need to be investigated,
that I really think we're just scratching the surface," Johnson said. "And, yes, I have heard
all kinds of things that I think will probably be revealed over the next few days."
Republicans, including President Trump, have repeatedly raised the younger Biden's foreign
business ventures as being ripe for corruption that could stem all the way to his father, who
is now running for president. Joe Biden called the reporting on the emails and photos that
purportedly come from his son's laptop, a story that was
broken by the New York Post last week , a
"smear campaign." Still, neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign have disputed the
validity of the data that has generated a wave of headlines in recent days.
John Paul Mac Isaac, the computer store owner in Delaware who claims he copied the hard
drive of the laptop that he later gave to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani's lawyer, Robert Costello,
told reporters last week he "did not see" child pornography on the hardware.
In two bombshell reports, Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge of the New York Post have
leveled damning allegations of Hunter Biden' s murky financial dealings with Ukrainian and
Chinese oligarchs. As expected, $50,000 remuneration paid by Burisma Holdings of Ukraine
annually for Hunter's "consultancy job" was only the tip of the iceberg. Hunter was paid
millions of dollars bribes that sustained his "rockstar lifestyle" over the years.
Although it was the
first report [1] published on Thursday, October 14, and titled "Smoking-gun email reveals
how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad" that gained most attention on the
mainstream media, it was the
second report [2] published on Friday, October 15, in which the authors have furnished
documentary evidence of Hunter Biden's dealings, amounting to millions of dollars and stakes in
equities and profits of a private Chinese oil company doing business in Africa, with a Chinese
billionaire Ye Jianming that raises serious questions whether the loyalty of the Biden campaign
to the American electorate has been compromised due to Hunter Biden's illicit financial
transactions with the representatives of the Chinese government.
Image on the right: CEFC's founder Ye Jianming. Photo: SCMP/Handout
It's noteworthy that the name of Ye Jianming came up in the Johnson-Grassley report released
last month, too.
"The Suspicious Activity Reports of the Treasury Department flagged millions of dollars in
transactions from the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings, a Russian oligarch named Yelena
Baturina, and a Chinese businessmen with ties to Beijing's communist government," the Senate
report said.
The Johnson-Grassley report further alleged:
"Hunter Biden had business associations with Ye Jianming, Gongwen, and other Chinese
nationals linked to the communist government and the People's Liberation Army. Those
associations resulted in millions of dollars in cash flow."
Corroborating the Senate investigation, Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge noted in the
second report of the New York Post:
"Another email -- sent by Biden as part of an Aug. 2, 2017, chain -- involved a deal he
struck with the since-vanished chairman of CEFC, Ye Jianming, for half-ownership of a holding
company that was expected to provide Biden with more than $10 million a year 'for
introductions alone.'
"'The chairman changed that deal after we me[t] in MIAMI TO A MUCH MORE LASTING AND
LUCRATIVE ARRANGEMENT to create a holding company 50% percent [sic] owned by ME and 50% owned
by him,' Biden wrote.
"A photo dated Aug. 1, 2017, shows a handwritten flowchart of the ownership of 'Hudson
West' split 50/50 between two entities ultimately controlled by Hunter Biden and someone
identified as 'Chairman.'
"According to a report on Biden's overseas business dealings released last month by Sens.
Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a company called Hudson West III opened a
line of credit in September 2017.
"Biden's email was sent to Gongwen Dong, whom the Wall Street Journal in October 2018 tied
to the purchase by Ye-linked companies of two luxury Manhattan apartments that cost a total
on $83 million.
"The documents obtained by The Post also include an 'Attorney Engagement Letter' executed
in September 2017 in which one of Ye's top lieutenants, former Hong Kong government official
Chi Ping Patrick Ho, agreed to pay Biden a $1 million retainer for 'Counsel to matters
related to US law and advice pertaining to the hiring and legal analysis of any US Law Firm
or Lawyer.'
"In December 2018, a Manhattan federal jury convicted Ho in two schemes to pay $3 million
in bribes to high-ranking government officials in Africa for oil rights in Chad and lucrative
business deals in Uganda. Ho served a three-year prison sentence and was deported to Hong
Kong in June."
"Ye Jianming had made inroads with Joe Biden's brother James Biden, as well as Hunter
Biden, as the Chinese tycoon sought to build influence in the United States. In early 2018,
Hunter Biden was paid $1 million to represent Ye's aide while he was facing the federal
bribery charges in the United States.
"In August 2017, a subsidiary of Ye's company wired $5 million into the bank account of a
US company called Hudson West III, which over the next 13 months sent $4.79 million marked as
consulting fees to Hunter Biden's firm, the report said. Over the same period, Hunter Biden's
firm wired some $1.4 million to a firm associated with his uncle and aunt, James and Sara
Biden."
Ironically, it was the mainstream media that first broke the story of the illicit financial
transactions between the Biden family and Chinese billionaire Ye Jianming in December 2018,
though that was a year before Joe Biden was chosen as the Democratic presidential candidate in
April.
Giving a detailed biographical account of Ye Jianming from his rapid ascent to a sudden fall
from grace in 2017, as the FBI closed in on the Chinese billionaire's company and aides, a
December 2018 New
York Times report [4] revealed:
"Ye Jianming, a fast-rising Chinese oil tycoon, ventured to places only the most
politically connected Chinese companies dared to go. But what he wanted was access to the
corridors of power in Washington -- and he set out to get it.
"Soon, he was meeting with the family of Joseph R. Biden Jr., who was then the vice
president. He dined with R. James Woolsey Jr., a former Central Intelligence Agency director
and later a senior adviser to President Trump. He bestowed lavish funding on universities and
think tanks with direct access to top Washington leaders, looking for the benefits access can
bring.
"'This is a guy who courted and maintained networks with the People's Liberation Army and
took the strategy of 'friends in high places,' said Jude Blanchette, a senior adviser and
China head at Crumpton Group, a business intelligence firm.
"He seemed to have the blessings of Beijing. State banks offered CEFC billions of dollars
in loans. The company also hired a large number of former military officers, whom Mr. Ye told
visitors he prized for their organizational skills. He was deputy secretary of a Chinese
military organization from 2003 to 2005 that congressional researchers called a front for the
People's Liberation Army unit that has 'dual roles of intelligence collection and conducting
People's Republic of China propaganda.'
"From 2009 to 2017, CEFC's revenue jumped from $48 million to $37 billion. [a time period
incidentally coinciding with Joe Biden's vice presidency.]
"'It's been clear for some time that this is not just a Chinese commercial company, that
they had some intelligence ties,' Mr. Martin Hala, an academic based in Prague, said. 'People
from the U.S. intelligence agencies should have known something was going on.'
"Five years ago, CEFC approached Bobby Ray Inman, a retired admiral and national security
adviser to President Jimmy Carter, about setting up a joint venture, Mr. Inman said in an
interview. The company promised it would pay him $1 million a year, without specifying what
business they would go into. He turned down the offer.
"On a 2015 trip to the United States Ye met with Alan Greenspan, the former Federal
Reserve chairman, to discuss the economy, according to CEFC.
"CEFC also donated at least $350,000 to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security,
a politically connected think tank, according to court testimony. The think tank counts
Robert C. McFarlane, the Reagan-era national security adviser, as its president and Mr.
Woolsey, a Clinton-era C.I.A. director, as its co-chairman.
"Mr. Ye also further loosened CEFC's purse strings, donating as much as $100,000 to the
Clinton Foundation. Outside the Beltway, a CEFC foundation donated at least $500,000 to a
Columbia University research center.
"CEFC also organized forums in Hong Kong and Washington that brought together retired
American and Chinese military officers, among other events.
"By 2015, Mr. Ye had begun working on perhaps his most politically connected quarry yet:
the family of Mr. Biden, the vice president.
"An aide to Mr. Ye met the vice president's second son, Hunter Biden, in Washington. Mr.
Ye then met privately with Hunter Biden at a hotel in Miami in May 2017. Mr. Ye proposed a
partnership to invest in American infrastructure and energy deals.
"During this period, the vice president's son was managing Rosemont Seneca Partners, an
investment firm he formed with Chris Heinz, the stepson of John Kerry, the former secretary
of state.
"The trial and conviction in New York in December 2018 of one of his top lieutenants,
Patrick Ho, showed that company officials used bribery to win oil and energy contracts in
Africa.
"In 2017, as American authorities closed in on Mr. Ye's company, the first call made by
one of his emissaries in custody was to Mr. Biden's brother.
"James Biden, a financier and brother of the former vice president, was in a hotel lobby
in November 2017 when he got a surprise call on his cellphone. The call was from Patrick Ho,
Mr. Ye's lieutenant. Mr. Ho, 69, was in trouble.
"In a brief interview, James Biden said he had been surprised by Mr. Ho's call. He said he
believed it had been meant for Hunter Biden, the former vice president's son. James Biden
said he had passed on his nephew's contact information.
"'There is nothing else I have to say,' James Biden said. 'I don't want to be dragged into
this anymore.'
"Federal agents who had monitored CEFC's rise since at least the summer of 2016 had sprung
into action, arresting Mr. Ho in New York on allegations that he had bribed African officials
in Chad and Uganda.
"Mr. Ye, meanwhile, has disappeared into the custody of the Chinese authorities. He was
last seen in February, 2018, when his private jet touched down in the Chinese city of
Hangzhou. CEFC is struggling under $15 billion in debt, and was dissolved early this
year."
After reading all this revelatory information regarding suspicious financial transactions
between prominent former officials of the US government and the "disappeared" Chinese
billionaire, it becomes abundantly clear that Ye Jianming, most likely a pseudonym, was a
frontman for the Chinese government who was sent on a clandestine mission to nurture business
relations with the Beltway elites, and later made to disappear after his cover was blown once
his aides were charged with criminal offenses in the US courts.
China is known to follow the economic model of "state capitalism," in which although small
and medium enterprises are permitted to operate freely by common citizens, large industrial and
extraction companies, especially a multi-billion dollar corporation the size of CEFC, are run
by the Communist Party stalwarts masquerading as business executives.
In addition, China is alleged to practice "debt-trap diplomacy" for buying entire
governments through extending financial grants and loans, and what better way to buy the rival
government of the United States than by financing the Biden campaign through bestowing
financial largesse on the profligate son of the former vice president and current presidential
candidate.
Notwithstanding, in a tit-for-tat response to the New York Post's explosive report alleging
Hunter Biden introduced a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm he was working for to his
vice president dad, the Daily Beast
came up with a scoop [5] on Friday, October 16, that the hard disks in which Hunter's
emails were found were provided to Rudy Giuliani by a Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui on behalf
of dissident members of the Chinese Communist Party.
According to the report,
"Weeks before the New York Post began publishing what it claimed were the contents of Hunter
Biden's hard drive, a Sept. 25 segment on a YouTube channel run by a Chinese dissident
streamer, who is linked to billionaire and Steve Bannon-backer Guo Wengui, broadcast a bizarre
conspiracy theory.
"According to the streamer, Chinese politburo officials had 'sent three hard disks of
evidence' to the Justice Department and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi containing damaging
information about Joe Biden as well as the origins of the coronavirus in a bid to undermine the
rule of Chinese President Xi Jinping
"While Guo's ties to Steve Bannon have long been known -- Bannon was arrested for defrauding
donors in August on a 152-foot-long yacht reportedly owned by Guo -- the billionaire appears to
have also joined forces with Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani in the former New York
mayor's relentless anti-Biden dirt-digging crusade."
Besides posting pictures of Rudy Giuliani and Guo Wengui "cavorting and smoking cigars
together" and leveling unsubstantiated allegations that Giuliani has stakes in Guo's fashion
lineup, the Daily Beast hasn't challenged the authenticity of Hunter's emails but only
questioned the source of origin of hard disks containing irrefutable evidence of the Biden
family's murky financial dealings and made a paradoxical claim that dissident members of
Chinese Communist Party are trying to sabotage Joe Biden's electoral campaign on Trump's
behalf.
Nevertheless, the report raises startling questions that why Chinese dissidents would form
"a government-in-exile" in the United States and allegedly support the Trump campaign against
Joe Biden's bid for the presidency unless the Biden campaign had received financial support
from the government of People's Republic of China whom the Chinese dissidents want to
subvert.
The report further alleges:
"Guo Wengui has been in the Trumpworld orbit pretty much from the beginning, paying the
$200,000 initiation fee to become a member of the president's Florida golf resort Mar-a-Lago,
which Trump has dubbed the 'Southern White House.' But Guo's membership soon became a
headache for the administration in the run-up to Trump's first summit meeting with Chinese
President Xi Jinping in 2017, due to Guo's fugitive status in China.
"At one point, Trump had reportedly considered deporting Guo after the Chinese government
called for his extradition in a letter delivered to Trump by casino mogul Steve Wynn in 2017.
After presenting the letter during a policy meeting, the president reportedly said, 'We need
to get this criminal out of the country,' only for aides to remind him that Guo was a
Mar-a-Lago member, eventually talking him out of the decision and ensuring the deportation
was scuttled
"Guo has framed himself as a stalwart critic of the CCP and China's corrupt elite, but his
efforts have divided China's exile community. Guo has enthusiastically attacked other critics
of Beijing as jealous poseurs, including most recently a Texas Christian pastor and Tiananmen
protester named Bob Fu -- who was imprisoned in China for his faith before escaping to the
U.S. -- whom Guo accuses of being a secret agent for the CCP. Fu has lobbed the same charge
back at Guo and his followers."
Instead of debunking Trump's witty remarks following the publishing of Hunter Biden's emails
that "the Biden family treated the vice presidency as a for-profit corporation," the
information contained in the Daily Beast article lends further credence to the investigative
reporting by Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge for the New York Post exposing Hunter
Biden's sleazy financial dealings with Ukrainian and Chinese oligarchs.
In an
exclusive report [6] for the Breitbart New on Friday, October 16, Peter Schweizer and
Seamus Bruner allege that newly obtained emails from a former business associate of Hunter
Biden's inner-circle reveal that Hunter and his colleagues used their access to the Obama
administration to peddle influence to potential Chinese clients and investors -- including
securing a private, off-the-books meeting with the former vice president.
The never-before-revealed emails, unconnected to the Hunter Biden emails being released by
the New York Post, were provided to Schweizer by Bevan Cooney, a one-time Hunter Biden and
Devon Archer business associate. Cooney is currently in prison serving a sentence for his
involvement in a 2016 bond fraud investment scheme.
Cooney believes he was the "fall guy" for an investment scheme in which Hunter and business
associate Devon Archer avoided responsibility. He reached out to Schweizer after the journalist
published a book "Secret Empires" in 2018. Archer was initially spared jail and handed a second
trial, however, a federal appeals court reinstated Archer's fraud conviction in the case last
week.
The report notes:
"On November 5, 2011, one of Archer's business contacts forwarded him an email teasing an
opportunity to gain 'potentially outstanding new clients' by helping to arrange White House
meetings for a group of Chinese executives and government officials.
"The group was the China Entrepreneur Club (CEC) and the delegation included Chinese
billionaires, Chinese Communist Party loyalists, and at least one 'respected diplomat' from
Beijing. Despite its benign name, CEC has been called 'a second foreign ministry' for the
People's Republic of China -- a communist government that closely controls most businesses in
its country. CEC was established in 2006 by a group of businessmen and Chinese government
diplomats.
"CEC's leadership boasts numerous senior members of the Chinese Communist Party, including
Wang Zhongyu (vice chairman of the 10th CPPCC National Committee and deputy secretary of the
Party group), Ma Weihua (director of multiple Chinese Communist Party offices), and Jiang
Xipei (member of the Chinese Communist Party and representative of the 16th National
Congress), among others.
"'I know it is political season and people are hesitant but a group like this does not
come along every day,' an intermediary named Mohamed A. Khashoggi wrote on behalf of the CEC
to an associate of Hunter Biden and Devon Archer. 'A tour of the white house and a meeting
with a member of the chief of staff's office and John Kerry would be great.'
"The email boasted of CEC's wealthy membership: CEC's current membership includes 50
preeminent figures such as: Liu Chuanzhi, Chairman of the CEC, Legend Holdings and Lenovo
Group; Wu Jinglian, Zhang Weiying, and Zhou Qiren, China's esteemed economists; Wu Jianmin,
respected diplomat; Long Yongtu, representative of China's globalization; Wang Shi (Vanke);
Ma Weihua (China Merchants Bank); Jack Ma (Alibaba Group); Guo Guangchang (Fosun Group); Wang
Jianlin, (Wanda Group); Niu Gensheng (LAONIU Foundation); Li Shufu (Geely); Li Dongsheng (TCL
Corporation); Feng Lun (Vantone) and etc.
"The gross income of the CEC members' companies allegedly 'totaled more than RMB 1.5
trillion, together accounting for roughly 4% of China's GDP.' The overture to Hunter Biden's
associates described the Chinese CEC members variously as
'industrial elites,' 'highly influential,' and among 'the most important private sector
individuals in China today,' dubbed as the China Inc.
"Hunter Biden and Devon Archer apparently delivered for the Chinese Communist
Party-connected industrial elites within ten days The Obama-Biden Administration archives
reveal that this Chinese delegation did indeed visit the White House on November 14, 2011,
and enjoyed high-level access.
"The visitor logs list Jeff Zients, the deputy director of Obama's Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), as the host of the CEC delegation. Obama had tasked Zients with
restructuring and ultimately consolidating the various export-import agencies under the
Commerce Department -- an effort in which the Chinese delegation would have a keen
interest.
"Curiously, the Obama-Biden visitor logs do not mention any meeting with Vice President
Joe Biden. But the Vice President's off-the-books meeting was revealed by one of the core
founders of the CEC. In an obscure document listing the CEC members' biographies, CEC
Secretary General Maggie Cheng alleges that she facilitated the CEC delegation meetings in
Washington in 2011 and boasts of the Washington establishment figures that CEC met with. The
first name she dropped was that of Vice President Joe Biden."
Schweizer suggests that the meeting may have opened the door for Hunter and Devon Archer
down the road -- as just two years later they formed the Chinese government-funded Bohai
Harvest RST (BHR) investment fund which saw Chinese money pour into it for investments in
CEC-linked businesses.
According to the report,
"One of BHR's first major portfolio investments was a ride-sharing company like Uber
called Didi Dache -- now called Didi Chuxing Technology Co. That company is closely connected
to Liu Chuanzhi, the chairman of the China Entrepreneur Club (CEC) and the founder of Legend
Holdings -- the parent company of Lenovo, one of the world's largest computer companies. Liu
is a former Chinese Communist Party delegate and was a leader of the 2011 CEC delegation to
the White House. His daughter was the President of Didi."
The report adds:
"Liu has long been involved in CCP politics, including serving as a representative to the
9th, 10th, and 11th sessions of the National People's Congress of the PRC and as a
representative to the 16th and 17th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party. Liu was
the Vice Chairman of the 8th and 9th Executive Committee of All-China Federation of Industry
and Commerce (ACFIC), an organization known to be affiliated with the Chinese United
Front."
After reading the names of these high-profile Chinese business and political elites visiting
the White House and cultivating personal friendships and commercial relationships in the
highest echelons of the Obama-Biden administration, one wonders whether the latter devised
trade and economic policies serving the interests of the American masses or took care of
financial stakes of global power elites.
With his anti-globalist and protectionist agenda, Trump represents a paradigm shift in the
global economic order. Trump withdrawing the United States from multilateral treaties,
restructuring trade agreements and initiating a trade war against China are a revolution
against globalization and free trade of which China is the new beneficiary with its strong
manufacturing base and massive export potential.
Thus, it's only natural for the Chinese government to be "anti-Trump", while supporting his
neoliberal Democratic rivals, who favor globalization and free trade, in the upcoming US
presidential elections.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused
on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is
a regular contributor to Global Research.
"... "What we're in possession of contains 1,000, maybe more, photographs that are highly, highly – anywhere from inappropriate to illegal – and have to be possessed by the Chinese government," Giuliani said. ..."
"... If there is "underage" material on the hard drive allegedly belonging to Hunter, the FBI will have to answer some questions as well. ..."
A tweet published by One America News Network's Chief White House Correspondent Chanel Rion
claims the hard drive from Hunter Biden's laptop contained "underage obsessions."
"Just saw for myself a behind the scenes look at the Hunter Biden hard drive: Drugs,
underage obsessions, power deals " she wrote "Druggie Hunter makes Anthony Weiner's down under
selfie addiction look normal. Biden Crime Family has a
lot of apologizing to do. So does Big Tech."
Perhaps also referring to "underage" content, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told Steve Bannon
on the War Room
Pandemic podcast on Wednesday that the hard drive contains "sensitive stuff."
"What we're in possession of contains 1,000, maybe more, photographs that are highly, highly
– anywhere from inappropriate to illegal – and have to be possessed by the Chinese
government," Giuliani said.
Only a portion of the data in the hard drive has been released so far, so an even bigger
October Surprise could be awaiting the Democrat Party.
If there is "underage" material on the hard drive allegedly belonging to Hunter, the FBI
will have to answer some questions as well.
According to the computer repairman who obtained the laptop, "The FBI first made a forensic
copy of the laptop, then returned a few weeks later with a subpoena and confiscated it."
However, the agency did not know the repairman also made a copy in case anything suspicious
took place.
ZeroHedge reports , "After he stopped hearing back from the FBI, Isaac said he contacted
several members of Congress, who did not respond, at which point his intermediary reached out
to Rudy Giuliani's attorney, Robert Costello."
"... Meanwhile, back on ABC, Joe Biden skated on answering any questions of substance about his son or Antifa or BLM. On NBC, Guthrie pushed Donald Trump to condemn QAnon and White supremacy, and he did it dutifully. But it wasn't enough. The point of demanding performative disavowals isn't to get the disavowal, it's to smear the person you're asking to disavow the group by association with the group. ..."
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: If you flipped the channel during our show Thursday night, you may
have seen the president and his challenger making their respective cases to voters. But
President Trump and Joe Biden weren't debating each other. That would have been too risky.
There's a massive public health crisis underway, you may have heard.
So to avoid what doomsday hobbyists on Twitter like to call a "superspreader event," Trump
and Biden held separate indoor town halls surrounded by people. They talked to partisan
moderators instead of each other. That might seem like a loss to the country three weeks before
a presidential election. But unfortunately, the science on this question is clear: Nothing
could be more dangerous to America than a televised in-person debate between Joe Biden and
Donald Trump.
So the so-called debate commission made certain a debate couldn't happen. Who benefitted
from that decision? Well, not voters. America has held regularly scheduled presidential debates
for decades and we have them for a reason. The more information voters can get directly from
the candidates rather than the media, the better our democracy functions, not that anyone's
interested in democracy anymore.
Joe Biden doesn't care either way. He just didn't want to talk about Burisma. That's the
scandal that vividly illustrates how, as vice president, Biden subverted this country's foreign
policy in order to enrich his own family. The good news for Biden Thursday night was that he
didn't have to talk about it. No one from ABC News asked him about that scandal for the entire
90 minutes.
As we've been telling you this week, the New York Post and a few other news outlets,
including "Tucker Carlson Tonight," have published e-mails taken from Hunter Biden's personal
laptop. They show that Hunter Biden was paid by foreign actors to change American foreign
policy using access to his father, then the vice president. This is a big story. It is also a
real story.
Friday afternoon, we received nonpublic information that proves conclusively this was indeed
Hunter Biden's laptop. There are materials on the hard drive of that computer that no one but
Hunter Biden could have known about or have replicated. This is not a Russian hoax. Again,
we're saying this definitively. We're not speculating. The laptop in question is real. It
belonged to Hunter Biden. So there is no excuse for not asking about it.
But they didn't ask about it. It was a cover-up in real time. No matter what happens in the
election next month, the American media will never be the same after this. It cannot continue
this way. It is too dishonest.
Nevertheless, we did learn a few things Thursday night. (It's hard not to learn when you
watch Joe Biden try to speak for 90 minutes.) At one point, an activist told Joe Biden that she
has an eight-year-old transgender daughter. She asked Joe Biden what he thought about that.
Here's how he responded:
BIDEN: The idea that an eight-year-old child or a 10-year-old child decides, 'You know,
I've decided I want to be transgender. That's what I think. I'd like to be a -- make my life a
lot easier.' There should be zero discrimination. What's happening is too many transgender
women of color are being murdered. They're being murdered. I mean, I think it's up to now 17,
don't hold me to that number.
So if an eight-year-old biological boy decides one day that he's really a girl, that's final
and you'd have to be a bigot to pause and say, "Wait a minute, you're eight years old, you're a
small child. Maybe let's think about this for a minute." That's what a normal person who has
kids would say. People with kids know that children grow and change. They change their minds
about a lot of things, including themselves. That's the reality of it.
But if you're a crazed ideologue, you don't care about reality. So you would tell the rest
of us that an eight-year-old is entitled to hormone therapy on demand and permanent,
life-altering surgery. That's what Biden is telling us.
It doesn't matter how fashionable talk like this is right now, and it is very fashionable,
it is crazy and it's destructive and it's having a profound effect. No one wants to say it, but
it's true. We know that between 2016 and 2017, the number of gender surgeries for biological
females in this country quadrupled. We also know that many people who get those surgeries
regret them later, deeply regret them. We'd have a lot more data on that, but universities are
actively punishing researchers who follow that line of inquiry. So much for science.
In the end, mania like this will end. The left is at war with nature. Inevitably, they will
lose that war, because nature always prevails. But in the meantime, many children are being
hurt irreparably. Biden doesn't care. It's the new thing, and so he's for it. In fact, Biden is
now busy rewriting his entire life story to pretend that he has been woke for 60 years.
Thursday night, he told us he became a gay rights supporter during the Kennedy administration,
sometime around 1962, when he and his father saw two gay men kissing.
When asked about police brutality, the former vice president speculated that maybe people
like George Floyd would be alive today if the police had just shot him in the leg a few
times.
BIDEN: There's a lot of things we've learned and it takes time. But we can do this. You
can ban chokeholds ... But beyond that, you have to teach people how to deescalate
circumstances, deescalate. So instead of anybody coming at you and the first thing you do shoot
to kill, shoot him in the leg.
How much would you have to know about firearms or human biology to wonder if maybe there
could be some unintended consequences there? People do have arteries in their legs, after all,
and sometimes bullets do miss their targets. So why did no one point out how demented Biden's
answer was?
Well, we have some clarity on the question of why no one pointed it out. It turns out George
Stephanopoulos, the moderator of last night's ABC town hall, was not the only political
operative in the room. One supposedly uncommitted voter was, in fact, a former Obama
administration speechwriter called Nathan Osburn. Osburn repeated Biden campaign talking points
to the letter, at one point referring to court-packing as a safeguard "that'll help ensure more
long-term balance and stability" on the Supreme Court.
BIDEN: I have not been a fan of court-packing because I think it just generates, what
will happen ... Whoever wins, it just keeps moving in a way that is inconsistent with what is
going to be manageable.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're still not a fan?
BIDEN: Well, I'm not a fan ... It depends on how this turns out, not how he wins, but how
it's handled, how it's handled. But there's a number of things that are going to be coming up
and there's going to be a lot of discussion about other alternatives as well.
So we did learn something new last night: Joe Biden isn't a fan of court-packing.
Court-packing has had a few off years, and Joe Biden started to lose his faith in it, even sold
his "Court-Packing" jersey. But at the end of the day, Joe Biden is still open to court-packing
and can get back on the court-packing bandwagon depending on how things are "handled." Got
it?
Biden was allowed to answer non-questions like this because he was surrounded by sycophants
and former employees of his party. Over at NBC, by contrast, the sitting president didn't have
that luxury, to put it mildly. (By the way, it's not good for you to be sucked up to too much.
It's good to get smacked around a little bit. It makes you sharper.)
During the president's one-hour event, moderator Savannah Guthrie asked him dozens more
questions than the voters in the room got to ask. And when Trump began speaking, Guthrie
interrupted him over and over again. Joe Biden wasn't there, so the moderator played stand-in
for Joe Biden.
The good news about all of this is it's so bad and so transparent that it can't continue.
All their stupid little morning shows and their dumb Sunday shows and their even dumber cable
shows -- all of that's going away when the smoke clears from this election. There will be a
massive realignment in the media no matter who wins, because they've showed who they are and
it's so unappealing, so far from journalism, that it can't continue.
Meanwhile, back on ABC, Joe Biden skated on answering any questions of substance about his
son or Antifa or BLM. On NBC, Guthrie pushed Donald Trump to condemn QAnon and White supremacy,
and he did it dutifully. But it wasn't enough. The point of demanding performative disavowals
isn't to get the disavowal, it's to smear the person you're asking to disavow the group by
association with the group.
GUTHRIE: You were asked point-blank to denounce White supremacy [at the first debate]. In
the moment, you didn't ... A couple of days later on a different show, you denounce White
supremacy --
TRUMP: You always do this. You've done this line -- I denounce White supremacy,
OK?
GUTHRIE: You did two days later.
TRUMP: I've denounced White supremacy for years. But you always do, you always start off
with the question. You didn't ask Joe Biden whether or not he denounces Antifa ... Are you
listening? I denounce White supremacy. What's your next question?
NBC was under a lot of pressure from Democrats to make Thursday night's town hall look like
this, and just like Facebook and Twitter delivered earlier this week, NBC delivered,
too.
whatmeworry? 1 day ago The only difference between the "news" media today, and, say a
decade ago, is that they no longer try to conceal their bias. They've dropped the cloak of
objectivity and come out as democrat activists. It's sort of refreshing. We no longer have to
waste time and energy arguing about the fairness of the media. Scotty2Hotty 1 1 day ago
Liberals are more an enemy of the free press than Donald Trump is--we know that for sure after
the NY Post incident. For all the times Trump has trashed the press, he has never shut them
down (he can't), but the liberals at Facebook and Twitter did just that to the New York Post,
because they didn't like a story of theirs. The story should never have been banned anywhere.
In a free society, bogus stories are debunked by other free speech outlets and press agencies.
They are not banned. Trump is not a friend of the press, but liberals are a worse enemy than he
is, to press freedom. Leftists have a strong totalitarian streak, and they continually work to
create environments where only one viewpoint is permitted, whether in academia, television, the
press or elsewhere. Liberals believe more in shutting down dissent than in discrediting it,
through argument. Gadsden_1968 2.0 1 day ago 90% of the media is now formally known as the
Democratic Party propaganda ministry. Arm yourselves, it appears the majority of people are
100% controlled by the Democratic Party's propaganda ministry. If Biden wins, his propaganda
ministry will make Pravda look like a high school news paper. Architech 1 day ago Why is the
crackhead Hunter Biden a taboo subject? Nobody mentions that Hunter is The Train Wreck of the
Century. Even on right wing news they don't tell you what a drop dead irresponsible loser low
life that Hunter is. He sleeps with his dying brothers wife while he is still alive. Red flag.
Plenty of other girls, but no, your sister in law. But that is nothing. Nada. Kicked out of the
Navy for drug use. Banged 1000 strippers in Wash DC, knocked one up, denied the child, was
proven he was the dad, denied child support and was forced to pay. Nice. Dead beat dad deluxe.
There are about 100 things like that. Too long to list. And nobody mentions is. They act like
Hunter is just another guy.... Calling out the Loser of the Century is not off limits in my
book. Calling out stupidity, no self control, no personal responsibility, corruption, unethical
behavior, outright crimes....not off limits. It's actually illegal to be a crack addict did you
know that?
"... "The whole point of the Intelligence Community since the end of World War II was that whatever propaganda the CIA produces, whatever disinformation campaigns they engaged were never supposed to be directed domestically," he said. "That was the point of the NSA, the CIA, and all those intelligence communities." ..."
"... "What we have seen since 2016 going back to the 2016 campaign is incessant involvement in U.S. domestic politics. Working with journalists to disseminate purely for partisan ends. If you want to talk about things like violating norms, and dangers to democracy, what's more dangerous than allowing the CIA constantly to be manipulating our politics by making cover for the Biden campaign by claiming anonymously that the Russians are behind the story and therefore you disregard it. Even if the Russians why does that alleviate the responsibility of journalists to evaluate the emails and to examine whether or not Joe Biden actually engaged in misconduct?" Greenwald asked. ..."
Glenn Greenwald appeared on Tucker Carlson's FOX News show Monday night to criticize
the media for its lack of response to the Hunter Biden laptop story. Greenwald also criticized
intel community activity in domestic elections and posed the question that even if Russians are
behind the story it just requires journalistic investigation in case Biden is compromised.
"Adam Schiff is seriously the most pathological liar in all of American politics that I've seen in all of my time covering
politics and journalism," Greenwald said on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.' "He just fabricates accusations at the drop of the hat at
the other people change underwear. He's simply lying when he just asserts over and over that the Russians or the Kremlin are
behind the story. He has no idea whether or not that is true. There is no evidence to support it."
"And what makes it so much worse is that the reason that the Bidens aren't answering basic
questions about the story," Greenwald said. "Basic questions like did Hunter Biden drop that
laptop off of the repair shop? Are the emails authentic? Do you know denied that they are. Do
you claim that any have been altered or are any of them fabricated? Did you in fact meet with
Barisma executives? The reason they don't answer the questions is because the media has
signaled that they don't have to. That journalists will be attacked and vilified simply for
asking."
Victor Davis Hanson: Will Our Next Revolution Be French, Russian, Maoist, Or
American?
Glenn Greenwald: Media and Intel Community Working Together To Manipulate The American
People
Trump Rips Coronavirus Coverage: "People Aren't Buying It CNN, You Dumb Bastards"
"The whole point of the Intelligence Community since the end of World War II was that
whatever propaganda the CIA produces, whatever disinformation campaigns they engaged were never
supposed to be directed domestically," he said. "That was the point of the NSA, the CIA, and
all those intelligence communities."
"What we have seen since 2016 going back to the 2016 campaign is incessant involvement
in U.S. domestic politics. Working with journalists to disseminate purely for partisan ends. If
you want to talk about things like violating norms, and dangers to democracy, what's more
dangerous than allowing the CIA constantly to be manipulating our politics by making cover for
the Biden campaign by claiming anonymously that the Russians are behind the story and therefore
you disregard it. Even if the Russians why does that alleviate the responsibility of
journalists to evaluate the emails and to examine whether or not Joe Biden actually engaged in
misconduct?" Greenwald asked.
"The much bigger point is the way that the information is being disseminated," he said. "It
is a union of journalists who have decided that their only goal is to defend Joe Biden and
election him president of the United States working with the FBI, CIA, NSA not to manipulate
our adversaries or foreign governments, but to manipulate the American people for their own
ends. It's been going on for four straight years now and there's no sign of it stopping anytime
soon." Related Videos
Update (1930ET) : In yet another death blow to Adam Schiff and the '50 former senior
intelligence officers' "Russia, Russia, Russia" claims, the FBI and DOJ have told a Fox News
producer that they do not believe that Hunter Biden's laptop and its contents are part of a
Russian disinformation campaign , confirming that the 'current' intelligence community agrees
with DNI Ratcliffe's comments yesterday.
We look forward to the reporting from other mainstream media news agencies now that federal
law enforcement has confirmed this is not a 'hoax' and we assume that the NYPost will once
again be allowed to tweet since this is now as 'factual' as anything thrown at Trump for the
last five years.
y_arrow Fizzy Head , 9 hours ago
Excuse me, but Who cares what these "former" senior officials think? I want names and
party affiliations, that will tell the tale.
and furthermore, if these former guys can muster up a letter why can't the real officials
muster up something, anything? They've known for months!! This is growing more ridiculous as
time goes by.
Han Cholo , 8 hours ago
"former" -- Meaning they are mostly looking from the outside in and have no clue.
I don't use Social Media myself, but near the end of the 2016 presidential campaign, I
gradually began seeing more and more Trump supporters referring to something called
"Pizzagate," a burgeoning sexual scandal that they claimed would bring down Hillary Clinton and
many of the top leaders of her party, with the chatter actually increasing after Trump was
elected. As near as I could tell, the whole bizarre theory had grown up on the far-right fringe
of the Internet, with the utterly fantastical plot having something to do with stolen secret
emails, DC pizza parlors, and a ring of pedophiles situated near the top of the Democratic
Party. But given all the other strange and unlikely things I'd gradually discovered about our
history, it didn't seem like something I could necessarily dismiss out of hand.
At the beginning of December, a right-wing blogger produced a lengthy exposition of the
Pizzagate charges, which finally gave me some understanding of what was actually under
discussion, and I soon made arrangements to republish his article. It quickly attracted a great
deal of interest, and some websites pointed to it as the best single introduction to the
scandal for a general audience.
A couple of weeks later, I republished an additional article by the same writer, describing
a long list of previous pedophilia scandals that had occurred in elite American and European
political circles. Although many of these seemed to be solidly documented, nearly all of them
had received minimal coverage by our mainstream media outlets. And if such political pedophile
rings had existed in the relatively recent past, was it so totally implausible that there might
be another one simmering beneath the surface of today's Washington DC?
Those interested in the details of the Pizzagate Hypothesis are advised to read these
articles, especially the first one, but I might as well provide a brief summary.
John Podesta had been a longtime fixture in DC political circles, becoming chief of staff to
President Bill Clinton in 1998, and afterward remaining one of the most powerful figures in the
Democratic Party establishment. While serving as as chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2016
presidential campaign, his apparent carelessness with the password security of his Gmail
account allowed it to easily be hacked, and tens of thousands of his personal emails were soon
published on WikiLeaks. A swarm of young anti-Clinton activists began scouring this
treasure-trove of semi-confidential information, seeking evidence of mundane bribery and
corruption, but instead they came across some quite odd exchanges, seemingly written in coded
language.
Now use of coded language in a supposedly secure private email account raises all sorts of
natural suspicions regarding what might have been under discussion, with the most likely
possibilities being illegal drugs or sex. But most of the references didn't seem to fit the
former category, and in our remarkably libertine era, in which political candidates compete for
the right to be Grand Marshal at an annual Gay Pride Parade, one of the few sexual activities
still discussed only in whispers would seem to be pedophilia, with some of the very strange
remarks possibly hinting at this.
The researchers also soon discovered that his brother Tony Podesta, one of the wealthiest
and most successful lobbyists in DC, had extremely odd taste in art. Major items of his very
extensive personal collection seemed to represent tortured or murdered bodies, and one of his
favorite artists was best known for paintings depicting young children being held captive,
lying dead, or suffering under severe distress. Such peculiar artwork obviously isn't illegal,
but it might naturally arouse some suspicions. And oddly enough, arch-Democrat Podesta had long
been a close personal friend of former Republican Speaker and convicted child-molester Dennis
Hastert, welcoming him back into DC society after his release from prison.
Furthermore, some of the rather suspiciously-worded Podesta emails referred to events held
at a local DC pizza parlor, greatly favored by the Democratic Party elite, whose owner was the
gay former boyfriend of David Brock, a leading Democratic activist. The public Instagram
account of that pizza-entrepreneur apparently contained numerous images of young children,
sometimes tied or bound, with those images frequently labeled by hashtags using the traditional
gay slang for underage sexual targets. Some photos showed the fellow wearing a tee-shirt
bearing the statement "I Love Children" in French, and by a very odd coincidence, his possibly
assumed name was phonetically identical to that very same French phrase, thus proclaiming to
the world that he was "a lover of children." Closely connected Instagram accounts also included
pictures of young children, sometimes shown amid piles of high-value currency, with queries
about how much those particular children might be worth. None of this seemed illegal, but
surely any reasonable person would regard the material as extremely suspicious.
DC is sometimes described as "Powertown," being the seat of the individuals who make
America's laws and govern our society, with local political journalists being closely attuned
to the relative status of such individuals. And oddly enough, GQ Magazine had ranked that gay
pizza parlor owner with a strange focus on young children as being one of the 50 most
powerful people in our national capital, placing him far ahead of many Cabinet members,
Senators, Congressional Chairmen, Supreme Court justices, and top lobbyists. Was his pizza
really that delicious?
These few paragraphs provide merely a sliver of the large quantity of highly-suspicious
material surrounding various powerful figures at the apex of the DC political world. A vast
cloud of billowing smoke is certainly no proof of any fire, but only a fool would completely
ignore it without attempting further investigation.
I usually regard videos as a poor means of imparting serious information, far less effective
and meaningful than the simple printed word. But the overwhelming bulk of the evidence
supporting the Pizzagate Hypothesis consists of visual images and screen shots, and these are
naturally suited to a video presentation.
Some of the best summaries of the Pizzagate case were produced by a young British YouTuber
named Tara McCarthy, whose work was published under the name of "Reality Calls," and her videos
were viewed hundreds of thousands of times. Although her channel was eventually banned and her
videos purged, copies were later reloaded to other accounts, both on YouTube and BitChute. Some
of the evidence she presents seemed rather innocuous or speculative to me and other elements
were probably based upon her unfamiliarity with American society and culture. But a great deal
of extremely suspicious material remains, and I would suggest that people watch the videos and
decide for themselves.
Around the same time that I first became familiar with the details of the Pizzagate
controversy, the topic also started reaching the pages of my morning newspapers, but in an
rather strange manner. Political stories began giving a sentence or two to the "Pizzagate
hoax," describing it as a ridiculous right-wing "conspiracy theory" but excluding all relevant
details. I had an eery feeling that some unseen hand had suddenly flipped a switch causing the
entire mainstream media to begin displaying identical signs declaring "Pizzagate Is False --
Nothing To See There!" in brightly flashing neon. I couldn't recall any previous example of
such a strange media reaction to some obscure Internet controversy.
Articles in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times also suddenly appeared denouncing
the entirety of the alternative media -- Left, Right, and Libertarian -- as
"fake news" websites promoting Russian propaganda , while urging that their content be
blocked by all patriotic Internet giants such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Prior to that
moment, I'd never even heard the term "fake news" but suddenly it was ubiquitous across the
media, once again almost as if some unseen hand had suddenly flipped a switch.
I naturally began to wonder whether the timing of these two strange developments was
entirely coincidental. Perhaps Pizzagate was indeed true and struck so deeply at the core of
our hugely corrupted political system that the media efforts to suppress it were approaching
the point of hysteria.
Not long afterward, Tara McCarthy's detailed Pizzagate videos were purged from YouTube. This
was among the very first instances of video content being banned despite fully conforming to
all existing YouTube guidelines, another deeply suspicious development.
I also noticed that mere mention of Pizzagate had become politically lethal. Donald Trump
had selected Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, as his
National Security Advisor, and Flynn's son served as the latter's chief of staff. The younger
Flynn happened to Tweet out a couple of links to Pizzagate stories, pointing out that the
accusations hadn't yet been actually investigated let alone disproven, and very soon afterward,
he was
purged from the Trump transition team, foreshadowing his father's fall a few weeks later.
It seemed astonishing to me that a few simple Tweets about an Internet controversy could have
such huge real-life impact near the top of our government.
The media continued its uniform drumbeat of "Pizzagate Has Been Disproven!" but we were
never told how or by whom, and I was not the only individual to notice the hollowness of such
denunciations. An award-winning investigative journalist named Ben Swann at a CBS station in
Atlanta broadcast a short television segment summarizing the Pizzagate controversy and noting
that contrary to widespread media claims, Pizzagate had neither been investigated nor debunked.
Swann was almost immediately purged by CBS but a copy of his television segment remains
available for viewing on the Internet.
There is an old wartime proverb that enemy flak is always heaviest over the most important
target, and the remarkably ferocious wave of attacks and censorship against anyone broaching
the subject of Pizzagate seems to raise obvious dark suspicions. Indeed, the simultaneous waves
of attacks against all alternative media outlets as "Russian propaganda outlets" laid the basis
for the continuing regime of Social Media censorship that has become a central aspect of
today's world.
Pizzagate may or may not turn out to be true, but the ongoing Internet crackdown has
similarly engulfed topics of a somewhat similar nature but with vastly stronger
documentation. Although I don't use Twitter myself, I encountered the obvious implications of
this new censorship policy following McCain's death last August.
The senator had died on a Saturday afternoon, and readership of Sydney Schanberg's long
2008 expose quickly exploded, with numerous individuals Tweeting out the story and a large
fraction of our incoming traffic therefore coming from Twitter.
This continued until the following morning, at which point the huge flood of Tweets
continued to grow, but all incoming Twitter traffic suddenly and permanently vanished,
presumably because "shadow banning" had rendered those Tweets invisible.
My own article on McCain's very doubtful war record simultaneously suffered the same fate,
as did numerous other articles of a controversial nature that we published later that same
week.
BREAKING NEWS: Here's Why the Mayor of Moscow's Wife Paid Hunter Biden $3.5 Million And
Likely More!
According to US treasury documents provided by the Senate Finance and Homeland Security
Committees, Hunter Biden was paid $3.5 million from the Mayor of Moscow's wife.
The report by the Senate Finance and Homeland Security Committees was released last month
and it was devastating.
Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Yelena Baturina, the wife of the
former mayor of Moscow.
Until today we didn't know why Yelena Baturina paid Hunter millions of dollars.
According to emails and documents, Yelena Baturina laundered funds into the US in
avoidance of sanctions, Devon Archer claimed the firm received $200 million.
Emails provided by Matthew Tyrmand come directly from Hunter associate's Gmail account.
They are still hosted on Google's servers. Bevan Cooney flipped and gave his login info.
The sky is blue, water is wet and women have secrets.
Might as well add: " Politicians are dishonest." That is not an "October Surprise". More
like ....duuuuuh.
Not sure where the moral contest lies between Biden and Trump. Perhaps that Trump wears
his corruption on his sleeve?
truth or go home , 26 minutes ago
Anyone who was paying attention knew all about this at least 5 years ago. It's not an
October surprise.
Biden has been successfully playing the political game for almost 50 years. He should know
better than to put his hand in the cookie jar for his son over and over, and yet he did it.
It shows you all you need to know about his character.
But you already knew that too. The fact that he is even in the position to run for
President at his age and with clear mental decline beginning to show means he is fully
beholden to the deep state. He is and will be a total puppet of the machine.
The election is down to this: Do you want a nice guy who is a sellout and a puppet and
will do and say whatever the money masters want him to? or do you want a complete ******* who
tells the truth, but gets shut down at every turn?
HarryKallahan , 4 minutes ago
Looks like Hunter's job has always been being the 'bag man'.
Collecting payoff money for daddy Joe Biden.
That's how Joe has lived in that big mansion on a senator's salary.
captain-nemo , 16 minutes ago
Breaking news
Holy ****. The Biden's received 3.5 million dollars in a wire transfer from Yelena
Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow , to launder Russian funds into the US in
order to avoid US sanctions. The fund that was laundered this way was 200 million dollars,
and for this job, the Biden's was compensated with the net sum of 3.5 million dollars. If
this is not a crime , what is?
Hunter Biden profited from his father's political connections long before he struck
questionable deals in countries where Joe Biden was undertaking diplomatic missions as vice
president. In fact, virtually all the jobs listed on his resume going back to his first
position out of college, which paid a six-figure salary, came courtesy of the former six-term
senator's donors, lobbyists and allies , a RealClearInvestigations examination has found.
Hunter Biden: Through a lawyer, he maintained he and his father dutifully avoided "conflicts
of interest." Democratic National Convention/YouTube
One document reviewed by RCI reveals that a Biden associate admitted "finding employment"
for Hunter Biden specifically as a special favor to his father, then a Senate leader running
for president. He secured a $1.2 million gig on Wall Street for his young son, even though it
was understood he had no experience in high finance. Many of his generous patrons, in turn,
ended up with legislation and policies favorable to their businesses or investments, an RCI
review of lobbying records and legislative actions taken by the elder Biden confirms.
That the 50-year-old Hunter has been trading on his Democratic father's political influence
his entire adult life raises legal questions about possible influence-peddling, government
watchdogs and former federal investigators say. In addition, the more than two-decades-long
pattern of nepotism casts fresh doubt on Joe Biden's recent statements that he "never
discussed" business with his son, and that his activities posed "no conflicts of interest."
No fewer than three committees in the Republican-controlled Senate have opened probes into
potential Biden family conflicts. Investigators are also poring over Treasury Department
records that have flagged suspicious activities involving Hunter's banking transactions and
business deals that may be connected to his father's political influence.
U.S. ethics rules require all government officials to avoid even the appearance of a
conflict of interest in taking official actions. The Bidens have denied any wrongdoing.
While most of the attention on Hunter has focused on his dealings in Ukraine and China when
his father was in the White House, he also cashed in on cushy jobs and sweetheart deals
throughout his dad's long Senate career, records reveal.
"Hunter Biden's Ukraine-China connections are just one element of the Biden corruption
story," said Tom Fitton, president of the Washington-based watchdog group Judicial Watch, who
contends Biden used both the Office of the Vice President and the Senate to advance his son's
personal interests.
In each case, Hunter Biden appeared under-qualified for the positions he obtained. All the
while, he was a chronic abuser of alcohol and drugs, including crack cocaine, and has cycled in
and out of no fewer than six drug-rehab treatment programs, according to published reports.
He's also been the subject of at least two drug-related investigations by police, one in 1988
and another in 2016, according to federal records and reports. A third drug investigation
resulted in his discharge from the U.S. Navy Reserve in 2014.
This comprehensive account of Hunter Biden's "unique career trajectory," as one former
family friend gently put it, was pieced together through interviews with more than a dozen
people, several of whom insisted on anonymity to describe private conversations, and after an
in-depth examination of public records, including Securities and Exchange Commission filings,
court papers, campaign filings, federal lobbying disclosures, and congressional documents.
Hunter Biden's resume begins 24 years ago. Here is a rundown of the plum positions he has
managed to land since 1996, thanks to his politically connected father and his
boosters:
1996-1998: MBNA Corp.
Fresh out of college, credit-card giant MBNA put him on its payroll as "senior vice
president" earning more than $100,000 a year, plus an undisclosed signing bonus. Delaware-based
MBNA at the time was Biden's largest donor and
lobbying the Delaware senator for bankruptcy reforms that would make it harder for consumers to
declare bankruptcy and write off credit-card debt.
When Tom Brokaw asked Biden in 2008 about whether his son's job was a conflict of interest,
he snapped "Absolutely not." It was an answer he'd repeat many times in the future. NBC
News/YouTube
Besides a job for Hunter, bank executives and employees gave generously to Joe Biden's
campaigns – $214,000 total, federal records show – and one top executive even
bought Biden's Wilmington, Del., home for more than $200,000 above the market value, real
estate records show. The exec paid top dollar – $1.2 million – for the old house
even though it lacked central air conditioning. MBNA also flew Biden and his wife to events and
covered their travel costs, disclosure forms show.
Sen. Biden eventually came through for MBNA by sponsoring and whipping votes in the Senate
to pass the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Act.
When NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw
asked Biden during the 2008 presidential campaign whether it was wrong "for someone like
you in the middle of all this to have your son collecting money from this big credit-card
company while you were on the (Senate) floor protecting its interests," Biden gave an answer he
would repeat many times in the future: "Absolutely not," he snapped, arguing it was completely
appropriate and that Hunter deserved the position and generous salary because he graduated from
Yale.
1998-2001: Commerce Department
Hunter also capitalized on the family name in 1998 when he joined President Clinton's
agency. In spite of having no experience in the dot-com industry, he was appointed "executive
director of e-commerce policy coordination," pulling down another six-figure salary plus
bonuses.
He landed the job after his father's longtime campaign manager and lawyer William Oldaker
called then-Commerce Secretary William Daley, who'd also worked on Biden's campaigns, and put
in a good word for his son, according to public records.
2001-2009: Oldaker, Biden &
Belair
After Republican President George W. Bush took over the Commerce Department, Hunter left the
government and joined Oldaker to open a lobbying shop in Washington, just blocks from Congress,
where he gained access to exclusive business and political deals.
Robert Skomorucha: Hunter had "a very strong last name that really paid off in terms of our
lobbying efforts." LinkedIn
Federal disclosure forms show Hunter Biden
and his firm billed millions of dollars while lobbying on behalf of a host of hospitals and
private colleges and universities, among other clients. In a 2006 disclosure statement
submitted to the Senate, Hunter said his clients were "seeking federal appropriations
dollars."
Hunter won the contract to represent St. Joseph's University from an old Biden family friend
who worked in government relations at the university and proposed he solicit earmarks for one
of its programs in Philadelphia. The friend, Robert Skomorucha, remarked in a press
interview that Hunter had "a very strong last name that really paid off in terms of our
lobbying efforts."
These clients, like MBNA, also favored bankruptcy reforms to make it harder for patients and
students to discharge debt in bankruptcy filings. At the same time Hunter was operating as a
Beltway lobbyist, he was receiving "consulting
payments" from his old employer MBNA, which was still courting his father over the bankruptcy
reforms.
In 2007, Hunter also dined with a private prison lobbyist who had business before a Senate
Judiciary subcommittee Joe Biden chaired, according to published reports. Senate rules bar
members or their staff from having contact with family members who are lobbyists seeking to
influence legislation.
William Oldaker: Did not just make Hunter a rich lobbyist, but secured him a $1 million loan
that went sour. ldaker & Willison
Hunter's lawyer-lobbyist firm was embroiled in a conflict-of-interest controversy in 2006
when it was criticized for representing a lobbyist under investigation by the House ethics
committee. The lobbyist was still taking payments from his old K street firm while working as a
top aide on the House Appropriations Committee. Hunter at the time was lobbying that same
committee for earmarks for his clients.
William Oldaker did not just make Hunter a rich lobbyist. Oldaker also secured a $1 million
loan for him through a bank he co-founded, WashingtonFirst, that Hunter sought for an
investment scheme, which later went sour.
Joe Biden deposited hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign and political action
committee donations at WashingtonFirst, while funneling hundreds of thousands in campaign and
PAC expenditures to Oldaker, Biden & Belair. Joe Biden's payments to Hunter's lobbying
firm, including more than $143,000 in 2007 alone, were listed as "legal services" in Federal
Election Commission filings.
Oldaker did not respond to a request for comment left at his office.
National Group: Hunter won earmarks for the University of Delaware and other Biden
constituents. thenationalgroup.net
2003-2005: National Group
LLP
While serving as a partner at Oldaker, Biden & Belair, Hunter also registered as a
lobbyist for National Group, a lobbying-only subsidiary which shared offices with OB&B and
specialized in targeted spending items inserted into legislation known as "earmarks."
Hunter represented his father's alma mater, the University of Delaware, and other Biden
constituents and submitted requests to Biden's office for earmarks benefiting these clients in
appropriations bills.
2006-2007: Paradigm Companies LLC
In 2005, when Joe Biden was thinking about making another run at the White House, after a
1987 bid that ended in plagiarism charges, his lobbyist son was looking for a new line of work
too.
In early 2006, Wall Street executive and Biden family friend Anthony Lotito said, Biden's
younger brother, Jim, phoned him on behalf of the senator. He said Biden wanted his youngest
son – whom he still called "Honey" – to get out of the lobbying business to avoid
allegations of conflicts of interest that might dog Biden's presidential bid.
"Biden was concerned with the impact that Hunter's lobbying activities might have on his
expected campaign [and asked his brother to] seek Lotito's assistance in finding employment for
Hunter in a non-lobbying capacity," according to a January 2007
complaint that Lotito filed in New York state court against Hunter over alleged breach of
contract in a related venture. (Jim and Hunter Biden denied such a phone call took place as
described.)
Lotito told the court he agreed to help Hunter as a favor to the senator, who had served on
the powerful banking committee. He figured "the financial community might be a good starting
place in which to seek out employment on Hunter's behalf," the court
documents state. But he quickly found that Wall Street had "no interest" in hiring
Biden.
So the Bidens hatched a scheme to buy a hedge fund, "whereby Hunter would then assume a
senior executive position with the company." And Lotito helped broker the deal. Despite having
no Wall Street experience, Biden was appointed interim CEO and president of the Paradigm
investment fund and given a $1.2 million salary, according to SEC filings
. Lotito joined the enterprise as a partner, and agreed to shepherd Hunter, still in his
mid-thirties, through his new role in high-finance.
"Given Hunter Biden's inexperience in the securities industry," the
complaint states, it was agreed that Lotito would maintain an office at the new holding
company's New York headquarters "in order to assist Biden in discharging his duties as
president."
After the venture failed, Lotito sued the Bidens for fraud. The Bidens countersued and the
two parties settled in 2008.
2006-2009: Amtrak
During this same period, Hunter was appointed vice chairman of the taxpayer-subsidized rail
line, thanks to the sponsorship of powerful Democratic Sen. Harry Reid, a political ally of his
father.
Joe Biden: The "senator from Amtrak" had a son from Amtrak too. Michael Perez/AP for
Siemens
In a 2006 statement
submitted to the Senate during his confirmation, Hunter asserted that he was qualified for the
Amtrak board because "as a frequent commuter and Amtrak customer for over 30 years, I have
literally logged thousands of miles on Amtrak."
Amtrak has been a major supporter of Joe Biden, donating to both his Senate and presidential
campaigns and even naming a train station after him in Wilmington. In return, Biden has
supported taxpayer subsidies for the government railroad throughout his political career.
In his testimony, Hunter denied his Amtrak appointment pushed conflict-of-interest
boundaries.
2009- : Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC
Hunter co-founded the investment firm five months after his father moved into the White
House and incorporated it in his father's home state of Delaware, which has strict corporate
secrecy rules.
At the time, Obama had tapped Vice President Biden to oversee the recovery from the
financial crisis. Three weeks after Rosemont was incorporated, Hunter and his partners set up a
subsidiary called Rosemont TALF and got $24 million in loans from the federal program known as
the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility. TALF was designed to help bail out banks and
auto lenders hit by the crisis.
Within months, Rosemont had secured a total of $130 million from the program. Some of the
government cash was then funneled into an investment fund incorporated in the Cayman Islands,
SEC records show. Such offshore
accounts are commonly used to evade taxes.
The move raised ethical flags with government watchdogs who suspected the bailout cash was
used to benefit a well-connected insider.
Other records reveal that another subsidiary created years later – Rosemont Realty
– touted to its investors that board adviser Hunter was politically connected. It
highlighted in a company prospectus that he was the "son of
Vice President Biden."
2009-2012: Eudora Global
On his resume, Hunter also lists himself as "founder" of yet another investment firm. But
Eudora's articles of incorporation show it was actually set up by a major Biden donor, Jeffrey
Cooper, who put Hunter on his board after his father became vice president.
A self-described "friend of the Biden family," Cooper also happened to run one of the
largest asbestos-litigation firms in the country -- SimmonsCooper LLC -- and had courted Biden
to make it easier to file asbestos lawsuits by defeating tort reforms. As a leader on the
Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden had blocked reform
of asbestos litigation every time bills reached the Senate floor.
Cooper's law firm, which directly lobbied the Delaware senator's office to kill such bills,
donated more than $200,000 to Biden's campaigns over the years, as well as his Unite Our States
PAC, FEC records show. In fact, SimmonsCooper was one of Biden's biggest donors
during his failed 2007-2008 run for president, pumping $53,000 into his campaign.
The firm also put up $1 million in investment capital to help his son buy out the Paradigm
hedge fund as part of the arrangement brokered by another Biden family friend, Lotito, to find
non-lobbying work for Hunter.. Thanks in large part to Biden's effort to kill bills reining in
asbestos trial lawyers, SimmonsCooper has hauled in more than $1 billion for alleged asbestos
victims.
Attempts to reach Cooper for comment were unsuccessful.
2009-2016: Boies Schiller
Flexner LLP
When Joe Biden became Vice President, Hunter landed a high-paying, no-show job at the New
York-based law firm, a Democrat shop long tied to the Clintons. Another major Biden donor, the
firm gave him the title "of counsel."
Boies Schiller Flexner: Got Fraud charges against Hunter Biden dismissed, then brought him
aboard. Boies Schiller Flexner
Boies Schiller brought Hunter aboard in 2009 after the Bidens hired the firm to defend
Hunter against charges he defrauded partners in the Paradigm investment venture. Boies Schiller
managed to get the case
dismissed .
In 2014, a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch, who was under investigation and looking to repair his
reputation to attract Western investors, started sending large payments to Boies to support
Hunter for unspecified work. It's unclear what Hunter did for the oligarch, who ran the gas
giant Burisma, but $283,000 showed up at the same time his father was tapped by Obama to play a
central role in overseeing U.S. energy policy in Ukraine.
Boies Schiller has pumped more than $50,000 into Biden's campaigns, Federal Election
Commission records show.
2013-2019: BHR Partners
After Obama named Biden his point man on China policy, Rosemont Seneca set up a joint
venture worth $1 billion with the Bank of China called BHR – and Hunter was named
vice-chairman and director of the new concern.
BHR Partners: Hunter arranged for one of his Chinese partners to shake hands with his
father, the vice president. Beijing approved a business license shortly afterward. BHR
Partners
Following in the shadow of his father's political trajectory, Hunter's new venture won the
first-of-its-kind investment deal with the Chinese government at the same time Biden was
jetting to Beijing to meet with top communist leaders. Secret Service records reveal Hunter
flew to China on Air Force Two with his father while brokering the December 2013 deal. He
arranged for one of his Chinese partners to shake hands with the vice president. BHR was
registered 12 days later. Beijing OK'd a business license shortly afterward.
"No one else had such an arrangement in China," said Peter Schweizer, president of the
Government Accountability Institute.
Hunter resigned from the board of the Beijing-backed equity firm earlier this year as his
father faced growing criticism on the campaign trail over what critics called a glaring
conflict of interest. He did not, however, divest his 10% equity stake in the Chinese fund,
which is estimated to be worth tens of millions of dollars.
Schweizer, whose books include
"Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America's Progressive Elites," said Biden went
"soft" on the Chinese communists so his son could "cash in" on China business deals. Biden
insists he did not discuss the venture with his son before, during or after his official visit
to Beijing. But others see obvious hypocrisy at play in the Biden family's self-dealing in
notoriously corrupt China.
"Biden was one of the most vocal champions of anti-corruption efforts in the Obama
administration. So when this same Biden takes his son with him to China aboard Air Force Two,
and within days Hunter joins the board of an investment advisory firm with stakes in China, it
does not matter what father and son discussed," said Sarah Chayes, author of
"Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens National Security." "Joe Biden has enabled this
brand of practice."
2013-2014: U.S. Navy Reserve
Hunter was selected for a direct commission as a public affairs officer in a Virginia
reserve unit.
He clearly received special treatment in securing the part-time post. Officers had to issue
him two waivers – one for his age and one for a previous drug offense.
His vice president father swore him in at the White House in a small, private ceremony.
Barely a year later, authorities booted Hunter from the Navy for cocaine use after he tested
positive from a urine test. The reason for his discharge was withheld from the press for
several months.
2014-2019: Burisma Holdings
The Ukrainian gas giant added Hunter to its board soon after Obama named his father his
point man on Ukraine policy, focusing on energy. The company paid his son as much as $83,000 a
month, even though he had no energy experience to bring to the table and was required to attend
just one board meeting a year.
Golf buddies: White House visitor logs show that Joe Biden met with Hunter's business
partner Devon Archer, far left, on April 16, 2014. Burisma put Archer on its board shortly
thereafter, followed by Hunter, far right, the next month. Fox News
At the time, the vice president was steering U.S. aid to Kiev to help develop its gas
fields, which stood to benefit Burisma as the holder of permits to develop natural gas in three
of Ukraine's most lucrative fields. Biden promised Ukrainian officials the US would pump more
than $1 billion into their energy industry and economy during a visit to Kiev in late April
2014. He urged leaders to increase the country's gas supply and to rely on Americans to help
them. Less than three weeks later, Burisma appointed his son to the board, after already
retaining him for undisclosed services through Boies Schiller.
Burisma was run by an oligarch, Mykola Zlochevsky, who was under investigation at the time
and seeking Western protection from prosecution. In a move observers suspect was intended to
send a message to prosecutors, the company sent out a news release in May 2014 claiming,
falsely, that Hunter would be in charge of its "legal unit." Burisma also trumpeted the fact
that Hunter was "the son of the current U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden."
Biden's office was aware Burisma was under investigation. The administration had tried to
partner with the gas company through U.S. aid programs, but the outreach project was blocked
over corruption concerns lodged by career diplomats.
Viktor Shokin, ex-Ukraine prosecutor: "The truth is that I was forced out because I was
leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma, and Joe Biden's son was a member of the
board," he said in a recent sworn affidavit
prepared for a European court. AP Photo/Sergei Chuzavkov, File
In early 2016, Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees if Ukraine
did not dismiss the country's top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma. "If
the prosecutor is not fired," Biden recalled telling Ukraine's leader, "you're not getting the
money."
Biden's muscling worked: Shokin was sacked in March 2016.
The former vice president says he was carrying out official U.S. policy that sought to
remove an ineffective prosecutor. But Shokin had raided the home of Burisma's owner and seized
his property.
In addition, Shokin said that as part of his probe he was making plans to interview Hunter
about millions of dollars in fees he and his partners had received from Burisma. He insists he
was fired because he refused to close the investigation.
"The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe
into Burisma, and Joe Biden's son was a member of the board," Shokin said in a recent sworn
affidavit
prepared for a European court. "I assume Burisma had the support of Joe Biden because his son
was on the board." He added that the vice president himself had "significant interests" in
Burisma.
The prosecutor who replaced Shokin shut down the Burisma probe within 10 months. Burisma's
founder was also taken off a U.S. government visa ban list.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT
MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Burisma/Wikimedia
Biden claims he only learned of his son joining the Burisma board from the news media. But
there is evidence Biden had been consulted in advance. White House visitor logs show that Biden
met with Hunter's business partner Devon Archer on April 16, 2014. Burisma put Archer on its
board shortly thereafter, followed by Hunter the next month. (Both Archer and Hunter maintain
Burisma never came up during the private visit in Biden's office, which lasted late into the
night.)
The day after Joe Biden's meeting with Hunter's partner in the White House, Burisma
executive Vadym Pozharskyi reportedly emailed Hunter to thank him for inviting him to
Washington and "giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent[sic] some time together."
The Biden campaign asserts it cannot find a meeting with Pozharskyi on the former vice
president's "schedule," though it did not deny such a meeting could have taken place. The
Ukrainian official mentioned going out for coffee with Hunter on April 17, 2014, which
indicated he was physically in D.C. at the time. RCI has not confirmed the authenticity of the
April 17 email document, first disclosed by the New York Post after obtaining it from a hard
drive allegedly copied from a laptop of Hunter Biden left at a computer repair shop in
Wilmington, Del. Pozharskyi did not respond to emails seeking comment.
Hunter stepped down from Burisma's board in April 2019, a month before his father announced
his White House bid and after critics made an issue of the conflicts his sinecure posed. He has
since kept a very low profile. Unlike Trump's children, Biden's son is not out on the trail
campaigning for him.
1,850 Boxes Sealed Until After Election
"Hunter Biden had no experience in the field, but he did have a notable connection to the
vice president, who publicly has bragged about making clear to the Ukrainians that he alone
controlled U.S. aid to the country," noted Jonathan Turley, a public-interest law professor at
George Washington University.
Retired FBI official I.C. Smith, who led public corruption investigations in Washington and
Little Rock, Ark., said both father and son should have known joining Burisma was a bad idea,
adding that it gives at least the appearance he was leveraging his name for payoffs from shady
clients abroad.
I.C. Smith, ex-FBI official: "I would think, given Hunter's past, the father would have
asked more questions." icsmith.com
"Clearly he's led a troubled life and would be the sort of person susceptible to becoming
engaged in this sort of rather sordid deal," Smith said of Hunter.
"When he said his father asked if the deal was on the up and up and was assured it was, I
would think, given Hunter's past, the father would have asked more questions," he added.
Hunter acknowledged in an ABC News interview last year that he lacked experience in both
energy and Ukraine, but maintained that Burisma was impressed by other things on his
resume.
"Ironically, Hunter highlighted his work at MBNA and his work on the board of Amtrak as
evidence of his qualifications for the Burisma gig," said Fitton of Judicial Watch. "But both
the MBNA and Amtrak jobs, under any sensible analysis, were obvious favors for Joe Biden."
Fitton argued that Biden's claim he never discussed his son's jobs and business deals rings
hollow against the lengthy record of something-for-nothing nepotism.
"That's campaign spin," he said. "Hunter has already admitted to having at least one
conversation on the Ukraine issue with Vice President Biden."
Biden defenders argue that many relatives of politicians are often involved in government
and politics. Ivanka Trump and Don Trump Jr., for instance, have cozy relationships with, or
financial stakes in, companies that may benefit from those decisions. They also point out that,
while they may look bad, there's nothing illegal about such arrangements.
Fitton isn't so sure. He said Judicial Watch is demanding Obama administration documents
related to Hunter's Ukraine and China deals, as well as other business arrangements potentially
monetizing Biden's political power.
"We can't be sure if the arrangements were legal," he said. "If any payments or jobs were
neither ordinary nor customary, there may be legal issues."
It's a federal crime to provide a government benefit or favorable change in policy in
exchange for something of personal value. At a minimum, argued former federal prosecutor Andrew
McCarthy, Biden "had a conflict of interest with the position his son had" on the Burisma
board, noting that at the time, Biden was pushing energy policies that favored the gas
giant.
The Biden School, part of the University of Delaware, which is keeping a lid on Biden
records. Biden School of Public Policy and Administration
Not all of Hunter Biden's critics are coming from the right, either.
"It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Hunter's foreign employers and partners were seeking
to leverage Hunter's relationship with Joe, either by seeking improper influence or to project
access to him," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, a liberal watchdog group
based in Washington.
The Biden Institute: Maggie Haberman, New York Times White House correspondent, was a
featured speaker in 2018, according to its website . The
University of Delaware holds more than 1,850 boxes of Biden records
under seal . Biden
Institute/University of Delaware
While Joe Biden insists "there's been no indication of any conflict of interest from Ukraine
or anywhere else," Senate investigators are seeking a number of related emails and memos
generated during the Obama administration, as well as his 36-year Senate career. That period,
spanning from 1973 to 2009, coincides with a large chunk of his son's resume.
However, Biden has sealed the bulk of the records at the University of Delaware Library,
which
refuses to release any of his papers until after the election. It maintains more than 1,850
boxes of Biden records, including his speeches, voting records, position papers and notes from
confidential interviews he's conducted with foreign leaders, among other documents. The
papers the
university is keeping a lid on could shed light on Biden's thinking behind foreign policies and
controversial bills he sponsored.
A spokeswoman said the library will not release any of Biden's papers to the public until
they are "properly processed and archived." Until then, "access is only available with Vice
President Biden's express consent," she said, while declining to answer whether the university
would comply if the Senate subpoenaed documents as part of its investigation of the Bidens.
The university houses the Biden Institute, which is part of the Joseph R. Biden, Jr. School
of Public Policy and Administration.
Through a lawyer, Hunter maintained he and his father dutifully avoided "conflicts of
interest" -- or even "the appearance of such conflicts." In every business pursuit, he
asserted, they acted "appropriately and in good faith."
However, in a moment of candor during a recent ABC News interview, Hunter confessed: "I
don't think that there's a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name
wasn't Biden," before adding, "There's literally nothing my father in some way hasn't had
influence over."
Still, the elder Biden argues it's the Trump family who has the nepotism problem. In a
recent CBS "60 Minutes" interview, he slammed the president for letting his daughter and
son-in-law "sit in on Cabinet meetings."
"It's just simply improper because you should make it clear to the American public that
everything you're doing is for them," he intoned. "For them."
play_arrow _triplesix_ , 10 minutes ago
Crickets from the MSM on the biggest political scandal in history. They can't refute it,
so they simply refuse to cover it.
I'm afraid the American Experiment is over either way, but if Biden and the Dems are
successful in stealing the election, we are destined to be the next Venezuela.
It appears the "Russia, Russia, Russia" cries from Adam Schiff and his dutiful media peons
is dead (we can only hope) as Director of National Intel John Ratcliffe just confirmed to Foxx
Business' Maria Bartiromo that:
"Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign."
As Politico's Quint Forgey details
(@QuintForgey) , DNI Ratcliffe is asked directly whether accusations leveled against the
Bidens in recent days are part of a Russian disinformation effort.
He says no:
"Let me be clear. The intelligence community doesn't believe that because there is no
intelligence that supports that."
" We have shared no intelligence with Chairman Schiff or any other member of Congress that
Hunter Biden's laptop is part of some Russian disinformation campaign. It's simply not true.
"
"And this is exactly what I said would I stop when I became the director of national
intelligence, and that's people using the intelligence community to leverage some political
narrative."
"And in this case, apparently Chairman Schiff wants anything against his preferred
political candidate to be deemed as not real and as using the intelligence community or
attempting to use the intelligence community to say there's nothing to see here."
"Don't drag the intelligence community into this. Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of
some Russian disinformation campaign. And I think it's clear that the American people know
that."
So "the emails are Russian" narrative serves the interests of political convenience,
partisan media ratings, and the national security state's pre-planned agenda to continue
escalating against Russia as part of its
slow motion third world war against nations which refuse to bow to US dictates, and
you've got essentially no critical mainstream news coverage putting the brakes on any of it.
This means this narrative is going to become mainstream orthodoxy and treated as an
established fact, despite the fact that there is no actual, tangible evidence for it.
Joe Biden could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and the mainstream
press would crucify any journalist who so much as tweeted about it. Very
little journalism is going into vetting and challenging him, and a great deal of the
energy that would normally be doing so is going into ensuring that he slides right into the
White House.
If the mainstream news really existed to tell you the truth about what's going on,
everyone would know about every questionable decision that Joe Biden has ever made,
Russiagate would never have happened, we'd all be acutely aware of the fact that powerful
forces are pushing us into increasingly aggressive confrontations with two nuclear-armed
nations, and Trump would be grilled about
Yemen in every press conference.
But the mainstream news does not exist to tell you the truth about the world. The
mainstream news exists to advance the interests of its wealthy owners and the status quo upon
which they have built their kingdoms. That's why it's
so very, very important that we find ways to break away from it and share information
with each other that isn't tainted by corrupt and powerful interests.
As we detailed previously, as the Hunter Biden laptop scandal threatens to throw the 2020
election into chaos with what appears to be solid, undisputed evidence of high-level corruption
by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, the same crowd which peddled the
Trump-Russia hoax is now suggesting that Russia is behind it all .
To wit, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who swore on National television
that he had evidence Trump was colluding with Russia - now says that President Trump is handing
the Kremlin a "propaganda coup from Vladimir Putin."
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) has gone full tin-foil , suggesting that Giuliani was a 'key
target' of 'Kremlin constructed anti-Biden propaganda.'
2/ Russia knew it had to play a different game than 2016. So it built an operation to cull
virulently pro-Trump Americans as pseudo-assets, so blind in their allegiance to Trump that
they'll willingly launder Kremlin constructed anti-Biden propaganda.
Yet, if one looks at the actual facts of the case - in particular, that Hunter Biden appears
to have dropped his own laptops off at a computer repair shop, signed a service ticket , and
the shop owner approached the FBI first and Rudy Giuliani last after Biden failed to pick them
up, the left's latest Russia conspiracy theory is quickly debunked .
This is the story of an American patriot, an honorable man, John Paul Mac Issac, who tried
to do the right thing and is now being unfairly and maliciously slandered as an agent of
foreign intelligence, specifically Russia. He is not an agent or spy for anyone. He is his own
man. How do I know? I have known his dad for more than 20 years. I've known John Paul's dad as
Mac. Mac is a decorated Vietnam Veteran, who flew gunships in Vietnam. And he continued his
military service with an impeccable record until he retired as an Air Force Colonel. The crews
of those gunships have an annual reunion and Mac usually takes John Paul along, who volunteers
his computer and video skills to record and compile the stories of those brave men who served
their country in a difficult war.
This story is very simple – Hunter Biden dropped off three computers with liquid
damage at a repair shop in Wilmington, Delaware on April 12, 2019. The owner, John Mac Issac,
examined the three and determined that one was beyond recovery, one was okay and the data on
the harddrive of the third could be recovered. Hunter signed the service ticket and John Paul
Mac Issac repaired the hard drive and down loaded the data . During this process he saw some
disturbing images and a number of emails that concerned Ukraine, Burisma, China and other
issues . With the work completed, Mr. Mac Issac prepared an invoice, sent it to Hunter Biden
and notified him that the computer was ready to be retrieved. H unter did not respond . In the
ensuing four months (May, June, July and August), Mr. Mac Issac made repeated efforts to
contact Hunter Biden. Biden never answered and never responded. More importantly, Biden stiffed
John Paul Mac Issac–i.e., he did not pay the bill.
When the manufactured Ukraine crisis surfaced in August 2019, John Paul realized he was
sitting on radioactive material that might be relevant to the investigation. After conferring
with his father, Mac and John Paul decided that Mac would take the information to the FBI
office in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Mac walked into the Albuquerque FBI office and spoke with an
agent who refused to give his name. Mac explained the material he had, but was rebuffed by the
FBI. He was told basically, get lost . This was mid-September 2019.
Two months passed and then, out of the blue, the FBI contacted John Paul Mac Issac. Two FBI
agents from the Wilmington FBI office–Joshua Williams and Mike Dzielak–came to John
Paul's business . He offered immediately to give them the hard drive, no strings attached.
Agents Williams and Dzielak declined to take the device .
Two weeks later, the intrepid agents called and asked to come and image the hard drive. John
Paul agreed but, instead of taking the hard drive or imaging the drive, they gave him a
subpoena. It was part of a grand jury proceeding but neither agent said anything about the
purpose of the grand jury. John Paul complied with the subpoena and turned over the hard drive
and the computer.
In the ensuing months, starting with the impeachment trial of President Trump, he heard
nothing from the FBI and knew that none of the evidence from the hard drive had been shared
with President Trump's defense team.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The lack of action and communication with the FBI led John Paul to make the fateful decision
to contact Rudy Giuliani's office and offer a copy of the drive to the former mayor. We now
know that Rudy accepted John Paul's offer and that Rudy's team shared the information with the
New York Post.
John Paul Mac Issac is not responsible for the emails, images and videos recovered from
Hunter Biden's computer. He was hired to do a job, he did the job and submitted an invoice for
the work. Hunter Biden, for some unexplained reason, never responded and never asked for the
computer. But that changed last Tuesday, October 13, 2020. A person claiming to be Hunter
Biden's lawyer called John Paul Mac Issac and asked for the computer to be returned. Too late.
That horse had left the barn and was with the FBI.
John Paul, acting under Delaware law, understood that Hunter's computer became the property
of his business 90 days after it had been abandoned.
At no time did John Paul approach any media outlet or tabloid offering to sell salacious
material . A person of lesser character might have tried to profit. But that is not the essence
of John Paul Mac Issac. He had information in his possession that he learned, thanks to events
subsequent to receiving the computer for a repair job, was relevant to the security of our
nation. He did what any clear thinking American would do–he, through his father,
contacted the FBI. When the FBI finally responded to his call for help, John cooperated fully
and turned over all material requested .
The failure here is not John Paul's . He did his job. The FBI dropped the ball and, by
extension, the Department of Justice. Sadly, this is becoming a disturbing, repeating
theme–the FBI through incompetence or malfeasance is not doing its job.
Any news outlet that is publishing the damnable lie that John Paul is part of some
subversive effort to interfere in the United States Presidential election is on notice. That is
slander and defamation. Fortunately, the evidence from Hunter Biden's computer is in the hands
of the FBI and Rudy Giuliani and, I suspect, the U.S. Senate. Those with the power to do
something must act. John Paul Mac Issac's honor is intact. We cannot say the same for those
government officials who have a duty to deal with this information.
The recent
New York Post bombshell reports on Hunter Biden's alleged laptop contents included a
curious piece of evidence - a photograph of an FBI subpoena which bears the signature of the
agency's top child porn investigator, special agent Joshua Wilson .
According to the Post , a laptop was dropped off at a Delaware computer repair shop by a man
believed by the owner, John Paul Mac Isaac, to be Hunter Biden . The shop owner made a copy of
the hard drive before turning it over to the FBI, which includes incriminating emails detailing
alleged Biden family corruption in Ukraine and China, as well as a 'raunchy, 12-minute video
that appears to show Hunter smoking crack while engaged in a sex act with an unidentified
woman,' as well as ' numerous other sexually explicit images .'
FBI agent Wilson's identity was confirmed by both
Western Journal and
Business Insider , the latter of which compared his signature to a 2012 criminal complaint
and concluded that it "clearly matches the unreversed signature on the subpoena published by
the New York Post ."
As BI notes:
It's unclear whether the FBI employs more than one agent named Joshua Wilson. But the
available evidence seems to show **the Joshua Wilson who signed the subpoena for Hunter
Biden's laptop, and the Joshua Wilson who investigates child pornography for the FBI, are the
same person**. This raises the possibility, not explored by the Post, that the FBI issued the
subpoena for reasons unrelated to Hunter Biden's role in Ukraine and Burisma.
So why is the FBI's top child porn lawyer involved in the Hunter Biden laptop case? OANN 's
Chanel Rion says she's seen the contents of the hard drive, which includes "Drugs, underage
obsessions, power deals," which make "Anthony Weiner's down under selfie addiction look normal
. "
https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=www.zerohedge.com&width=890
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Meanwhile, if there is incriminating child porn on Hunter's computer, what has the FBI done
about it?
IP freely , 1 hour ago
Oh good....the FBI is involved. should go no where.
Spurius Lartius , 1 hour ago
Corruption and the FBI go together like hookers and blow. Or Lindsey Graham and little
boys.
Montana Cowboy , 1 hour ago
Project Veritas has produced more evidence than the corrupt Boy Scouts at the FBI.
SmokeyBlonde , 1 hour ago
People really need to get over the notion that the FBI is a law enforcement agency. They
have proven time and again that they only act on behalf of the deep state, oligarchs,
kleptocrats, and pederasts at the expense of the rest of us.
CrookedHillieLies , 1 hour ago
The FBI has been led by Prancing Gay Sissies, Crossdressers and Pedophiles since their
inception. Crack and Hooker Hunter Biden will never be convicted of child **** - he will
claim it was "planted" on his computer. The emails are a different problem and hopefully they
will cause him some problems with the IRS. What a dumbazz. I can't believe the DemonRATS
nominated his father to be their choice for President. Landslide for Trump / Pence / Senate /
House / Supreme Court / MAGA / KAG 2020! Let's Roll.
Cash Is King , 1 hour ago
What's that old adage about apples & trees?
Spurius Lartius , 1 hour ago
You could prolly hang anyone who has been in DC for >10 years and be sure you were
doing God's work.
OCnStiggs , 22 minutes ago
Why Is The FBI's Top Child **** Lawyer Involved In Hunter Biden Laptop Case?
Because the FBI has been covering like mad for the criminality in D.C. and they want Biden
to win.
Just sayin'.
Kan , 1 hour ago
Because he is working to hide any real evidence of any of it, please see weiners laptop
that had ALL the clinton emails and all the BIDEN corruption emails. ...
quanttech , 30 minutes ago
Tim Nolan, former judge & chairman of Donald Trump's presidential campaign in
Kentucky, pled guilty to 19 counts of child sex trafficking and on February 11, 2018, he was
sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Republican Ralph Shortey, former state senator & chairman of Donald Trump's
presidential campaign in Oklahoma was indicted on 4 counts of child sex trafficking and child
*********** and on September 17, 2018, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Republican Dennis Hastert, former Speaker of the House from 1999 to 2007 & congressman
of Illinois, was indicted on federal charges of molesting 4 young boys and on April 27, 2016,
he was sentenced to 15 months in prison.
I could go on, but suffice to say that anyone who thinks it's just Dems or just Repubs
that are the problem... are wrong.
Gardentoolnumber5 , 1 hour ago
Again, the FBI is on the case! Whoa hahahahahaha! And how long have they had a copy of the
hard drive and under Wray's FBI buried it. Ya know... can't interfere in an election 6-8
months out. Abolish the FBI. Pass those who honor their oath over into the Marshals
office.
dogismycopilot , 1 hour ago
The Russians and Chinese would have set him up with underage Moldovan, Ukrainian or
Romanian trafficked girls.
100% so they could blackmail his dad when president.
chiswickcat , 1 hour ago
A Political family involved in sex with minors, drugs and corruption? I'm shocked. Shocked
I tell you.
CheapBastard , 1 hour ago
Odd the Epstain Island flight logs handed over to the FBi have mysteriously
disappeared.
OpenEyes , 39 minutes ago
As disgusting as child **** is, somehow it seems like when they put Capone away for tax
evasion.
First of all, the FBI has had this laptop since last December and done absolutely nothing
about it. But, with Rudy turning it over to the New York Post and making it public they have
to at least appear to be doing something. (something other than investigating Russia's part
in this, which nobody with an IQ above room temperature actually believes)
My guess is that they decided "we can get him for having child *********** on his computer
and everybody will forget about that other stuff."
IronForge , 1 hour ago
Looks like Hunter is Jail-bound.
Pop would have Pardoned Hunter, and Harris would have Pardoned Pop.
However, since someone who saw the laptop content mentioned the "UnderAged" matl on TWTR,
it's safe to presume that Hunter had access to or participated in Patronizing "UnderAged
Paedo" Photos, Site Memberships, Prostitutes, Hookups, or Trafficking Arrangements.
His Strip Club Posse probably had an UnderAged Member.
Hard to Pardon Paedophiles before the BodyPolitic.
Mayor Giuliani might have several Silver Bullets here. He'll need 24/7 Escorting now since
DNC/Bidens/Obama/RED_QUEEN may be Highlighted. He might as well send a Copy to Wikileaks just
in case he gets Nailed by Bidens' Owners.
RICO+Drug+NatSec Charges would have been enough; but we are obligated as a Society to Deal
With, Due Process, and Prosecute Allegations of Paedophilia/Child Abuse/Trafficking.
Most importantly, we will bring those Girls Out of Hunters' Alleged Patronage and into
Protective Custody.
***
What a Mess. I understand some Young Girls are attracted to and want to be
Married/InRelationship/Mating with those in Fame/Power/Money quickly; but once the Male is
Out Of HS, any new "relationship" he gets involved with needs to be with Dames 18+ and Out of
HS.
chiquita , 1 hour ago
"Leave my son outta this! He has a drug problem."
lennysrv , 1 hour ago
That Biden clan, what a wonderful familial role model for the rest of the nation. Further,
I'm amazed at how productive li'l Hunter is; from making mega-deals with the Chinese and
Ukrainians to banging his dead brother's widow to knocking up a stripper to being a deadbeat
dad to smoking crack and engaging in sex acts on video.
Joe Biden has to be so very proud of the family he has created. What a model
Democrat/Liberal.
HaywoodYaBlowMe , 29 minutes ago
There are rumors, that the horrific atrocities, on the anthony weiner tape are too horrid
for the public to find out. I call bulls**t! Release the kraken. To quote Louis Brandeis:
"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Let the "people" be made aware of the
offensive behavior, perpetrated, and perpetuated by the dregs of our society. Our society
needs a good flushing. We have many turds who need to be flushed from our system. It's been
said that hardened NYPD officers, who have seen it all, were vomiting and having nightmares,
upon viewing what was on weiner's laptop. Deputy Chief Steven Silks, of the NYPD, was found
dead in his car of what was reported to be a suicide gun shot wound to his head. In fact, 9
of the 12 NYPD officials, who viewed what was on the lap top, have been found dead of
supposed suicide. This info needs to be revealed to the public.
Leguran , 1 hour ago
FBI again!!! Hunter is involved....good grief, get that to the top immediately! Now, start
the Kabuki Circus SHOW. Tarrah see, it we sent it right to the top in order to show the
complaint will be taken seriously. Meanwhile, all future information goes to the same guy at
the top and nowhere else. The job is to keep the lid on and under "investigation" so nothing
leaks. Well, Josh, I hope you do not mind me calling you Josh, where are the files and where
is the action? And, since you told the CIA Director, we can see the the present CIA Director
is involved as well.
I just do not see how the FBI can become more corrupt. Yep it is a culture of
corruption.
z tranche , 1 hour ago
Time to interview Ghislaine Maxwell and review the Epstein flight logs.
rockstone , 1 hour ago
Why? You think they were the only two people in the under age sex business catering to
Washington elites??
Lou Saynis , 1 hour ago
I think the only Washington elites who were engaging in underage sex are democrats. Maybe
I'm being biased but It's just a feeling.
DickStoneVan , 36 minutes ago
John Dennis Hastert. Longest running Republican Speaker of the house in history. A federal
judge referred to him as a "serial child molester" and sentenced him to a mere 15 months in
prison.
Lil Stevie , 1 hour ago
If there ever was a reason for TERM LIMITS this is it.
fnsnook , 1 hour ago
biden has ruling class qualified immunity. you must have missed that chapter of the
constitution.
chiquita , 1 hour ago
Hunter doesn't
Rhal , 1 hour ago
This still mild compared to what was on Anthony Wieners laptop -labeled "life insurance".
Yet no arrests were made there. I mean I get that Trump had to replace hundreds of
judges(literally) before justice could prevail, but we're still at peak corruption!.
Indictments plz.
Ecclesia Militans , 2 hours ago
The Swamp isn't going to let Joe off the hook, it's going to hold this over his head like
a Sword of Damocles to keep him at his desk for his full term, in line and compliant.
MadameDeficit , 10 minutes ago
If that computer repairman hadn't made a copy and gone to a lawyer, we never would have
heard about this.
On a similar note, it's very telling what the NY Post said about the contents - what
(aside from child p0rn) would be illegal for them to publish?
BugMan , 43 minutes ago
Hunter and Joe Biden Scandal Takes a Dark Turn -- FBI's Top Lawyer on Child **** Involved
in Case
Wray, that Deep State swamp creature, probably had the FBI remove the child **** from the
computer at Joe Biden's request. Thankfully, the computer repair agent is a super patriot
that copied the hard drive before it was seized by the FBI. Trump and Guiliani need to hide
the repair shop owner, and hire reliable protection for him, in order to protect him from
Deep State assassins.
Invert This MM , 1 hour ago
Yeah, poor little Joey. He just Quid Pro Quoed his whole carrier and got away with it
until that mean new boss came to town.
chiquita , 1 hour ago
What rock do you live under? Joe has been a horrible human being his whole adult
life--corrupt, lying, and cheating from the time he was in college. There's nothing
redeemable about him--don't ever think he "is not a terrible man"--he is and this new
information just opens up the final chapter that sheds light on a man who would use his son
for decades--going back into the early 1980s--to enrich himself and his family through
corruption that goes so deep, it's beyond criminal.
Brazillionaire , 1 hour ago
No. Biden is a pos. He's one of the main reasons so many Americans are in credit card debt
up to their eyeballs at ridiculous interest rates. And that's the legal stuff. He's corrupt
as hell. Maybe they all are. But he sure is.
Al Capone , 1 hour ago
You forgot the /sarc.
Goldencrapshoot , 1 hour ago
Anyone remember what happened to Nikolae Ceausescu?
Made in Occupied America , 1 hour ago
FBI = Friends of Biden Incorporated (in Delaware, of course)
"In this episode of Common Sense, Rudy Giuliani, who was the trailblazer for RICO
prosecutions in the 1980s, demonstrates how the thirty years of the Biden Family selling public
office, and many other crimes, makes a perfect RICO case." RICO case
Rudy lays out a solid case in the video. I'd say damning. I like the cigar ad too!
Biden has gone silent for four days. He apparently won't re-emerge until the debate
Thursday. That's what they say anyhow. How weird for this point in the election cycle! IMO,
he will probably dodge the debate because he knows Trump will hit him hard with this
material. I even think that at least one Biden will be leaving us, permanently, in the near
future.
Just when I thought the media couldn't defile themselves any further, they will sink to
the bottom of the abyss of unethical behavior to try to save the Democrats. They must either
accept defeat or go full on dictatorship, with all that implies. We are standing at the
crossroads.
The movement to discredit/disqualify any commentary on this story is intesifying. Biden's
cowering in the bunker and Obama's bringing what's left of his reputation to Philly. Lord
knows who'll attend that speech in person unless Covid, like in all the George Floyd events,
is declared risk free for his appearance. The real polling numbers must be horrendously bad
for the left.
What is your confidence that a second term Trump administration will bring those at the
highest levels of government to account unlike the current Trump administration?
What do you believe will change in a second Trump administration? Will Trump hire once
again the same types of people like Rosenstein, Wray, Kelley, Mattis, Bolton, Barr, et
al?
This week, the New York Post
dropped a veritable bombshell smack in the middle of the 2020 presidential battlefield with
a story so explosive it should have reverberated from sea to shining sea for many weeks.
Instead, the news was duly squashed under the jackboot of Twitter and Facebook. The effort to
smother the news backfired, though, instead kicking up a discussion of the social media giants
having too much control over the spread of information that could be of interest to
millions.
As most readers probably know by now, the Post reported this week that Hunter Biden had
introduced his father, Joe Biden, the current Democratic presidential contender, to the head of
Burisma, the Ukrainian energy firm where Hunter was a paid board member. What makes this
revelation so significant is that not only was Joe serving as vice president at the time of the
alleged introduction, but he has gone on record as saying he knew nothing about his prodigal
son's overseas business dealings.
The rabbit hole travels much deeper, however, considering that Joe Biden publicly bragged
about withholding one billion dollars from the Ukrainian government unless it removed a
prosecutor who was investigating Burisma at the time. And deeper still when it is remembered
that Donald Trump was impeached for simply asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Joe
Biden's activities in the country.
Had the social media monsters had no political 'dog in the fight,' so to speak, the Post
story would have lit up Twitter and Facebook like Saturday night at the amusement arcade.
Instead, both platforms quickly yanked the plug on the story, preventing even the Post from
tweeting it out. Twitter explained its decision by saying the article had violated its policy
with regard to "hacked material."
That excuse does not hold a drop of water. According to the Post, Hunter Biden's emails were
found in a laptop delivered to a computer repair shop in Delaware back in April 2019 –
allegedly by Hunter Biden himself. When the laptop was never retrieved, however, the shop owner
assumed legal ownership of the device as was his right. In other words, there was no
illegal hacking of the device, as suggested by Twitter. In fact, the computer repairman was
sufficiently concerned with what he had found on the laptop that he promptly handed the device
over to the FBI, also providing a copy of the hard drive to Rudy Giuliani, a member of Trump's
legal team.
If Twitter was genuinely concerned about the origins of the Biden email story, going so far
as to block even the
government's ability to retweet the Post story, then how does one explain the company's
decision not to interfere with the New York Times and its exposé on Donald Trump's tax
status? After all, the Times never mentioned who provided the US president's financial
documents, which have still not seen the light of day. Think about that. The Post story was
censored over documents it can actually produce, while the Times story was put on the fast lane
to public consumption with zero physical evidence to support its claims.
Why was Twitter not suspicious that the New York Times
had received hacked material, as very well could have been the case? It would be very difficult
to explain that as anything other than naked political interference and meddling, which Silicon
Valley and the Democratic Party, by the way, would have us believe is the sole purview of
Russia.
Should Twitter and Facebook lose Section 230 immunity?
Needless to say, the Republicans, forever whining that they have been unfairly targeted by
Big Tech, have called on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to appear before the Senate as early as next
week. But we've been down this dead-end road before. Every several months, the Silicon Valley
CEOs make their star-studded photo-ops in Washington, swearing up and down before Congress that
they are detached, apolitical animals, with the end result being that absolutely nothing
changes. Maybe this time around, concerned Republicans (and Democrats) should finally do what
they've been promising for so long, and that is to deprive Big Tech of its immunity by
rescinding Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
For the uninitiated, Section 230 grants social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook
immunity from legal action taken as a result of bad information posted to its platforms. This
frees Big Tech from having to perform the grueling fact-checking demanded of regular
publishers; rather, they are simply supposed to serve as a free flow of information.
Yet ever since the defeat of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 elections, and the concomitant rise
of Russiagate, Big Tech went against the spirit of Section 230, creating algorithms in its
alleged battle against 'fake news' as a back door to creating its desired narrative. At the
same time, it
outsourced fact-checking to third-party organizations, among them ABC News, Snopes,
Associated Press, and the Atlantic Council, each of which naturally has its own political ax to
grind. With unsettling frequency, however, the ax has an uncanny way of dropping on the
right-leaning creators.
In fact, back in May, Twitter even marked one of Donald Trump's tweets as potentially
misleading. And now it seems that more than just the Republicans have noticed.
This week, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai promised to "move forward
with a rulemaking to clarify" the meaning of Section 230.
Judging by Pai's past record, this may signal a new dawn for social media, in which people
are granted access to platforms that do not censor their content based on political
considerations, as the First Amendment demands. Instead of taking away Big Tech's immunity from
legal responsibility, however, it would be best to keep it intact, on condition there would be
no more monkey business with users' accounts. Nothing less than total free speech. Is this a
dream too far? Possibly.
In any case, it would be poetic justice if the outcome of the 2020 presidential race between
Trump and Biden ultimately comes down to the actions of a Delaware computer repairman, for
repairs are certainly in order at this critical stage in US political history, dependent as it
now is on Big Tech.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) is calling on the FBI to 'come clean' over the agency's involvement
with Hunter Biden's laptop , after refusing to 'confirm or deny' certain details contained in a
whistleblower complaint by a Delaware computer shop owner.
" The FBI has a duty to inform us . If they believe this was maybe Russian disinformation,
they should give us a defensive briefing," Johnson told Fox News ' "Sunday Morning
Futures."
"If, for example, they also believe that what information this whistleblower gave us is
fraudulent, that would also be a crime, and FBI should tell us that."
Host Maria Bartiromo brought up a salient point - that the FBI was allegedly in possession
of Hunter Biden's laptop which contains apparent evidence of pay-for-play corruption in
Ukraine, at the same time Congressional Democrats were impeaching President Trump for asking
Ukraine to investigate exactly that.
"If the FBI was in possession of these emails from Hunter Biden's computer indicating all
of these payouts, why did they not make this public, as President Trump was being impeached
in the Senate about Ukraine?"
Johnson replied: "the larger question really is; if they had this information - and these
are genuine emails which would probably reveal all kinds of things that would have been very
relevant to the impeachment case, why did they sit out? Are they covering up because Hunter
Biden might be engaged in things that also maybe should have been investigated and possibly
prosecuted? Dow we have two systems of justice? One for Democrats, one for Republicans, one for
the well connected, vs. one for the rest of the Americans."
Bartiromo then steered the conversation to national security risks - noting that the
signature of the FBI's top child porn lawyer appeared on the subpoena for Hunter's laptop.
"The subpoena was served by an FBI agent whose name is Joshua Wilson, and over the last five
years he has been working on child pornography issues. Connect the dots - if an FBI agent is
working on child pornography issues for five years, why is he subpoenaing the laptop of Hunter
Biden? Is there a connection here? Should this suggest that there's a child pornography issue
here on that laptop?"
"Well, I think you just made the connection ," Johnson replied. "This is what the FBI has to
come clean about . This isn't a standard investigation... this is something that, as we were
talking about, relates to national security. And if there's criminal activity involved that can
be tied to Hunter Biden or his business associates, or even possibly tied back to members of
the Biden family - well some of these emails indicate that Joe Biden is fully aware of this
."
As we noted on Friday, FBI agent Wilson's identity was confirmed by both
Western Journal and
Business Insider , the latter of which compared his signature to a 2012 criminal complaint
and concluded that it "clearly matches the unreversed signature on the subpoena published by
the New York Post ."
play_arrow 2 AlaricBalth , 8 hours ago
Hunter Biden has most likely been compromised by tapes of him with young girls while he
was in China. When I was traveling back and forth to China a few years ago, I was told by our
Chinese attorney to be very cautious because Americans were always recorded in their hotel
rooms.
It was the policy of the Chinese government. Privacy laws are non existent. All Americans
were taped in the event that any American could be utilized for the benefit of the CCP in the
future.
Also, there are many high end "Karaoke" parlors in China where horizontal refreshment can
be procured. Many Americans frequent these establishments. The girls are beautiful. The
places have cameras everywhere.
Urfa Man , 4 hours ago
Thanks for mentioning the Chicoms, TBT. None of the tabloid-level sex stuff counts nearly
as much as the fact that Joe Biden's secret payoffs from the Chinese (via Ye Jianming,
Biden's Chinese paymaster). The sneaky Chinese money for Biden makes this election a
dangerous national security crisis.
Joe Biden couldn't get a security clearance for even a low level government job now, let
alone C in C of the US armed forces.
Dogbreath15 , 1 hour ago
"It's not physically possible to shame a Democrat."
The Elite Democrats WANT to sell out the country, they welcome dragging the USA through
the sewer (and then blame the opposition!)
St. TwinkleToes , 6 hours ago
Makes you wonder how many of those Asian/Chinese massage parlors are spying and collecting
operations for the CCP, filming compromising acts to be used against you when the time comes
arrives.
DeathMerchant , 5 hours ago
It's referred to as the Epstein Protocol.
optimator , 5 hours ago
Credit where it's due. Cheaper to run a few massage parlors than running an expensive
island operation.
_arrow
Warthog777 , 4 hours ago
Chinese whistleblower provided 3 hard drives of damning info from the ccp on the Biden
family, biological weapons etc. , to the DOJ, Pelowsi, and eventually Trump.
@Dragonlord. - The TrumpTard that has gone completely out of his mind. The TrumpTard wants
to blame the Biden family for the corruption, perversion, the violence & destruction of
the moral fabric in the US - LOL
The TrumpTard believes that Trump is going to solve the corruption, the political and
racial divide in Yankeelandia - LOL
Sydney Powell should be near the top of the list for candidates to replace Wray. She's
familiar with a fair amount of the chain of corruption while dealing with the Flynn
railroading. She's seen what lengths they are willing to go to and would be less apt to think
she needs to play nice once appointed.
2banana , 8 hours ago
But yet a "noose" in a NASCAR garage gets 15 FBI agents.
Ex-NYPD Commissioner: I've Seen Hunter's Hard Drive; the Bidens 'Belong in Handcuffs'
He'll be another NYPD officer to "commit suicide" as others who saw Weiner's laptop.
SDShack , 7 hours ago
and Pizzagate is just a conspiracy...yep...right.
KnightOfSwords , 7 hours ago
Pizzagate is anything but a "conspiracy theory" These people are sick, evil, degenerates.
Take a real good look at John Podesta and Hillary Clinton.
Calibabe , 8 hours ago
What is contained on Hunter Biden's laptop is enough to put anyone on this site in prison
for a long, long, long time. Yet, he remains free, walking around, not a worry in the world.
I wonder how his "wife" and the stripper who had his child feel about him now? This guy is a
major creeper. The bigger question however isn't so much what the CCP has on Hunter, but what
does the CCP have on ole Joe? You can bet that file they have is thick and probably just as
bad.
Robert De Zero , 6 hours ago
Say what you will about Rudy Giuliani. None of this would be happening right now without
him. He's truly the best friend President Trump could have. He helped get him through 4 years
of hell with the fake Russia hoax and then hits a home run in the last inning leading up to
Election Day.
Now Rudy is taking massive flak from the corrupt liar media.
Rudy, my hat is off to you sir. You deserve medals.
Robert De Zero , 6 hours ago
The tired and failed "Russia is behind everything" trope never gets old for you guys or
the fake news. Get some new material, yawn.
indaknow , 8 hours ago
Not sure how the left can spin this as Russian disinformation when Hunter's own lawyer
just last week contacted the shop owner asking for the laptop back.
Chris Wray is a deep state swamp creature. Did anyone actually expect him, or the FBI to
do the right thing and indict Biden for corruption? They have been sitting on this laptop
evidence for almost a year!!
dibiase , 8 hours ago
Those q guys were telling us to trust him just a year or so back
Fishthatlived , 8 hours ago
"Us?"
SDShack , 7 hours ago
The timing of all this is what connects the dots. 3 Laptops were dropped off in early 2019
to the computer repair shop. Work was done and technician tried to get paid for 3-4 months
and have the laptops picked up. This is now fall 2019. Then the Russian Mueller Hoax
Impeachment hits the news, and the technician realizes he is holding dynamite with a lit
fuse, so he contacts the FBI. The coverup begins by December 2019.
NOTE - this is when the Dem Primary Season is kicking off. Bernie is the leader, but no
establishment demorat can stop him and are winnowed out, especially the big donor favorite
Kamalho early on. When Bernie is feared to be the nominee, a full court press for Senile Joe
is made by the establishment to stop him. Pretty obvious now that the establishment was being
extorted by the Chicoms with the original information on these hard drives. Who would be
video taping a PASSED OUT HUNTER, and sex romps by Hunter with chinese girls, other then the
CCP? The message was install compromised Joe...or we take down your party. And Lordy...look
what happened...Senile Joe steamrolled Bernie, and Kamalho became the fallback position. I
could never figure out the reason for the demorats to rig the system for Senile Joe, who was
clearly one of the weakest candidates. It all makes sense when you realize HE was the CCP
Favorite.
They thought the only people that had the blackmail info was the CCP and the demorat
establishment and swamp. The fix was in. They never figured on an idiot crackhead giving the
hard drive evidence to a 3rd party. That wrinkle is now beyond their control and is going to
blow up DC. The Mutual Assured Destruction card has just been played. The ***-puckering on
all sides has to be reaching nuclear levels.
mc888 , 6 hours ago
I could never figure out the reason for the demorats to rig the system for Senile
Joe
Remember Obama stating he wanted a "continuation" of his administration?
It didn't surprise the informed, and understandably a bit cynical, to hear that the FBI
sat on Hunter Biden's laptop instead of seeking justice. The bureau was previously involved
in an illegal plot to take down Donald Trump, after all, and its Deep State elements would
assuredly love to see Joe Biden succeed him in January. So why would they reveal damning
information on their establishment hope? Yet suppressing Huntergate perhaps provided a
secondary benefit:
The information could be used against Biden once he was in office.
This wouldn't be anything new. It's believed that longtime, legendary FBI director J.
Edgar Hoover used "dirt files" on politicians for leverage; for one thing, it's said, this
enabled him to remain bureau head for as long as he wished. William Sullivan, once the number
three official under Hoover,
put it this way: From the moment the director got damning information on a senator, the
man would be "right in his pocket."
So not only could suppressing Huntergate get Biden in office, but then maybe it's, "Nice
presidency you've got there, Mr. Biden -- I'd hate to see anything happen to it."
Didn't Guiliani tell the FBI that they had a copy of Humper's hard drive - or the owner of
the computer business? It all sounds so convenient. No wonder Biden went into hiding, his son
probably told dad what he did and that 50% of the take was too much. Humper maybe gave dad an
ultimatum. Drug addicts are like that "you bring me down, you go down lower." Blackmail can
be a bitch.
NumbNuts , 4 hours ago
Can they come clean on:
1) JFK assassination
2) WTC 93' bombing set up
3) OKC bombing set up
4) MLK death
5) Waco
6) Just about all other domestic terrorism activities
@therealOrangeBuffoon , 4 hours ago
Conspiracy theorists have no intention of believing anything provable. It's about chasing
rainbows.
NumbNuts , 4 hours ago
Then we should believe what they have to tell us about the Russian Collusion and all
things Biden? Naive, are we?
Stu Pedassle , 4 hours ago
I can prove that Building 7 fell uniformly on it's own footprint in what appears to be a
controlled demolition - does that count?
NumbNuts , 4 hours ago
According to @therealOrangeBuffoon , you have to go with what NIST told us, before they
changed their story, thanks to AE911truth.org .
"more interesting to me and my family ..." NY Post
"Hunter Biden pursued lucrative deals involving China's largest private energy company --
including one that he said would be "interesting for me and my family,"
emails obtained by The Post show .
One email sent to Biden on May 13, 2017, with the subject line "Expectations," included
details of "remuneration packages" for six people involved in an unspecified business
venture.
Biden was identified as "Chair / Vice Chair depending on agreement with CEFC," an apparent
reference to the former Shanghai-based conglomerate CEFC China Energy Co.
His pay was pegged at "850 " and the email also noted that "Hunter has some office
expectations he will elaborate."
In addition, the email outlined a "provisional agreement" under which 80 percent of the
"equity," or shares in the new company, would be split equally among four people whose initials
correspond to the sender and three recipients, with "H" apparently referring to Biden ."
------------
Well, you can see why the Chinese wanted and needed Hunter's expertise. He had demonstrated
his worth with the Ukrainian companies.
And who is the "big guy" for whom Hunter is said to be holding 1o M? pl
Well I expect by the end of next week all them Biden voters via mail will be running to
their Supervisor of Elections offices to retract their votes. Hopefully they are allowed to,
if not, run to the courts.
As to the "Big Guy" It's Pop, you know the one who gets 50% of everything. I read that in one
of Hunters texts to his daughter that Rudy is holding.
The not so widely read Breitbart has a doozy out about Hunter's early business associate
Devon Archer, one going back to 2011. If true it's another on-target salvo to the Biden
family reputation.
...You have undoubtablely heard about the Weineresque hard drive discovery involving Hunter
Biden and his emails. You probably didn't see it on Twitter or Facebook.
Censor the press? Why yes, that's exactly what was done here. Questions from other
competitors in the press? Well those aren't banned; however, it sure looks like the Biden
campaign supplies those to the fake news reporters. Let me suggest one.
Tor, IPFS, and I2P are still available for the moment. If a serious Iron Curtain descends,
uninformed Americans can ask their friends who pirate Internet content to teach them how to
use basic anonymity and pseudonymity tech. That should work for a while, at least.
Eventually, if any hardcore privacy tech attracts mainstream users, we can expect that every
nosy private detective and her cat will have exploits to defeat it, so the march of software
development is never-ending.
However, we are not at the stage where we must teach our neighbors how to use 8kun.top.
(If you want to learn, you're welcome to join us, but honestly it has a learning curve and it
is not optimal for the present situation.)
Currently clearnet sites are summarizing anonymous research. You can reach out to
convenient new sites such as:
to get user-friendly summaries of the news that the lamestream media doesn't want you to
see. You will note that many of the stories at that site come from user-friendly news sites
that you might already know about, such as:
Perhaps it's time for people to get back to simpler lives and just quit finding any reason to
use any of the services of the "Digital Iron Curtain" establishments.
You would be surprised how much more pleasant your life will become without them. Become a
"Luddite" for our time.
I've learned that it's easy not to use the services or products of companies that have
become too political.
All good points and a very timely reminder. How does this Biden total media blackout
control comport with Democrat claims Trump is a dictator, that we will lose America if Trump
is re-elected and we must all end Trump's reign of authoritarian control?
So glad I never signed up for Twitter, do not have a Facebook account and don't even own a
cell phone. Yet the Biden "news" still broke through the high-tech censorship Wall. Democrats
are patently schizophrenic about "open borders".
regarding C-Span: " In related news C-SPAN suspends political editor Steve Scully. Yes, he
was going to be the presidential debate moderator at the second debate; now he admits he lied
about his Twitter feed being hacked. Blue, check."
I watch C Span online; have done so for years. I think C Span is one of the more insidious
of the media outlets, precisely because people think it is so "fair and balanced," "not like
Fox or CNN" that have an obvious bias.
C Span's unobvious bias is what you don't hear -- never, ever hear, and that is any word
that disparages ADL, AIPAC, or the narratives they and their myriad associated organizations
hold dear.
Steve Scully has been one of the fiercest defenders of that invisible protective barrier,
their Golden Boy for most of his career and most of C Span's existence. Maybe Scully is
becoming too expensive: C Span has begun posting advertisements before granting access to
live stream programs.
Or perhaps he's aging out. The people who ensure the above-mentioned policies prevail are
unabashed about their practice of hand-picking people like Scully: Irish, Catholic, innocent
choir-boy appearance.
As Plaintiff's Exhibit #1 I offer statements from Anita Weiner's Expanding Historical
Consciousness: The Development of the Holocaust Education Foundationhttps://tinyurl.com/y5q7eg5v
a book describing how, in the late-1980s and early 1990s Zvi Weiss proceeded step-by-step to
include "holocaust education" first at Northwestern University, where Weiss selected Irish
Catholic scholar of German history Peter Francis Hayes, spent $3000 for a substitute teacher
for Hayes's classes while he spent the semester in Israel being prepped to spearhead Weiss's
agenda. Weiss's success at Northwestern propelled him next to Notre Dame, then to
universities across the country, and then to US military academies. In 2013 a department of
holocaust studies became fully integrated into Northwestern University; it's reasonable to
assume Northwestern is not alone in this.
With respect to this hard drive, the Washington Post has an article saying that the White
House was warned last year that Rudy Giuliani was "the target of an influence operation by
Russian intelligence." The source of that information is, of course, "sources who
demanded anonymity to discuss sensitive information" and some "intercepted
communications."
So from that we are to assume that the Hunter Biden hard drive is not real, but is a
subterfuge created by the FSB, or the GRU, or perhaps by Putin himself.
The absolutely dumbest part of it all was that, by banning the Post, Twitler and Faceplant
have created more interest in the story than had they ignored it. Even NPR had to cover the
reaction to the ban, whilst curiously omitting mention of the details of the EMails.
With respect to the reporters, did anyone call the referenced person in Ukraine? Did
anyone call the local FBI and ask what happened? Did anyone ask any of the Bidens? With
respect to discrediting anyone associated with Trump, including Guliani, where have you been
since 2016?
IRON CURTAIN - what an apt reference for these times of shameless, reckless, ruinous,
fascist-like censorship, intellectual dishonesty, and utter hypocrisy.
I wrote a blog post on censorship, your second resonse about events 15 years ago is almost
as long as what I wrote and is also irrelevant to what big tech is doing with the Hunter
Biden story. Take your axe and animus against CSPAN elsewhere.
Fred,
Apparently, in believing there is something to the Hunter Biden email story, you are the
victim of yet another Russian misinformation operation designed to help their good friend
Donald Trump. That was what I'm picking up from the MSM. The FBI is even about to
confirm...er uh...I mean investigate, Russian involvement. You should be more careful!
Thankfully, socially media continues to do their job of protecting you from the forces of
evil! Can I get an "amen"?
Fred,
Too late. I read it earlier today. But I swear I only so because I was just curious as to
what kind of sinister misinformation those dastardly Ruskies are putting out there to defame
noble Joe Biden and interfere with our system of government. And, to be clear, I only read
Breitbart to see what Russia aligned far-right terrorist white supremacists are plotting.
Have to be informed to be properly on guard, you know.
And if I was ever seen in a strip club, that wasn't me, but if it was, I was only there
for the music.
No need to put me on a list, to deactivate my internet access or contact my employer to
let HR know they have an employee wandering down the crooked path to the Wrong Side of
History.
nb. Ironic that you censored my comment that detailed the way that groups given a platform
by C Span are using the US legal system to **censor** people who legitimately sought to speak
out against the proposed, and now effected, removal of the statue of Robert E Lee in
Charlottesville.
When you live in a concrete jungle and the building burn down you are left with a field of
concrete dreams.
This is a private blog, not a commercial enterprise, to which I have been granted the
privelege of writing commentary. I deleted you 600+ words, as I felt them to be nothing more
than irrelevant trolling. Long and irreleven commentary being one of the halmarks of
trolling. But since you are requesting politely I'll post them in their entirety over on an
open thread, and perhaps our host will publish them.
Attorney Adam Mueller urged the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on Tuesday to
reverse an earlier federal court ruling to unseal Maxwell's deposition. The British socialite
is charged with enabling Epstein's sexual abuse of underage girls – some allegedly as
young as 14 years old – but denies any wrongdoing.
The revelation of "intimate, sensitive, and personal" details in the deposition will
violate Maxwell's right against self-incrimination, Mueller argued, adding that those facts may
also imperil a fair trial as jurors may show prejudice towards his client.
We're concerned about preserving the status quo. There's going to be a public criminal
trial, and this will all be aired in open court... We think that vindicates the public
interest as well.
Maxwell's 418-page testimony was provided during a civil defamation suit brought by Virginia
Giuffre, who claims Epstein kept her as a "sex slave" and that the British socialite
acted as an accomplice. The deposition was filled with suggestive questions, her lawyer said,
arguing that some of Maxwell's answers could be just as "revealing" as an admission of
wrongdoing.
Meanwhile Giuffre's lawyer, David Boies, insists the deposition should be unsealed in an
"even-handed way" to ensure no context is lost, arguing there is a "substantial
presumption" of public access to the material.
Financier Jeffrey Epstein, who had many friends among US elites, died in an apparent suicide
at a Manhattan jail last year as he was awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. His former
confidant Maxwell was arrested in July and remains in custody, as the 58-year-old was deemed an
unacceptable flight risk. Mickey Mic 17 hours ago The judge ruled that the documents should be
unsealed. Ms. Maxwell has yet again sought to muddy the water as the clock clicks closer to
midnight. The federal agents who arrested Maxwell found a cellphone wrapped in tin foil inside
of her New Hampshire home in "a misguided effort to evade detection," prosecutors said Monday.
Prosecutors revealed new details of what took place the day Maxwell was arrested and argued
they underscore the risks of allowing her out of detention. They also pointed to her wealth,
saying she controls a Swiss trust worth $4 million and has an account in England that has at
times held over $2 million. "To the extent the defendant now refuses to account for her
ownership of or access to vast wealth, it is not because it does not exist it's because she is
attempting to hide it," prosecutors wrote. She shouldn't be able to delay the unsealing of
anything. Just put her on trial and let us see the court see the evidence (or lack thereof). If
she truly has nothing to hide...then why is she always trying to hide things? Maxwell former
girlfriend of Epstein; believes the convicted pedophile was murdered while awaiting trial and
fears the same ? Notice how the story was swept under the rug as quick as facts started to
emerge ? Covid, Riots kept the heat off the MSM who was found guilty of suppressing the facts
about Epstein's case. Not one name was revealed about getting compromised ? Prosecutors needs
to set their sights higher !!!! alfredi 17 hours ago Strange - a defendant doesn't want the
crimes committed to be exposed. Shekelsburg 6 hours ago She is afraid Trump will off her too.
Nathan075 17 hours ago What she means to inform the judges is " If you give away Israel's game
( after all I am a stooge), then you will be open to extermination" Veritas Nathan075 12
minutes ago It will be Ghislaine herself who will be in danger from Mossard operatives not the
judges, just remember what happened to her boss Epstein. RRRicD Nathan075 15 hours ago This
strikes so close to the truth its the Elephant in the room no one will look at. Truthfrees 12
hours ago She has a lot of money and connections to the Mossad, who have connections to USA
justice system. She will likely get a get out of jail card by simply exposing a few higher ups
and work a sweet deal to escape to EU or Israel where she will not be charged or sued by the
victims. bookburner451 8 hours ago Sensitive to whom? The intelligence agencies that ran her?
Carl Cuckproof 14 hours ago who was her dad i forget. heard he was with our greatest allies
Reply Veritas Carl Cuckproof 10 minutes ago Maxwell the owner of the UK's Daily Mirror and
allegedly an Israeli spy, he drowned at sea. Reply Ally Hauptmann-Gurski Carl Cuckproof 14
hours ago Her Dad plundered people's pension accounts and sent the money to New York where she
was to have a newspaper. But then Daddy died unexpectedly and young Ghislaine needed a
financial adviser. She found that in the Epstein brothers who became quite wealthy with the
stolen money. She had still access to it though, and therefore paid her hideout with 2 million
cash after Epstein's death. Shekelsburg 6 hours ago How much did Trump pay her? Reply 1 Veritas
Shekelsburg 7 minutes ago I do not believe anyone in the Republicans were involved with Epstein
to any gre talmudicticks Dmitri193 10 hours ago I rather see her getting a life sentence in
prison, i expect the female prisoners as intolerant to pedo's as the male section.
"... Passenger logs for Epstein's four helicopters and three planes have been subpoenaed by Virgin Islands AG Denise George, who recently sued the disgraced financier's estate for 22 counts including human trafficking, child abuse, neglect, prostitution, aggravated rape, and forced labor, according to a Sunday report by the UK Mirror. ..."
"... Epstein pilot David Rodgers previously provided a passenger log in 2009 tying dozens of politicians, actors, and other celebrities to the infamous sex offender – including former US President Bill Clinton, actor Kevin Spacey, and model Naomi Campbell. ..."
"... George has also subpoenaed more than 10 banks – including JPMorgan, Citibank, and Deutsche Bank – in her quest to get to the bottom of the financial edifice Epstein built up before he died. The financial institutions have been ordered to submit documents related to some 30 corporations, trusts, and nonprofit entities tied to the predatory playboy. ..."
The US Virgin Islands Attorney General has subpoenaed 21 years' worth of deceased pedophile
Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs, reportedly striking fear in the hearts of high-profile
passengers not yet exposed as Lolita Express riders.
Passenger logs for Epstein's four helicopters and three planes have been subpoenaed by
Virgin Islands AG Denise George, who recently sued the disgraced financier's estate for 22
counts including human trafficking, child abuse, neglect, prostitution, aggravated rape, and
forced labor, according to a Sunday report by the UK Mirror.
In addition to the passenger lists, George has requisitioned " complaints or reports of
potentially suspicious conduct " and any " personal notes " the pilots made while
flying Epstein's alleged harem of underage girls around the world. She also wants the names and
contact information of anyone who worked for the pilots – or who " integrated with or
observed " Epstein and his passengers.
Epstein pilot David Rodgers previously provided a passenger log in 2009 tying dozens of
politicians, actors, and other celebrities to the infamous sex offender – including
former US President Bill Clinton, actor Kevin Spacey, and model Naomi Campbell.
However,
lawyers for Epstein's alleged victims have argued that list did not include flights by
Epstein's chief pilot, Larry Visoski, who allegedly worked for him for over 25 years.
" The records that have been subpoenaed will make the ones Rodgers provided look like a
Post-It note ," a source told the Mirror over the weekend, claiming that George's subpoena
had triggered a " panic among many of the rich and famous. "
Epstein's private plane, nicknamed the Lolita Express, counted among its passengers such
luminaries as the UK's Prince Andrew, celebrity lawyer Alan Dershowitz, actor Chris Tucker,
Harvard economist Larry Summers, Hyatt hotel mogul Tom Pritzker, and model agency manager
Jean-Luc Brunel along with Campbell, Spacey, and Clinton (who the logs show flew with Epstein
over two dozen times). However, the passengers who enjoyed his other aircraft have not been
made public – yet.
George has also subpoenaed more than 10 banks – including JPMorgan, Citibank, and
Deutsche Bank – in her quest to get to the bottom of the financial edifice Epstein built
up before he died. The financial institutions have been ordered to submit documents related to
some 30 corporations, trusts, and nonprofit entities tied to the predatory playboy.
Epstein supposedly committed suicide last year in a Manhattan jail facility, while his
accused madam Ghislaine Maxwell remains imprisoned in a Brooklyn detention center awaiting
trial on charges related to child trafficking and perjury after her arrest earlier this year.
Maxwell's lawyers have struggled to keep documents introduced as part of a recent defamation
suit by one of Epstein's alleged victims under seal, insisting the information would deny her a
fair trial.
Private Equity Billionaire Leon Black To Receive Subpoena Over Decades-Long Relationship
With Jeffrey Epstein by Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2020 - 16:50
Twitter Facebook Reddit EmailPrint
Officials in the US Virgin Islands plan to subpoena billionaire investor Leon Black over his
decades-long relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to the
New
York Times .
Epstein served as a director on the Leon Black Family Foundation for over a decade, while
the pedophile accepted a $10 million donation for his Gratitude America foundation from Black's
"BV70 LLC" charity.
Meanwhile, after Epstein got out of prison for pedophilia , Black met with the financier at
his company's New York offices. Black also dispatched Apollo co-founder Marc Rowan to attend a
meeting at Epstein's Manhattan mansion with representatives of Edmond de Rothschild Group to
discuss how the two firms could work together more closely, people with knowledge of the
meeting told
Bloomberg in July, 2019.
On Thursday, US Virgin Islands attorney general Denise N. George notified a local court that
she would issue civil subpoenas to Black, founder of Apollo Global Management, as well as
several entities he's tied to, according to the chief clerk of the court.
The subpoenas, copies of which were filed with the court, seek financial statements and
tax returns for a number of entities , including Black Family Partners and Elysium
Management, which oversee some of Mr. Black's $9 billion fortune. Subpoenas will also go to
Apollo and entities that help manage Mr. Black's extensive art collection.
Mr. Black has said Mr. Epstein provided him with advice on tax strategy, estate planning
and philanthropy, but has provided no details. A representative for Mr. Black said the
financier had no further comment.
Mr. Black and his companies paid millions in fees to Southern
Trust Company , which Mr. Epstein set up in the Virgin Islands in 2013 , according to
three people briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were
not authorized to speak publicly. - New
York Times
According to territorial officials, Epstein claimed that Southern Trust was creating a DNA
data-mining service, and would have a "financial arm." It collected $184 million in fees from
2013 - 2018, though the Times notes that it is unclear how much of that came from Black - who
claims Epstein did no work for Apollo.
Some of the firms about to receive subpoenas include companies which Black has used to build
a staggering art collection which includes works by Pablo Picasso, Edgar Degas and Henri
Matisse.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The requests represent a significant step in Ms. George's efforts to unravel the
mystery of how Mr. Epstein amassed an estate valued at more than $600 million. They are
part of a civil forfeiture suit she filed against his estate in January, claiming Mr. Epstein
had misled government officials in the Virgin Islands to secure lucrative tax breaks for his
businesses while engaging in sex trafficking and the abuse of underage girls.
Ms. George has also sent subpoenas to banks that handled Mr. Epstein's money, including
JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank . Some of the payment information involving Mr. Black
surfaced during a review by Deutsche Bank, according to one of the people briefed on the
matter. Deutsche Bank recently reached
a settlement with regulators in New York who found the bank had done little to vet Mr.
Epstein's financial dealings. - New
York Times
Black claims that he was "completely unaware" of Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking ring.
I highly doubt it. Little girls wouldn't be Trump's style. He likes flashy women, tall,
arm candy.
Clinton? Oh, yeah, he'd be in there. He's sleazier.
Trump was born rich and handsome, he never had any problem getting laid. Clinton was poor,
but handsome and smart – he used Epstein for the private jet, the flashy friends, etc.
I'd be very surprised if either one of them was drawn into Epstein's mossad honey-pot.
Epstein's targets were the powerful men who were neither rich enough nor handsome enough
to have a shadow of a hope for nailing the high school cheerleaders. Guys very much like
Epstein himself or his patrons like Wexner or Dershowitz.
Yeah, Trump's completely uncompromised by Israel, which is why he's been a Zionist dream
president while shirking nearly all of his campaign promises to actual Americans.
Did Bill slept with Maxwell? You can expect anything from this sex addict...
Notable quotes:
"... During a fueling stop at a small airport in Portugal, Epstein confidante Ghislaine Maxwell urged Davies to give the former president a massage. ..."
As if it weren't awkward enough for the party that bills itself as a defender of women to feature Bill Clinton at its
convention, photos of the ex-president with one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims surfaced on the day of his speech.
The UK's Daily Mail
published exclusive pictures on Tuesday showing Clinton receiving a massage in 2002 from 22-year-old Chauntae Davies, who was
allegedly raped by billionaire Epstein repeatedly over a period of four years. The
massage
occurred
while Clinton, along with actors Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker, flew with Epstein on the pedophile's infamous
private jet, nicknamed the Lolita Express, on a humanitarian trip to Africa.
According to the
newspaper, Clinton complained of having a stiff neck after falling asleep on the plane. During a fueling stop at a small
airport in Portugal, Epstein confidante Ghislaine Maxwell urged Davies to give the former president a massage. Clinton, who
was 56 at the time, then allegedly said to Davies,
"Would you mind giving it a crack?"
The
photos show Davies massaging Clinton's neck and shoulders as he leans back in his seat at what looks to be a small airport
lounge.
Davies, who worked for
Epstein as a masseuse, said Clinton was a
"perfect gentleman during the trip and I saw
absolutely no foul play involving him."
Nevertheless, the images serve as an untimely reminder of the many sexual misconduct allegations made against Clinton during
his years in politics and of his relationship with Epstein, a convicted sex offender who allegedly
killed
himself
last year at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York while awaiting trial on new sex trafficking charges.
A Clinton spokesman has
said the former president knew nothing about Epstein's crimes and flew on the financier's jet only four times, but
flight
logs
showed that he traveled on the plane dozens of times in 2002 and 2003. Davies and other alleged victims said in a
2020
Netflix
documentary
on Epstein that he had secret surveillance cameras at his properties to gather blackmail-worthy dirt on his
powerful friends.
"The question is, why were they taking pictures of Bill Clinton receiving a massage?"
UK
journalist Paul Joseph Watson said on Tuesday on Twitter.
"And we already know the
answer."
The Daily Mail didn't say
where it obtained the exclusive photos. Maxwell is currently in jail in New York awaiting trial on charges that she
facilitated
Epstein's abuse
of girls as young as 14.
Other Twitter users suggested that far more incriminating pictures are being held back.
"Epstein
took pics and videos of everything, and the FBI has it all,"
one said. Another said:
"If
they took pictures of this, there are most definitely worse things recorded just waiting to come out against people."
Others said Clinton should
be kept away from the Democratic National Convention, including one who tweeted:
"Bruh,
no way they can let this man speak tonight."
Another said:
"And this guy is
headlining the DNC tonight. Can't make this up."
When I lived in Europe it seemed like all the post offices had banks which offered basic
services like checking and savings. They should do that here.
seryanhoj , 2 hours ago
They have a simple ' people's ' banking system for people that don't feel up to going to
to one if the majors, and probably deal in small smounts.
The same system handles distributions from the various social schemes. Also they give low
or no cost access to buy government securities, and savings schemes. It sound a bit 'Big
Brover' , but in practice it feels good.
Demeter55 , 46 minutes ago
You are threatening the banksters! They need every last penny!
Plunder, me hearties! Plunder! Yo Ho Ho and a barrel of oil!
"President Trump wants it known that -- despite his recent decision to pull back the U.S.
militarily back from previously Kurdish-held territory in Syria -- he plans on "
keeping the oil " in Syria and using American troops to do it.
If he follows through, he'll set a dangerous precedent -- and might commit a war crime.
Keeping Syria's oil could well constitute pillage -- theft during war -- which is banned in
Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the 1907 Hague Laws and
Customs of War on Land, which states, "The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by
assault, is prohibited." The prohibition has a solid grounding in the laws of war and
international criminal justice , and the U.S. federal code , including as a
sanction for the illegal exploitation of natural resources such as oil from war zones.'
washpo
"Trump's more grave rationale is his conception of oil as remuneration for U.S. military
investment in the Middle East. In a speech Oct. 29, he said: "We want to keep the oil. $45
million a month? Keep the oil." It mirrors a sentiment he expressed to ABC News in 2011 about
Iraqi oil, saying
, "You win the war and you take it. You're not stealing anything. We're taking back $1.5
trillion to reimburse ourselves. " That argument goes well beyond the notion of securing the
oil -- it suggests trying to profit from it -- and therefore risks triggering responsibility
for pillage. Contrary to Trump's characterization, pillage is a form of stealing.
None of this is a new line of thinking for Trump: As a private citizen in 2011, in an
interview with the Wall Street Journal, commenting on U.S. military involvement in Libya,
he said : "I'm only interested in Libya if we take the oil. If we don't take the oil, I'm
not interested." Regarding Iraq, he
said : "I always heard that when we went into Iraq, we went in for the oil. I said, 'Ah,
that sounds smart.' " Indeed, he sounded disappointed during his televised announcement last
week of the killing of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, when he returned to the
subject of oil and
lamented : "I always used to say 'If they're going into Iraq, keep the oil.' They never
did. They never did."" washpo "Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said during the committee
hearing that SDF General Commander Mazloum Abdi informed him that a deal had been signed with
an American company to "modernize the oil fields in northeastern Syria", and asked Pompeo
whether the administration was supportive of it.
"We are," Pompeo responded during the hearing streamed live by PBS. "The deal took a little
longer ... than we had hoped, and now we're in implementation."" Reuters -------------- Barry
McCaffery has commented on Twitter that if we do this we are becoming pirates. As he says, the
oil belongs to Syria. I agree. pl
We're watching civil war unfold in the US and these pompous asses are busy trying to
sponge up Syrian oil, the trivial amount of stuff that is land-locked hundreds of miles from
any territory we control or is friendly to the US? God help us who is advising the tweeter in
chief? Can't Trump read an oil price chart any better than Fauci can read a Covid infection
rate? Did his son-in-law tell him what a great idea that would be? Are the warrior generals
who wouldn't defend this nation's capital against antifa, with the tacit consent at sedition
by Esper, in agreement with this line of strategic wisdom too? Maybe Senator Graham, who just
yesterday finally cornered Sally Yates into admitting under oath that the FISA warrant on
Carter Page was a fraud, is covering his bases in case the left's "resistance" to the
November election results in antifa marching into D.C. to bring Biden's secret choice as V.P.
into power? We have less reason to be in Syria than we do to still be defending Germany and
the rest of Europe from the USSR.
Well, with avarice as the guiding principle of the Trump administration's foreign policy,
at least there's no hypocrisy. Just pure, unadulterated greed. The honesty is almost
admirable. But I don't know how our Iranian policy fits into the avarice doctrine.
As far as Trump's pirate name goes, I do like the sound of "Bonespurs." I can see the flag
flying from the mainmast... a skeleton foot of or on a field of sable.
As an army of occupation the US military could requisition the oil, but according to the
Hague Regulations it can do so only for its own needs. It can not do so for the fun and
profits of the foreign state that sent that army in.
If you really, really, really squint hard then perhaps there is wriggle room under Article
55 i.e. Trump can claim that he is the usufructuary of the territory, and therefore can
benefit from the pumping.
But arguing that would be a hopeless brief.
So, yeah, Trump as a medieval warlord. Perhaps he'll also reintroduce the practice of
prima nocta.
I would accept the idea of Trump's inability to distinguish between government and
business, but people like Jeffries and the Pomp are neocon ideologues through and through.
Nothing more.
I put these comments on the open thread about the same time b started this one
https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1289724554982629377
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil to
US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White
House."
Trump a few months back "We've kept the oil". Well, he hasn't had a problem hanging onto
it and getting an American company involved.
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil
to US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White
House."
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 2 2020 14:35 utc | 2
Very likely the Kurds were under pressure from Trump, and the act wasn't voluntary. It's
not even the Kurds' oil to sign a deal on (except one well). We'll see whether the
operation actually succeeds. At the moment, everybody is waiting to see whether Trump is
re-elected in November. Signing a piece of paper now is of no significance.
Trump is clean. Well, after laundering so much money for Russian/israeli mafia , yeah,
maybe.
He has known and palled around with Epstein since Epstein was with Bear Stearns in 1978 ,
being hired after his stint at Dalton School where he taught Ace Greensbergs daughter.
Barrs father hired Epstein to teach at Dalton School in 1974 despite him only having a HS
degree. Barr Jr. was working at CIA at the time.
Trumps mentor was a homosexual named Roy Cohn who also ran a sex ring to entrap people,
prostitutes included young boys at parties held in his suite at the Plaza Hotel. After Roy
died in 1986 of AIDS , Trump bought the Plaza Hotel in 1988 and held his own parties, the
nature of which are unknown.
Clinton was attracted to girls like Monica , but who knows, maybe he found younger girls
hot too. When Donald Trump was watching his 16-year-old daughter Ivanka host the 1997 Miss
Teen USA pageant, he turned to the then-Miss Universe and asked: "Don't you think my
daughter's hot? She's hot, right?"
Epstein had a falling out with Trump over a real estate deal in Palm Beach. From some
accounts he tried to trap Trump but got caught. Trump knew what is MO was. Shortly after that
he gets charged. Trump had his own plane and his own property. I doubt he ever needed to go
to the island to sample Epstein's product, unlike Clinton. Besides he knew what Epstein was
up too, knowing Robert and Ghislaine Maxwell like he did before Clinton even ran for
President
Its curious , Trump, Kushners and Epstein all did their banking at Deutsche Bank, famous
for laundering Russian money and playing fast and loose with banking regulations. Deutsche
Banks largest shareholder is Chinese. Trump and Kushners personal wealth manager Rosemary
worked for Epsteins wealth manager at Deutsche (he hired her) who committed suicide a couple
month after Epstein. Deutsche Bank , being sued by shareholders for not being careful enough
dealing with their wealthy clients. That trial may have lead to Trump/Kushner
transactions.
So a guy who used to work for Kroll Moscow kills the judges son. Then suiciding himself.
Kroll was in charge of security for WTC and was owned by AIG. Deutsche Bank incidentally was
the bank that placed PUTS on AA and UA and was connected to Buzzy Krongard at the CIA , which
was connected to Kroll. Deutsche Bank had bought Bankers Trust while Krongard was there , and
it was this arm of Deutsche Bank that placed the PUTS.
Trumps AG Barr says he will investigate the murder. Its curious that Barr was counselor of
the law firm that handled Epsteins case and negotiated the sweet heart deal in 2008. The guy
signing off on the deal was Acosta who then joins the Trump team in 2017
Looking at Barr again. Barrs father hired Epstein in 1974 with his HS degree to teach at
Dalton School while he is at CIA. One of his students was Bear Stearns CEO daughter. Ace
Greenberg was the head of Bear Stearns, and friend of Trump, and hires Epstein in 1978.
Barr and the Clintons reportedly go way back to when Clinton was providing protection for
Bushs Iran-Contra Operation run out of a AK .
Lets look closer at Trumps Barr. He was counsel for the law firm representing Epstein in
2008, not to mention working for law firms handling CIA's Southern Air Transport (Wexner and
Epstein helped them move to Ohio to handle business out of HK in mid 90's) and the head of a
BCCI connected US bank in the 80's (First General) that the Clinton/Bush backer Stevens
attempted to buy on behalf of BCCI. Stevens ran Systematics and used and distributed the
backdoored PROMIS and also hired Foster and Hillary's law firm, and no doubt was a key to
laundering the drug money out of Mena using Clintons bond program set up for that purpose
Last time Barr was AG under Bush Sr. lots of guys were getting snuffed out and
investigations slowed , stonewalled or stopped (BCCI, Inslaw. Iran-Contra).
The same year that Casolaro died for investigating the Octopus, there were several other
suspicious deaths involving people directly connected to the Promis scandal or involved in
Casolaro's investigation of "the Octopus" -- including Alan Standorf, one of Casolaro's
sources; Robert Maxwell, father of Ghislaine Maxwell, Mossad operative, and salesman of the
bugged Promis software; and John Tower -- the former Texas senator who assisted Maxwell in
selling the bugged Promis software to the Los Alamos laboratories, and John Heinz, senator of
PA
John Heinz chaired a three-man presidential review board that probed the Iran-Contra
affair and had in his possession all the damning documents from that affair, while John Tower
led the infamous Tower Commission that investigated a variety of different CIA criminal
activities and dirty dealings and was working on a tell all book. John Heinz and John Tower
died in plane wrecks on successive days in 1991 – Tower in Georgia, and Heinz in
Montgomery County, Pa. John Kerry then marries Heinz widow, a reward perhaps for his role in
the coverup of Bush crimes.
Craig Spence, after his trafficking and exploitation of minors was exposed, died under
mysterious circumstances on 11/11/89. His death was quickly labeled a suicide, not unlike
Jeffrey Epstein's. This was the first year of the Bush administration with Barr working at
the Justice Department
Barr also advised Bush on stonewalling investigations of the CIA when Bush was CIA
Director in the 70's following his stint in China. It was Bush who began the privatization of
the CIA operations after Carter came in and pushed him out and then purged much of the CIA.
He formalized this privatization as VP under Reagan when Barr mysteriously returns to his
side and entities like the CIA front NED were created.
Maybe I am making Barr out to be more than he was but he was connected with so much stuff.
He actually signed off on spying on Americans telephone calls (international) as Bush's AG
before leaving and working for telecom industry before retiring from Verizon in 2009. So no
doubt he was involved in the domestic surveillance that was ramped up after 9/11.
By 1993, after Billy Barr leaves as AG, prosecutors in Illinois and New York who had spent
years investigating Hoffenberg's Towers Financial were able to proceed. In front of a grand
jury in Chicago, federal prosecutor Edward Kohler walked Hoffenberg, who had just agreed to
cooperate with the government, through the design of the scam. In the narrative Kohler laid
out, Epstein was the technical wizard who kept the money moving around to support
Hoffenberg's various schemes.
Epstein was never charged. Curiously Rudy Giuliani was the attorney for Towers
Financial
Food for thought, yah think? Or maybe people cant think anymore,
I think you have Barr about right, but I don't see what you think we are supposed to do
about it? I don't remember anybody here much defending him. It's true I don't read long rants
much, so there might be some. We do have a few Trumpists here, I think, but given the low
quality of the alternatives to Trump, I'm not willing to criticize them.
But your post brought Poppy back to mind, he just runs all through the political
fecklessness in this country these last 70 years or so, he brings to mind LBJ too. But
anyway, now that Poppy has gone to meet his reward, that got me thinking about the changes
that must have take place in his wake. Who is running the governments criminal underground
these days, now that Poppy is gone?
Kay Fabe @ 96
Thank you for that excellent summary of the Epstein, Maxwell racket inc background.
That's MOA At it's best. This entire post is first rate. I in tend to just listen and
learn.
It's on thing knowing about the curuption, another thing being able to do something about it
!
This is why I beleave the only true politics now is street politics, wheather we like it or
not.
There is more now that unites us than devides us. Left Right politics will include a lot of
mistrust.
Media misinformation being the deliberate course of that. Along with media self-censorship.
Until we resolve that. Civil war is enevitable!
Reed was a Vietnam vet, Air Force pilot, then recruited into CIA, worked with private
companies connected with CIA, then continued to tangle himself into training pilots in Mena
AK in the early 80s. The book is an autobio which they always leave a ton of stuff out-- I
will when I write mine (LOL)- but Reed tells the story of the Contra cocaine/arms ratline
running through Bill Clinton's Arkansas, names names: Barr, HW Bush, Barry Seal, HW's friend
Felix (he killed Che)Rodriguez,the drug addled--and involved-- Bush boys (W and Jeb). At one
point in his story Barr appears in Arkansas and threatens Clinton.
If anyone can refute this story please do. I have not been able to in over 20 years. The book
is hard to get now, very expensive, but might be in some libraries. disappeared from
mine.
Here's a youtube clip on him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H01_dY6atfc
Bottom line, my guess is that Reed was like many, ambitious young up and comer who used his
position and skills to climb until he found himself in a tangled web: a mafia cell that
easily could have snuffed him. Barr, Clintons, Bush's,... they're all players and they play
by mafia rules.
Barr...
He's in way deeper than Trump. I suspect that he is connected with the highest levels in the
CIA which means the people who want Trump to go away along with the few remaining who think
Trump is a useful idiot.
If you watch the mainstream media watch how they portray Barr. My prediction: he will not be
harmed.
Bottom line... Trump's "friends" are squirming, moving and re-positioning.
when we talk about mena arkansas, don't forget that clinton was kissing reagan's butt on
that drug smuggling/terrorist supply network, i don't think he was that addled at that point,
so the buck stops with him, being president and making a career of supporting terrorists in
central and south america.
Let me know when you actually get to any dirt. All I see is innuendo and tying together
his acquaintances.
Seems like an awful lot of brain power spent on something unlikely to bear any good fruit.
But maybe it just needs more time to ripen.
In the mean time, my comment stands. Trump was probably not engaged in any of that
activity involving innocents. His dip into Stormy Daniels is proof enough to me that he has
simple taste and worlds apart from the more refined and cultivated taste of whisking minors
to secret islands to have your way. /sarc
IMO, he continually seats himself at a different table for elites. His breakup with
Epstein probably also follows this logic: Epstein was trying harder and harder things, as
elites do, and POTUS probably sought better ties or not to be acquainted with such scum.
Truly excellent rebuttal to NemesisCalling and everyone else that thinks that Trump is
"looking clean" wrt Epstein.
Trump is not the "populist outsider" that his fans, sycophants, and apologists claim him
to be. He's an insider that has been around a long, long time. I see him as more of an
opportunist and social climber though. Qualities instilled in him by his over-bearing father.
As such, he's an enabler.
Multiple posts about Bill Barr's insider status. Don't see one that mentions he was born
CIA. His father Donald Barr was OSS and original 1947 CIA. His career move to be an
"educator" only meant that he worked in recruitment.
The CIA has factions. We are not privileged to know much about them. Barr's loyalty is
more likely with the company than withTrump.
In recently unsealed court documents involving dead child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein
and his alleged accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, a woman named Virginia Giuffre, who publicly
accused Epstein of sex trafficking, said that she once saw former Democratic President Bill
Clinton on Epstein's island with "two young girls" from New York.
In the questioning by lawyer Jack Scarola, Guiffre was asked, "Do you have any
recollection of Jeffrey Epstein's specifically telling you that 'Bill Clinton owes me
favors?'"
"Yes, I do," Guiffre answered. "It was a laugh though. He would laugh it off. You know, I
remember asking Jeffrey what's Bill Clinton doing here [on Epstein's island] kind of thing,
and he laughed it off and said well he owes me favors."
Interesting extract from Xymphora's July 31 blog entry...
Tweet (trappedpatriot):
"So they screwed up bigtime on the redactions for the Ghislaine Maxwell release today.
You can literally copy and paste the redacted pages into notepad and read them. Check out
document #143 for a great example. #Epstein #Maxwell"
The trick works (I'd like to think it is not a mistake but some direct action by a
court employee who is tired of all the lies). From document #143 (a deposition of Maxwell
where her lawyer instructs her not to answer most, but not all, questions:
...
I can wait for the Official Version but I'd be interested to hear if any of MoA's resident
sleuths have found the copy/paste assertion to be true?
It looks like they highlighted what was to be redacted in adobe instead of scanning
redacted documents manually.
Somebody screwed up? Intentionally? Mistrial for Maxwell?
Looks like Clinton "dicking (underage) blondes." I am shocked!
Trump is looking clean and I would have already guessed it with his foray into the porn
industry w/ Stormy Daniels. Whereas with paedophiles, it is about power and domination, when
you are into a chick like Daniels, you are staying simple and "keeping your cart wheel in
worn ruts." (Tao Te Ching)
Newly unsealed files tied to the Jeffrey Epstein sex-trafficking case imply that former US President Bill Clinton visited the
investor's private island along with "young girls," and that the FBI knew well about the minors' abuse.
Comprising hundreds of pages of documents, the trove was released on Thursday night following a judge's order last week to have
it unsealed, over the objections of Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend to Epstein who has recently been charged as an accomplice
in his alleged sex-trafficking operation.
The records stem from a 2015 defamation suit filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, which was placed under lock and key after
the case was settled in 2017, but was recently unsealed, as a result of a lawsuit brought last year by conservative blogger Mike
Cernovich and the Miami Herald newspaper.
Among other revelations, the documents indicate that former US president Bill Clinton consorted with "young girls" during
at least one visit to Epstein's private resort in the Virgin Islands, where the billionaire was said to host regular "sex orgies."
"When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" one witness – presumably
Giuffre – was asked during an interview, to which she replied that Epstein, Maxwell, an unidentified woman named "Emmy" and
"2 young girls" had been on the island with the former POTUS. The witness did not elaborate on Clinton's interactions with
the girls, however.
The same witness also told her attorney in 2011 that she had overheard Epstein saying that Clinton owed him "favors," but
noted she couldn't tell whether he was joking.
"He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said
'well he owes me a favor,'" she said. "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious."
He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets.
One of America's top law enforcement agencies was also apparently aware that underage girls were still being abused at Epstein's
properties as far back as 2011 – years after he was sentenced for similar crimes in his first criminal case. During her defamation
suit, Giuffre said she had provided the FBI a now widely circulated photo of herself and the UK's Prince Andrew – where he is pictured
smiling with an arm around her bare waist.
In 2014, moreover, Giuffre contacted the FBI to request evidence they had previously seized from Epstein's residences to aid her
civil case, suggesting the bureau had for long been informed of her allegations regarding Epstein and his continued involvement with
minor girls.
Comprising hundreds of pages of documents, the trove was released on Thursday night following a judge's order last week to have
it unsealed, over the objections of Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend to Epstein who has recently been charged as an accomplice
in his alleged sex-trafficking operation.
The records stem from a 2015 defamation suit filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, which was placed under lock and key after
the case was settled in 2017, but was recently unsealed, as a result of a lawsuit brought last year by conservative blogger Mike
Cernovich and the Miami Herald newspaper.
Among other revelations, the documents indicate that former US president Bill Clinton consorted with "young girls" during
at least one visit to Epstein's private resort in the Virgin Islands, where the billionaire was said to host regular "sex orgies."
"When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" one witness – presumably
Giuffre – was asked during an interview, to which she replied that Epstein, Maxwell, an unidentified woman named "Emmy" and
"2 young girls" had been on the island with the former POTUS. The witness did not elaborate on Clinton's interactions with
the girls, however.
The same witness also told her attorney in 2011 that she had overheard Epstein saying that Clinton owed him "favors," but
noted she couldn't tell whether he was joking.
"He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said
'well he owes me a favor,'" she said. "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious."
He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets.
One of America's top law enforcement agencies was also apparently aware that underage girls were still being abused at Epstein's
properties as far back as 2011 – years after he was sentenced for similar crimes in his first criminal case. During her defamation
suit, Giuffre said she had provided the FBI a now widely circulated photo of herself and the UK's Prince Andrew – where he is pictured
smiling with an arm around her bare waist.
In 2014, moreover, Giuffre contacted the FBI to request evidence they had previously seized from Epstein's residences to aid her
civil case, suggesting the bureau had for long been informed of her allegations regarding Epstein and his continued involvement with
minor girls.
Comprising hundreds of pages of documents, the trove was released on Thursday night following a judge's order last week to have
it unsealed, over the objections of Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend to Epstein who has recently been charged as an accomplice
in his alleged sex-trafficking operation.
The records stem from a 2015 defamation suit filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, which was placed under lock and key after
the case was settled in 2017, but was recently unsealed, as a result of a lawsuit brought last year by conservative blogger Mike
Cernovich and the Miami Herald newspaper.
Among other revelations, the documents indicate that former US president Bill Clinton consorted with "young girls" during
at least one visit to Epstein's private resort in the Virgin Islands, where the billionaire was said to host regular "sex orgies."
"When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" one witness – presumably
Giuffre – was asked during an interview, to which she replied that Epstein, Maxwell, an unidentified woman named "Emmy" and
"2 young girls" had been on the island with the former POTUS. The witness did not elaborate on Clinton's interactions with
the girls, however.
The same witness also told her attorney in 2011 that she had overheard Epstein saying that Clinton owed him "favors," but
noted she couldn't tell whether he was joking.
"He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said
'well he owes me a favor,'" she said. "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious."
He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets.
One of America's top law enforcement agencies was also apparently aware that underage girls were still being abused at Epstein's
properties as far back as 2011 – years after he was sentenced for similar crimes in his first criminal case. During her defamation
suit, Giuffre said she had provided the FBI a now widely circulated photo of herself and the UK's Prince Andrew – where he is pictured
smiling with an arm around her bare waist.
In 2014, moreover, Giuffre contacted the FBI to request evidence they had previously seized from Epstein's residences to aid her
civil case, suggesting the bureau had for long been informed of her allegations regarding Epstein and his continued involvement with
minor girls.
President Donald Trump also made an appearance in the unsealed papers. However, an associate of Epstein, Juan Alessi, said in
an interview that Trump "never" stayed overnight while visiting Epstein's Palm Beach estate, and that he did not receive any
"massages" there, as "he's got his own spa." An alleged victim also maintained that while Trump and Epstein were
"good friends," Trump made no attempts to "flirt" with her.
Comprising hundreds of pages of documents, the trove was released on Thursday night following a judge's order last week to have
it unsealed, over the objections of Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend to Epstein who has recently been charged as an accomplice
in his alleged sex-trafficking operation.
The records stem from a 2015 defamation suit filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, which was placed under lock and key after
the case was settled in 2017, but was recently unsealed, as a result of a lawsuit brought last year by conservative blogger Mike
Cernovich and the Miami Herald newspaper.
Among other revelations, the documents indicate that former US president Bill Clinton consorted with "young girls" during
at least one visit to Epstein's private resort in the Virgin Islands, where the billionaire was said to host regular "sex orgies."
"When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" one witness – presumably
Giuffre – was asked during an interview, to which she replied that Epstein, Maxwell, an unidentified woman named "Emmy" and
"2 young girls" had been on the island with the former POTUS. The witness did not elaborate on Clinton's interactions with
the girls, however.
The same witness also told her attorney in 2011 that she had overheard Epstein saying that Clinton owed him "favors," but
noted she couldn't tell whether he was joking.
"He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said
'well he owes me a favor,'" she said. "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious."
He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets.
One of America's top law enforcement agencies was also apparently aware that underage girls were still being abused at Epstein's
properties as far back as 2011 – years after he was sentenced for similar crimes in his first criminal case. During her defamation
suit, Giuffre said she had provided the FBI a now widely circulated photo of herself and the UK's Prince Andrew – where he is pictured
smiling with an arm around her bare waist.
In 2014, moreover, Giuffre contacted the FBI to request evidence they had previously seized from Epstein's residences to aid her
civil case, suggesting the bureau had for long been informed of her allegations regarding Epstein and his continued involvement with
minor girls.
President Donald Trump also made an appearance in the unsealed papers. However, an associate of Epstein, Juan Alessi, said in
an interview that Trump "never" stayed overnight while visiting Epstein's Palm Beach estate, and that he did not receive any
"massages" there, as "he's got his own spa." An alleged victim also maintained that while Trump and Epstein were
"good friends," Trump made no attempts to "flirt" with her.
Despite repeatedly insisting he had no ties to Epstein's sex-trafficking ring, legal scholar and former Harvard Law School professor
Alan Dershowitz is directly accused in the documents of having "sexual relations" with an underage girl. He is also said to
have witnessed "the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein's co-conspirators," and would later
help to negotiate an undisclosed immunity deal for himself during Epstein's first criminal case.
More than 1,000 pages of documents from Giuffre's civil defamation case had previously been released in August 2019, indicating
that a long list of wealthy and powerful figures regularly spent time with Epstein at his lavish properties. One day after that trove
was unsealed, Epstein was found hanging in his Manhattan prison cell, dead from an apparent suicide after being charged with sex
trafficking and imprisoned some weeks previously.
Maxwell was arrested and charged with procuring minors for sexual abuse earlier this month, after keeping a low profile in the
period following Epstein's death. She has pleaded not guilty to six criminal counts and remains in custody without bail, after prosecutors
had labeled her an "extreme" flight risk.
"... Epstein was a Mosad Operation run by the Mega Group. ..."
"... These allegations are shocking, bombshell, ghastly, and just about any other adjective that could possibly describe a once-in-a-lifetime event of such wide-reaching and horrific proportions. Yet the mainstream media is completely silent at this time. This doesn't make any sense. Is this because the owners of the mainstream media are also complicit in a giant pedophilia conspiracy? I am struggling to come to terms with the deafening silence of the mainstream media. But, it's the only explanation that makes sense going forward. ..."
"... Let me guess how many inside the MSM made trips to Pedo Island? Yes, that would explain their silence as you suggest. ..."
"... The CIA runs American Media, ever since the ban on propaganda was lifted in 2012. ..."
Dozens of exhibits related to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein were
unsealed Thursday evening , providing insight into allegations against the financier and
his purported 'madam,' as well as other high-profile individuals, including Bill Clinton, Alan
Dershowitz and several other people whose names one can only guess (and the internet has).
The documents, related to a 2015 civil defamation lawsuit against Maxwell by Epstein accuser
Virginia Giuffre, were ordered to be released on July 23 by US District Judge Loretta Preska -
which also included flight logs from Epstein's private jets , as well as police reports from
the multiple locations where Epstein maintained residences.
Alan Dershowitz is mentioned several times (and has gone to
great lengths to defend himself - suggesting on multiple occasions that this very document
release would in exonerate him).
Seems to be a lot of magic happening in the US Justice system with things mysteriously
disappearing.
Patmos , 12 hours ago
Yeah, I've long felt they're just going to present a case of supposed "justice" which is
in reality just partial justice if you could even call it justice at all.
All the Nazi occult Book of the Dead MK Ultra crap kept under wraps.
Maybe for a good reason, and maybe they're dealing with it behind the scenes, who knows.
I'm kind of thinking no, though, that we're just going to get the illusion of justice.
OldAmsterdam , 7 hours ago
Just imagine the amount on influence this pedovore - blackmail ring has had on the lives
of each of us individually. It is hard to phantom if you add up everything. The selling of
military secrets, the selling of IP, the setting of policies including wars and all that has
been the result of those, the misappropriation of public funds and the following
self-enrichment of them, the abuse of corrupt parts of the intelligence agencies to crush
dissent and achieve their goals, the shaping of public opinion with twisted logic of what is
supposed to be the right by corrupting and controlling MSM and pop-culture, the suffering of
victims of the criminal networks used to procure their "merchandise", etc
The extent of this whole horrific saga has shaped global human life for at least 2 decades
and most likely more. There is hardly a way to grasp the scope of what these power hungry
self serving bunch of perverted degenerates have made each global citizen undergo. I agree
there is no way we will ever get to know more than perhaps 20% of the story
Feel free to add more.
bigdumbnugly , 6 hours ago
most importantly the blackmailing of lawmakers and supreme court (and lower court)
justices.
Putty in their hands.
Accurite , 6 hours ago
I agree, I think it it why Chief Justice Roberts flipped on Obama Care and why he
continues to vote with the left. They have stuff on this guy
JimmyJones , 5 hours ago
Looks like the MSM will need another high profile funeral, to distract from this story,
their timing was off on this one with Lewis. Who's next?
Edit: so if you get your hands on the orginal PDF's released you can copy and paste the
Text into note pad and see what was redacted.
Roberts needs to find a way to go away forever. he is shaming his family and his
friends.
his life is forfeit, and he needs to have the sense to transcend his hell. he should
resign and retire.
Pro_sanity , 4 hours ago
Gorsuch too, certainly something going on there too.
Jean Gateau , 1 hour ago
My prediction: Roberts will decide the 2020 Election.
William Dorritt , 6 hours ago
The Compromising Epstein Association with Supreme Court Justice Roberts Is Gaining
Momentum and Explains Many of Roberts Mystery Rulings
Submitted by Dave Hodges on Tuesday, July 28, 2020
The Forbes investigation also found that "Kennedy and Scalia wrote the bulk of the
conservative dissent, and that dissent was not originally written as a majority opinion. It's
that the conservative Justices held Roberts' opinion in such contempt that they did not want
to dignify it with a response "
Forbes also mentioned the prominent role that Justice Scalia played in attempting to reign
in Roberts on this obvious miscarriage of justice. And what happened to Scalia? He was lured
to Texas and was subsequently murdered, or should I say Scalia's body found on a Texas farm
known for its child-sex trafficking activities. What's not known was if Scalia was murdered
elsewhere and then And let's not forget that Scalia was found with a pillow case over his
face and then this devout Catholic was cremated with no autopsy performed in violation of
Texas law. Subsequently, the Obama administration never ordered an investigation into the
very suspicious death of a senior level official in the government. This behavior was
inexcusable and wreaks of coverup.
With the arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein is back in the news.[1],[2]
Allegations that for decades, Maxwell obtained underage girls for Epstein and his
high-profile guests to exploit -- for purposes including blackmail -- are widely known. Is
blackmail why it took 24 years from the time the FBI knew of the allegations until the
arrest? [9] But the problem runs much deeper.
It's a touchy subject. Adults using children and infants for sexual gratification is a
repugnant topic. Let's not gloss over it: pedophiles are predators. No just society can
excuse the predatory behavior of the sexual deviants who term themselves "child lovers" in a
vain hope that society will overlook their cruel -- and sometimes deadly -- abuses. We will
not.
The scope of the problem is uncertain, but according to the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children, some 800,000 children are reported missing each year in the United
States -- about 2,000 daily.[3],[4] Estimates vary domestically and internationally, and few
reliable statistics are available.[5] We do know that under the Trump administration, law
enforcement task forces have increased prosecutions at the state and federal level.[6] The
Children's Bureau estimates that the United States had over 678,000 cases of child abuse -- 9
per 1,000 -- in 2018.[7]
Many pedophiles even select careers giving access an endless stream of young victims.
These include occupations most would never suspect -- clergy, coaches, counselors, teachers,
scout leaders -- those we have trusted with our kids' safety.
But what happens to these babies and kids? Where are they now? What happens when they are
"used up"–too physically damaged and psychologically traumatized to satisfy adult
perverts?
Does there really exist a black market for child sex slaves? Is there any truth to the
allegations that sometimes Child Protective Services, foster care, and Amber Alerts are
accessories to these crimes?
Yet a shocking 2005 study showed that 79% of abusers were children's own parents, followed
by the parent's unmarried partners. A whopping 40% of child victims (counting all forms of
abuse) were abused by their mothers alone, and 17% by both parents. The study found that
substance abuse accompanies 70% of child maltreatment cases.[8] Should child abuse prevention
efforts focus on solving substance abuse? What about broader social trends that cause
dissolution of families?
Parents shouldn't be complacent. Turning a blind eye or downplaying the problem will not
save our children. We all need to become more vigilant.
What is child *********** but depictions of abuse? Both those who create, and those who
consume, digital depictions of child sex abuse should be severely punished. Demand for the
"genre" has surged with the advent of broadband internet.
Sweeping the problem under the rug hasn't worked. We need accurate statistics, education,
and public awareness. The solution isn't to normalize perversion, but to prosecute the
deviants -- both producers and consumers.
We don't need new laws either. There are plenty of statutes which -- if robustly enforced
-- could quickly end the menace of child sex abuse. We need adequate funding for law
enforcement to investigate and prosecute the crimes, a commitment to equal justice,
transparency, and harsh sentencing for those found guilty of violating the laws of God and
mankind.
Not possible to flush the corruption from a 100% corrupt society.
Inevitable end is revolution for a 100% corrupt society (as in the political class) ...
for ordinary people it is just going to get a whole lot worse.
Pooper Popper , 10 hours ago
The video is out there,,,,that shows hillary and huma torturing a young girl,,,,and
cutting her face off to terrify her.The video i saw didnt show visual,,,but the girls screams
will leave stains on your soul...This is what the seasoned detectives had to get therapy
about......Andrenochrome!!!
Do the research,,but beware ,,,,its beyond messed up.....its flat out ,,,evil.
"Donald Trump was aiso a good friend of Jeffreys. He didn't partake in sex with any of us
but he flirted with me. He'd laugh and tell Jeffrey, 'You've got the life."
I'm not so sure. He didn't partake - OK..... but if he kind of knew what was going on and
didn't report they'll jump all over him for that.
Question_Mark , 4 hours ago
dude he literally ran for and became president to stop it. earth to you, hello?
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 3 hours ago
LOL - he ran on a lot of things that he didn't do. This was a Mossad political control
operation, has their work inside the USA been shut down?
Is it a Cohen-cidence that one of Bibi's political enemies, Ehud Barak is mentioned
frequently in the media as a regular visitor? They also have kompromat on Trump, I can
guarantee it.
Do you really think he has done what he has for Israel because he believes in their
cause?
Pfeffernusse , 3 hours ago
Yet he wishes her well- more like he wishes she would keep her mouth shut
Smiddywesson , 4 hours ago
The pedophiles are all left wingers.
Trump was never on the plane or on the island.
If she thought he was "flirting" with her, I'm not surprised, she was young and obviously
had a hard life, and Donald Trump was very charismatic and was a big star back in the
day.
They've been trying to pin this **** on Trump for years, and all they have is he attended
a party at Epstein's once, and banned Epstein from his club for hitting on the girls. That
doesn't sound like "good friends" to me.
Everything that went on in Epstein's NY house was video taped. If you think Trump did
anything and they are suppressing the video, you are out of your mind. If they'd frame Trump
for colluding with Russians, they'd use the tape to get rid of him.
Ask yourself, how did Donald Trump even come up in this interview? Epstein knew thousands
and thousands of people. The answer is the very same people who eventually FRAMED him in an
attempted coup, the FBI, were fishing for dirt and brought his name up with the victim.
bigdumbnugly , 4 hours ago
Apparently neither of you two can interpret words or sentences properly.
I didn't say anything about his being involved. I thought that was pretty clear. Well, to
most.
The statement was about how he might be attacked by not reporting what he may have known
about.
Try again, after remedial reading.
you_are_cleared_hot , 1 hour ago
George W didn't do anything about this...Obama didn't do anything about this nobody seems
to be bringing this up in the MSM...just sayin.
55 men , 56 minutes ago
Dont forget Boys town in Nebraska, George Sr was involved....i have a good friend whos
cousin was one of the boys involved in that, pretty sad....
geo_synch , 58 minutes ago
Actually, you're wrong there. Court documents showed that Trump was the only person
contacted by the DA who volunteered to step forward and cooperate with the investigation back
when Epstein was charged back in the early 2000s.
bigdumbnugly , 14 minutes ago
I'm not wrong - and while the rest is true, geo, it doesn't change the narrative that'll
come out.
"Why did Trump WAIT until an investigation was started and not whistleblow himself"
they'll ask.
"Trump could've saved umpteen hundred young girls from their horrible fates if he did so"
they'll say.
You have to think like the opposition. Again, my point is that he is not "cleared" as was
stated because he will have to deal with this canard... i can almost guarantee it.
Personally, i do not believe for a minute he'd get himself involved in any kind of thing
like Epstein/Maxwell/Mossad was running. Maybe egotistical, but smarter than falling into a
widely-known in certain circles honey trap.
Arrow4Truth , 11 hours ago
Reckon it would be easy enough to connect the dots and determine that the "US Justice
system" is the problem? DOJ in bed with the black robed cult? They are all in the same
"union"... the same club.
fallst , 11 hours ago
no laptop , no videos, no nothing but tawk
1777 , 3 hours ago
The Clean-team®™ has been very busy!
William Dorritt , 6 hours ago
Epstein was a Mosad Operation run by the Mega Group. One of many. Both Epstein and the tapes are safe in Isreal
2 former CIA and 1 former Mosad have said it was a Mosad operation
The FBI, DOJ and Federal Courts have totally collapsed
They can't indict, arrest or prosecute Elite Pedos
The Courts openly run cover for the Pedos
And spend the rest of the time erasing the Bill of Rights
Feudalism is the Destination
Nuremberg Courts and Executions are the Answer
$21 Trillion Missing – U.S. Government a Criminal Enterprise –
He's just a pawn. The powers behind the scenes always have something worse than hell over
their agents. That's why the Comey types obey so willingly. The money changers have their
protocols of power, Comey has his obedience.
The only way to avoid enslavement is to be self sufficient outside their system of corrupt
money.
Max Cynical , 12 hours ago
My take...DOJ and FBI are utterly corrupt and need to be disbanded.
Itchy and Scratchy , 12 hours ago
JFK tried!
Stan Smith , 9 hours ago
It's what got him killed.
Fluff The Cat , 5 hours ago
The main things that got JFK killed were his attempts to end the Rothschilds' Fed money
printing scam and his announcement just days prior to his assassination that he was going to
reveal the secret plot to overthrow our country from within and enslave every man, woman and
child. There's no way for them to have dismissed whatever President JFK said as being a mere
"conspiracy theory".
Here's his speech on secret societies. Interesting how when you put in a search for "JFK
speech secret societies" on YouTube that they bury it far down the results, because they
don't want people to hear it.
There is little doubt this was one of the great motivations for JFK's killing, but there
are others that are equally as plausible. Including the 'shatter them to a million pieces'
line. JFK took on THE most powerful and paid the unltimate price.
Blue Snowflake , 2 hours ago
JFK was not trying to dismantle the Fed. The 2 EOs he issued regarding silver certificates
were temporary measures to allow the treasury to continue doing what they were already doing
until the FED certificates were enacted. So in that sense JFK was helping the FED.
That is true, secret society speech notwithstanding.
sbin , 12 hours ago
DEA NSA CIA all 17 intelligence agencies would be a good start.
Defund the Pentagon should be a thing.
Why such corruption and failure is rewarded is only explained by massive grifting of all
involved.
1777 , 3 hours ago
Wouldn't the NSA have ALL of this evidence anyway???
f society , 1 hour ago
Yes, they have it. The NSA could take down the Deep State if they wanted to.
lester1 , 11 hours ago
Republicans want to build a billion dollar new FBI building in the coronavirus stimulus
bill. Lol
Fiscal.Enema , 9 hours ago
nobody in D.C. including Trump has the balls to Chop their heads off.
amadeus40 , 5 hours ago
As long as Tribe members connected to MOSAAD reside in the U.S., our nation' government,
financial and judicial systems will remain compromised and will be controlled by Israel.
Donald Trump is a compromised president and under the control of MOSAAD. His silence and
casual comments on the characters of Epstink and Maxstink are damning.
2willies , 12 hours ago
It all makes Nixon look pretty pretty good now.
Max.Power , 11 hours ago
Yeah, all this put many other things in perspective. It may turn out that Trump is the most decent US president of last 30 years. Who would've
thought...
bobroonie , 10 hours ago
At the very least Trump is the single most investigated and vetted president in American
history...
55 men , 51 minutes ago
And what sucks is, this actually things that should be talked about wiith and delt with
but in an hour we will be back to 2nd greatest scam, (FED being the first), corona.
vova.2018 , 5 hours ago
It may turn out that Trump is the most decent US president of last 30 years. Who
Nah - Trump should explain why his name was on Epstein's plane manifest. Trump is friends
with Jeffrey Epstein & Ghislaine Maxwel and attended Epstein's kid-rape island 23 times,
sometimes with Bill Clinton. Lawsuit Charged Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl in
CA.
Trump and Epstein accused of raping 13-year-old girl in complaint filed with United States
District Court for the Southern District http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=71156
Trump's excuse, he didn't know that the girl(s) were underage & he claims that his
encounter with the girls, in 2 occasions with his body Epstein in Lolita Island (1993), was a
CIA/Dyncorp operation with 12 low-light cameras.
Trump also claims the Epstain put the girls in the room. This is the kind of dirt that
Eptain & Ghislaine Maxwell have on Trump. Is these gossip, fabrication, expostulation or
it should be investigated (:
DA Alexander Acosta was the lawyer for Jeffery Epstein for child rapist charges where
Trump was on witness list (FL court records). Case dropped in deal. DA Alexander Acosta gave
Epstien a sweat heart deal to avoid Trump having to take the stand and face charges.
Anyone with Google can look up Trump involvement with Jeffrey Epstein and his court cases
and nomination of Alexander Acosta as Labor Secretary
Trump not only got skeleton in his closet, he owns the entire cemetery. Trump give the
psychopath a bad name
theory , 12 hours ago
AND........
Who was running the FBI at the time........???????
Good old Bob Mueller.......!!!!!!!!!!!!
El Chapo Read , 11 hours ago
That was "out of his purview"
OldAmsterdam , 9 hours ago
It looks like what we know already is finally gonna come out, I would say
sherlocky , 12 hours ago
Exact same operations were run by dome kopfs out of 1920 & 1930's Berlin. khazarian
mafia. look up Institut für Sexualwissenschaft run by Magnus (((Hirschfeld))) and many
many other such operations
Anthraxed , 12 hours ago
1980's Boys town.
See Franklin scandal.
lwilland1012 , 12 hours ago
Thank you! Now this is something we can agree on!
SassyPants , 6 hours ago
The old folks are just the ones they'll give up. And low level scum.
alexcojones , 12 hours ago
I still don't know WHY she came back??
Makes NO sense at all...
And where is Raz Simone, former King of Chaz Chop?
And is he involved too?
badassassassin , 11 hours ago
back from where and what makes you think she was there
Muppet , 2 hours ago
In my opinion, she is the most powerful in the world right now. She certainly wasn't
arrested. She agreed to such props. She's has been, or will be, extremely highly rewarded in
exchange, she will follow the buyer wishes. I suspect it will end up being to destroy Trump.
Its obvious, she has too many demorat friends, I don't think she'll turn on them, nor is it
likely that a conservative bought her. It is most likely a liberal buyer and thus target
Trump.
MongoStraight , 12 hours ago
It's hard to believe that Marvin Minsky would have to pay for it.
sbin , 12 hours ago
Sarcasm tag is not needed on that one.
So ugly his mother wouldn't breast feed him.
His hand wants double price.
Only way to have sex was jewish black mail freak paid for by CIA and vile little apartheid
government in Palestine.
libtears , 12 hours ago
He'd get laid in Thailand
Things that go bump , 9 hours ago
By an eleven-year-old virgin.
ThePub'Lick_Hare , 1 hour ago
Thailand on NY's 7th Avenue!
Librarian , 12 hours ago
These allegations are shocking, bombshell, ghastly, and just about any other adjective
that could possibly describe a once-in-a-lifetime event of such wide-reaching and horrific
proportions. Yet the mainstream media is completely silent at this time. This doesn't make any sense.
Is this because the owners of the mainstream media are also complicit in a giant pedophilia
conspiracy? I am struggling to come to terms with the deafening silence of the mainstream
media. But, it's the only explanation that makes sense going forward.
Our major news sources seem to be compromised. Those in charge of our major media who
decide what is "news" are also very likely the most depraved type of criminals
imagineable.
There needs to be investigations. There needs to be trails.
Sid Davis , 12 hours ago
Let me guess how many inside the MSM made trips to Pedo Island? Yes, that would explain
their silence as you suggest.
Another thing that would explain their silence is some big leftists names need protecting,
and given this is election time, what big name Democrats are running.
I wonder if Pedo Island had a booth where little girls sat so that someone could lean over
and sniff their freshly washed hair.
libtears , 12 hours ago
We know why Bill And Hillary were there.
SassyPants , 6 hours ago
And which Republicans are making a big deal about this? Same silence on both sides.
Republicans are not pure as the snow, just because you want to believe.
Justapleb , 12 hours ago
The CIA runs American Media, ever since the ban on propaganda was lifted in 2012.
Fiscal Reality , 12 hours ago
Yawn. Wake me up when someone is in handcuffs. Like Pedo Slick Willy, Cankles, Dersh or
Kevin Spacey. Until then, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
sbin , 12 hours ago
Will never happen.
WaterWings , 4 hours ago
Probably the most important comment on this board. Elections really don't matter anymore.
FBI corruption tells you we are at the point of Revolution again.
Iskiab , 12 hours ago
It really makes you think. I'm starting to think most of the political elites are
sociopaths.
cryptoligarch , 10 hours ago
What you and everyone reading this should know and prepare for is this... They will say and do anything even in the face of humiliation and zero credibility. But
they will not leave until physical force is applied. Even with that, it will only be the beginning of a real struggle for us as honorable
humans.
Stan Smith , 9 hours ago
If you think about it remotely logically, you have to have a certain kind of mindset to be
a career politician. And it'd be hard to argue that being a sociopath isn't part of that.
Seasmoke , 11 hours ago
This country is an absolute cesspool. The People were lazy & allowed the Tribe to tear
The Republic to shreds. And Comey and the FBI should hang first before all the degenerates. Absolutely
Treasonous!!!!
OldAmsterdam , 9 hours ago
The US plays a big part but this is a global story, US prominence is to be expected
because of its prominence on the world stage.
SassyPants , 6 hours ago
Or maybe people from other countries just aren't as sick as American politicians.
Dr. Bonzo , 10 hours ago
See? Pizzagate was just conspiracy fantasy. Nothing to see here, folks. Russiagate was
real though!
Think about this... the entire apparatus of the mainstream media.... tens of THOUSANDS of
folks... conspired to repress information about organized pedophilia among top politicians
and key business leaders... and attempt to undermine and overthrow a sitting US president.
Now they support a Marxist insurrection.
The Twilight Zone has NOTHING on reality. NOTHING....................... Surreal doesn't
BEGIN to sum it up.
bobroonie , 10 hours ago
Yup...
From:* Trudy Vincent [ mailto:[email protected] ] >> *Sent:* Thursday,
October 08, 2015 11:45 AM
CC: John Podesta (and others)
And I thought I'd share a couple more notes: >> We plan to heat the pool, so a swim
is a possibility. Bonnie will be >> Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve
Luzzatto (11, 9, and >> almost 7) so you'll have some further entertainment, and they
will be in >> that pool for sure. And with the forecast showing prospects of some sun,
>> and a cooler temp of lower 60s, I suggest you bring sweaters of whatever >>
attire will enable us to use our outdoor table with a pergola overhead so >> we dine al
fresco (and ideally not al-CHILLo).
Does anyone think the firing last month of the SDNY prosecutor is a coincidence? A week
later they arrest Maxwell.
That's the office that has the Weiner laptop, the holy grail of criminal evidence.
philipat , 8 hours ago
Let the horse trading begin! Andrew will be OK after the UK agreed to cut off Huawei from
its 5G network and some other concessions probably leading to a grossly (US) one-sided
FTA.
The others? Depends who has what and who needs what in return, which is what Epstein was
all about all along.
Nothing new here, just the same old depravity and corruption among the "Elites". Lovely
people aren't they?
Luc X. Ifer , 4 hours ago
Ghislaine is still breathing ...
neidermeyer , 3 hours ago
Disagree with the UK assessment ,, the entire royal family is going down... but the trade
agreements will be fair as we need England to be an example for the rest of the EU states to
see that they can emerge in good shape.
thetruthhurts , 3 hours ago
Well now we know what Hillary Clinton meant when she said if that SOB wins we'll all hang.
And we also know why England the UK was so anxious to be part of the conspiracy against
President Trump. To protect the prince. Brings new word to the vocabulary "Dalley Ho"
thetruthhurts , 3 hours ago
Well now we know what Hillary Clinton meant when she said if that SOB wins we'll all hang.
And we also know why England the UK was so anxious to be part of the conspiracy against
President Trump. To protect the prince. Brings new word to the vocabulary "Dalley Ho"
Know thy enemy , 9 hours ago
C'mon, Bill Clinton at Epstein Island is old hat, let's have the Vaccinator-in-Chief, Bill
Gates explain what he was doing with Epstein, on his island, home in New York, etc.... Inquiring minds want to know more....
SassyPants , 6 hours ago
There will be no new names. Those people can still be used.
Zionism_is_racism , 9 hours ago
Where are all the feminazis? We have a war against men from the women who hate men.
Shouldn't they rally since their minor sisters were raped by old white men and old
chosenites?
... ... ...
Zionism_is_racism , 9 hours ago
His wife helped GM find girls? I will have to look that one up because that would be a
major point on CNN hate Trump network. Pander masters in Tel Aviv? there is tremendous chosenite political power here in the US, so it's like a mine field.
We didn't have a major war, with your Clinton II we would have had a major war for Israel.
Looks like Orange man is slowly but surely decreasing exposure to the Middle East, NATO and
Afghanistan, the political pressure from your congressman and senator is something he must
deal with. So he has done real good if you ask me, again your choice would have been more war
and Biden means More Wars for Israel.
theres an interview whitney webb conducted with another victim, besides guiffre, in which
the victim describes the procurement. if you search well, you will find it. lets not be
selective here, we should not cherry pick which witness be believe. there are probably
hundreds of others whose testimony we have not heard since the fbi buried it or chose to
ignore it. i say again, they are all compromised. vote for whichever pos you care to.
MerLynn , 9 hours ago
It was actually on SDNY's Watch Epstein died and there's where you know nothing about Deep
State to ignore this center of democrat corruption
AlphaSnail , 8 hours ago
democrat...republican. i cant tell the difference these days.
STP , 11 hours ago
Timing is everything. Right before the DC recess, starting in August, we've got Barr not
guaranteeing that some kind of 'report' is not going to come out before the election. And
revealing that a second investigation into the unmasks is ongoing with US Attorney John Bash.
Then Trump totally throws a troll bomb tweet about the elections and now this. Many of the
most powerful men in the world having their names revealed in a US District Court today. The
gloves are off. The other side did all sorts of pre-election hanky spanky and turn about is
fair play. The indictments are coming. It would do no good for Trump to wait after the
elections to take action. Why bother then? He may not be in office and all of this will be
swept under the rug. It has to happen now. All these people will be at home in August. It
makes sense to do a nation wide sweep and indict them at home. The indictments are spread far
and wide across the country, so that makes sense that they'll be served in their home states
and cities. I believe it's coming and coming soon.
Psadie , 11 hours ago
Dershowitz should just off himself...he set up immunity from the govt. Trump's one
Secretary resigned over giving Epstein a slap on the hand but it was Dersh who did it
all.
Itchy and Scratchy , 12 hours ago
Clinton arranged for Epsteins aircraft to have a government tail number enabling all
passengers to avoid standard customs & immigration procedures. The flight logs were
strictly at the discretion of the pilots. Doubtful that the truth of who went to the
poisonous island will ever be exposed!
baghead , 12 hours ago
The pilot kept logs of the passengers. That's how we know what we know already
ThePub'Lick_Hare , 57 minutes ago
The visual evidence is damning enough - photos, videos, vivid memories of terror.
Equinox7 , 8 hours ago
And all of these crimes NOW come out under the Presidency of Donald J Trump. Its amazing
how the Bushs, Clintons, and Obamas just buried the truth. ...
KJ8982 , 12 hours ago
lmao I noticed this too today. They have some serious censorship going on. I wonder if
it's due to advertising, or have they been taken over...
Totally_Disillusioned , 11 hours ago
Many of you are all thinking this Epstein thing - human trafficking - will be like
watching/reading a bunch of juicy **** with underage girls.
This human trafficking also involves organ harvesting....
AI Agent , 11 hours ago
We live in a sick and wicked world, and the wicked people are winning.
bobroonie , 11 hours ago
"It was the child sacrifices that got to me" Ronald Bernard money launderer and banker for
the elite.
It appears they are winning. Half of the battle is learning who your enemy is and their
behaviors. The other half of the battle is taking it to them...directly to them. they can no
longer hide this away. Once the people know, it won't be safe for them to walk down the
street.
OldAmsterdam , 9 hours ago
It's a bunch of them sure, but surely not all of them. Just like us most of them are mere
cattle for those power hungry supremacist bastards and ignorant of what is going on.
Specifying this more will make it easier to spread the story, otherwise you will just be
dismissed as a anti-semite.
I reckon all on here know 1 or 2 at the least, are you really of the opinion that they are
all part of that evil scheme or just people trying to get by and live their lives like most
of us?
It's on par with BLM activists calling all whites racist.
Give Me Some Truth , 3 hours ago
I must have made 200 posts on Epstein and Maxwell. I bet in 30 of these posts I mentioned
the fact that Virginia Roberts gave the original photo of her and Prince Andrew to FBI agents
... years ago.
Not only did she give these agents the photo, she gave them details of what she actually
did for Epstein and Maxwell.
This, to me, has always been a huge detail.
Basically: The FBI - and by extension DOJ - knew everything at least nine years ago
(probably 20 years ago). This is not just a case involving seedy behavior of hundreds of VIP
"johns," It's also a case where numerous agencies of our own government covered up these
crimes and did nothing to stop this operation for who knows how many years or decades.
This scandal is so much larger than "Watergate" ... and the press won't even pursue these
angles, which tells us that they must be complicit in concealing the full truth.
"Leave Epstein alone. He's intelligence."
Well, no duh. Obviously.
Why no charges yet against the public officials who spiked earlier investigations?
eatapeach , 2 hours ago
Because they have power and these pawns are important to them. Can you imagine what
possession of those tapes can do for someone? for a country?
"stand down (my buddy Jeff told me to tell you that)"
USAllDay , 2 hours ago
The US .gov was obviously well aware what was going on- they were in on it. Epstein was a
known and protected Mossad agent operating within the USA with the knowledge and blessing of
the CIA.
"... U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in New York scheduled a Thursday conference to discuss the possible unsealing of five different sets of documents relating to a defamation lawsuit against Maxwell by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, whom Maxwell had said was lying ..."
"... A federal appeals court in New York unsealed 40 of the 613 pages of Maxwell's testimony last August. Her sworn denials of knowledge about Epstein's abuse of underage girls are the basis for two perjury counts that accompanied the sex-trafficking charges in the indictment unsealed against her on July 2 by Manhattan federal prosecutors ..."
"... The record of Giuffre's lawsuit was sealed in 2017 after the parties reached a confidential settlement. ..."
"... Menninger in June argued against further unsealing, saying one document pertained to Giuffre's efforts "to compel Ms. Maxwell to answer intrusive questions about her sex life" during her deposition. Menninger said Maxwell answered the questions because she had "a strong expectation of continued confidentiality." ..."
"... In the testimony that has been made public, Maxwell acknowledged hiring Giuffre as a 17-year-old massage therapist for Epstein at his Palm Beach estate but denied knowledge of any sexual abuse. ..."
(Bloomberg) -- A federal judge is considering making public a trove of previously sealed
records from a 2015 lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell, who is now facing charges that she
trafficked girls as young as 14 for her former boyfriend Jeffrey Epstein.
U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in New York scheduled a Thursday conference to discuss
the possible unsealing of five different sets of documents relating to a defamation lawsuit
against Maxwell by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, whom Maxwell had said was lying.
The possible release is coming as Maxwell's lawyer are trying to tamp down statements about
her criminal case, in which she has pleaded not guilty. On Tuesday, they asked the judge in
that case, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan, to issue a gag order on prosecutors, FBI agents
and lawyers for Maxwell and Epstein's alleged victims.
The documents Preska is considering unsealing appear to be partly related to deposition
testimony Maxwell, 58, gave in the case in April and July 2016. One of her lawyers said in a
recent court filing that one of the documents included "intrusive questioning" about Maxwell's
sex life that she had answered based on her expectation of confidentiality.
A federal appeals court in New York unsealed 40 of the 613 pages of Maxwell's testimony last
August. Her sworn denials of knowledge about Epstein's abuse of underage girls are the basis
for two perjury counts that accompanied the sex-trafficking charges in the indictment unsealed
against her on July 2 by Manhattan federal prosecutors.
The record of Giuffre's lawsuit was sealed in 2017 after the parties reached a confidential
settlement. The partial unsealing last year followed Epstein's arrest on sex-trafficking
charges. He was found dead of an apparent suicide in his Manhattan jail cell on Aug. 10, a day
after parts of Maxwell's testimony first became public.
Maxwell's lawyer Laura Menninger didn't immediately return voicemail and email messages
seeking comment about the conference.
Menninger in June argued against further unsealing, saying one document pertained to
Giuffre's efforts "to compel Ms. Maxwell to answer intrusive questions about her sex life"
during her deposition. Menninger said Maxwell answered the questions because she had "a strong
expectation of continued confidentiality."
The lawyer also cited the then ongoing criminal investigation of Maxwell, saying any
disclosures from the Giuffre lawsuit could "inappropriately influence potential witnesses or
alleged victims."
Sigrid McCawley, a lawyer for Giuffre, couldn't be immediately reached for comment about
Preska's planned conference.
In the testimony that has been made public, Maxwell acknowledged hiring Giuffre as a
17-year-old massage therapist for Epstein at his Palm Beach estate but denied knowledge of any
sexual abuse.
"You can be a professional masseuse at 17 in Florida, so as far as I am aware, a
professional masseuse showed up for a massage," Maxwell said. "There is nothing inappropriate
or incorrect about that."
Lex Wexler name surfaces in way too many places connected to Epstein VIP brothel, Why he is
not arrested like Maxwell?
Notable quotes:
"... Hazell, now known as Lady Iveagh, worked for Epstein 'Madam' Ghislaine Maxwell according to accuser Maria Farmer , who says she also interacted with Iveagh at the Ohio estate of Victoria's Secret boss Leslie Wexner. Farmer said that Hazell "liked having nice drinks, piles of cash and nice outfits." She was listed in Jeffrey Epstein's famous Black Book as "Clare Hazell-Iveagh." ..."
"... Much like Epstein pal Prince Andrew, Hazell has not been charged with any of the crimes she's been accused of, however we somehow doubt she'll be speaking with US prosecutors anytime soon. ..."
Clare Hazell - an interior designer who became the Countess of Iveagh after her 2001
marriage to the 4th Earl of Guinnes (of the brewing dynasty) - took 32 flights on Epstein's
infamous airplane between 1998 and 2000, which included "trips to his homes in New York,
Florida, the Caribbean and New Mexico," according to the
Daily Mail . Epstein accompanied Hazell on all but one of the trips aboard the plane, per
flight logs.
Ms Hazell was studying at Ohio State University in the 1990s and reportedly had a
modelling agency and an apartment in Columbus, Ohio.
The friend described her as being at Epstein's 'beck and call', saying how mutual plans
would be cancelled immediately if she was needed by Epstein and Maxwell. -
Daily Mail
Hazell, now known as Lady Iveagh, worked for Epstein 'Madam' Ghislaine Maxwell according to
accuser Maria
Farmer , who says she also interacted with Iveagh at the Ohio estate of Victoria's Secret
boss Leslie Wexner. Farmer said that Hazell "liked having nice drinks, piles of cash and nice
outfits." She was listed in Jeffrey Epstein's famous Black Book as "Clare Hazell-Iveagh."
Another Epstein accuser, Virginia Giuffre, accused Hazel of sexually abusing her:
Virginia Giuffre @VRSVirginia • 9h v
You want names? There's 2 on this Gwendolyn Beck & Claire Hazel. They both had sexually
abused me as a minor and even though there not JE's age type. These 2 are just some of the
"older" women in JE's orbit that served a purpose wonder what that could be? #notmovingon
#Help W
The dirty co-conspirators are ubiquitous and not one has been held accountable!
... ... ...
Hazell, formerly the President of the NSPCC's West Suffolk branch hosted events for the
charity at Elveden Hall - a lavish estate in Suffolk, England owned by the Guinness family
since 1894 in which several scenes from Eyes Wide Shut were filmed. The estate now operates as
a farm, growing root vegetables and cereals on the 22,000 acre property.
Much like Epstein pal Prince Andrew, Hazell has not been charged with any of the crimes
she's been accused of, however we somehow doubt she'll be speaking with US prosecutors anytime
soon.
Everything you need to know about Scott Borgerson, the tech CEO tied to Jeffrey Epstein's
alleged madam, Ghislaine Maxwell
Scott Borgerson, the CEO of a maritime analytics company, is back in the news for his
ties to Jeffrey Epstein's inner circle.
The Daily Mail reported last summer that Borgerson was dating and housing Ghislaine
Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend and alleged madam. Authorities arrested
Maxwell on July 2 , and she remains
behind bars without bail until she stands trial in 2021 to face allegations she
recruited underaged girls for Epstein.
The relationship between Borgerson and Maxwell is still not clear, but the CEO's name
has resurfaced after prosecutors recently alleged in court that
Maxwell is secretly married . Maxwell has declined to provide the name of her spouse,
but
news outlets have
suggested it could be Borgerson...
...Scott Borgerson, 44, is the CEO of CargoMetrics, a data-analytics company for
maritime trade and shipping. He cofounded the Boston-based company in 2010, and it was most
recently valued at $100 million in 2016.
Borgerson's company has raised nearly $23 million from investors, which include former
Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Schmidt led a $10 million funding round for CargoMetrics in August
2017, according to PitchBook.
Borgerson owns an oceanfront property, reportedly worth $3 million, in
Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts. Manchester-by-the-Sea is a small town north of Boston
with a population of just over 5,000 people.
The Daily Mail reported in August 2019 that Borgerson was dating and housing Ghislaine
Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's alleged madam who had largely remained out of the public eye.
Maxwell was close to Epstein, and reportedly recruited underage girls for Epstein and
participated in their abuse.
The Daily Mail also reported Maxwell had become a "homebody" who was "hiding out" at
Borgerson's home, and that the pair have been dating for around five years. However,
Borgerson denied the report to Business Insider at the time, and said Maxwell was a "former
friend."...
Anyone involved with Ghislaine Maxwell must automatically be suspected of being involved
in underage prostitution, pedophilia, money laundering, and sex slavery.
Many have also totally missed – or are afraid to notice – the big picture:
Israeli intelligence agencies and especially Mossad seem to be running pedophile rings that
blackmail Western political, business and scientific leaders.
Didnt Bill Clinton go there 124 times while ordering his secret service protection not to
accompany him?
Lucius Quinctius , 1 hour ago
Someone turned over a rock and exposed this nasty business. Epstein with his mysteriously
sourced money, evidently controlled and facilitated by Ghislaine Maxwell. Her father, the
Publisher, was the honored Israeli agent. Sorry, I am not anti Semitic but the finger points to
Israel. Yes, they live in a tough neighborhood, and history has been harsh to them, but this
move was a mistake, a moral failing.
Distant_Star , 2 hours ago
I don't give a Fu** about Prince Andrew. This is more misdirection to protect Bill Clinton and some others from scrutiny. Billy is rarely even mentioned in any news report
about Epstein but there are eye witnesses who have SEEN him on the island and other
properties.
frontierland , 1 hour ago
Are you going to point the finger at the J3wish nature of the operation?
What about Maxwell's parties hosted at your hotel Donald and your ex-wife's involvement
of the recruitment of White women into the (((International))) blackmail operation?
What about Les Wexner?
While we're at it, let's talk of your friendship with your mentor, Roy Cohen.
Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite charged with aiding the late Jeffrey Epstein in the
sex trafficking of minors, employed former British military personnel as security at the New
Hampshire estate where she was arrested earlier this month, federal prosecutors said in a court
filing Monday.
The office of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York said Maxwell, in
addition to the security detail, wrapped her cell phone in aluminum foil to avoid detection.
FBI agents had to break down the door of the facility and found her hiding inside a room in its
interior, prosecutors said,
according to The Washington Post.
The FBI added that Maxwell sent the security personnel out to make "purchases for the
property" with a credit card, and that the guards worked in rotating shifts.
The U.S. attorney's office has argued Maxwell is a flight risk, citing her citizenship in
three countries, including her birthplace of France, which does not extradite citizens.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Alison Moe cited these precautions as further evidence Maxwell, who
has denied the charges, is a flight risk. "As these facts make plain, there should be no
question that the defendant is skilled at living in hiding," Moe wrote, according to the
Post.
Since Maxwell's indictment, Moe wrote, investigators "have been in touch with additional
individuals who have expressed a willingness to provide information regarding the defendant,"
who have given the U.S. attorney's office further information that "has the potential to make
the Government's case even stronger," according to the newspaper.
Federal prosecutors have charged Maxwell on six counts, including sex trafficking, perjury
and enticement of minors. She is due to appear in court Tuesday.
Maxwell's lawyers have claimed she was estranged from Epstein at the time of his death and
that her precautions were against the media rather than law enforcement.
Ghislaine Maxwell - who's facing six charges in New York over her alleged role in Jeffrey
Epstein's pedophile sex-trafficking ring, is also under investigation in the US Virgin Islands
.
The revelation comes in a July 10 filing to intervene in a lawsuit Maxwell filed against
Epstein's estate seeking reimbursement for legal fees, and claiming that Epstein had repeatedly
promised to support her financially, according to
The Sun .
The Island's Justice Department is "investigating Maxwell's participation in Epstein's
criminal sex trafficking and sexual abuse conduct," read the court papers.
Epstein infamously owned Little St. James island, dubbed 'pedo island' over accusations that
he would fly underage girls there to fulfill his sexual desires and those of his associates.
Famous guests reportedly include Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Stephen Hawking, Les Wexner and
others.
One accuser, Chaunte Davies, says she was raped by Epstein over the course of several years
before finally parting ways with him in 2005.
Now 40, Chaunte says the ex-Wall Street banker performed a sex act on himself during their
first massage session - and that she was "manipulated" into staying in their circle by Maxwell
. "Within weeks she was jetting round the world on his private jet and on to his island of
Little Saint James," according to the report.
"The government's need to intervene is further fueled by Maxwell's inappropriate use of the
Virgin Islands courts to seek payment and reimbursement from the Epstein criminal enterprise,
while she circumvents the service of process of government subpoenas related to her involvement
in that criminal enterprise ," reads the filing.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Island officials have also subpoenaed Maxwell to try and compel her to appear before a local
court - a bid which may prove difficult considering her current status as an inmate awaiting
trial at a New York detention center following her July 2 arrest in New Hampshire. Maxwell has
evaded Virgin Islands officials since March.
Maxwell is set to appear for a virtual bail and arraignment hearing on Tuesday. Her legal
team has requested that she be freed on $5 million bail, arguing that she's not a flight risk
and may catch coronavirus in jail. Prosecutors for the US Justice Department strongly
disagreed, pointing to Maxwell's opaque finances and global contacts that pose a significant
flight risk.
"She has demonstrated her ability to evade detection, and the victims of the defendant's
crimes seek her detention," said DOJ prosecutors in their filing. "Because there is no set of
conditions short of incarceration that can reasonably assure the defendant's appearance, the
government urges the Court to detain her ."
According to the filing, one of Maxwell's security guards told agents that that the British
socialite's brother had hired former members of the British military to guard her 24-7. As
Bloomberg reports, Maxwell gave one of the guards a credit card in the name of the same LLC
which bought her luxury New Hampshire bugout last year. According to the guard, Maxwell hadn't
left the property in the time he'd been working there, and had been ordered to buy things for
the estate.
Federal prosecutors detailed the lengths Maxwell went to in order to evade US law
enforcement in order to argue that she's a flight risk who has access to "extraordinary
financial resources" and would flee the country if allowed free on bail. A federal judge will
decide on Tuesday whether to grant Maxwell's request to post $5 million bond so she can live
under house arrest until her trial.
"She has demonstrated her ability to evade detection, and the victims of the defendant's
crimes seek her detention," said DOJ prosecutors in their filing. "Because there is no set of
conditions short of incarceration that can reasonably assure the defendant's appearance, the
government urges the Court to detain her."
Maxwell wouldn't be extradited if she fled to France where she has citizenship, argued the
prosecution, as the country does not extradite its own citizens to the US for prosecution,
according to the report.
The government also argued Maxwell has been hiding from authorities, living in a secluded
156-acre estate in Bradford, New Hampshire, since late last year.
Maxwell is accused of luring girls as young as 14 for sexual encounters with Epstein and
engaging in some of the abus e. Prosecutors argued she could face as long as 35 years in
prison if convicted. Epstein died in a Manhattan lockup last August of an apparent suicide
while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges.
While Maxwell's lawyers said in a separate court filing that she has six people willing to
co-sign her bond, prosecutors argued she hasn't identified these people, whether any are even
in the U.S. or have the sufficient finances to pay if she does flee. -
Bloomberg
Maxwell's defense team also cited her long ties to the US, where she has lived for decades.
They're also arguing that Maxwell was covered by Epstein's controversial 2007
non-prosecution agreement which allowed the convicted pedophile to avoid federal sex
trafficking charges.
Federal prosecutors called that "absurd," arguing that the current case involved evidence
from two new accusers who weren't involved in the prior prosecution - and that their case could
become "even stronger" as additional witnesses have come forward to offer evidence against
Maxwell.
ender
Jeffrey Epstein, sought to evade FBI detection by using former British military personnel as
personal security and wrapping her cellphone in tin foil in an apparent anti-tracing attempt,
federal prosecutors alleged Monday.
When the FBI moved on Maxwell at her estate in New Hampshire about two weeks ago, agents had
to break down the door and found Maxwell hiding in a room in the interior of the home,
according to a new court filing from the government opposing her release on bail.
The details of her arrest were disclosed as Maxwell, 58, is expected to face a Manhattan
judge for the first time on Tuesday for a ruling on the
$5 million bail bond package -- with home confinement and GPS monitoring -- that her
lawyers proposed last week.
The U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of New York has maintained that
Maxwell, who has citizenship in three countries including the United States, is a flight risk.
She was tracked down at the secluded estate in Bradford, N.H., and arrested July 2.
She was born in France, which does not extradite its own citizens, raising fears among
prosecutors that she could leave the country if released and never return to face charges.
Authorities have accused her of recruiting underage girls for Epstein to abuse and occasionally
participating in criminal sex acts alongside him, saying she "normalized" the idea of having
sex with Epstein, her longtime companion, causing lasting psychological and emotional damage to
the victims.
Maxwell has denied the allegations, and her attorneys recently said she was estranged from
Epstein for a decade before his suicide in August while awaiting trial on sex trafficking
charges. She faces up to 35 years in prison.
Maxwell, the wealthy daughter of a deceased British media mogul, was so intent on not being
located that she never left her house, sending the security staff out "to make purchases for
the property" using a credit card they were provided, a guard there allegedly told the FBI,
according to Monday's court filing. The guards were hired by Maxwell's brother and worked in
"rotations," prosecutors wrote.
"As these facts make plain, there should be no question that the defendant is skilled at
living in hiding," Assistant U.S. Attorney Alison Moe wrote.
The U.S. attorney's office noted in its filing that since Maxwell's indictment,
investigators "have been in touch with additional individuals who have expressed a willingness
to provide information regarding the defendant." The evidence provided by those individuals,
who were not identified in the filing, "has the potential to make the Government's case even
stronger," it says.
Maxwell's bail proposal involves posting "a multi-million dollar property" in the United
Kingdom as collateral -- which prosecutors have deemed essentially useless because the U.S.
government could not seize it -- and she has refused to reveal the true extent of her assets to
investigators, the filing says.
Maxwell's attorneys argued last week that she was hiding from the media, not the FBI, before
her arrest and that she should not be subjected to the risk of contracting the novel
coronavirus at the Brooklyn federal jail where she has been held since her transfer from New
Hampshire.
This is a paid interview. What he was paid to say ?
Notable quotes:
"... Whether one believes an anonymous ex-jewel thief's exclusive interview with The Sun is up to the reader. That said, Epstein accuser Maria Farmer claimed there was a ' secret media room ' in the dead pedophile's New York mansion which was full of recording equipment. ..."
"... What's more, former Israeli spy Ari Ben-Menashe - alleged "handler" of Ghislaine's father, Robert Maxwell, told the authors of Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales , that the Epstein was operating a "complex intelligence operation" at the behest of Mossad, and 'filmed US politicians and power players having sex with underage girls to blackmail them.' ..."
"... "I wouldn't say it was a relationship -- it was all about what she could use me for to help them. Me being a cocky young guy from New York City, seeing their arrogance and their wealth -- I just looked at it as an opportunity to milk them for what I could. ..."
"... Steel also says Ghislaine is a "nymphomaniac" who would try "everything and anything in bed." ..."
"... ...he was shown footage involving two high-profile US politicians having sex with minors and two high society figures having a threesome with an under-age girl. ..."
"... "She said to me that she often thought she needed to do something about Epstein, telling me, 'He is going to be the death of me'" claimed Steel. " So while she protected him and helped him, she was simultaneously plotting against him and trying to distance herself. " ..."
"... Ghislaine allegedly told Steel she had a "Polanski plan," named after disgraced pedophile and film director Roman Polanski, who fled the US after he was charged with the rape of a 13-year-old girl. ..."
An alleged former Jewel thief who says he had group sex with Ghislaine Maxwell but 'drew the line
at under-age girls' claims he was forced to watch pedo videos involving 'two high-profile US
politicians' and 'two high society figures having a threesome with an under-age girl.'
Whether one believes an anonymous ex-jewel thief's exclusive interview with
The
Sun
is up to the reader. That said, Epstein accuser Maria Farmer claimed there was a '
secret
media room
' in the dead pedophile's New York mansion which was full of recording equipment.
What's more, former Israeli spy Ari Ben-Menashe - alleged "handler" of Ghislaine's father, Robert
Maxwell, told the authors of
Epstein:
Dead Men Tell No Tales
, that the Epstein was operating a "complex intelligence operation" at
the behest of Mossad, and 'filmed US politicians and power players having sex with underage girls
to blackmail them.'
Jumping into the salacious claims
by the jewel thief, who goes by the name William Steel,
the story begins in the mid-1990s when Steel claims he met Epstein in the "upstairs room at a very
high-end diamond dealer, the kind of place where only a few people are allowed in at a time."
"I was there doing what I do. I was meeting my fence.
"
I
saw Jeff with a young girl who looked only about 13 or 14 and he had his hand in the back of her
shorts.
"That's what first got my attention.
"She was so young and he was much older. That's when I knew that he was dirty.
"
I
had about 200,000 dollars worth of jewellery that I was getting rid of and later I struck up a
conversation with him
.
"He later said the girl he was with was his niece but I called bulls**t on that, telling him I
saw what he was doing with her. -
The
Sun
At some point later, Steel says he met Ghislaine Maxwell - who he says he had
sex
with on multiple occasions
- and wanted to see how she could use him to help Epstein.
Steel says he was trying to do the same thing:
"I wouldn't say it was a relationship -- it was all about what she could use me for to help them. Me
being a cocky young guy from New York City, seeing their arrogance and their wealth -- I just looked
at it as an opportunity to milk them for what I could.
I used to brag about what I was capable of to them."
Steele added that "
When
I wanted to impress or scare somebody, I'd get my briefcase out and it would have police scanners
in it, gloves, lock picks, guns with silencers,
" adding "I even owned an ultra-thermic
torch which would burn a hole into anything in seconds."
"
That
impressed Ghislaine and Jeff.
"
SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE:
Steel claims that he saw a parade of underage girls 'coming and going' from Epstein's Palm Beach
oceanfront mansion, but that he never participated in pedophilic sex acts.
"I only ever had sex with Maxwell and threesomes with her and other adult females," he said. "I
suspected what they were doing with the under-age girls, I knew their routine, so when they tried
to get me involved, I said, 'No, I'm not into that -- you're not getting me on video doing any of
that'."
Steel also says Ghislaine is a
"nymphomaniac"
who
would try "everything and anything in bed."
...he was shown footage involving
two
high-profile US politicians having sex with minors and two high society figures having a
threesome with an under-age girl.
Steel -- who is not being paid for this interview -- also branded
Maxwell
,
58, who was arrested last week in connection with trafficking young girls, a wild "nymphomaniac"
who would try "everything and anything in bed".
He says: "
I
was forced to watch their videos because they were trying to impress me.
"They wanted to convince me of their power and who they held in their grip.
"
They
boasted about 'owning' powerful people.
"
Ghislaine
was
more into showing me those than Jeff.
"When you're in a situation like that, you have to pretend to be non- judgmental. But it was
shocking. -
The
Sun
"She said to me that she often thought she needed to do something about Epstein, telling me, 'He is
going to be the death of me'" claimed Steel. " So while she protected him and helped him, she was
simultaneously plotting against him and trying to distance herself. "
"She knew they could drag each other down," adding "I think she saw herself as the more respectable
of the two.
She
wanted me to do something about Jeff.
"
Ghislaine allegedly told Steel she had a "Polanski plan," named after disgraced pedophile and film
director Roman Polanski, who fled the US after he was charged with the rape of a 13-year-old girl.
"She told me about her Polanski plan where she would flee to France because they couldn't extradite
her," he said, adding "I was surprised to hear she'd been picked up in New Hampshire."
"I want the authorities to know about her plan before her bail hearing."
Steel claims he absconded with evidence - "discs and things they were trying to get rid of," and
says he "sent them to the authorities, but I don't know if they did anything with them."
Why he wouldn't make copies is anyone's guess.
Steel said
the
pair also asked him to help them find girls -- but he refused.
He adds: "Ghislaine was always talking down to people.
"She tried to pull that on me but I told her straight, '
Don't
speak to me like you speak to your f***ing staff. I'm doing favours for you guys. You're not
talking down to me. I don't give a f how much money you have
'.
"They knew I had connections in various places and
they
offered me money to bring in girls but I never took them up on any of that.
"They told me, 'Whatever the girls want, I can help them with their modelling career if they
want that or pay for their education, and it's just massages'.
"And I said, 'Yeah, I'm pretty sure what your massages turn into'.
"And he would just smirk at me and say that I could have what I wanted.
"I said I didn't want that, it's not fair to take advantage of these young girls. It's not
right.
"
He
wanted me to help him with a plan he had to kidnap or pay 100 young girls and take them to an
island where he would have sex with them, orgies, use them for blackmail and have babies with
them.
"I just told him to shut up. I didn't even realise he was serious until years later.
"For him, at that time, his focus was getting girls that were not from the United States.
"
He
wanted girls from abroad because he felt they wouldn't know how the criminal justice system in
the US works and would be less likely to report him.
"He said he would help look after their families but I said, 'I'm not going to help you ruin a
teenage girl's life'. -
The
Sun
And that, is the rest of the ex-jewel thief's sordid tale.
The Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad
Timeline shows in detail how Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were working for the
Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad.
The timeline generated many comments at Unz.com but surprisingly most of them dealt whether
Epstein was a pedophile or not. This despite the overwhelming evidence of pedophilia.
Many have also totally missed – or are afraid to notice – the big picture:
Israeli intelligence agencies and especially Mossad seem to be running pedophile rings that
blackmail Western political, business and scientific leaders.
Furthermore, it seems that Ghislaine Maxwell was and still is the master mind behind many of
these pedophile rings.
One of the reasons Epstein and Ghislaine were able to continue sex trafficking with impunity
for so long was the appearance that Epstein was a victim of jealous people and overzealous
police. Many people thought that Epstein had only had sex with a 17-year old girl who had lied
about her age.
This excuse worked well because in Florida the age of consent is 18 while in most other
American states it is 16.
Epstein was able to play the martyr by not only claiming that unscrupulous girls had lied
their age but also by implying that the age of consent is too high anyway in Florida.
This was also one reason why in New Mexico where Epstein had his Zorro Ranch the officials
refused to register him as a sex offender. In New Mexico the age of consent was 16 until in
2018 it was raised to 18.
Furthermore, unlike in many other states, in New Mexico the courts recognize a mistake of
age defense.
New Mexico courts recognize a mistake of
age defense . The mistake of age defense is basically "I thought she was 17." However,
this is no guarantee that this defense will work in court. Moreover, the mistake of age is
the creation of judges in the absence of a direct statute addressing the defense. State
lawmakers may pass a law overriding the courts on this issue at any time. ( LegalMatch
)
In reality the Epstein-Ghislaine case is not whether it is wrong for an adult to have sex
with a 17 year old. Instead it is about many other things such as prostitution, grooming,
pedophilia and the exploitation of children.
This all is connected to global politics involving sex trafficking, drug and arms trade,
money laundering, Ponzi schemes, spy networks and blackmailing for Mossad.
Epstein's victims were caught in a web of international spy network that used them as pawns
for blackmail operations. The younger the girls were, the more leverage Israel would have over
politicians, billionaires and scientists. Thus Epstein and Ghislaine tried to also recruit
girls who were well under the age of 16.
What is more, they personally enjoyed having sex with these very young girls. Both Epstein
and Ghislaine seem to have been pedophiles who were attracted to prepubescent girls and boys,
i.e. small children.
Note that in order to be a pedophile it is enough to have merely occasional sexual
attraction to prepubescent, i.e. sexually immature children who have not yet developed
secondary
sex characteristics, such as breasts.
Julie Brown from Miami Herald notes that Courtney Wild was only 14 when she was
recruited into Epstein's sex ring.
Wild still had braces on her teeth when she was introduced to him in 2002 at the age of
14.
She was fair, petite and slender, blonde and blue-eyed. (emphasis added. Miami Herald
)
Link to Miami Herald
Julie Brown also notes that Epstein preferred girls who were not only white [and non-Jewish]
but also appeared prepubescent.
Wild, who later helped recruit other girls, said Epstein preferred girls who were
white, appeared prepubescent and those who were easy to manipulate into going further each
time. (Emphasis added. Miami Herald )
For Epstein and Ghislaine it was important that the girls at the very least looked like
small children. This is obviously why they preferred girls who were under 16.
Courtney Wild told the police that she brought Epstein over 70 girls and they were all under
16.
By the time I was 16, I had probably brought him 70 to 80 girls who were all 14 and 15
years old (Emphasis added. Miami Herald )
Some girls were even younger. According to the police many were 13 year old.
The girls -- mostly 13 to 16 -- were lured to his pink waterfront mansion by Wild and
other girls, who went to malls, house parties and other places where girls congregated, and
told recruits that they could earn $200 to $300 to give a man -- Epstein -- a massage,
according to an unredacted copy of the Palm Beach police investigation obtained by the
Herald. (Emphasis added. Miami Herald )
It is also important to note that even 13 was not the minimum age for Epstein and Ghislaine.
In fact, there was no limit to how young the girls could be. Both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell
emphasized that the younger the better.
Eventually, she said Maxwell trained her to recruit new girls for Epstein.
"Jeffrey was very particular in the kind of girls he wanted. First off, the younger the
better ."
Epstein said that to her, Giuffre claimed, and " Maxwell said that too . During the
training and telling me how to do it, she said 'You always have to go for the
youngest-looking ones .'" (Emphasis added.
The Daily Beast )
Link to The Daily Beast
It seems the primary purpose was not even blackmail since especially Epstein was having sex
with these young girls all the time. On some days Epstein was having sex several times a
day.
Sex games were more important for Epstein than work. Obviously, he was extremely attracted
to these young girls.
In six months, I never saw him do a day's work," Ransome told The Telegraph. "I never
saw him work. He was literally sexually abusing us all day long . (Emphasis added.
Business Insider )
Link to Business Insider
Ghislaine also seemed to be obsessed with sex. Just like her father, Robert Maxwell she was
rumored to be interested in unconventional sex which includes also sex with young children.
As she [Ghislaine] posed for the pics, which ran in a publication meant to promote
Sotheby's vintage fashion collection, she allegedly let slip comments that hinted at a
twisted double life.
"She didn't talk about Epstein, but during the shoot she did tell a story about how she
just hosted a dinner party for a number of young girls, and she put dildos at each place
setting," the source said. "Ghislaine then described how during the dinner two guests, who
were a couple, began demonstrating how to do the perfect fellatio on a man for all at the
table. She was laughing about it."
"A friend of mine has a whole theory about her, that Epstein was like her father Robert
Maxwell, who himself is believed to have had some strange sexual practices." (
Page Six )
Link to PageSix
The Epstein Mossad-Timeline shows how Ghislaine was most probably trained by Mossad to use
sex to gather information. That training would not have been too difficult for her since she
was hypersexual. Many even considered her a nymphomaniac.
In fact, even many Israeli Jews – who usually have much fewer sexual taboos than
puritan English and Americans – were shocked by her raunchy sexuality.
Flirtatious indeed: I understand from a mutual friend that after school she travelled
to Israel and visited a kibbutz; she was immediately ostracised by the other girls for making
a rather-too-obvious beeline for the Adonis-like lifeguard at the kibbutz pool. Very quickly
she got her way, as she would with much in her life. ( Tatler . Emphasis
added.)
Even Ghislaine's friend were sometimes shocked by her open sexuality that so often
contrasted with her otherwise lady-like behavior and position in high society.
Ghislaine was, added Mason, 'fantastically entertaining' and 'saucy' – the paper
said that she talked openly about sex .
In fact, said another acquaintance who saw her often at parties, she was 'obsessed by
sex . She's Sphinx-like, mysterious. The last time I saw her, five, 10 years ago, I said what
are you up to? And she said "I'm selling this product – stainless-steel mini dumb-bells
– that you put up your fanny. For exercising your vaginal muscles, exercise your pelvic
floor, learn the Singapore Grip. I'm giving seminars in LA and they all turn up and I tell
them, this is how you keep your man."' ( Tatler . Emphasis
added.)
Epstein and Ghislaine were both hypersexual. All kind of sex interested them. Little girls
were just part of the menu. Or more specifically, the best – and most profitable –
part.
Epstein and Ghislaine were so attracted to young girls that nothing seemed to satisfy them.
Perhaps this is why Epstein and Ghislaine created the highly risky sexual pyramid scheme. The
girls were offered two alternatives: Either satisfy Epstein and Ghislaine sexually or get more
girls to satisfy them.
In this way Epstein and Ghislaine were able to recruit literally hundreds of young girls.
However, some of these girls went to the police and the sexual pyramid scheme collapsed.
When Epstein got out of jail in 2009 he had half-learned his lesson: American girls are too
risky.
Now Epstein and Ghislaine would only concentrate on East European girls with the help of
their Jewish-Ukrainian friend Peter Listerman.
One of the lesser-known shadowy figures linked to Jeffrey Epstein and his sex ring of
teenage girls and young women is Ukrainian-born Peter Listerman, who has worked as a
businessman and television presenter but is most known for his "match-making"
abilities.
What match-making really means is that Listerman procures women, often underage, for
the jet-set society to use for sexual purposes. His "clients" include Russian oligarchs and
American businessmen and seems to have also
included Jeffrey Epstein. ( Citizen
Truth )
Link to the Citizen Truth.org
Listerman has such a bad reputation that he is shunned even in Ukraine!
Tatiana Savchenko, who founded the first modeling school in Odessa, Ukraine
explained to the Daily Beast the lengths she had to go to keep Listerman from getting his
hands on young women and trafficking them for sex work.
She claimed that he would frequently approach her students and attempt to lure them
with promises of a luxurious lifestyle, and that "It took a lot of work to keep him from
tricking our teen models in his traps." ( Citizen
Truth )
Peter Listerman is the usual suspect. Link to Fishki.net Do you think I am
kidding? I am Peter Listerman! Link to Fishki.net
Both Epstein and Listerman were attracted to very young girls. Neither even tried to hide it
much. In fact, Epstein was quite open about his attraction to tweens.
Just three months ago, as federal prosecutors were closing in with new charges, Mr.
Epstein had a conversation with R. Couri Hay, a publicist, about continuing to improve his
reputation. Mr. Epstein asserted that what he was convicted of did not constitute pedophilia,
said Mr. Hay, who declined to represent him.
The girls he had sex with were "tweens and teens," Mr. Epstein told him. ( The New
York Times )
But what is a tween?
Preadolescent is generally defined as those ranging from age 10 to 13 years.
[4][6] While known
as preadolescent in psychology, the terms preteen, preteenager or tween are common in
everyday use. ( Wikipedia
)
Epstein was right, of course. What he was convicted of in 2007 did not constitute
pedophilia. However, that is precisely one reason why people are so outraged!
Epstein and Ghislaine did not see any problem of recruiting, grooming and having sex also
with tweens. And apparently neither did the Justice Department and the FBI led by
Robert Mueller !
But it gets even worse. As pointed out in the Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad Timeline ,
it seems that Epstein and Ghislaine were after even younger girls.
In 2003 Epstein financed Jean-Luc Brunell's(?) and Jeff Fuller's(J) new modelling agency
MC2 that seemed to have worked with Peter Listerman.
MC2 obviously refers to the famous Einstein equation E = MC2 , the energy-mass
equivalence. Equally obviously, E equals Epstein, the energy, whereas the girls equal MC2, the
mass energized by Epstein.
Despite all this – or for the very reason – Epstein invested in MC2 and became
particularly
close to its founders Brunel and Fuller.
The agency operates in New York, Miami and Tel Aviv. It's in practice half-Israeli.
Many call Israel the capital of human trafficking and organ
harvesting .
Link to
Ynet.com
MC2 concentrates on importing East European girls to Israel and America. The younger the
better.
Marina Lynchuk of MC2 Lolita Lvola from MC2 Linta Lapinda from MC2
Brunel seems to have given 12-year old triplets to Epstein as a birthday present.
'Jeffrey bragged after he met them that they were 12-year-olds and flown over from
France because they're really poor over there, and their parents needed the money or whatever
the case is and they were absolutely free to stay and flew out,' Giuffre said.
She said she saw the three girls with her own eyes and that Epstein had repeatedly
described to her how the girls had massaged him and performed oral sex on him. They were
flown back to France the next day.
Link to Daily Mail
It seems that even tweens were not young enough for Epstein.
According to court papers in 2005 Brunel called Epstein and left a message that "he is
sending him a 16-year-old Russian girl for purposes of sex". However, the written message says
something even worse.
The message, filed as an exhibit in the case, was written on an office message pad,
partly in code, and read: "He [Brunel] has a teacher for you to teach you how to speak
Russian. She is 2×8 years old not blonde. Lessons are free and you can have your 1st
today if you call." ( New
York Post )
Does it mean that two eight year olds are involved? Or does 2 x 8 mean to sex 8 year old?
(2=to, x=sex)
Why would the lessons be free and why is it relevant that the "teacher" is not a blond?
There is no denying that Epstein and Ghislaine sexualised even small children. This became
clear in 2005 when police raided Epstein's Palm Peach mansion.
In one photo that was hanging on the wall a small six or seven year old girl was bending
over in a tiny dress. Police blurred out the photo in the video taken during the raid.
NEW YORK CITY, NY – MARCH 13: Atmosphere at
Hamish Bowles, Ghislaine Maxwell and Lillian von Stauffenberg dinner for ALLEGRA HICKS at Home
of Ghislaine Maxwell on March 13, 2007 in New York City. (Photo by Patrick McMullan/Patrick
McMullan via Getty Images). Link to Getty Images.
The so called artwork seems to be full of pedophile symbols.
Link to Wikileaks.org
The quality of the photos taken at Ghislaine's home are so good that even more symbols have
been found in her artwork.
For some reason the mainstream media has not picked up on this pedophilia angle. No
mainstream media journalist has even tried to ask why would Ghislaine have such art and symbols
on her home wall.
This despite the fact that Ghislaine is most probably an Israeli superspy just like was her
father, Robert Maxwell. She probably has been trained to use sex – including pedophilia
– as a tool for blackmail and manipulation.
At the time in Israel females molesting little boys was not even considered rape.
Link to
Haaretz.com
Nor have mainstream journalists asked where was Ghislaine when Madeline McCann was
abducted.
That would not be an unreasonable question since one of the E-Fit images looks a lot like
Ghislaine.
Link to Enchanted Life Path.com
Furthermore, two of the E-Fit images (1A, 1B) look like the Podesta brothers. John Podesta was White House
Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton and the Chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential
campaign.
Ghislaine and Epstein were close to the Clintons and the Podesta brothers have been directly
linked also to Pizzagate.
Was Ghislaine helping to run also Pizzagate and other pedophile rings for Mossad?
At least she seems to be perfectly trained to do just that. First, her own hypersexuality,
family background and possible training by Mossad made it easy for her to master mind the
pedophilia ring she run with Epstein.
Second, Ghislaine and Epstein had all the apparel to help run also other pedophile rings:
Lolita express airplanes and helicopters, Zorro Ranch in New Mexico and luxury mansions in New
York, Palm Peach and Paris.
Even more importantly they had their own island in the Virgin Islands.
In the 90s Epstein bought Little St.
James island from the Virgin islands. It had a mansion which Epstein expanded.
Soon locals started to call it the Pedophile Island.
Little St. James island. Link to
Wall Street Journal article
The island seems to have tunnels with several underground entrances.
Ghislaine has a Helicopter Pilot License and often transported quests to the island.
On the weekends in the 1990s, Maxwell would have her Rollerblades FedExed to Epstein's
island in the Caribbean, and said she got her helicopter's license so she could transport
anyone she liked without pilots knowing who they were .
Maxwell also said the island had been completely wired for video; the friend thought
that she and Epstein were videotaping everyone on the island as an insurance policy, as
blackmail.
A source close to Maxwell says she spoke glibly and confidently about getting girls to
sexually service Epstein, saying this was simply what he wanted, and describing the way she'd
drive around to spas and trailer parks in Florida to recruit them. She would claim she had a
phone job for them, "and you'll make lots of money, meet everyone, and I'll change your
life."
Maxwell had one other thing to tell this woman: "When I asked what she thought of the
underage girls, she looked at me and said, 'they're nothing, these girls. They are trash .'"
(Emphasis added. Vanity
Fair )
Ghislaine was naturally using Epstein's helicopters. Some of them shared their FAA tail
number with a US contractor, Dyncorp . That would have helped Ghislaine and
Epstein to fly drugs and children.
FAA records and Epstein's pilot's flight manifest indicate that Epstein's Bell
helicopter used the same tail number of N474AW . This was the same tail number used until
2006 by State Department contractor Dyncorp for counter-insurgency operations in Latin
America.
The congruence of Epstein's Bell N474AW and Dincorp's Bronco N474AW is noteworthy. In
2002, the year Epstein's aircraft fleet stands accused of flying underage teen girls, some
between the ages of 12 and 15 , coincided with Dyncorp's trafficking in underage females
between the ages of 12 and 15 from Kosovo and Bosnia in the Balkans.
One Dyncorp whistleblower reported to The Washington Times's Insight magazine's Kelly
O'Meara in 2002 the following on one Dyncorp employee in Bosnia:
[he] owned a girl who couldn't have been more than 14 years old. It's a sick sight
anyway to see any grown man [having sex] with a child, but to see some 45-year-old man who
weights 400 pounds with a little girl, it just makes you sick."
Tail number N474AW has been shared between Epstein's Bell helicopter like the one in
this photo. (Emphasis added.
Political Bull Pen )
DynCorp's pedophilia ring became internationally infamous with the release of the movie
Whistleblower.
Link to Wikipedia
Helicopters can always be seen. However, Ghislaine also has a license to operate
submarines!
In 2012 – three years after Epstein got out of jail – Maxwell founded The
TerraMar Project ,
[51] a nonprofit
organization that advocated protecting ocean waters.
She gave a lecture for TerraMar at the University of Texas at Dallas and a TED talk, at
TEDx Charlottesville in 2014. [52] Maxwell
accompanied Stuart
Beck (J), a 2013 TerraMar board member, to two United Nations meetings to discuss the
project. [17] ( Wikipedia )
In 2014, a
United Nations event featured Maxwell as a speaker. According to her bio in the program,
Maxwell's "web-based non-profit" aimed "to protect the Oceans by empowering a global
community of ocean citizens ." It further described Maxwell as "a private helicopter pilot
and an Emergency Medical Technician and a qualified ROV and Deepworker submarine pilot
."
A former Coast Guard officer, Borgerson was also a fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations , which featured Borgerson and Maxwell as speakers during one 2014 talk
titled "Governing the Ocean Commons: Growing Challenges, New Approaches." Friends of Maxwell,
according to The
New York Times , said Borgerson became her boyfriend. Maxwell had allegedly described
Borgerson as a " Navy SEAL " to her pals.
Maxwell's dubious charity also roped in the Clinton Global Initiative , the now-defunct
networking platform for the Clinton Foundation. In the fall of 2013, CGI named TerraMar as
one of the "commitments to action" at their annual meeting. (Emphasis added.
Daily Beast )
Did the Pedophile Island have an underground submarine base? Was it a part of global
pedophile network?
And was the Ocean Citizens project an attempt to escape national jurisdictions and thus gain
at least a partial immunity from police investigations and prosecutions?
Link to TerraMar
Project
Interestingly, as late as 2016 Epstein bought also the nearby Great St. James Island. He
started to build on the island without permits.
There were rumors that he was building underground. For some reason the mainstream media has
had no interest in this second island.
Why is the mainstream media not interested in Ghislaine's many links to pedophilia?
Perhaps because Ghislaine has so many powerful friends. The photo of the pedophile artwork
on Ghislaine's wall was taken 13 March 2007 during a party at Ghislaine's New York townhouse.
The guest list included a curious combination of elite Jews, aristocratic Brits and American
WASPs.
The party was in Ghislaine's huge 7000-square-foot townhouse. It is located in the most
opulent and prestigious neighborhood of America, the Upper East Side , New York on East 65th
Street just off Park Avenue. Epstein's townhouse was only 10 blocks away.
Ghislaine's five
story townhouse. Link to Street Easy Ghislaine's townhouse floor plan. Link to Street Easy
Ghislaine's townhouse 2nd floor gallery. Link to Street Easy
There are reports from reliable sources that the townhouse was sold in 2000 to Ghislaine by
Lynn
Forester de Rothschild . The very same woman who had introduced Epstein and Ghislaine to
Alan Dershowits and the Clintons in the 90s.
The Manhattan property, which is close to Epstein's mansion, is owned by Lynn Forester
de Rothschild, wife of British financier Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. (See
The Times and the original article .)
According to Business Insider Forester sold the townhouse to Ghislaine for less than half the
price.
Forester sold the mansion for about $8.5 million less than its assessed market value,
which was more than $13.4 million.
Was this a pay-off to Ghislaine from the King of Jews, the Rothschilds for services
rendered?
Hillary Clinton, Evelyn de Rothschild, Bill Clinton and Lynn Forester de
Rothschild. Link to Mint Press
It probably is also relevant that at the time of the sale of the townhouse the Prime
Minister of Israel was Ehud
Barak. In the 80s he had been the head of Aman, the Israeli Military Intelligence Agency.
As the Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad Timeline revealed, both Epstein and Ghislaine worked
for the Israeli intelligence agencies already in the 80s during the Iran-Contra operation.
Note that it was around year 2000 that Epstein and Ghislaine started the pedophile operation
in earnest. In the 80s and 90s blackmail operations were a side show but now it became the main
show involving hundreds of young girls.
Sexual blackmail – especially involving little children – can be an extremely
efficient way to influence key politicians and even military officials. A successful blackmail
operation can achieve more than several army divisions. No wonder Barak was so close to Epstein
and Ghislaine.
Furthermore, in 2000 the president of Israel was Moshe Katsev who was sexually harassing and
even raping his female subordinates. Later Katsev would be convicted of rape.
It was also in 2000 when the Israeli Vice-Consul of Rio de Janeiro, Arie Scher and Hebrew
language Professor George Schteinberg were running a pedophile ring for Israeli tourists. When
the Brasilian police started to investigate the Israeli consulate Scher managed to flee back to
Israel.
Link to Rodoh.info
In Israel Scher was not prosecuted. Instead in 2005 he was promoted to Consul of Canberra,
the capital of Australia. A spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, Mark Regev
explained:
He [Arie Scher] was a young and single man at the time [in Brazil]. Now he is married
and he's six years older and there is no reason why he shouldn't make an excellent diplomatic
appointment in Australia.
Australia refused to let Scher enter the country.
Link to William Bowles Info
The most shocking part of the Arie/Aryeh Scher story is that the mainstream media was not
interested. Either the stories have been scrubbed from the internet or no stories were ever
written by mainstream journalists except one short story by BBC in 2000 and one even smaller
story
by The Sydney Morning Herald in 2005. Even more surprisingly Youtube does not seem to
have any videos about the Scher case.
No wonder Barak was absolutely convinced that the Western mainstream media would never dare
to criticize Israel and its intelligence agencies. Not even when Mossad was running pedophile
rings.
It was probably the Israeli leaders Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and Moshe Katsev together with
the ultra-Zionist
Mega Group who made sure Epstein and especially the Maxwell family had not only immunity
from prosecution but also all the blackmail apparel necessary including luxury townhouses,
airplanes, yachts, submarines, ranch and a private island. All, of course, bugged to the
hilt.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak (R) talks to Shimon Peres, Minister of Regional
Planning, after Barak's speech at the opening session of parliament in Jerusalem 30 October
2000. AFP PHOTO / SVEN NACKSTRAND (Photo credit should read SVEN NACKSTRAND/AFP/Getty Images)
Link to Getty Images
Here the pedophile artwork at Ghislaine's New York townhouse can be seen behind Lillian von
Staufenberg who in March 2007 together with Ghislaine and Hamish Bowles organized a dinner
party in honor of Allegra Hicks. This at a time when Epstein had already been charged with
abusing young girls.
Why would Ghislaine have such a suspicious artwork on her wall knowing that it would
probably be photographed during the parties?
Why would Ghislaine and her quests take such a huge risk? Or was it a sign meant to be seen?
Was Ghislaine flaunting her power?
Ghislaine and her quests seemed to be absolutely sure that the mainstream media would not
dare to ask embarrassing questions.
They were right, of course. The mainstream media knows its place.
However, occasionally some courageous mainstream journalist or editor does try to give
hints. Some have even reported on Ghislaine's hyper-sexual reputation and her orgies. It is
just that the stories have mostly been scrubbed from the internet.
Fortunately, Whitney Webb from Mintpress has
found many of the scrubbed stories. Some of them mention the Mossad connection and others
note the orgies. For example, in 2003 a British newspaper, The Evening Standardreported
a revealing rumor.
Salacious reports have crossed the Atlantic about Ghislaine hosting bizarre parties at
her house to which she invites a dozen or so young girls, then brandishes a whip and teaches
them how to improve their sexual techniques.
It seems that Ghislaine was not only a madame to Epstein but also to the ruling elite. This
would both explain her popularity and the fact that the media – and especially the
American media – dares not to criticize her too much. Not even after her boyfriend
Epstein was charged with sex trafficking minors!
Ghislaine's friends are just too powerful. After the March 2007 party the British Daily
Mail newspaper was amazed how Ghislaine could still have attracted such creme de la
creme of the highest elite. Even more amazingly, the elite was practically swooning over
her.
The night before the party, the hostess [Ghislaine] had been inundated with calls from
disgruntled socialites, irked that they hadn't received an invitation.
The hostess greeted their objections with her customary charm, but remained unmoved. As
always, her list had been carefully edited, and she intended it to stay that way.
Among the select few were Hollywood star Matthew Modine, Kennedy family member Mrs
Anthony Radziwill, Peggy Siegel, PR consultant to the stars, and Julie Janklow, heir to a
literary dynasty.
There was a Rockefeller on the list, as well as the inevitable countesses, billionaires
and New York luminaries.
Link to Daily Mail
The guests at the party included also Renee Rockefeller who is married to Mark Rockefeller , the son of ex-Vice
President Nelson Rockefeller and nephew of David Rockefeller.
David Rockefeller lived at 146 East on the same 65th Street in the Upper East Side as
Ghislaine. They were practically neighbors. Ghislaine would have to walk only two minutes to
visit David.
David liked to pose for photos in his Beetle Room next to his favorite Picasso painting
depicting a nude child "prostitute".
David Rockefeller. Link to Jeffrey Harris Desing.com
David was often visited by his close friend Jacob Rothschild, the patriarch of the
Rothschild family.
The very same family that got Ghislaine her luxury townhouse next door.
The patriarchs,
Jacob Rothschild and David Rockefeller. Link to Jeffrey Harris Design.com
As shown by the Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad Timeline both Epstein and Ghislaine
continued to move in the highest circles long after Epstein got out of jail. In fact, only last
year Ghislaine was invited to a secret writers' retreat hosted by the richest man in the world,
Jeff Bezos.
Link to The Daily Mail
Not only billionaires but also royalty kept in close contact with Ghislaine.
Prince Andrew was recently interviewed by the BBC about his relationship with Epstein,
Ghislaine and their sex slave Virginia Roberts.
Amazingly, Andrew claimed she has no recollection of Epstein's and Ghislaine's sex slave,
Virginia Roberts. This despite the fact that they were photographed together!
Prince Andrew,
Virginia Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell. Link to Daily Mail Link to The Sun.com
Hardly anybody believes Andrew. The queen had no choice but to sack his own son.
Link to
Daily Mail
Andrew got sacked because he was caught in a lie.
Andrew claimed he could not have had sex with the 17-year old Virginia in 2001 because he
had stayed with the British consul general.
The problem is the consul general does not recall Andrew staying with him.
Link to Daily
Mail
Curiously, most of the mainstream media has forgotten that it was Ghislaine who recruited
and manipulated Virginia Roberts to become a sex slave.
Even the BBC forgot this crucial fact despite Andrew mentioning Ghislaine many times during
the interview.
Time and again, the Prince invoked his friendship with Maxwell, 57, daughter of
disgraced media tycoon Robert Maxwell, as the reason he came into paedophile Epstein's
orbit.
Asked when he last saw Maxwell, Andrew said his last contact was 'earlier this year,
funnily enough', when she 'was here doing some rally'. (
Daily Mail )
Andrew claimed to have met Ghislaine last spring. In fact, they met in June just after US
prosecutors reopened the case against Epstein.
The Duke of York held a meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell in London two weeks after US
prosecutors announced they wanted to reopen their investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.
The meeting took place on or about June 5, the day before Ms Maxwell took part in a
four-day charity motoring rally from London to Monte Carlo.
Did Ghislaine demand that Andrew help make sure that the her own parallel case would not be
reopened?
After meeting Andrew she literally disappeared from the face of the earth.
The ex-socialite has not been seen since although rumours have placed her in Brazil,
France, the American mid-West and even the UK.
'No one knows where she is,' a lawyer for one of Epstein's victims said last night.
'She's done the greatest disappearing act known to man – or woman.' (
Daily Mail )
Link to Daily Mail
Shockingly, during the BBC interview Prince Andrew mentioned Ghislaine many times and seemed
to be proud of their friendship. Despite this the interviewer did not dare to ask questions
about their relationship.
Was this a message to all: Leave Ghislaine alone.
Ghislaine is obviously protected not only by the royal family but also by the whole ruling
elite. No wonder that she has the
Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card .
Ghislaine also tries to protect other Epstein associates.
Link to Daily Mail
Prince Andrew is now afraid to go to the US.
Five women who accuse Jeffrey Epstein of abusing them say Prince Andrew witnessed how
people were given massages at the sex offender's homes.
The lawyer for the women has told BBC
Panorama he plans to serve subpoenas to force the Duke of York to testify as a witness in
all five cases.
He says the prince could have important information about sex trafficking. ( BBC )
Link to BBC story and video
The BBC has now finally zoomed in on Ghislaine.
Another Epstein victim, Sarah Ransome told Panorama Ghislaine Maxwell, one of Prince
Andrew's oldest friends, worked hand in hand with Epstein.
"Ghislaine controlled the girls. She was like the Madam," she said.
"She was like the nuts and bolts of the sex trafficking operation and she would always
visit Jeffrey on the island to make sure the girls were doing what they were supposed to be
doing.
"She knew what Jeffrey liked. She worked and helped maintain Jeffrey's standard by
intimidation, by intimidating the girls, so this was very much a joint effort."
Ms Maxwell could not be reached for comment but has previously denied any involvement
in or knowledge of Epstein's abuse. ( BBC )
But the American media is still not interested in Ghislaine.
What the American mainstream media always willfully forgets is that Ghislaine Maxwell is the
key person and mastermind behind the whole pedo sex trafficking operation.
The key role of Ghislaine is not surprising. After all, her father was an Israeli super spy,
Robert Maxwell.
But perhaps this is the very reason why the American media is not interested.
For years Ghislaine has been at the center of a vast pedophile sex trafficking network. But
still to this day the American police has never dared to even interview her.
"... Ghislaine has to be made to talk. That's just a start. ..."
"... Part of me thinks they could all be scoundrels, one no better than the next. Knowing what I know about Jared Kushner's father has made me believe the worst. I'd like to think. We'll see. ..."
In the wake of - and in spite of - his death, France began a preliminary investigation of
Epstein for rape, etc., last year. He had an apartment in Paris and was returning to the US
from there when he was arrested in New Jersey in July, 2019.
Could this answer speculation as to why Ghislaine Maxwell chose to settle here in the US
instead of France?
I can't make heads from tails here until I see more done. Clayton still has to get
confirmed and Ghislaine has to be made to talk. That's just a start.
Part of me thinks they could all be scoundrels, one no better than the next. Knowing what
I know about Jared Kushner's father has made me believe the worst. I'd like to think. We'll
see.
She has hired Christian Everdell for her defense. "He was named one of New York's 2019
Super Lawyers for white collar criminal defense." He used to be an Assistant US Attorney
for SDNY where he helped convict El Chapo of the Sinaloa drug cartel.
A former colleague says he will do what is in the best interests of the client, but no
doubt he will be talking to her about the benefits of becoming a cooperating witness.
An acquaintance of Ghislaine Maxwell has told reporters that the socialite has secret video footage of Prince Andrew that was
filmed during her time as Jeffrey Epstein's so called 'madam'.
Christina Oxenberg
told The
Sun that Andrew, the British Queen's son, "is one of many johns, all of whom were videotaped by Ghislaine."
"He is not a victim here, but Ghislaine was never his friend, she was taping him," Oxenberg added, noting that "Friends don't
tape friends."
Oxenberg is the daughter of Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia, making her Prince Andrew's cousin.
She told reporters that she believes Maxwell is seeking to trade information with the FBI, and possibly the videos to save
herself.
"I think she thinks she can get out, obviously she's planning on trading [information]," Oxenberg said.
Oxenberg says she was interviewed by the FBI last year in regards to the case, and that she is willing to testify against
Maxwell.
The report claims that the royal said Maxwell previously bragged to her about obtaining underage girls under Epstein's influence.
"I will definitely be there to remind her that in '97, she told me copious amounts," Oxenberg said.
It is not clear if Oxenberg is the same person who was cited anonymously in another report this week claiming that Maxwell
has secret sex tapes that "could implicate some twisted movers and shakers."
"If Ghislaine goes down, she's going to take the whole damn lot of them with her," the source
told the Daily Mail .
As we
highlighted last week, a lawyer for one of Epstein's accusers thinks that Ghislaine Maxwell could reveal a "bigger name" involved
in Epstein's pedophile network in order to secure a plea deal following her arrest.
"I'm sure that Ghislaine's attorneys will try to make a deal where she speaks out about a bigger name to get reduced charges
for herself," said Lisa Bloom
"... who set up the dummy LLC through which the property was acquired? A law firm, right? And who found the place? Were they steered to this property by the FBI? ..."
" they also
noted that she had been hiding out on a 156-acre property in Bradford. She lived in an
estate with "a fabulous barn for hoedowns, square dances, and hay rides," according to the
property
site Zillow ." BG
" Maxwell, a citizen of three countries, apparently bought the home in an all-cash purchase
at the end of December through an anonymous LLC, a prosecutor's memo said. The LLC has a
Boston-based mailing address, according to public records.
" We had been discreetly keeping tabs on Maxwell's whereabouts ," said William F. Sweeney
Jr., the assistant director in charge of the FBI's New York office, at a press conference.
"More recently we learned she had slithered away to a gorgeous property in New Hampshire,
continuing to live a life of privilege while her victims live with the trauma inflicted upon
them years ago." The memo said she had been "hiding out in locations in New England" for the
past year ." BG
----------------
When I was a kid I used to drive my father back and forth from Sanford, Maine to Grenier,
AFB at Manchester, NH. He had a retirement job at the base (long closed) as the budget analyst
for the facility. He never learned to drive. Central New Hampshire is a forested and somewhat
gloomy land both east and west of Manchester. Bradford looks to be 40 miles NW of Manchester. I
never had any reason to go west of Manchester into the center of the state. All of central NH
is a land of coniferous forest and tiny villages like Bradford. South of Manchester the scene
is dominated by immigrants from Massachusetts centered around a big town, Nashua. The actual
locals in greater NH refer to them as Massholes. They moved to NH to escape MA taxes.
A million bucks for 156 acres of pine and fir with a nice house and the wondrous barn
mentioned above? Sounds like a great deal to me, even in an all cash deal. A million dollars
wouldn't get you anything like that where I live at Alexandria in Occupied, Virginia now ruled
by the Quisling Northam. So, who set up the dummy LLC through which the property was acquired?
A law firm, right? And who found the place? Were they steered to this property by the FBI?
The FBI in NY gave a presser and handed out a memo on the "score." Why the NY City office of
the FBI? My WAG would be that they have had one or more sources on the books in NY City telling
them where she has been since her "disappearance," and keeping them up to date on her
activities and location. Who? There must be at least one lawyer in the mix. A lot of lawyers
would "rat out" a client in a heartbeat if approached by the FBI. They know the cost of
refusing to cooperate.
The FBI brought the NYPD as well as the local flics to make this arrest? Why did they do
that? I just checked in Wikipedia and Bradford has not been ceded to NY City.
My uber WAG would now be that she probably never left the US. In an age of digital passport
controls at frontiers it is not easy to move around internationally without being reported
electronically. I suppose she could have sneaked across the Canada/US border in northern New
England, but she doesn't look the type for spooking around in some little border town or hiking
through the Maine woods. And, the Canadians would have noticed her when she arrived at one of
their airports even by private jet.
No, on balance I would bet that all the stuff about her residence in Israel or France is
probably hot air, but I could be wrong. pl
She could have escaped the country. Carlos Ghosn had escaped prosecution in Japan by
hiding in a box taken aboard a private plane, eventually finding his way to Lebanon.
Perhaps she felt she was untouchable. Or maybe Israel, where she would have been protected
against extradition to the US, wasn't safe for her.
What I still can't grasp is the whole Berman/Clayton situation. There's no question she
could have been arrested sooner. It seems Berman was blocking her arrest. Also there is a lot
of resistance to Clayton's nomination. Even Senator Lindsay Graham, who has become something
of an ally to Trump, has come out in opposition to it. It's very strange.
It has enough irregularity in it to remind me of JFKjr plane crash. If she truly has the
same goods as JE, then it would require days of testimony and corroboration, months even,
along with locating and reviewing said actual physical evidence. It would not take a few days
post-arrest; legal matters simply take forever at this level, and the more lawyers the longer
it takes whether civil or criminal.
This reeks to me of a cover story for someone who had their ears pinned back months or
years ago by one team or the other.
I don't know but I suspect she calculated that she was safer in America than elsewhere. I
think she was probably concerned about the British more than anyone else. Prince Andrew is a
chump, but a Royal one.
I would expect that the FBI and perhaps her lawyers also lulled her into a false sense of
security. - designed to keep her "within range" and perhaps over time she becomes careless
enough to reveal the location of hidden evidence.
In my darkest moods I suspect she now needs to be "dealt with", perhaps to remove spoiling
opportunities with one or more Democratic party candidates.
I am concerned for her safety. I am especially concerned that she be kept totally isolated
from the rest of the prison population. We had a "super grass" crook - Carl Williams in jail
here. He was singing about judicial corruption. He was inexplicably transferred to a unit
shared with two homicidal inmates who murdered him. I say "inexplicable" since the prison
governor responsible then went deer hunting near here and has not been seen since.
"What I still can't grasp is the whole Berman/Clayton situation. There's no question she
could have been arrested sooner." Of course you "grasp it." Democrat big-wigs will be
implicated if she talks. It is amusing how much this affair resembles the TeeVee Series
"Billions."
For the first time in her privileged life, ex-socialite Ghislaine Maxwell is living in
conditions described by one judge in 2016 as similar to a 'prison on Turkey or a Third World
Country.'
The 58-year-old Maxwell was arrested after hiding out in a lavish four-bedroom,
four-bathroom mansion in New Hampshire, which Bloomberg notes sports views of the Mount Sunapee
foothills from every room.
After being initially booked in New Hampshire on multiple charges related to trafficking
underage girls for the sexual gratification of dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, Maxwell was
transferred on Monday to New York's Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) - home to over 1,600
male and female detainees which was built at the turn of the 20th century and used during both
world wars, according to
Bloomberg .
No one wants to go to jail, but the conditions described at the MDC have been the subject
of numerous complaints and scrutiny that rival the rat-infested federal lockup in Lower
Manhattan where Epstein was held.
In early 2019, hundreds of inmates at the MDC were locked shivering in their cells for at
least a week after an electrical fire knocked out power in the building. The inmates spent
some of the coldest days of that winter in darkness, largely without heat and hot water. -
Bloomberg
One inmate, Derrilyn Needham, has been incarcerated at MDC since last November along with 30
other women who slept in bunk beds. Needham said social distancing was difficult, and that for
three days starting April 23, the women were on "lockdown on our bunk beds, not able to leave
our bunks except to use the bathroom or shower.
She added that they hadn't been given gloves, hand sanitizer or disinfectant wipes - and
that despite symptoms of COVID-19, the assistant warden said she couldn't receive a test for
the virus.
According to The
Intercept , " The number of reported coronavirus symptoms far exceeds the number of tests
MDC has performed ." In May, the facility came under fire for allegedly destroying medical
records "as part of a deliberate effort to obscure the number of incarcerated people infected
with the coronavirus."
The
report , filed Thursday as part of a putative class-action lawsuit by people held in
custody at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, casts doubt on assertions by the
Bureau of Prisons , which runs the jail, and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern
District, which serves as counsel for the bureau. The Bureau of Prisons and federal
prosecutors have insisted in court that the situation at the jail is under control. But the
medical examiner's report -- which contradicted prison assertions that Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention guidelines were being followed -- suggests that the six people in
custody who have tested positive for the disease likely represent the tip of the iceberg . -
The
Intercept
After the pandemic began, the detention center was deemed "ill-equipped" to deal with the
spread of COVID-19 by former chief medical officer for the city's jails, Homer Venters, who
says he's "concerned about the ongoing health and safety of the population," and slammed
administrators for failing to adequately deal with the pandemic.
That said, MDC has been on the receiving end of criticism over its conditions long before
coronavirus was an issue.
Cheryl Pollak, the federal magistrate in Brooklyn, has repeatedly voiced concerns about
the MDC after reviewing a report by the National Association of Women Judges, who visited the
facility and found that 161 female inmates were housed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in
two large rooms that lacked windows, fresh air or sunlight and weren't allowed out to
exercise. -
Bloomberg
"Some of these conditions wouldn't surprise me if we were dealing with a prison in Turkey or
a Third World Country," Pollak said during a 2016 hearing. "It's hard for me to believe it's
going on in a federal prison."
White Nat , 30 minutes ago
Multiple charges related to trafficking underage girls for the sexual gratification of
dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. These charges barely scratch the surface of what Maxwell and Epstein were guilty of.
Anyone who thinks "Barr finally let the hammer down!" needs to ask themselves, if Maxwell
is Public Enemy #1, why would they casually, matter of factly, ho-humly, stick her in the
same lousy facility where 1. her partner Epstein mysterious croaked, and which 2. just
happens to be filled with Corvid-19 cases. Why not stick her in an army base a la Frankie
Five Angels? (Oops, that didn't work out either). Or some cell in Oklahoma? It's an obvious
set up for her demise (though only a real crank would think the whole Corvid-19 was a set-up
for this from the start.....) Oh, and by the way, that obviously isn't Ghislaine Maxwell.
OCnStiggs , 4 hours ago
Think outside the box:
If you wanted TOTAL and complete cooperation from Epstein's close associate, why not
threaten her with the same fate as her boss? In fact, perhaps Epstein was sacrificed simply
to put pressure on Maxwell.
She is the literal walking-talking black book who knows
everything and everyone. She knows more than Epstein. She set everything up. Ever wonder why
she stayed in the states? My guess, the Feds got to her 12 months ago and have been
monitoring her calls since then. They have already worked out a plea bargain with her. And
the woman seen going into a lock up? A double or Maxwell before they walk her out the front
door and into a cab.
NOTHING can stop what is coming. NOTHING.
MsCreant , 4 hours ago
"The Latest Flu Hoo Hoo" posted a document below that is supposed to be the indictment. If
true, it does not go into near enough detail.
Copy paste from below:
2020-095.pdf Ghislaine
Maxwell Indictment, July 2, 2020 (7.1MB)
No other people, blackmail, intercourse, narrow number of years, there's nothing
honey.
SubjectivObject , 4 hours ago
potemkin prisons
potemkin fedgov
potemkin country
Roger Casement , 3 hours ago
It takes a village ...
SubjectivObject , 10 minutes ago
it takes a pillage
the latest flu hoo hoo , 5 hours ago
..G.M. sealed indictment:
2020-095.pdf Ghislaine
Maxwell Indictment, July 2, 2020 (7.1MB)
MsCreant , 4 hours ago
If accurate, this is outrageous and NOT NEARLY ENOUGH on so many dimensions.
No one "intercoursed" anyone?
No one "oral sexed" anyone?
They only "touched" breasts and genitals?
Only Ghisalaine and Jeff? No one else was involved at all?
Only the years 94-97?
No blackmail?
Is Acosta still on the case here? What the Intercourse Batman!
Someone needs to go down HARD for this bull ****.
Where is the ******* press? This should not be allowed to stand.
Justapleb , 5 hours ago
Clever deceptive wording. She's been arrested on charges "related to" sex trafficking underage kids. Not charges FOR sex trafficking of underage kids. If she got a parking ticket while
kidnapping, raping, and killing a child, that parking ticket would be "related to" the
murder.
Look how she is not charged for the sex trafficking itself! This is obviously a limited
hangout. The documentary got the general public asking why she was living high on the hog,
scot free.
So this is to placate the public more than tighten any screws.
Cigarshopper , 5 hours ago
After a life of luxury and then a night in the New York's Metropolitan Detention Center,
you know she's told her lawyer to start wheeling and dealing to get her out of that hellhole.
She'll be giving everybody up and handing over everything she has on the people who came
through all of Epstein's properties. Maxwell couldn't make it through a year at this place or
any federal penitentiary. With the entire world knowing what her proclivities are she'll be
licking the pussies of every inmate locked up where ever she's sent.
JLM , 6 hours ago
Imagine putting a person of her status in a third world hole after engaging in crimes that
could not in her wildest dreams ever be held accountable for. It was her right to do it "her
way". How dare the world interfere... . This is not right.
joep3joep3 , 7 hours ago
I spent a weekend in Manhattan detention. I was one of the worst experiences in my life,
all from a dui. Cockroaches, smells like piss, nowhere to lay down, metal benches, people screaming on
drugs, gang members and very cold.
On the bright side, I got free representation lawyer, because everyone gets a free lawyer.
That's the way they make money. Free lawyers that charge the state.
Roger Casement , 7 hours ago
******** Produced by Ewen Cameron Directed by Tavistock,
Who was the spy Robert Maxwell ? What treachery did he commit? Who did he work for? The
Magic Circle. Who did he work for, really?
Fireman , 7 hours ago
Jizzlaid does Midnight Excess....
You're not taking me to the sanatorium!
"Some of these conditions wouldn't surprise me if we were dealing with a prison in
Turkey or a Third World Country," Pollak said during a 2016 hearing. "It's hard for me to
believe it's going on in a federal prison."
Racheal Chandler is a centerpiece for the entire deep state elite. She connects the
Clintons and their Foundation, Jeffrey Epstein, The Royal Family , Hollywood & Government
Leaders around the world. She references Spirit Cooking.
Trying her to Marina Abramovic and PizzaGate. She was photographed with Prince Andrew and
Ghislaine Maxwell. Hollywood connects her to James Rothschild. Through Paris Hilton's sister
Nicky marrying him. Her family owning the Los Angeles Times for over 100 Years, and getting
her start at the Standard Hotel Chain.
So not only should Prince Andrew be worryed the list of names run long. The sick ties with
Epstein & Ghislaine should open eyes. The best is yet to come the elite time is up.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 7 hours ago
Predator Lives Matter
cleg , 9 hours ago
They will throw Prince Andrew to the wolves....maybe a mid level banker or two. That 's
it.
Move along....nothing o see here
the latest flu hoo hoo , 9 hours ago
..it's a thin line...
...
We immediately noticed a peculiarity about the indictment
document provided by Strauss. It covered only a brief 4-year period, running from 1994
through 1997. One of the main accusers of Maxwell, Virginia (Roberts) Giuffre, has credibly
indicated in previous court filings that Epstein and Maxwell sexually abused her "between
1999 and 2002." That should lengthen the scope of the indictment by five additional
years.
...
The Southern District of New York, home to some of the biggest and most powerful Wall
Street banks and their attorneys, who cycle in and out of jobs in that office, might have a
strong reason to want to keep Giuffre's claims out of this case. Giuffre has stated the
following in a previous court filing against Epstein:
"In addition to being continually exploited to satisfy Defendant's every sexual whim,
Plaintiff was also required to be sexually exploited by Defendant's adult male peers,
including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and
personal acquaintances most of these acts of abuse occurred during a time when Defendant knew
that Plaintiff was approximately 15, 16 and 17 years old "
Indicative of how things work in the Southern District of New York, Maxwell's lawyer in
the case is Christian Everdell of Cohen & Gresser. Everdell spent almost a decade as an
Assistant U.S. Attorney in that office before arriving at Cohen & Gresser in 2017.
There is an abundance of evidence to be suspicious of how the U.S. Attorney's office is
handling this case. It is 14 years that the Justice Department has been sitting on the case
against Maxwell.
The Palm Beach, Florida Police Chief, Michael Reiter, handed a deeply investigated case
against Epstein and Maxwell over to the FBI in July of 2006 according to the intrepid
reporting of Julie K. Brown in the Miami Herald in November of 2018. Brown indicated that
it took just eight months of FBI interviews for the U.S. Attorney's office in Florida to have
a 53-page Federal indictment ready to file against Epstein involving sexual assaults against
dozens of underage girls.
But the indictment was never filed. A "deal" was worked out by then U.S. Attorney, Alex
Acosta, and Epstein's well-connected lawyers. Federal charges were dropped against Epstein
and he was allowed to plead guilty to only Florida state charges: one count of soliciting sex
from a minor and one count of soliciting sex from an adult woman. Epstein was able to serve
just 13 months in jail while also given a work release program to sit in his well-appointed
office 12 hours a day, and driven around by his chauffeured limo. The deal was so
outrageously constructed that it even denied his victims knowledge of the terms of the
deal.
It was only because of the public outrage that was unleashed by Brown's reporting in the
Miami Herald and her emotional personal video interviews with Epstein's victims, that the
Justice Department was forced to bring new charges in 2019. Those charges were brought by the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, the same office that just
indicted Maxwell.
This whole thing smells... Why wasn't she taken out when Jeffy exited the stage in some
form or another... You can't tell me that nobody knew where she was... Nothing makes sense
about this...
Murph , 10 hours ago
What I genuinely don't understand is that, given Maxwell's power and connections, given
the total corruption of the alphabet agencies, how was she not spirited away to Israel and
given a new identity? Instead she's arrested without trouble on American soil. I truly don't
get it.
fersur , 10 hours ago
Unedited - WTF made into f-li-ck !
Ghislaine Maxwell seems to be going through hell right now, only she doesn't want you to
know it danielgbates
Jul 4
'What the flick is going on seriously, what the flick', said the English woman's voice. It
was minutes before the first appearance for Ghislaine Maxwell at federal court in New
Hampshire was due to start and the voice unexpectedly came on the dial-in line for
journalists. The voice appeared extremely upset and said: 'I don't understand'. She repeated
it again but broke down in tears and couldn't finish the word. I heard her say 'I'm trying'
but all you could hear was sobbing. A court officer came on and said: 'Please mute your
lines, people' and she was gone. By the time the hearing began she was a different person,
calm and composed, her working class accent replaced by the familiar cut glass English voice
telling the world: I'm in control.
But what we heard moments before appeared to be Ghislaine Maxwell caught on a hot mic,
unaware that dozens of journalists, including me, were listening in to her. She sounded
confused and in complete disbelief.
For somebody who has lived in privilege her whole life, you can imagine that this did not
compute. Plucked from her $1m, 156-acre New Hampshire estate at 8.30am by FBI agents, she was
now appearing in a federal court via video link from the Merrimack county jail. How could
this happen to me. This isn't right. I don't understand, or as she apparently put it:
'Seriously, what the flick?'
You can't help but feel that Maxwell is having a taste of what her alleged victims have
been going through for years. A feeling that you are no longer in control of your own life, a
feeling that your sense of power has been stripped away from you. Both sound horrible and
like nothing anyone should ever go through but, as her alleged victims no doubt see it, they
couldn't happen to a nicer person.
I really hope that the federal authorities ensure that Maxwell lives to face a trial.
After such a long wait her victims deserve that much, and she deserves due process (an
unpopular view among some, perhaps, but everyone deserves it, even terrorists). Maxwell
denies all the allegations that she was Epstein's 'madam' who arranged underage girls for him
to have sex with, and sometimes took part in the abuse. But the evidence against her is
compelling and you just have to look at the flight logs from Epstein's planes to raise
serious questions. How will she answer this? 'Tell me Miss Maxwell, what were you doing
flying 815 times between 1995 and 2007 on a private jet called the Lolita Express with a man
who in 2009 became a registered sex offender who had admitted having raped underage
girls?'
I suspect that the timing of Maxwell's arrest has to do with the compensation scheme for
Epstein's victims starting taking applications a week before, on June 25. Under the
programme, victims of Epstein can submit their cases for money from his estate with all $650m
apparently up for grabs and no upper cap. But there is one catch: the victims have to stay
any civil action against Epstein's estate in order to get the money. Until Maxwell was
charged it meant they had to make the awful choice between compensation and chasing justice
through the civil courts. That was essentially a re-run of Epstein's 2008 sweetheart plea
deal only this time they had to give their approval to it (which in some ways is worse). But
now Maxwell has been indicted there is no conflict: they can stay their civil cases and watch
as Maxwell's case works its way through the courts. It must be a huge relief for them
all.
The two perjury charges against Maxwell show that her arrogance has been one of the things
that brought her down. Epstein invoked his Fifth Amendment during every deposition and walked
out when asked about the shape of penis (egg shaped, if you're curious -- you have attorney
Spencer Kuvin to thank for that gem). Maxwell wasn't as crafty and at one point banged a
table in frustration at the 'lies' being told about her. She lost her head and lost her cool
and said 'I don't know what you're talking about' when asked if Epstein had a scheme to
recruit underage girls. Asked if she knew Epstein used sex toys in sexual activities, she
said 'no'. According to federal prosecutors, these were both lies, and she was talking under
oath. Why didn't she just keep her mouth shut and plead the Fifth? To me it's baffling.
1 of 2 !
fersur , 10 hours ago
2 of 2 !
One of the really sweet ironies about Epstein killing himself (at least, that's what the
autopsy said) is that it almost certainly made Maxwell's arrest more likely. Much has been
written about how Epstein did his best to shaft his victims by setting up a trust to manage
his financial affairs in the USVI two days before he died. That didn't work out because was
we now know they could get all his (declared) money in compensation. But the real kicker is
that with his death the no.1 target of the FBI's investigation became Maxwell. Would she have
been arrested if he was still alive? Maybe, but it was far less likely.
With his final act Epstein stuck a knife in the back of the person who was one his
girlfriend and right hand woman. That's loyalty for you.
Bearing that in mind why wouldn't Maxwell talk to the prosecutors to save herself? It's
not like Epstein is still around for her to protect, and even if he was, do you think she'd
care? And if Maxwell is talking then, oh boy, that makes this case even more interesting. In
a mafia investigation you'd get the guys lower down the ladder first and them to build a case
against the boss. But if you've already got the boss, who do you use her to get?
Stravaig , 10 hours ago
But why is she in the US anyway? Was she kept here? Who has what plans for her and her
knowledge?
Bastiat , 10 hours ago
Maybe she's be "laundered" through the US "justice" system.
Felix da Kat , 10 hours ago
Ghislaine (S is silent) Maxwell is the youngest of ten siblings (two of whom have passed
away.)
Father was Jewish (non-observant,) her mother, Anglican. All children were raised Anglican
by their not-so-strict mother. The children enjoyed a wildly privileged upbringing akin to
that of the Royals.
Ghislaine's father, the 6'4" Robert Maxwell, led a colorful life but over-reached and his
publishing empire began to crack. He died in 1991 after falling overboard from his 180' motor
yacht, "Lady Ghislaine," (named for his favorite child.) He suffered a heart attack (probably
while struggling to climb back aboard) and drowned.
Ghislaine was said to be the apple of his eye.
The fate of Ghislaine is sad, really. It didn't have to be that way. She fell under the
spell of Epstein. Epstein was the wealthy father figure coveted by Ghislaine to fill in the
void left by her father's death.
Growing up, she was "Daddy's precious girl." After the death of her father in '91 when she
was 29, she longed for that bond of closeness and security which she saw in surrogate
Epstein. But Epstein used her and abused her for his own gratification and surely coerced her
into fulfilling the "pimp" role that Epstein required to live the prurient life he
demanded.
Ghislaine is not without significant guilt but she was not the ringleader; that was
Epstein. I predict she won't be sentenced as severely as many would like. And rightly so
because Epstein prodded her into doing much of, if not all of what she did that was criminal.
She needed Epstein; he was her oxygen.
That said, the crime of pedophilia and corruption of minors is a reprehensible crime for
which she must pay.
"Mercy to the criminal is violence to the victim"
NH property location: 43.217254, -71.997862 Google maps for birds eye view
progro , 10 hours ago
Don't be an apologist. Many people have bad upbringings and turn out to be outstanding
members of our community.
Because she was a spoiled brat and was the daughter of an embezzler gives her a break with
the lack of judgement she had?
Stanley Kubrick , 10 hours ago
"Ghislaine's father, the 6'4" Robert Maxwell, led a colorful life but over-reached and his
publishing empire began to crack."
You mean, Robert Maxwell aka "the bouncing Czech"? The man behind the $500 million dollar
pension-fraud scandal?
Revisionist history.
f society , 10 hours ago
I get the pessimism, but this time feels different...
She will absolutely sell everyone out for a plea deal.
FreeMoney , 7 hours ago
I think both Epstein and his Mossad handler Gislane, will have multiple backups of
incriminating evidence on hundreds of politicians, judges, academics, celebrities, and
business leaders ( not the shareholders, but the hired guns ), for exactly this set of
circumstances.
After being arrested in Bradford, New Hampshire last Thursday, before the Fourth of July
weekend, Ghislaine Maxwell, charged with helping Jeffrey Epstein abuse underage girls, may have
her arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing in Manhattan, New York City on Friday
afternoon, 10 July.
In a letter dated and filed in the federal court on Sunday, 5 July, the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) said that when in New Hampshire Maxwell had
what would have been a brief appearance before a judge. This is required after an arrest, and
is to occur "without unnecessary delay" [1].--
The government asked that Maxwell be detained in custody until a trial, in a paper filed the
day of the arrest. The motion for detention contains a few items of interest. She was born in
France and is a citizen of and appears to have passports for at least France, Britain, and the
U.S. The request for detention says: " Based on the Government's investigation to date, the
Government has identified more than 15 different bank accounts held by or associated with the
defendant from 2016 to the present, and during that same period, the total balances of those
accounts have ranged from a total of hundreds of thousands of dollars to more than $20
million"--
The criminal indictment of Maxwell, which was unsealed the day of the arrest on 2 July,
charges a curious time period of only "at least in or about 1994, up to and including at least
in or about 1997", and refers to only three victims--
The very limited written criminal charge can of course be seen as an opening gambit by the
prosecution, since it can be expanded in a superseding indictment.
The letter filed with the court clerk identifies Christian Everdell as the current attorney
for Maxwell; he had been a federal prosecutor in the SDNY for nearly 10 years [2]. In court
documents a familiar surname appears as one of the SDNY co-prosecutors for the federal
government -- Maurene Comey -- who was in the same role in the aborted prosecution of Jeffrey
Epstein. The legal communities in New York City and Washington D.C. are two little clubs that
sometimes tend to overlap.
If a court hearing takes place Friday, it will probably duplicate some of what happened in
New Hampshire on 2 July. The big issue at this time is whether Ghislaine Maxwell will remain in
custody or be released on bail under some specific conditions. Her arrest was described in an
article in the British Daily Mail newspaper [3].
Documents from the 2 July court proceeding in New Hampshire have now been filed in the SDNY.
Here are three of the 33 pages: the court clerk's docket sheet from Concord, New Hampshire, and
the arrest warrant, which was authorized at the courthouse in White Plains, New York, and not
in Manhattan! The pages that are excluded are the indictment, the order allowing a hearing by
video and telephone conference, the commitment order to send Maxwell to the SDNY, and three
pages that basically duplicate the clerk's docket sheet--
The case is multi-sided. Ghislaine's father, Robert Maxwell, was a publisher who also was
caught up in financial machinations. He died under mysterious circumstances in 1991 when he was
found in the water outside of his large boat in the area of the Canary Islands. There were
rumors he had relationships with government intelligence agencies. He was given a large funeral
in Israel attended by Israeli politicians and was buried in a cemetery there. Ghislaine's close
relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is part of the factual foundation of the pending case.
Epstein had been protected from criminal liability by the U.S. government through the
Department of Justice which became evident in state and federal criminal cases developed
against him in Florida that resulted in a disgraceful plea deal in Florida state court and in
an equally disgraceful and concealed non-prosecution agreement with the federal government.
Only through the determination of Florida attorney Bradley Edwards and Utah lawyer Paul
Cassell, a former federal judge, was the perfidy of the federal government and Justice
Department revealed through their lawsuit against the government under the Crime Victims'
Rights Act--
Jeffery Epstein made some court appearances in his criminal case in the SDNY before he was
said to have been found dead in the Manhattan federal Metropolitan Corrections Center from an
"apparent suicide", when cameras were not working, blah blah blah. That explanation was
rightfully laughed out of town. In terms of probability, Epstein was either murdered in the
jail or was helped to escape.
And now here comes Ghislaine Maxwell.
[1] Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5. Initial Appearance.
I read that one of the victims listened to the arraignment on the telephone and a woman
with a British accent could be heard sobbing and wailing in background and saying "How could
this happen? How can this be?" Sounds like she thought she had her stay in NH "wired up."
IMO, anyone expecting that the plutocrat pedo ring will be busted will be sorely
disappointed and is not paying attention to justice in contemporary America!
Sir Epstein was reportedly at the epicenter of a pedo ring for decades. He clearly engaged
in all this with impunity for a long while. Including getting a sweetheart deal from the US
attorney in Miami who landed up as Trump's Labor Secretary. This indictment is for the period
1994-97 so far. It would imply that Prince Andrew and Dershowitz are off the hook. Also,
Virginia Roberts Guiffre's sex trafficking claims are not part of this indictment, while a
judge has ordered her to destroy evidence. She also has a defamation case against Ghislaine
Maxwell.
Robert, thanks for keeping us up to speed with the legal details.
Do you have an opinion on whether count three's mention of co-conspirators may be
significant, or the fact that the Public Corruption Unit are handling the case?
Colonel, my first thought when I heard the story of the sobbing woman with a British
accent was that it could easily have be staged, so as to give the impression of justice being
done. Cynicism is hard to escape in this case, though I try to keep an open mind.
We'll find out if Bill Barr is for real or just another swamp creature in sheep's
clothing.
Still waiting on the Durham "investigation" and the election is only 4 months away.
"I can't judge Prince Andrew; we've all been young once," Jordan's Prince Hassan
told an English interviewer. I'm not sure whether that's a barbed comment or not given that
the Duke is scarcely in his first youth.
"Andrew is naive and unworldly, a product of the royal bubble." says another
scandal sheet. I suspect he may well be innocent of everything except naivety.
Naivety in the Epstein circle could lead to a lot of trouble. I'm surprised the Palace
establishment let one of their charges out without a minder. Bit late now.
Let's hope the Federal Detention Center in Brooklyn is more secure than the one in
Manhattan where Epstein was held. What about Epstein's other accomplices that helped to recruit underage girls? Maxwell was
just one of several.
Wiki entry on Maxwell says that she also associated with Kevin Spacey a self-confessed a$$
bandit. So the question arises, was she also pimping out underage poolboys?
I read an interesting point I can't really evaluate on my own, which is that the
prosecution is coming out of the FBI's Public Corruption Unit, which is a department
specifically designed to deal with issues arising from prosecution of politicians. Reportedly
they suss out subtle quid-pro-quos, rarely settle, and indicates there could be more
interesting layers to this case.
Epstein brought CIA drug smugglers Southern Air Transport to Columbus. Epstein at
Bear Stearns ran brokerage errands for the CIA money launderers and pimps of BCCI. Epstein
bragged about being CIA and Ohio state VIPs believed him.
Epstein skated for the Tower Financial ponzi scheme that topped up CIA's
covert-crime slush fund after CIA proprietary BCCI stole everybody's money and blew up. Epstein
got bankrolled by CIA's famous secret agent Adnan Kashoggi. Epstein smuggled an enormously
illegal NYPD shotgun in through British customs, using CIA agent Ed Wilson's old trick for
impressing foreign VIPs. Federal prosecutors convict 99.8% of their perps, but one let Epstein
off the hook for his giant pedo whorehouse because he was told Epstein belonged to
intelligence.
You would not have thought it was possible, but Epstein with his hilariously fake
hedge fund is more blatantly CIA than Imran Awan. So clearly we need six thousand more internet
bullshitters screaming about pervy Mossad blackmailers – CIA is hopelessly busted for
everybody with a 3-digit IQ.
So former tank repairman decided again managed to make a make a mark in world diplomacy
:-).
Notable quotes:
"... Mike Pompeo delivered an embarrassing, clownish performance at the U.N. on Tuesday, and his attempt to gain support for an open-ended conventional arms embargo on Iran was rejected the rest of the old P5+1: ..."
"... The Trump administration has abused our major European allies for years in its push to destroy the nuclear deal, and their governments have no patience with any more unilateral U.S. stunts. This is the result of two years of a destructive policy aimed solely at punishing Iran and its people. The administration's open contempt for international law and the interests of its allies has cost the U.S. their cooperation. ..."
"... Underscoring the absurdity of the Trump administration's arms embargo appeal were Pompeo's alarmist warnings that an end to the arms embargo would allow Iran to purchase advanced fighters that it would use to threaten Europe and India: ..."
"... This is a laughably unrealistic scenario. Even if Iran purchased advanced fighters, the last thing it would do is send them off on a suicide mission to bomb Italy or India. This shows how deeply irrational the Iran hawks' fearmongering is. Iran has already demonstrated an ability to launch precise attacks with drones and missiles in its immediate neighborhood, and it developed these capabilities while under the current embargo. ..."
"... The Secretary of State called on the U.N. to reject "extortion diplomacy." The best way to reject extortion diplomacy would be for them to reject the administration's desperate attempt to use America's position at the U.N. to attack international law. ..."
Mike Pompeo delivered an embarrassing, clownish performance at the U.N. on Tuesday, and his
attempt to
gain support for an open-ended conventional arms embargo on Iran was rejected the rest of the
old P5+1:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Tuesday for an arms embargo on Iran to be
extended indefinitely, but his appeal fell flat at the United Nations Security Council, where
Russia and China rejected it outright and close allies of the United States were
ambivalent.
The Trump administration is more isolated than ever in its Iran obsession. The ridiculous
effort to invoke the so-called "snapback" provision of the JCPOA more than two years after
reneging on the agreement met with failure, just as most observers predicted months
ago when it was first floated as a possibility. As I said at the time, "The
administration's latest destructive ploy won't find any support on the Security Council. There
is nothing "intricate" about this idea. It is a crude, heavy-handed attempt to employ the
JCPOA's own provisions to destroy it." It was never going to work because all of the other
parties to the agreement want nothing to do with the administration's punitive approach, and
U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA meant that it forfeited any rights it had when it was still part
of the deal.
Opposition from Russia and China was a given, but the striking thing about the scene at the
U.N. this week was that major U.S. allies
joined them in rebuking the administration's obvious bad faith maneuver:
The pointedly critical tone of the debate saw Germany accusing Washington of violating
international law by withdrawing from the nuclear pact, while Berlin aligned itself with
China's claim that the United States has no right to reimpose U.N. sanctions on Iran.
The Trump administration has abused our major European allies for years in its push to
destroy the nuclear deal, and their governments have no patience with any more unilateral U.S.
stunts. This is the result of two years of a destructive policy aimed solely at punishing Iran
and its people. The administration's open contempt for international law and the interests of
its allies has cost the U.S. their cooperation.
Underscoring the absurdity of the Trump administration's arms embargo appeal were Pompeo's
alarmist
warnings that an end to the arms embargo would allow Iran to purchase advanced fighters
that it would use to threaten Europe and India:
If you fail to act, Iran will be free to purchase Russian-made fighter jets that can
strike up to a 3,000 kilometer radius, putting cities like Riyadh, New Delhi, Rome, and
Warsaw in Iranian crosshairs.
This is a laughably unrealistic scenario. Even if Iran purchased advanced fighters, the last
thing it would do is send them off on a suicide mission to bomb Italy or India. This shows how
deeply irrational the Iran hawks' fearmongering is. Iran has already demonstrated an ability to
launch precise attacks with drones and missiles in its immediate neighborhood, and it developed
these capabilities while under the current embargo.
It has no need for expensive fighters, and
it is not at all certain that their government would even be interested in acquiring them. Pompeo's presentation was a weak attempt to exaggerate the potential threat from a state that
has very limited power projection, and he found no support because his serial fabrications
about Iran have rendered everything he says to be worthless.
The same administration that wants to keep an arms embargo on Iran forever has no problem
flooding the region with U.S.-made weapons and providing them to some of the worst governments
in the world. It is these client states that are doing the most to destabilize other countries
in the region right now. If the U.N. should be putting arms embargoes on any country, it should
consider imposing them on Saudi Arabia and the UAE to limit their ability to wreak havoc on
Yemen and Libya.
The Secretary of State called on the U.N. to reject "extortion diplomacy." The best way to
reject extortion diplomacy would be for them to reject the administration's desperate attempt
to use America's position at the U.N. to attack international law.
FBI does have strong levers on Trump. This is the essence of the "Deep State" concept --
intelligence agencies became unhinged and work as a powerful political actors.
Notable quotes:
"... Thank you Mina, yes that or the deep state throwing down the gauntlet. I don't think we can assume that Trump actually has control of the FBI. If he did he would likely have deep sixed the Democrazis through the Awan family spy and blackmail scam. But he didn't. They and Debbie Wasserman Shultz were protected/had dirt on DT. ..."
Maxwell's arrest makes me wonder if it is not about Trump throwing down the gauntlet?
Thank you Mina, yes that or the deep state throwing down the gauntlet. I don't think we can
assume that Trump actually has control of the FBI. If he did he would likely have deep sixed
the Democrazis through the Awan family spy and blackmail scam. But he didn't. They and Debbie
Wasserman Shultz were protected/had dirt on DT.
If the kiddy fiddlers get outed following Ghislaine dropping some of her likely thousands
of hours of home movies then that includes Trump and Biden.
In the fetid atmosphere of
accusations against pussy grabbers and finger f#ckers and hair sniffers neither could
survive. The pack will run rabid.
Is there a woman in the house? Yes, they cried AND she has experience!! Plus the campaign will be televised and it would be a virtual campaign because Covid. No
need to rig audience, the polls or the balllot.
The question now is: How do they stop Ghislaine from testifying? Having her "commit
suicide" in her cell with all the cell block cameras off starts to look a little, I don't
know, "blatant", wouldn't one think?
Well, blatant is not a concept that the oligarch class actually feel any problem with.
Update (1215ET): Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss said that "this case against Ghislaine
Maxwell is a prequel to the earlier case that we brought against Jeffrey Epstein,"
" Maxwell lied because the truth, as alleged, was almost unspeakable. Maxwell enticed
minor girls, got them to trust her, then delivered them into the trap that she and Epstein
had set for them. She pretended to be a woman they could trust..."
" We were working hard on this investigation this past year. It's not easy to put together
a case that goes back that far. There's nothing other than we did the investigation, and we
were ready at this time to proceed."
Strauss said that the firing of Former US Attorney Geoffrey Berman did not affect timing of
this arrest "at all". We will likely never know one way or another but the timing is definitely
interesting.
Finally, asked about a royal connection, Strauss declines to update on the status of anyone
in an investigation but says that she "would welcome Prince Andrew coming in to talk with
us."
"We would like to have the benefit of his statement," Strauss said, adding their doors
remain open.
We will not be holding our breath.
Additionally, FBI New York Assistant Director in Charge William Sweeney, Jr. said
investigators have been discreetly keeping tabs on Maxwell's location and found that she had
"slithered away" to a "gorgeous" home in Bradford, New Hampshire, where she was arrested
Thursday without incident.
Having been decidedly off-the-radar for months since the controversial 'suicide' of Jeffrey
Epstein,
NBC New York reports that Ghislaine Maxwell, has been arrested by the FBI and charged by
federal prosecutors.
Multiple senior law enforcement officials
reportedly said the British socialite and heiress was arrested in New Hampshire on
Epstein-related charges and is expected to appear in a federal court later today .
The long-time friend and confidante of Jeffrey Epstein was alleged to have helped Epstein
groom teen girls for sex with the rich and powerful.
"[Ghislaine] Maxwell assisted, facilitated and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of
minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse
victims ...
"The victims were as young as 14."
"In particular, between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, MAXWELL was in an intimate
relationship with Epstein and also was paid by Epstein to manage his various properties."
Ghislaine has been accused by three women of procuring and training young girls to perform
massage and sexual acts on Epstein and his associates.
Virginia Giuffre (previously named Virginia Roberts), one of Epstein's alleged victims,
claimed in a civil lawsuit that Maxwell "recruited" her into Epstein's orbit, where she was
forced to have sex with Epstein and his powerful friends, including Prince Andrew.
Giuffre asserts in her complaint that Maxwell, the sole defendant in the suit and the
daughter of late publishing magnate Robert Maxwell, routinely recruited underaged girls for
Epstein and was doing so when she approached the $9-an-hour locker room attendant at
Mar-a-Lago in 1999 about giving massages to the wealthy investment banker.
Giuffre alleges that Maxwell ultimately trained her in how to give "massages" to Epstein
that involved sex acts and, essentially, prostitution . When Maxwell publicly denied the
allegations and called Giuffre a liar in 2015, that gave her the opening to head to federal
court and file the defamation suit now headed for trial. -
Politico
In May
we noted that the accused 'madam' was reportedly holed up in a luxury apartment on Paris's
Avenue Matignon - just a five minute drive from the dead pedophile's $8.6 million flat.
Maxwell "is moving locations every month to keep private investigators off her tail and is
staying at the residences of trusted colleagues and contacts," according to a
source.
"She wants to remain in France for as long as she can to take advantage of extradition
laws and has a huge network of contacts willing to keep her hidden," they added. " Under
French law anyone born on French soil is safe from extradition to another country, regardless
of the alleged crime. "
As Esquire's Gabrielle Bruney explained in May, Maxwell is the youngest of Elisabeth and
Robert Maxwell's nine children, and was born in
France in 1961 . The family lived in an English mansion, and her father was the founder of
a media empire and served in Parliament .
Maxwell attended one of the UK's most
exclusive boarding schools and then Oxford University. As members of British high society,
Maxwell mingled with some of the nation's most celebrated families, and became
friends with Prince Andrew .
Her father died in 1991, after falling off his yacht and drowning. It's been speculated that
his
death may have been a suicide , as on the day he died he was due to meet with the
Bank of England over the matter of his
being in default on millions in loans. After his death, the British media dubbed him the "
crook of the century ," when it was revealed that he'd taken hundreds of millions of pounds
from his employees pension funds. Maxwell told one news outlet after her father's death that
she felt
he was murdered .
She moved to the United States the year of her father's death, and soon met Jeffrey Epstein.
The relationship marked a second reversal of fortunes for Maxwell, whose family lost much of
its wealth after her father's death. In 2000, she moved into a $4.95 million Manhattan
townhouse purchased "by an anonymous limited liability company, with an address that
matches the office of J. Epstein & Co. Representing the buyer was Darren Indyke, Mr.
Epstein's longtime lawyer." She was his companion for years, managing his households and
introducing him to her society friends
Maxwell and her father in 1984.
According to a lawsuit she filed this year in hopes of winning funds from the late
financier's estate, "While under Epstein's employ, Maxwell was responsible for managing
Epstein's properties located in New York, Paris, Florida, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands."
"During the course of their relationship, including while Maxwell was in Epstein's
employ,"
the lawsuit reads , "Epstein promised Maxwell that he would support her financially.
Epstein made these promises to Maxwell repeatedly, both in writing and in conversation."
However, a 2003 Vanity Fair profile of Epstein denied that Maxwell
was an employee.
After Epstein's 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from an underage girl, the two
appeared to end their public association. In 2009, accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre
filed a civil suit against Epstein accusing him and Maxwell of grooming her into their
alleged sex trafficking ring. However, Maxwell remained a fixture in New York society until
around 2015. In 2012, she founded an environmental nonprofit called The TerraMar project, which
folded in late
2019.
Epstein with Maxwell in 1995
Though multiple survivors have alleged that Maxwell participated in Epstein's alleged
crimes, she's never been criminally charged. One thing that could stymie
potential efforts to level charges against Maxwell is the infamous 2008 plea deal that
Epstein struck with the US Attorney for Miami, Alexander
Acosta , which found him serving just 13 months in prison after initially facing charges
that could have garnered him a life sentence. Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich producer Joe
Berlinger described the deal to Esquire as "unprecedented, unheard of sweetheart deal" that
"included a non-prosecution agreement for named and unnamed co-conspirators."
In April, an
appeals court upheld the 2007 deal, writing in its opinion that the decision was "not a
result we like, but it's the result we think the law requires."
Maxwell at a 2016 event.
Maxwell is currently suing Epstein's estate for money for her legal fees, and for the price
of private security, alleging that her "
prior employment relationship " with Epstein has caused to her be subjected to death
threats.
As
Jonathan Turley notes , frankly, as a criminal defense lawyer, I am surprised that Maxwell
risked returning to the United States. She was believed to be living in Paris. It was
well-known that the Justice Department was pursuing the case, including demands to interview
Prince Andrew.
Her arrest may be unnerving for figures like Prince Andrew. She would be the ultimate
cooperating witness if she decided to cooperate on broader criminal inquiries. Giuffre and
others have alleged that she was the primary procurer of young girls for Epstein to abuse.
Such prosecutions are not easy given the passage of time. However, the government clearly
has live witnesses like Giuffre who might have a significant impact on a jury. The government
would have to show more than her mere presence at these homes or parties.
Interestingly, Turley
notes that the improper role played by the Justice Department in the original Epstein case
deal may actually help it now with any prosecution of Maxwell.
"... Will we go from Epstein-gate, to Ukraine-gate, to Impeachment-gate, to Corona911-gate, to BLM-gate and now to Maxwell-gate – with perhaps a not so subtle attempt to piss all over Bill Clinton, since these alleged crimes were when he was commander in chief? ..."
"... This mean Maxwell can be jailed for contempt of court, should she continue to run and hide; that is: ignore court orders in this civil lawsuit. ..."
"... With today's jailing of her by the DOJ, on what looks like the same facts as in the civil case, [though it may not be; even if the 1994 to 1997 time period is the same] --- Maxwell's concerns about the civil case now pale in comparison with the new, criminal case against her. That is, assuming DOJ gets conviction. ..."
"... So one question I don't know answer to is: why did she remain in the US? ..."
"... We'll see if Maxwell-gate can trump BLM-gate, and all manner of other sorts of Hang Outs happening before our eyes. ..."
"... I am reminded of Don Corleone's speech: ..."
"... I'm a superstitious man, and if some unlucky accident should befall Michael - if he is to be shot in the head by a police officer, or be found hung dead in a jail cell... or if he should be struck by a bolt of lightning - then I'm going to blame some of the people in this room; and then I do not forgive. But with said, I pledge - on the souls of my grandchildren - that I will not be the one to break the peace that we have made today. ..."
Southern District of New York US Attorney Audrey Strauss says crimes they are prosecuting
are for years
1994 to 1997
Bill Clinton was president.
Don't laugh.
There is little information on how long the feds knew where she was, that they say was
Bedford, NH.
According to NYMAG.com: [["An eye was being kept" on Maxwell was about all that Audrey
Strauss]] said.
That is past tense, was being kept, assuming this is accurate information.
For how long, months, days, years, decades, all the way back to the 1970s?
CNN framed it this way:
[[FBI New York Assistant Director in Charge William Sweeney said that bureau officials "have
been discreetly keeping tabs" on Maxwell who had "slithered away to a gorgeous property" in
New Hampshire.
"We learned she had slithered away to a gorgeous property in New Hampshire, continuing to
live a live a life of privilege while her victims continue to live with the trauma inflicted
upon them years ago. We moved when we were ready and Ms. Maxwell was arrested without
incident," he said.
Sweeney said that the FBI, along with the NYPD, arrested Maxwell in Bradford, New
Hampshire, this morning without incident.
Audrey Strauss, acting US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, explained the
process that led to Maxwell's arrest: "an eye was being kept, and information was being
collected and then the indicted was just recently voted and filed and that is when we were
able and prepared to move to arrest her."
Sweeney said that indictment alleges that from 1994 until 1997, Maxwell assisted Epstein
in committing crimes against minors.]]
Strauss said and the indictment of Maxwell says, numerous times: 1994 to 1997 alleged
crimes, aiding and abetting Epstein.
What is interesting, at least to me, in a news report by The Guardian – this report
say that the DOJ said that Maxwell had the ability to get out of the US.
Which begs the questions: Then why the hell didn't she? The feds don't explain that
part.
The Guardian:
The sprawling property in Bradford where she was arrested was purchased
"through a carefully anonymized LLC", federal prosecutors said. Maxwell also has the money to flee if let out on bail, they maintained
Will we go from Epstein-gate, to Ukraine-gate, to Impeachment-gate, to Corona911-gate, to
BLM-gate and now to Maxwell-gate – with perhaps a not so subtle attempt to piss all
over Bill Clinton, since these alleged crimes were when he was commander in chief?
One other thing that may be related to the timing of this apprehension of her.
One of the alleged victims of Maxwell, who, according to a civil lawsuit filed against her
in federal court in January. . . well, there was a "tiny problem."
The lawyer for the plaintiff, a Jane Doe, who claims to have been a young teen –
when: "It all started in 1994 when 13-year-old Jane Doe met Epstein and Defendant Ghislaine
Maxwell at a summer camp in Michigan. . . ."
This civil complaint says: "In 1997, while at Epstein's townhouse on 9 East 71st Street in
the city of New York, Epstein asked the 17-year old Doe if she had a boyfriend. Doe replied
that she did not. Epstein responded that when she did have a boyfriend she would want the sex
to be 'good' and that she should 'get it over with already' meaning lose her virginity.
Despite Doe's resistance, Epstein then pushed Doe down onto her stomach and raped her. From
that point forward for several years in New York, Epstein raped Doe on multiple occasions.
During Doe's time in New York, Maxwell also regularly facilitated Epstein's abuse of Doe and
was frequently present when it occurred."
Any ways, the little problem was that: despite numerous times the Jane Doe lawyer tried to
serve Maxwell, many times, this lawyer always came up empty.
But on June 15, the presiding federal judge ruled that. . . that because of certain
judicial rules and because of the numerous attempts, the judge deemed that Maxwell had been
served.
Doe's lawyer, the judge ruled, had done enough to demonstrate service; and thus the
service attempts were deemed to have been "reasonably calculated to place Maxwell on notice
of this suit and to constitute sufficient service under the circumstances presented
here."
Thus Maxwell must respond, in a federal civil lawsuit brought by an alleged rape victim,
that this plaintiff claims the pair [her and Epstein] betook against her.
This mean Maxwell can be jailed for contempt of court, should she continue to run and
hide; that is: ignore court orders in this civil lawsuit.
With today's jailing of her by the DOJ, on what looks like the same facts as in the civil
case, [though it may not be; even if the 1994 to 1997 time period is the same] --- Maxwell's
concerns about the civil case now pale in comparison with the new, criminal case against her.
That is, assuming DOJ gets conviction.
The judge's June 15 order deeming her served in the civil case, however, meant that
Maxwell would have been facing jail if she failed to appear according to any court orders
requiring her to.
So one question I don't know answer to is: why did she remain in the US? [Or did she
actually flee, and we just ain't being told that? I D K]
Would no other country take her, did she attempt to leave and was rebuffed [by who?] or
did she want to stay here and take her chances, knowing that she could run, assuming she
tried to, that is; but could not hide forever?
We'll see if Maxwell-gate can trump BLM-gate, and all manner of other sorts of Hang Outs
happening before our eyes.
Lastly, I'm not saying it's a weak case; but, why her and why now, since they obviously
had no trouble locating her, assuming they did not always have tabs on Maxwell.
If anyone actually has an actual photo of her being taken out of her New Hampshire house,
I'd like to see them. For Roger Stone, we don't have to ask this question. Perhaps Judge Amy Berman should handle this case and/or share it with Judge Gilbert and
Sullivan.
The FBI already has all kinds of evidence on a lot of people from their raids on Epstein
residences. Now they just need Maxwell so they can squeeze her a little to tie up any loose
ends. She will then die and the loose ends will be taken care of and the democrat/globalists
will be safe from prosecution. FBI destroys some of the evidence they obtained and uses other
evidence against their enemies (e.g. Trump associates, democrats gone off the reservation,
like Dershowitz)
It seems likely to me that she was Epstein's Mossad controller. Walrus is right. It will
be difficult to keep her alive. Why she fled to NH escapes me so far.
Count Three in the indictment interests me, as it is the only one mentioning third party
defendants. If it wasn't for this I'd assume the whole thing was scoped so as to limit any
fallout beyond Ghislaine herself.
"GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown ,
willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each
other to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, transportation of minors, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423 (a)." (emphasis mine)
I'd like to hear Robert Willmann's view on the significance of this, combined with the
pertinence of the fact that the SDNY's Public Corruption Unit is handling the case.
This, combined with the fact that she was arrested in the US, is (as of the time of
writing) still alive and Barr's urgency in sacking Berman, gives me some hope that there is a
real intention to go after someone else, perhaps higher up the food chain (Wexner?). Have
Trump and Barr got a big surprise in store? I do hope so.
I had read somewhere that she believed that Mossad had killed her father, so she may not
have thought that Israel was a safer location.
Not sure. I don't think that she ever came out and openly accused Mossad of his death, but
I do believe she is on record as claiming that her father was assassinated.
As for "why now", it may simply be that it has taken this long to track down and seize all
the "insurance" documents that she had.
I certainly thought at the time that Epstein's days were numbered the moment the FBI
raided his Manhattan mansion, in the sense that that the raid was undertaken to seize that
all the videos and photos that he was relying on to keep himself safe.
Take those away from him = he is a goner.
The same may be true of this woman.
I do not know how reliable Ari Ben-Menashe is as a source, but, for what it is worth, he
claims that Mossad was not the Israeli agency for which Epstein and the Maxwells worked.
From an article last month by Elizabeth Vos in 'Consortium News':
'In an interview with Consortium News, former Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe
said Epstein did not work with Mossad. "Military intelligence was who he was working with,"
said Ben-Menashe. "Big difference," he said. "He never worked with Mossad, and Robert Maxwell
never did, either. It was military intelligence."'
Be that as it may, it is not clear to me that Ghislaine Maxwell would have been any safer
in Israel than in the U.S. If she is prudent, she will have followed the example of the former NKVD 'Resident' in
Spain, Alexander Orlov. From his 'Wikipedia' entry:
'Meanwhile, the Great Purge continued as Stalin and his inner circle sought to exterminate
all suspected enemies of the people. Orlov was alerted as close associates and friends were
arrested, tortured and shot, one by one. In 1938, Orlov realised that he would soon be next.
When he received orders from Moscow to report to a Soviet ship in Antwerp, Orlov was certain
that he was about to be arrested. Instead of obeying, Orlov fled with his wife and daughter
to Canada.
'Before leaving Paris, Orlov left two letters for the Soviet Ambassador, one for Stalin
and one for NKVD chief Yezhov. He told them that he would reveal everything he knew about
NKVD operations if any action was taken against him or his family. In a two-page attachment,
Orlov listed the codenames of numerous illegals and moles operating in the West.'
I'm a superstitious man, and if some unlucky accident should befall Michael - if he is to
be shot in the head by a police officer, or be found hung dead in a jail cell... or if he
should be struck by a bolt of lightning - then I'm going to blame some of the people in
this room; and then I do not forgive. But with said, I pledge - on the souls of my
grandchildren - that I will not be the one to break the peace that we have made today.
Epstein may well have died thanks to his being insufficiently suspicious. If
Ghislaine Maxwell ever suffered from the same weakness, she must surely have been cured of it
by now.
It could well have been Israeli IDF intelligence that she, Epstein and her father worked
for. I knew these fellows well and the whole thing would have appealed to their sense of
humor.
The real story is how long Epstein's Mossad partner Maxwell lives before the contract on
her demise is fulfilled. Look how long Epstein lived in Federal custody. The clock is
ticking.
"... This is a thread about Marc Collins-Rector and the powerful child rape ring which extends from the BBS era to the cryptocurrency era with ties throughout entertainment and silicon valley, from Disney executives to crypto circles and social media. #opDeathEaters ..."
"... Both Epstein and his spotter were nothing more than consumables that thought they were were players. I'm not sure what the tabloid interest in this pair of clowns is all about. ..."
"... The Maxwell trial will be a carefully choreographed nothing burger ! The delay in bringing her to justice, was so as to plan and negotiate the details. To the satisfaction of all concerned. ..."
"... Letting the likes of prince Andrew and Clinton's and Trump off the hook regarding any incriminating evedence. So who is running the show (answer) Israel and their lobby groups. ..."
"... Ghislaine Maxwell and Les Wexner are the boss and Epstein was the CEO at their bidding. Wexner GAVE Epstein the Manhatten apartment. That is a five story large building and it was already fully fitted out with recording gear from the handover day. They don't come cheap. This was one of the biggest, deliberate global entrapment rackets the world has seen. Ghislaine was the handler and Wexner the financier and front man. ..."
"... Note how the operatives avoid my inquiry as to who owned the safe house and/or how Maxwell came to own it and who aided her in that endeavor? ..."
"... More on the Nutter Butter law firm that helped Maxwell purchase the New Hampshire safe house. It has strong ties to Harvard. Epstein was in deep with the Harvard folks and the Harvard folks, all Ivy League in fact, are in deep with the intelligence services. It's important in the clandestine services to keep changing your name. Chinese Princelings, fyi, prize a Harvard education. Gee, imagine that. ..."
Another example of what hackers *might* able to do... (PSA: I have *no* idea whether *any*
of this information is correct - but wouldn't it be great if it was?)
This is a thread about
Marc Collins-Rector and the powerful child rape ring which extends from the BBS era to the
cryptocurrency era with ties throughout entertainment and silicon valley, from Disney
executives to crypto circles and social media. #opDeathEaters
Featuring: Bryan Singer, Gary Goddard, Jeffrey Sachs, Mitchell Blutt, David Neuman, David
Geffen, Sandy Gallin, Terry Semel, Michael Huffington, Garth Ancier, Gary Gersh, John
Silva, Marc Nathanson, Steve Bannon, Jeffrey Epstein, Al Seckel and more.
Both Epstein and his spotter were nothing more than consumables that thought they were
were players. I'm not sure what the tabloid interest in this pair of clowns is all about.
The question now is: How do they stop Ghislaine from testifying? Having her "commit
suicide" in her cell with all the cell block cameras off starts to look a little, I don't
know, "blatant", wouldn't one think?
Well, blatant is not a concept that the oligarch class actually feel any problem with.
The Maxwell trial will be a carefully choreographed nothing burger !
The delay in bringing her to justice, was so as to plan and negotiate the details. To the
satisfaction of all concerned.
Letting the likes of prince Andrew and Clinton's and Trump off the hook regarding any
incriminating evedence.
So who is running the show (answer) Israel and their lobby groups.
Q. What's on the table ? Power, money and territory! As always.
This is harvest time for Israel I'm afraid !
Both Epstein and his spotter were nothing more than consumables that thought they were were
players. I'm not sure what the tabloid interest in this pair of clowns is all about.
Ghislaine Maxwell and Les Wexner are the boss and Epstein was the CEO at their bidding.
Wexner GAVE Epstein the Manhatten apartment. That is a five story large building and it was
already fully fitted out with recording gear from the handover day. They don't come cheap.
This was one of the biggest, deliberate global entrapment rackets the world has seen.
Ghislaine was the handler and Wexner the financier and front man.
But I am just an observer and if you want the gritty stuff then tune in to Whitney Webb
and listen to her take on this. She has been revealing an immense amount of evidence and
links since Epstein was first arrested 3? years ago. I am about to do that myself.
I don't give a flat rock what the MSM thinks or does in this case.
The Maxwell trial for the show and the annexation in the background? With no cash allowed
to flow to the axis of resistance (no banks, no planes, no Gulf expats enabled to bring in
cash without the virus risk?).
The BBC article had an interesting snippet about Andrew, at the very end of the article:
"Asked about the prince on Thursday, acting Attorney Strauss said: "I am not going to comment
on anyone's status in this investigation but I will say that we would welcome Prince Andrew
coming in to talk with us, we would like to have the benefit of his statement."
A source close to Prince Andrew's lawyers told BBC News: "The Duke's team is bewildered by
the DoJ's [Department of Justice's] comments earlier today as we have twice reached out to
them in the last month and have received no reply.""
Note how the operatives avoid my inquiry as to who owned the safe house and/or how
Maxwell came to own it and who aided her in that endeavor? Now why would they avoid that
most important question and change the subject and surround the inquiry with distracting
nonsense? I'll let the few honest ones amongst you answer that question. It's an easy answer,
fyi. Hey Gruff, I see you.
Authorities said Thursday that Maxwell was caught at a 156-acre property in that town,
where land records list just one lot of that size, on East Washington Road.
"The defendant appears to have been hiding on a 156-acre property acquired in an
all-cash purchase in December 2019 (through a carefully anonymized LLC) in Bradford, New
Hampshire, an area to which she has no other known connections," said a court filing by
Manhattan federal prosecutors. An LLC is a limited liability corporation.
Other records show the buyer was Granite Reality LLC, whose listed manager is a Boston
lawyer named Jeffrey Roberts.
Roberts did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The web site of his firm,
Nutter McClennen & Fish, says that Roberts "chairs Nutter's Private Client Department
and serves as a member of the firm's Executive Committee."
"His broad-based practice consists of estate planning for high net worth individuals,"
among other areas, according to the web site. Nutter, whose spokeswoman did not immediately
respond to a request for comment, is located at the same Boston address as the mailing
address of the LLC that bought the property.
More on the Nutter Butter law firm that helped Maxwell purchase the New Hampshire
safe house. It has strong ties to Harvard. Epstein was in deep with the Harvard folks and the
Harvard folks, all Ivy League in fact, are in deep with the intelligence services. It's
important in the clandestine services to keep changing your name. Chinese Princelings, fyi,
prize a Harvard education. Gee, imagine that.
Nutter has deep roots in the Boston community. In 1879, a young Louis D. Brandeis founded
the firm with fellow Harvard alumnus Samuel D. Warren.
Although Brandeis would leave
private practice for the judiciary -- he was appointed to the United States Supreme Court
after 35 years at the firm -- Nutter has maintained its prestigious reputation through
multiple name changes.
Interesting history Browder has. I suspect he has a history with Putin before Putin became
President , but its hard to find anything on a connection. Anyways lots of interesting
connections, meaningful or not, I cant say.
[Hide MORE]
1985 - bugged version of PROMIS was sold for Soviet government use, with the media mogul
Robert Maxwell as a conduit.
1990 - just after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Browder found himself on assignment in
Poland for Boston Consulting Group. The government had begun privatizing state-owned
companies and selling their shares at ridiculously low valuations.
1991 - Anatoly Sobchak, a former law professor of Putin's at Leningrad State, became mayor
of Leningrad.* Sobchak hired Vladimir Putin, whom he had known when Putin worked at Leningrad
State. Putin was still on active reserve with the KGB.
Putin's tenure in Sobchak's office was so rife with scandal that it led to a host of
investigations into illegal assignment of licenses and contracts . Putin was head of the
Committee for Foreign Liaison; collaborated with criminal gangs in regulating gambling; a
money-laundering operation by the St. Petersburg Real Estate Holding Company, where Kumarin
was involved and Putin served on the advisory board; Putin's role in providing a monopoly for
the Petersburg Fuel Company, then controlled by the Tambov criminal organization; and much,
much more -- virtually all of which was whitewashed. While he was in St. Petersburg in the
nineties, Putin signed many hundreds of contracts doling out funds to his cronies.
1991 - November 5, Robert Maxwell, allegedly drowned after falling off his yacht in the
Canary Islands near the northwest coast of Africa. Billions were missing from his pension
funds
Maxwell's investment bankers included Salomon Brothers. Eventually, the pension funds were
replenished with monies from investment banks Shearson Lehman and Goldman Sachs, as well as
the British government.
It was March 1991 when William Browder went to work for British billionaire Robert Maxwell
as his "investment manager". Just how deep into the investment decisions of Maxwell did
Browder participate as an investment manager?
1991 November 10, Maxwell's funeral took place on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, the
resting place for the nation's most revered heroes. Prime Minister Shamir eulogized: "He has
done more Israel than can today be said."
1992 - Interestingly, after Maxwell died, Bill Browder went to work for the Salomon
Brothers in the middle of their own scandal. Browder was put in charge of the Russian
proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers. He was given 25 million to invest and used
it by paying cash for vouchers in Russian companies the government had issued to citizens ,
and used them to buy shared at public auction. In a short period he turned that into 125
million
The scandal at Salomon Brothers was the manipulation of the US Treasury auctions back
then.After that scandal where the government was threatening to shut down Salomon Brothers
who was the biggest bond dealer in the USA for manipulating markets, all of a sudden, people
from Goldman Sachs started taking posts in government.
1996-Browder left Salomon Brothers and with Edmond Safra founded Hermitage Capital
Management for the purpose of investing initial seed capital of $25 million in Russia during
the period of the mass privatization after the fall of the Soviet Union. Beny Steinmetz was
another of the original investors in Hermitage, the Israeli diamond billionaire.
Cyprus is a favorite place for Russian to launder money. Thats probably why Browder and
his accounting advisor Jamison Firestone chose it to launder Browder's Russian profits.
Browder from about 1997 to the mid-2000s used Cyprus shell companies to move money out of
Russia to cheat the country of multi-millions of dollars in taxes. He used the Russian shells
to invest in shares, including Gazprom shares that were illegal for foreigners to buy in
Russia, then moved the shares to Cyprus shells
1996 article entitled, "The Money Plane," published by New York Magazine detailed how the
"Russian mob gets a shipment of up to a billion dollars in fresh $100 bills," Edmond Safra's
bank, Republic National, was directly implicated.
Guess we know where Browder got the cash money to pay for the vouchers
1998 - If Salomon had not been merged with Travelers Group in 1997 (which owned retail
brokerage, Smith Barney), no doubt Salomon Brothers would have collapsed in the 1998
Long-Term Capital Management debacle created by one of their own – Salomons John
Meriwether.
Safra lost $1 billion in Russia during the 1998 Long-Term Capital Management crisis over
Russian bonds and investments which was why he put his bank, Republic National Bank, up for
sale to HSBC in 1999.
1999 - Following the Russian financial crisis of 1998, despite significant outflows from
the fund, Hermitage became a prominent shareholder in the Russian oil and gas. It was in 1999
when VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation (Russian:
ВСМПО-АВИСМА) – the
world's largest titanium producer - filed a RICO lawsuit against Browder and other Avisma
investors including Kenneth Dart, alleging they illegally siphoned company assets into
offshore accounts and then transferred the funds to U.S. accounts at Barclays.
Browder and his co-defendants settled with Avisma in 2000; they sold their Avisma shares
as part of the confidential settlement agreement.
1999 - Republican National Bank was owned by Safra . On May 11, HSBC, announced a $10.3
billion deal to purchase Edmond Safra's holdings including the Republic National Bank of New
York and Safra's shares in Bill Browder's firm, Hermitage Capital. The announcement came only
nine months after Russia's economy collapsed and Browder's clients, lost over $900 million.
It was also nine months after $4.8 billion in IMF funds was deposited in an undisclosed
account at Safra's bank and well before the public became aware that that same money was
dispersed and stolen through the Bank of New York, off-shore companies, and foreign financial
institutions.
HSBC then became Browders partner of the Heritage Fund . Browder's shell companies were
registered in Cyprus but owned by HSBC (Guernsey) as the trustee for his Hermitage Capital
Management.
Cypriot shells Glendora and Kone were part of his offshore network "owned" by an HSBC
Private Bank Guernsey Ltd trust. The real owner was Browder's Hermitage Fund. Assets (stocks
and money) went from Russia to Cyprus and then to parts unknown.
Republic International Trust, registered by Mossack Fonseca of Panama Papers fame and
listed on the Glendora document, was in the offshore network of Republic National Bank owner
Edmond Safra, an early investor who then held 51% of Hermitage Fund shares.
1999 December 3 - Safra was killed in suspicious fire that broke out in his Monte Carlo
home. Although some believe that Safra was killed by the Russian mafia, Lurie reported that a
Swiss prosecutor investigating the missing IMF money believed that Safra was killed "because
of his revelations to the FBI and the Swiss Prosecutor's Office investigating the
disappearance and laundering of $4.8 billion of the IMF stablilization loan." One of the more
interesting things to note here is that the prosecutor implied that Safra not only spoke with
the FBI about the missing IMF funds but with Swiss authorities as well.
Funny how Browders bosses/partners get killed
1999 - the bombings that killed nearly three hundred innocent Russians were likely the
product of a "false flag" operation that enabled Putin to consolidate power.
Putin promised to stop the plundering of the Russian state by rich oligarchs. But very few
Russians knew that Putin had been a primary actor in the same kind of activity in St.
Petersburg. And as for cleaning up corruption, one of Putin's first acts as president was to
pardon Boris Yeltsin, thereby guaranteeing immunity from prosecution to the outgoing
president.-
Putin recruited two oligarchs who were among his closest confidants, Roman Abramovich and
Lev Leviev, to undertake the highly unlikely mission of creating a new religious organization
called the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia under the leadership of Rabbi Berel
Lazar, a leader in the Hasidic movement called Chabad-Lubavitch.
Founded in the late eighteenth century, the tiny, Brooklyn-based Chabad-Lubavitcher
movement is a fundamentalist Hasidic sect centered on the teaching of the late Rabbi Menachem
Schneerson, who is sometimes referred to as a messiah -- moshiach -- a savior and liberator
of the Jewish people. It is antiabortion, views homosexuality as a perversion, and often
aligns itself politically with other fundamentalist groups on the right.
Its biggest donors included Leviev, an Israeli billionaire who was an Uzbek native and was
known as the "King of Diamonds" thanks to his success in the diamond trade, and Charles
Kushner, an American real estate developer who was later jailed for illegal campaign
contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering. Kushner is also the father of Jared
Kushner, who married Donald Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and later became a senior adviser to
President Trump. Leviev's friendship with Lazar dates back to 1992 and, according to Haaretz,
made Leviev "the most influential, most active and most connected person in the Jewish
community of Russia and made Lazar the country's chief rabbi."
Roman Abramovich, controlled the trading arm of one of Russia's largest oil companies
through an Isle of Man company that had figured in the Bank of New York affair. Mr.
Abramovich ran the Siberian oil giant Sibneft, which sold its oil through a company called
Runicom.
His name emerged after speculation that Swiss investigators were looking into the role of
Runicom as part of the widening investigation into the laundering of up to $15 billion of
Russian money through American banks. Runicom is owned by at least two offshore companies set
up by the Valmet Group, a financial services concern partly owned by Menatep, a failed
Russian bank that used the Bank of New York."
2001- Salomon Brothers Building (WTC 7) collapses. Tenants include the Department of
Defense, the Secret Service, the IRS, and the Securities and Exchange Commission
2005 - Steinmetz of Browders Heritage Fund teamed up with another diamond magnate, Putins
buddy Lev Leviev, to purchase the top ten floors of Israel's Diamond Tower which also houses
the Israeli Diamond Exchange. Haaretz.com reported that "the buyers intend to build a
connector from the 10 floors – the top 10 floors of the building – to the diamond
exchange itself in order to benefit from the security regime of the other offices within the
exchange." And benefit they did.
According to one website reporting on a Channel 10 (Israel) news story, from 2005 –
2011, an "underground" bank was set up to provide "loans to firms using money taken from
other companies while pretending it was legally buying and selling diamonds." The bank
apparently washed over $100 million in illicit funds over the course of six years and both
Steinmetz and Leviev were directly implicated as "customers" of the bank but Neither of them
were charged in the case.
Then there's HSBC's involvement in the diamond industry and Leviev's ties not only to arms
dealer Arcadi Gaydamak via Africa-Israeli Investments but Roman Abramovich and Kushner
2007 - Browders Hermitage Capital Management, was raided by Russian interior ministry
officers, who confiscated stamps and documents. These were then used to file bogus tax
returns to the Russian Treasury, which were paid out to bank accounts controlled by Klyuev
and his associates, according to the U.S. government.
Browder claimed Organized crime carried out the tax refund fraud against the Russian
Treasury under which criminals used collusive lawsuits to fake damages and get refunds of
company taxes. The tax refund fraud using Browder's companies netted $230 million.
2008 - HSBC (Guersey) director Paul Wrench filed a complaint about the tax refund fraud in
July on behalf of Hermitage (after Starova's complaints) .
Maginitsky was arrested for being the accountant (not a lawyer) of Browder's tax evasion
schemes.
2008 - A lawsuit alleged Bayrock's projected profits were "to be laundered, untaxed
through a sham Delaware entity" to the FL Group, Iceland's largest private investment fund,
the first major firm to collapse in 2008 when Iceland's financial bubble burst, and a favored
financial instrument for loans to Russia-connected oligarchs who were, court papers claim, in
favor with Vladimir Putin. According to Bloomberg, Eva Joly, who assisted Iceland's special
prosecutor in the investigation of the financial collapse, said, "There was a huge amount of
money that came into these banks that wasn't entirely explained by central bank lending. Only
Mafia-like groups fill a gap like that."
Another significant Bayrock partner, the Sapir Organization, had, through its principal,
Tamir Sapir, a long business relationship with Semyon Kislin, the commodities trader who was
tied to the Chernoy brothers and, according to the FBI, to Vyacheslav Ivankov's gang in
Brighton Beach.
In addition to being wired into the Kremlin, Sapir's son-in-law, Rotem Rosen, was a
supporter of Chabad along with Sater, Sapir, and others at Bayrock, and, as a result, was
part of an extraordinarily powerful channel between Trump and Putin. After all, the ascent of
Chabad in Russia had been part of Putin's plan to replace older Jewish institutions in Russia
with corresponding organizations that were loyal to him.
The biggest contributor to Chabad in the world was Leviev, the billionaire "King of
Diamonds" who had a direct line to Rabbi Berel Lazar, aka "Putin's rabbi," to Donald Trump,
and to Putin himself dating back to the Russian leader's early days in St. Petersburg.
Indeed, one of the biggest contributors to Chabad of Port Washington, Long Island, was
Bayrock founder Tevfik Arif, a Kazakh-born Turk with a Muslim name who was not Jewish, but
nonetheless won entry into its Chai Circle as a top donor.
2013-The Hermitage Fund, an HSBC-backed vehicle that invested in Russia and became
embroiled in a diplomatic war with the Kremlin over the death of one of its accountants,
closes down..
2014, Vekselberg's Renova Group became a partner with Wilbur Ross in the takeover of the
Bank of Cyprus, which had held billions in deposits from wealthy Russians.
Back in early 90's Trump found himself in financial trouble when his three casinos in
Atlantic City were under foreclosure threat from lenders. He was bailed-out by senior
managing director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Wilbur Ross, who Trump would later appoint
as Secretary of Commerce. Ross, who is known as the "King of Bankruptcy," specializes in
leveraged buyouts of distressed businesses.
Along with Blackstones Carl Icahn, Ross convinced bondholders to strike a deal with Trump
that allowed Trump to keep control of the casinos.
By the mid-1990s, Ross was a prominent figure in New York Democratic Party politics and
had caught the attention President Bill Clinton who appointed him to lead the U.S.-Russia
Investment Fund.
2015 - Donald Trump, after emerging from a decade of litigation, multiple bankruptcies,
and $ 4 billion in debt, had risen from the near-dead with the help of Bayrock and its
alleged ties to Russian intelligence and the Russian Mafia. "They saved his bacon," said
Kenneth McCallion, a former federal prosecutor
2015 - Kushner paid $295 million for some of the floors in the old New York Times
building, purchased in 2015 from the US branch of Israeli-Russian oligarch Leviev's company,
Africa Israel Investments (AFI), and partner, Five Mile Capital.
Kushner later borrowed $285 million from the German financial company Deutsche Bank, which
has also been linked to Russian money laundering,
Jared and Ivanka were also close to another of Putins oligarchs, Roman Abramovich and his
wife, Dasha Zhukova.
2015-While Wilbur Ross served as vice-chairman of the Bank of Cyprus, the bank's
Russia-based businesses were sold to a Russian banker and consultant, Artem Avetisyan, who
had ties to both the Russian president and Russia's largest bank, Sberbank. At the time,
Sberbank was under US and EU sanctions following Russia's annexation of Crimea.
Avetisyan had earlier been selected by Putin to head a new business branch of the Russian
president's strategic initiative agency, which was tasked with improving business and
government ties.
Avetisyan's business partner, Oleg Gref, is the son of Herman Gref, Sberbank's chief
executive officer, and their consultancy has served as a "partner" to Sberbank, according to
their website. Ross had described the Russian businesses – including 120 bank branches
in Russia – as being worth "hundreds of millions of euros" in 2014 but they were sold
with other assets to Avetisyan for €7m (£6m).
Ross resigned from the Bank of Cyprus board after he was confirmed as commerce secretary
in 2017
2018 - Cyprus suspended cooperation with Russia, which had been seeking assistance from
the government in Moscow's alleged case of tax evasion against Hermitage Capital Founder Bill
Browder.
There is an interesting connection between Bill Bowder, Robert Maxwell, Bill Clinton, Jeffrey
Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and others. They are all members of "CLUB"
There are many more revealing articles on Martin Armstrong's blog. Browder is one of the
biggest scumbags to ever walk on this earth. He is trying to start a war against Russia
– because they took away some of the things he had stolen. An absolute arsehole.
Ben Cardin must feel like a schmuck given Ben Bidder's exposé in the Der Spiegel but
having suborned the late drama queen Johnny McCain in supporting him in his efforts to
protect a fellow tribesman, the noodge won't make any effort to rescind the illicit bill now
that's the power of corruption!
@Saggy Many thanks for posting this. Halfway through the film I began to suspect that
Browder had Magnitsky killed: "Dead Men Tell No Tales", and an accountant can tell very
important tales for the procecution. I had no idea that several guys connected with Browder
shell companies convienently turned up dead. Looks like the "cleanup" scenes in Scorcese's
"Casino".
1/2 Having now read the SDNY indictment of Ghislaine Maxwell, one thing stands out. The
charges are mainly for enticing minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts specifically
w Epstein and there is also a perjury charge ....
2/2 However, the indictment says Maxwell herself sexually abused the victims but
WASN'T charged for that. In other words, they admit that she sexually assaulted minors but
is only charged her for enticing minors to travel for abuse by Epstein, NOT her. Slap on
the wrist incoming
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Now trending on twitter: #Ghislanemaxwelldidntkillherself
Well Ghislaine Maxwell could have hidden in Salisbury UK with all those spooks about. She has UK citizenship so maybe a prisoner exchange for Julian Assange is possible. Mind you the englanders do like their torture toys.
But where is Les Wexner, the chief, the founder of this racket. For that matter where are the Awan family spy and blackmail gang?
"... Civil lawsuits have accused Ms. Maxwell of managing a network of recruiters that Mr. Epstein relied on to entice young and often financially strapped girls and women into his scheme, promising he would help them with their education and careers. ..."
Ghislaine Maxwell, Associate of Jeffrey Epstein, Is Arrested Nicole Hong, Benjamin
Weiser and Mihir Zaveri 6 hrs ago
Ghislaine
Maxwell , the former girlfriend and longtime associate of the disgraced financier Jeffrey
Epstein, was arrested Thursday in New Hampshire on criminal charges linked to his alleged
sex-trafficking operation, according to a law enforcement official.
Ms. Maxwell was accused in an indictment of recruiting and grooming "multiple" girls,
including one as young as 14, for Mr. Epstein, who sexually abused them. She also faces perjury
charges.
The arrest came nearly a year after Mr. Epstein was charged in a federal
indictment with sexually exploiting and abusing dozens of underage girls at his mansion in
Manhattan, his estate in Palm Beach, Fla. and other locations between at least 2002 and
2005.
The indictment said he paid the girls to give him massages while they were nude or topless,
in encounters that typically included sex acts.
Mr. Epstein hanged himself in
August in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Lower Manhattan, where he was
jailed pending trial on the federal sex-trafficking charges.
Ms. Maxwell, a longtime confidante and companion of Mr. Epstein's, had for years been
accused of
helping to procure and groom young girls for the financier, including instructing them on
how to pleasure Mr. Epstein sexually.
The daughter of the British publishing magnate Robert Maxwell, Ms. Maxwell also helped
manage Mr. Epstein's properties and introduced him to the high-profile celebrities and business
executives who would form his social circle.
Civil lawsuits have
accused Ms. Maxwell of managing a network of recruiters that Mr. Epstein relied on to
entice young and often financially strapped girls and women into his scheme, promising he would
help them with their education and careers.
"They were like partners in a business," Mr. Epstein's house manager, Janusz Banasiak, said
in a deposition.
"She orchestrated the whole thing for Jeffrey," one of Mr. Epstein's accusers, Sarah
Ransome, who sued him in 2017, told The New York Times in an interview.
The new federal indictment, unsealed on Thursday, charged Ms. Maxwell with six counts:
enticing minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, transportation of a minor with intent
to engage in sexual activity, two conspiracy counts related to those charges and two counts of
perjury.
The indictment described three instances between 1994 and 1997 of Ms. Maxwell befriending
girls, taking them shopping and to the movies. After establishing a rapport with them, Ms.
Maxwell would "normalize sexual abuse" by undressing in front of the girls or talking about
sexual topics, the indictment claimed.
Mr. Epstein would then abuse the girls in various residences and other locations in New
York, New Mexico, Florida and London, according to the indictment.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, who has been a lawyer for Ms. Maxwell, did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.
SPECIAL REPORT: Jeffrey Epstein and his royal protector
Phil Ritchie
|
02/07/2020
|
28min
Prince Andrew's life has been torn asunder by the fallout of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein – triggering a
stalemate with the US Justice Department which threatens the reputation of the entire British royal family. This Sky
News Australia special investigation probes their friendship and brings you that latest in the royal scandal which
has gripped the world.
The title says: Ghislaine Maxwell lives in a very luxury appartment in Paris,at a few
minutes distance from both the 8.6 million dollars Epstein property and its neighbour the
Israeli Embassy.
International criminals usually live in Paris,where Interpol always looks on the wrong
side,inspector Clouseau heads it.
NEW: Alan Dershowitz's attorney confirms that his client has access to Virginia
Giuffre's sealed depositions. Those depositions reveal that she was directed by Jeffrey
Epstein to have sex with former Israeli PM Ehud Barak & Victoria's Secret's Les
Wexner.
Re: the Nuremberg trials , I became fascinated by the writings of Paul R. Pillar who
pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to
war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace' . This is when one country sets up an
environment for war against another country. I'll grant you that this is vague but if this is
applicable at all how is this not an accurate description of what we are doing against Iran
and Venezuela?
In both cases, we are imposing a full trade embargo (not sanctions) on basic civilian
necessities and infrastructures and threatening the use of military force. As for Iran, the
sustained and unfair demonization of Iranians is preparing the U.S. public to accept a
ruthless bombing campaign against them as long overdue. We are already attacking the civilian
population of their allies in Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.
How Ironic that the country that boasts that it won WW2 is now guilty of the very crimes
that it condemned publicly in court.
Two new documentaries on the Jeffery Epstein affair delve into lurid details & give
voice to his victims, but both scratch the surface of the political & intelligence
dimensions of the scandal...
Authored by Elizabeth Vos via ConsortiumNews.com,
Investigation
Discovery premiered a three-hour special, "Who Killed Jeffrey Epstein?" on May 31, the
first segment in a three-part series, that focused on Epstein's August 2019 death in federal
custody. The series addresses Epstein's alleged co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, his links
with billionaire Leslie Wexner, founder of the Victoria Secrets clothing line, and others, as
well as the non-prosecution deal he was given.
The special followed on the heels of Netflix's release of " Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich ," a mini-series that
draws on a book of the same name by James Patterson.
Promotional material for "Who Killed Jeffery Epstein?" promises that: " exclusive interviews
and in-depth investigations reveal new clues about his seedy underworld, privileged life and
controversial death. The three-hour special looks to answer the questions surrounding the death
of this enigmatic figure." Netflix billed its series this way: "Stories from survivors fuel
this docuseries examining how convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein used his wealth and power
to carry out his abuses."
Neither documentary however deals at all with Epstein's suspected ties to the world of
intelligence.
Absent from both are Maxwell's reported links to Israeli intelligence through her father, Robert Maxwell
, former owner of The New York Daily News and The Mirror newspaper in London. Maxwell
essentially received a state funeral in Israel and was buried on the Mount of Olives after he
mysteriously fell off his yacht in 1991 in the Atlantic Ocean.
Ari Ben-Menashe. (From his memoir, "Profits of War")
In an interview with Consortium News , former Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe
said Epstein did not work with Mossad. "Military intelligence was who he was working with,"
said Ben-Menashe. "Big difference," he said. "He never worked with Mossad, and Robert Maxwell
never did, either. It was military intelligence."
Ben-Menashe claimed Robert Maxwell was Epstein's "tie over. Robert Maxwell was the conduit
[in the Iran-Contra scandal]. The financial conduit."
In " Epstein: Dead Men Tell No
Tales ," a book published in December, Ben-Menashe is quoted as saying he worked with
Robert Maxwell who introduced his daughter and Epstein to Israeli intelligence, after which
they engaged in a blackmail operation for Israel. "[Epstein] was taking photos of politicians
f**king fourteen-year-old girls -- if you want to get it straight. They [Epstein and Maxwell]
would just blackmail people, they would just blackmail people like that," he says in the
book.
Ben-Menashe also claims that Robert Maxwell had attempted to blackmail Mossad. "He really
lost his compass once he started playing these games with people," he told Consortium
News.
Prince Andrew
Prince Andrew in a carriage procession, June 2012. (Carfax2, CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia
Commons)
About a week after both documentaries premiered, the U.S. Department of Justice approached
the U.K.'s Home Office requesting that Prince Andrew answer questions in the U.K. over his
links to Epstein, The
Mirror reported. If he refuses, the paper said, U.S. prosecutors would ask that he be
brought to a British court to respond to their questions. Andrew's lawyers say he three times
agreed to be questioned by U.S. authorities, but it is not known if Andrew attached conditions,
such as immunity.
Both documentaries mention Prince Andrew in the context of allegations about him from one of
Epstein's victims, Virginia Roberts Giuffre. But neither film goes into much detail about
Andrew's role in the Epstein operation, which Ben-Menashe said, was to lure powerful men into
Epstein's orbit.
"One of the things that are really key to this is that he [Epstein] befriended a very useful
idiot called Prince Andrew," Ben-Menashe told CN . "Now what really happened was that this
Prince Andrew, with nothing to do, was having fun with this, and Prince Andrew brings in the
fancy people, invites them to play golf with him, and then takes them out for fun. Then Epstein
shows up, and these people are basically blackmailed."
"The only person that can talk, that probably knows quite a bit, is the great prince,"
Ben-Menashe said. "He was with him [Epstein] all the time. I really don't know what his future
is going to be like, either."
Since a number of influential figures were named in a lawsuit filed by Giuffre against
Ghislaine Maxwell the day before Epstein was found dead in his federal prison cell in New York,
Ben-Menashe said: "I'm starting to think that lawsuit was his death sentence, because people
didn't want to be named. That's my guess, it's just a guess. Obviously, somebody decided that
he had to go."
Epstein's death was
ruled a "suicide" by New York's chief medical examiner. A pathologist hired by Epstein's
brother
said it was homicide.
An Angry Call
Just before Ben-Menashe spoke to Consortium News on Monday, he said he had received an angry
telephone call from Israel's Channel 13 television station.
"They called me, and they went wild: 'What, you believe Israel would use little girls? You
are saying that? You are insulting the nation, you are making us anathema around the world.' I
said, 'The truth is the truth.' And Jeffrey Epstein's story is something that nobody wanted to
hear. He was working with the Israelis, he was working with Maxwell," Ben-Menashe said.
He added: "It's a very bad story, and I can see why the Israelis are so concerned about it.
I believe [Channel 13] were expressing anger, and I believe this was a message. I don't like
messages like that it has to do with the timing and these stories coming out about Epstein.
They [Israel] are starting to become anathema to the world, this adds to it -- the Epstein
story."
Victims' Voices
The Netflix and Investigation Discovery productions allow survivors to recount their
experiences in interviews as well as taped police recordings and focus on the sweetheart plea
deal provided to Epstein by former Trump Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta during Acosta's
tenure as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida.
Each series outlines Epstein's relationships with Wexner, Maxwell, and a variety of elite
figures. Investigation Discovery focuses on the controversy surrounding Epstein's death while
Netflix's "Filthy Rich" examines the second attempt to prosecute Epstein in the context of the
Me Too movement.
The Netflix series describes the initial investigation of Epstein as it shifted from the
state to the federal level, and airs allegations that Florida journalists covering the story
were threatened. Netflix also interviews psychologist Dr. Kathryn Stamoulis, a specialist in
adolescent sexuality, who gives a description of Epstein's targeting and grooming of young
girls. Epstein survivor Giuffre later describes in the film being groomed to tolerate
exploitation and sex trafficking as part of a "deranged family."
The final section of the fourth episode in Netflix's miniseries includes a survivor stating
that this was not simply an Epstein operation, but an "international sex trafficking ring that
reached all over the world." Epstein is described as a "very small piece in a huge network."
But the documentary goes no further than that.
As in
the Belgian Dutroux case , victims alleged that multiple abusers acted in concert with each
other, using blackmail to keep each other in line. In both instances, authorities and the media
portrayed the abuse as chiefly the product of an aberrant lone predator.
"This wouldn't be the only time this happened, but this guy got way over his head,"
Ben-Menashe told Consortium News . "He probably was blackmailing too many people, too many
powerful people. And then, this is a story the Israelis wouldn't want to come out, anyway."
Thriving in Murky Waters
Another angle the documentaries did not approach was the environment in which Epstein
thrived like an algae bloom in stagnant water, that is, within a long history of child
trafficking rings linked with intelligence agencies , often with the aim of gathering
blackmail material. It was within this reality that Epstein appeared to be rendered
untouchable.
Omitting the intelligence aspect of Epstein's history allows the Establishment media to
portray his case as a mysterious and unsolvable aberration, rather than perhaps a continuation
of business-as-usual amongst those in power.
The glaring refusal to address Epstein's intelligence involvement becomes clear when
Investigation Discovery and Netflix's programs discuss the role of Acosta in securing Epstein's
"sweetheart" plea deal, but do not reference Acosta's widely reported explanation as to why
Acosta agreed to the deal. As reported by The
Daily Beast , Acosta claimed that he cut the non-prosecution deal because he had been told
that "Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone."
Independent journalist Whitney Webb has reported on Epstein's many ties with intelligence , telling CNLive! in August last year
that there is evidence this included with the CIA.
Webb spoke about
Iran-Contra links to Epstein via his and billionaire Wexner's efforts to relocate Southern Air
Transport (formerly the CIA's Air America) from Florida to Ohio: "What's significant here is
that out of all the airlines in the United States, Wexner and Epstein choose the airline, the
only airline that is outed, publicly known at the time, to be a CIA cut-out. Out of all the
airlines that exist, that's the one they go for," she said.
Webb also cited reporting by Nigel Rosser, a British journalist, who wrote in the Evening
Standard in 2001 that Epstein claimed he worked for the CIA in the 1990s.
Lip Service
Investigation Discovery and Netflix give lip service to Wexner's ties with Epstein, omitting
that Wexner gave Epstein the largest private residence in New York City -- essentially
for free . Investigation Discovery does
not mention that the residence was extensively wired with surveillance equipment, per Webb and The New York Times .
"James Patterson, before writing his book on Epstein, 'Filthy Rich,' on which this
documentary [by Netflix] is based,
wrote a novel ['The President is Missing'] with Bill Clinton , who is of course quite close
to the Epstein scandal, so that definitely, in my opinion, raises some eyebrows," Webb told
Consortium News.
"I think that one of the goals of this [Netflix] documentary is to basically imply that
Epstein was the head of the operation and that now that he is dead, all of that activity has
ceased," Webb said. "If they had actually bothered to explore the intelligence angle, in some
of the more obvious facts about the case, like Leslie Wexner's role, for example, it becomes
clear that Epstein was really just more of a manager of this type of operation, [and] that
these activities continue."
Webb said a main reason for avoiding discussion of the intelligence angle is that mention of
state sponsorship would lead to calls for accountability and open inquiry into a history of
sexual blackmail by intelligence agencies. "So if they had given even superficial treatment of
those ties, it would have exposed threads that if anyone had bothered to pull on a little bit,
would start to unravel a lot of things that obviously these powerful people and institutions
don't want exposed," Webb said.
More than nine months since Epstein's death, no alleged Epstein co-conspirator has been
arrested or charged with a crime despite reports of an active criminal investigation of Maxwell
(who has disappeared), and multiple failed
attempts of alleged Epstein victims to serve her with civil suits.
"The criminal case against him, and all the evidence that was gathered against him as part
of that, will never be made public unless someone else is charged," said Webb. "So, the fact
that they're not charging anyone else is quite telling, and the fact that the mainstream media
isn't pushing back against that, I think is telling as well."
The omissions of major aspects of the Epstein case by the media, specifically its links with
the intelligence community, seems to be yet another example of a buffer between justice and
those responsible for rendering Epstein untouchable.
"... The objective of the elites was to wrest control of resources eg land and/or timber plus so-called royal warrants that controlled who was allowed to produce, sell export products to who, grab allocation out of the control of the mobs of greedy royal favorites, then into the hands of the new American elites. ..."
"... The bagmen & courtiers grew fat at the expense of the colonists and generally the bagman, who also spied on the locals for obvious reasons, would go back to England once he had made his stash. ..."
"... The American elites wanted and, after the revolution got, the power to control economic development for themselves.Hence the birth of lobbyists simultaneous with the birth of the American nation state. ..."
"... IMO the constitution was about as meaningful to the leaders of the revolution as campaign promises are to contemporary politicians.That is, something to be used as self protection without ever implementing. ..."
I'm always amused, nah that is a little harsh - dumbfounded is more reasonable, when
Americans express dismay that 'their' constitution is not being adhered to by the elites.
The minutiae of American political history hasn't greatly concerned me after a superficial
study at high school, when I realized that the political structure is corrupt and was
designed to facilitate corruption.
The seeming caring & sharing soundbites pushed out by the 'framers' scum such as
Thomas Jefferson was purely for show, an attempt to gather the cannon fodder to one side.
This was simple as the colonial media had been harping on about 'taxation without
representation' for decades.
It wasn't just taxes, in fact for the American based elites that was likely the least of
it. The objective of the elites was to wrest control of resources eg land and/or timber plus
so-called royal warrants that controlled who was allowed to produce, sell export products to
who, grab allocation out of the control of the mobs of greedy royal favorites, then into the
hands of the new American elites.
A well placed courtier would put a bagman into the regional center of a particular colony
(each colony becoming a 'state' post revolution), so that if someone wanted to, I dunno, say
export huge quantities of cotton, the courtier would charge that 'colonial' for getting the
initial warrant, then take a hefty % of the return on the product - all collected by the
on-site bagman then divvied up.
The bagmen & courtiers grew fat at the expense of the colonists and generally the
bagman, who also spied on the locals for obvious reasons, would go back to England once he
had made his stash.
The system was ponderous inaccurate & very expensive. Something had to be done, but
selling revolutionary change to the masses on the basis of the need to enrich the already
wealthy was not likely to be a winner. Consequently the high faulting blather.
The American elites wanted and, after the revolution got, the power to control economic
development for themselves.Hence the birth of lobbyists simultaneous with the birth of the American nation state.
IMO the constitution was about as meaningful to the leaders of the revolution as campaign
promises are to contemporary politicians.That is, something to be used as self protection without ever implementing.
Why
is the FBI focusing on foriegn nationals instead of the numerous AMERICAN politicians involved with Epstein? It's like the FBI
has a long history of not having any interest in holding the Clintons accountable....
Shouldn't the FBI be hounding their own American "elites" as well? Why the studious silence by the US alphabet soup agencies
on Maxwell and her whereabouts? Why have the Clintons and Dershowitz and even Trump been handled with kid gloves in this case?
Or what about Bill Gates? By all means, put pressure on Prince Andrew, but it's the lack of consistency in the manner in which
US authorities have been handling this from the get go that piques my ire. It's as if Andrew is being used as a sacrificial
scapegoat to deflect attention away from America's own very, very, long list of Epstein and Maxwell's "clients"... many of
them serious power-players with incredible influence. How typical of the monumental hypocrisy and double standards which have
become the "stock in trade" of the US empire.
There are no conspiracy theories around Epstein's case, just obvious facts. A group of the richest people share same sexual
appetite for kids. And justice department will not do anything about it.
Why have I known about Clinton for so long? I can't even remember when I first heard that Clinton was on the island and
the Lolita express? I thought it was public knowledge.
And now there is the Epstein matter, which threatens not only former president Bill Clinton,
but a cosmos of political, financial, and entertainment "stars" in countless ugly incidents
that involve a kind of personal corruption that has no political context but says an awful lot
about the obliteration of moral and ethical boundaries by the people who ended up running
things in this fretful moment of US history.
I watched all of the Netflix series on Epstein-- "Filthy Rich" last night. I'd be interested
in others' perspectives.
It focused on the victims' stories, did a good job on revealing how young, poor girls who
are psychologically scarred through family breakdowns, predatory adults and neglect are then
easily exploited during their teen years by sociopaths.Very revealing.
However, there was not one mention of Israel. Whitney Webb's work including her recent
interviews with Maria Farmer are essential:
Gangster politicians like to think that they are slick. They talk slang and curse a lot,
grab a girl's ass (or worse), insist that they never read a book, thumb their noses at
intellectual elites, boast about their high IQs, and proclaim their "street smarts." They also
view themselves both as victims of their critics' malice and "great men" alone capable of
curing the nation's ills.
They make their base feel the same: they are despised and yet the real Americans!
Their belief in the boss is unwavering. Only he can make America great again.
Those who oppose his policies are traitors and the threats they pose are serious -- and, if
they are not serious, then they must be made serious. History teaches what might become
necessary in order to teach them a lesson. The Reichstag Fire of 1933 and the (staged)
assassination of Sergei Kirov in 1934 were the dramatic events that led Hitler and Stalin to
justify attacks on enemies, renegades, and supposed traitors to the state. Gangster politicians
under internal pressure pray for a crisis, or what Trump once forecast as a "major event," in
order to rally the troops and clean house.
Gangster politics requires no ideology. Lack of principle itself becomes a principle.
The great man must do what must be done: if that means lying, reneging on deals, shifting
gears, rejecting transparency, and whatever else, then so be it. That he can employ the double
standard is a given.
Big talk takes the place of diplomacy and, if the bluster doesn't work then America alone --
or, better, the boss alone -- can rely on "fire and fury" whenever and wherever he likes.
Traditionalists employed jingoistic rhetoric and wrapped themselves in the flag. The
gangster politician talks like a schoolyard bully and salutes himself.
Gangster politicians of times past had subordinates swear an oath of loyalty not to the
state but to them. Yesterday's "America! Love it or leave it!" has today turned into: "Trump!
Love him -- or shut up!"
"... Contemporary films and television shows constantly depict the CIA, corrupt politicians and greedy corporate interests as interwoven. But these usually appear as either the work of rogue individuals (who must be brought into line) or an always vague and unalterable "system" that demands utter cynicism as the only appropriate response. ..."
In The Communist Manifesto , Marx and Engels referred to the state as "the executive
committee of the ruling class." Reflecting the collective capitalist interest in maintaining
its accumulation process, capable of forging compromises among competing sectors of its own and
other classes, this committee was also meant to enforce legal norms, contracts, and other rules
of the game.
If necessary, indeed, it would even subordinate individual capitalist interests to the
collective interests of the class. The executive committee might foster imperialist ambitions
and declare war. But it might also call for redistributive legislation to foster demand even
though no individual capitalist would want to pay higher taxes to cover the cost. Recalcitrant
elements of the ruling class and protestors from below require punishment. Fascist states
easily get carried away in that regard. Banana republics usually exhibit bureaucratic gangster
tendencies. In a capitalist democracy, however, things are supposedly different: its executive
committee should jail Al Capone and marginalize corruption. The lines between legal and illegal
business transactions are blurring and the term "political mafia" is taking on a whole new
meaning. [1]
Gangster politics has little in common with the interests of petty criminals, white collar
crooks, 'Crips and 'Bloods, and the like. Vast sums are at stake: so, for example, roughly
82.8% of benefits from the 2017 tax bill are being funneled into the portfolios of the top 1%,
[2] and
the corporate tax rate is being dropped from 35% to 21%. The boss knows where his bread is
buttered. That the godfather should get his cut goes without saying: Trump's family will make
upwards of "tens of millions of dollars" from his tax legislation. [3] And with the "ca-ching!"
(that sweet sound of the cash register) comes the "bling" (the payoffs, the hush-money, and the
gifts) along with the "glitz" of the porno stars, the third-rate actresses, the models, and the
rest.
Gangster politics hovers between the authoritarian and the democratic. The boss and his
posse receive their perks for a reason. Gangster politics immunizes capitalist society from
class contradictions that have become too acute or demands from below that have grown too
onerous. Its representatives are not exactly fascists. They don't rely on paramilitary forces,
concentration camps, official censorship, or explicit ideals of a racially pure society. Sleaze
is the ethos of gangster politics. Its style and tone insinuate themselves into existing
institutions such as the town meeting, the mass rally, media, electoral debates, and the use of
legislative tricks, and legal minutiae. Gangster politicians know how to "game" the system.
Their populist rhetoric is window dressing. The old "bicycle mentality" of the petty
bourgeoisie holds sway, namely, push up and kick down.
Gangsters have long been identified with capitalists, cops, and state officials. Balzac
noted that every great fortune hides a great crime. Upton Sinclair and Frank Norris made the
connection as did Ibsen. But, perhaps most notoriously, Bert Brecht saw the gangster ethos
uniting capitalists, imperialists, and militarists in a host of plays beginning with The
Three Penny Opera . Contemporary films and television shows constantly depict the CIA,
corrupt politicians and greedy corporate interests as interwoven. But these usually appear as
either the work of rogue individuals (who must be brought into line) or an always vague and
unalterable "system" that demands utter cynicism as the only appropriate response.
Gangster politics is not a structured institutional formation, as often argued, [4] but rather
a semi-legal adaptation to legal forms of governance. It arises when the gangster's clients
sense danger. Memories still linger concerning the economic crisis of 2008. [5] Banks are still
over-extending unfavorable loans, stocks have been erratic, insider trading is the rule of the
day and the "average guy" is panicking as capital becomes centralized in ever fewer hands.
Production requires an ever smaller yet more educated working class; consumption is
inordinately skewed to the wealthy; and the class question increasingly turns on how best to
disempower working people, those living below the poverty line, women, citizens of color, and
immigrants
Enforcing gerrymandering, curtailing voting rights, privatizing the prison system, access
peddling, and accruing unlimited donations for electoral campaigns are effective tactics that
border on the illegal. Right-wing control over an increasingly centralized media helps deflect
criticisms and divide the disenfranchised and exploited. The audience has been primed. The
boss' mass base detests his critics. Environmentalists, immigrants, people of color, uppity
women, decadent gays and the transgendered infuriate the "good citizens" of America clinging to
outworn traditions in small towns as well as evangelicals and retrograde (white) sectors of the
industrial working class. They despair over loss of jobs, government "waste" and "welfare
chiselers," moral decline, and (above all) the loss of their cultural privileges. They look
back to a time when "men were men," "America was great!" and "happy days" followed one another
non-stop.
Elites nod approvingly, though they have different priorities: de-regulation, lower taxes,
fewer welfare policies, and cuts in the "costs of doing business." Oligarchic tendencies are
built into capitalism and, as they expand, their exploitative impact on workers and the urban
poor become more intense. That is where gangster politics enters the mainstream. Corporate
elites require protection from progressive forces. [6] Their leaders must often
choose between authoritarianism with profits as against democracy with costs. Thy always assume
that they can control their enforcer. Once in office, however, the parvenu begins exercising
power in his own interest. Donald Trump turned on mainstream Republicans, who pandered to the
Tea Party early in the Obama presidency, just as Hitler turned on his former patron, Fritz von
Papen, and his "cabinet of the barons" in 1933. It was the same with General Pinochet who was
installed by the traditional conservative Eduard Frei following the fall of Salvador Allende's
democratic regime in Chile in 1973. Other examples are available.
Gangster politics has its own logic. Traditionalists like to believe that the conflict is
between "them and us." For the political gangster, however, the struggle is between "them and
me." The only fixed rule is -- don't cross the boss! And, if only for this reason, he chooses
to be feared rather than loved. He taunts his subordinates, publicly humiliates them, throws
them under the bus, and perhaps even fires them a few days before their retirement. Cabinet
officials and agency directors require no expertise or security clearance, [7] all that counts is
loyalty to the boss. But, then, loyalty is a one-way street. Internal security advisers, press
secretaries, cabinet secretaries, chiefs of staff, assistants, agency directors, White House
attorneys, and deputies of all stripes come and go. Trump's administration has already had a
turnover rate of 34%, more than triple that of the Obama presidency. [8] Confusion and chaos
proliferate. There is a sense in which the goal of gangster politics is what Franz Neumann
termed "the stateless state." It serves a concrete purpose: everyone knows who is in charge of
everything.
Gangster politicians like to think that they are slick. They talk slang and curse a lot,
grab a girl's ass (or worse), insist that they never read a book, thumb their noses at
intellectual elites, boast about their high IQs, and proclaim their "street smarts." They also
view themselves both as victims of their critics' malice and "great men" alone capable of
curing the nation's ills. They make their base feel the same: they are despised and yet the
real Americans! Their belief in the boss is unwavering. Only he can make America great
again. Those who oppose his policies are traitors and the threats they pose are serious -- and,
if they are not serious, then they must be made serious. History teaches what might become
necessary in order to teach them a lesson. The Reichstag Fire of 1933 and the (staged)
assassination of Sergei Kirov in 1934 were the dramatic events that led Hitler and Stalin to
justify attacks on enemies, renegades, and supposed traitors to the state. Gangster politicians
under internal pressure pray for a crisis, or what Trump once forecast as a "major event," in
order to rally the troops and clean house.
Gangster politics requires no ideology. Lack of principle itself becomes a principle.
The great man must do what must be done: if that means lying, reneging on deals, shifting
gears, rejecting transparency, and whatever else, then so be it. That he can employ the double
standard is a given. Big talk takes the place of diplomacy and, if the bluster doesn't work
then America alone – or, better, the boss alone – can rely on "fire and fury"
whenever and wherever he likes. Traditionalists employed jingoistic rhetoric and wrapped
themselves in the flag. The gangster politician talks like a schoolyard bully and salutes
himself. Gangster politicians of times past had subordinates swear an oath of loyalty not to
the state but to them. Yesterday's "America! Love it or leave it!" has today turned into:
"Trump! Love him –or shut up!"
... ,,, ,,
References
[1]
Herbert Marcuse, 1974 Paris Lectures at Vincennes University eds. Peter-Erwin Jansen and
Charles Reitz (Published by the Marcuse Archives).
[2]
Dylan Matthews, "The Republican tax bill got worse: now the top 1% gets 83% of the gains,"VOX,
December 18, 2017,
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/18/16791174/republican-tax-bill-congress-conference-tax-policy-center
[3]
Louis Jacobson, "How much does the Trump family have to gain from GOP tax bills?"PolitiFact,
November 27,
2017,http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/27/lloyd-doggett/how-much-does-trump-family-have-gain-gop-tax-bills/
[4]
The term "gangster state" has been used often, and there are a number of different
interpretations of the phenomenon ie. Katherine Hirschfeld, Gangster States: Organized Crime,
Kleptocracy and Political Collapse (New York: Palgrave, 2015); Charles Tilly, "State Formation
as Organized Crime" in eds. Peter Evans et. al (Bringing the State Back In (New York: Cambridge
University press, 1985); Michael Hirsh, "Gangster States" in
http://www.newsweek.com/gangster-state-166356Paul Craig Roberts, "Gangster State America: Where
is America's Democracy?"
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/05/06/gangster-state-america-paul-craig-roberts-2/;
[5]
Gretchen Morgenstern and Joshua Rosner, Reckles$ Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed,
and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon (New York: Henry Holt, 2011).
[6]
Note the discussion in Stephen Eric Bronner, The Bitter Taste of Hope: Ideals, Ideologies
and Interests in the Age of Obama (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2017), 1ff.
[7]
Max Greenwood, "At least 30 White House officials, Trump appointees lack full clearances:
report," The Hill, February 9,
2018http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/373220-at-least-30-white-house-officials-trump-appointees-lack-full#.Wn7-uVrZvb8.facebook
[9]
Nicholas Confessore and Karen Yourish, "$2 Billion Worth of Free Media for Donald Trump,"
New York Times , March 15,
2016https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html
Stephen Eric Bronner is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of Political Science and
Director of Global Relations for the Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights at
Rutgers University. His most recent work is The Bitter Taste of Hope: Ideals, Ideologies
and Interests in the Age of Obama.
From comments: "
neoliberalism to be a techno-economic order of control, requiring a state apparatus to enforce
wholly artificial directives. Also, the work of recent critics of data markets such as Shoshana
Zuboff has shown capitalism to be evolving into a totalitarian system of control through
cybernetic data aggregation."
"... By rolling back the state, neoliberalism was supposed to have allowed autonomy and
creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a semi-privatised authoritarianism more
oppressive than the system it replaced. ..."
"... Workers find themselves enmeshed in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and
micromanaged. Organisations that depend on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and
hospitals – are stripped down, hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The
introduction of private capital into public services – that would herald a glorious new age
of choice and openness – is brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom
but demands conformity and silence. ..."
"... Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state,
insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name of
freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became not so
much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control. ..."
"... Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and
assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The
bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning
efficacy. It has become an end in itself. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... By rolling back the state, neoliberalism was supposed to have allowed autonomy and creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a semi-privatised authoritarianism more oppressive than the system it replaced. ..."
"... Workers find themselves enmeshed in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and micromanaged. Organisations that depend on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and hospitals – are stripped down, hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The introduction of private capital into public services – that would herald a glorious new age of choice and openness – is brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom but demands conformity and silence. ..."
"... Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state, insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name of freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became not so much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control. ..."
"... Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning efficacy. It has become an end in itself. ..."
"... The other point to be made is that the return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a radicalized form of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Therefore, neoliberal hegemony can only be perpetuated with authoritarian, nationalist ideologies and an order of market feudalism. In other words, neoliberalism's authoritarian orientations, previously effaced beneath discourses of egalitarian free-enterprise, become overt. ..."
"... The market is no longer an enabler of private enterprise, but something more like a medieval religion, conferring ultimate authority on a demagogue. Individual entrepreneurs collectivise into a 'people' serving a market which has become synonymous with nationhood. ..."
Thousands of people march through London to protest against underfunding and privatisation
of the NHS. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Barcroft Images M y life was saved last year by the
Churchill Hospital in Oxford, through a skilful procedure
to remove a cancer from my body . Now I will need another operation, to remove my jaw from
the floor. I've just learned what was happening at the hospital while I was being treated. On
the surface, it ran smoothly. Underneath, unknown to me, was fury and tumult. Many of the staff
had objected to a decision by the National Health Service
to privatise the hospital's cancer scanning . They complained that the scanners the private
company was offering were less sensitive than the hospital's own machines. Privatisation, they
said, would put patients at risk. In response,
as the Guardian revealed last week , NHS England threatened to sue the hospital for libel
if its staff continued to criticise the decision.
The dominant system of political thought in this country, which produced both the creeping
privatisation of public health services and this astonishing attempt to stifle free speech,
promised to save us from dehumanising bureaucracy. By rolling back the state, neoliberalism
was supposed to have allowed autonomy and creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a
semi-privatised authoritarianism more oppressive than the system it replaced.
Workers find themselves enmeshed in a
Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and micromanaged. Organisations that depend
on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and hospitals – are stripped down,
hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The introduction of private capital into
public services – that would herald a glorious new age of choice and openness – is
brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom but demands conformity and
silence.
Much of the theory behind these transformations arises from the work of Ludwig von Mises. In
his book Bureaucracy , published in 1944, he
argued that there could be no accommodation between capitalism and socialism. The creation of
the National Health Service in the UK, the New Deal in the US and other experiments in social
democracy would lead inexorably to the bureaucratic totalitarianism of the Soviet Union and
Nazi Germany.
He recognised that some state bureaucracy was inevitable; there were certain functions that
could not be discharged without it. But unless the role of the state is minimised –
confined to defence, security, taxation, customs and not much else – workers would be
reduced to cogs "in a vast bureaucratic machine", deprived of initiative and free will.
By contrast, those who labour within an "unhampered capitalist system" are "free men", whose
liberty is guaranteed by "an economic democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote". He
forgot to add that some people, in his capitalist utopia, have more votes than others. And
those votes become a source of power.
His ideas, alongside the writings of
Friedrich Hayek , Milton Friedman and other neoliberal thinkers, have been applied in this
country by Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron, Theresa May and, to an alarming extent, Tony
Blair. All of those have attempted to privatise or marketise public services in the name of
freedom and efficiency, but they keep hitting the same snag: democracy. People want essential
services to remain public, and they are right to do so.
If you hand public services to private companies, either you create a private monopoly,
which can use its dominance to extract wealth and shape the system to serve its own needs
– or you introduce competition, creating an incoherent, fragmented service characterised
by the institutional failure you can see every day on our railways. We're not idiots, even if
we are treated as such. We know what the profit motive does to public services.
So successive governments decided that if they could not privatise our core services
outright, they would subject them to "market discipline". Von Mises repeatedly warned against
this approach. "No reform could transform a public office into a sort of private enterprise,"
he cautioned. The value of public administration "cannot be expressed in terms of money".
"Government efficiency and industrial efficiency are entirely different things."
"Intellectual work cannot be measured and valued by mechanical devices." "You cannot
'measure' a doctor according to the time he employs in examining one case." They ignored his
warnings.
Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state,
insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name
of freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became
not so much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control.
Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and
assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The
bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning
efficacy. It has become an end in itself.
Its perversities afflict all public services. Schools teach to the test , depriving
children of a rounded and useful education. Hospitals manipulate waiting times, shuffling
patients from one list to another. Police forces ignore some crimes, reclassify others, and
persuade suspects to admit to extra offences to improve their statistics . Universities urge their
researchers to
write quick and superficial papers , instead of deep monographs, to maximise their scores
under the research excellence framework.
As a result, public services become highly inefficient for an obvious reason: the
destruction of staff morale. Skilled people, including surgeons whose training costs hundreds
of thousands of pounds, resign or retire early because of the stress and misery the system
causes. The leakage of talent is a far greater waste than any inefficiencies this quantomania
claims to address.
New extremes in the surveillance and control of workers are not, of course, confined to the
public sector. Amazon has patented
a wristband that can track workers' movements and detect the slightest deviation from
protocol. Technologies are used to monitor peoples' keystrokes, language, moods and tone of
voice. Some companies have begun to experiment with the
micro-chipping of their staff . As the philosopher Byung-Chul
Han points out , neoliberal work practices, epitomised by the gig economy, that
reclassifies workers as independent contractors, internalise exploitation. "Everyone is a
self-exploiting worker in their own enterprise."
The freedom we were promised turns out to be
freedom for capital , gained at the expense of human liberty. The system neoliberalism has
created is a bureaucracy that tends towards absolutism, produced in the public services by
managers mimicking corporate executives, imposing inappropriate and self-defeating efficiency
measures, and in the private sector by subjection to faceless technologies that can brook no
argument or complaint.
Attempts to resist are met by ever more extreme methods, such as the threatened lawsuit at
the Churchill Hospital. Such instruments of control crush autonomy and creativity. It is true
that the Soviet bureaucracy von Mises rightly denounced reduced its workers to subjugated
drones. But the system his disciples have created is heading the same way.
The other point to be made is that the return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a
radicalized form of neoliberalism. If 'free markets' of enterprising individuals have
been tested to destruction, then capitalism is unable to articulate an ideology with which to
legitimise itself.
Therefore, neoliberal hegemony can only be perpetuated with authoritarian, nationalist
ideologies and an order of market feudalism. In other words, neoliberalism's authoritarian
orientations, previously effaced beneath discourses of egalitarian free-enterprise, become
overt.
The market is no longer an enabler of private enterprise, but something more like a
medieval religion, conferring ultimate authority on a demagogue. Individual entrepreneurs
collectivise into a 'people' serving a market which has become synonymous with
nationhood.
A corporate state emerges, free of the regulatory fetters of democracy. The final
restriction on the market - democracy itself - is removed. There then is no separate market
and state, just a totalitarian market state.
This is the best piece of writing on neoliberalism I have ever seen. Look, 'what is in
general good and probably most importantly what is in the future good'. Why are we
collectively not viewing everything that way? Surely those thoughts should drive us all?
Pinkie123: So good to read your understandings of neoliberalism. The political project is the
imposition of the all seeing all knowing 'market' on all aspects of human life. This version
of the market is an 'information processor'. Speaking of the different idea of the
laissez-faire version of market/non market areas and the function of the night watchman state
are you aware there are different neoliberalisms? The EU for example runs on the version
called 'ordoliberalism'. I understand that this still sees some areas of society as separate
from 'the market'?
ADamnSmith: Philip Mirowski has discussed this 'under the radar' aspect of neoliberalism. How
to impose 'the market' on human affairs - best not to be to explicit about what you are
doing. Only recently has some knowledge about the actual neoliberal project been appearing.
Most people think of neoliberalism as 'making the rich richer' - just a ramped up version of
capitalism. That's how the left has thought of it and they have been ineffective in stopping
its implementation.
Finally. A writer who can talk about neoliberalism as NOT being a retro version of classical
laissez faire liberalism. It is about imposing "The Market" as the sole arbiter of Truth on
us all.
Only the 'Market' knows what is true in life - no need for 'democracy' or 'education'.
Neoliberals believe - unlike classical liberals with their view of people as rational
individuals acting in their own self-interest - people are inherently 'unreliable', stupid.
Only entrepreneurs - those close to the market - can know 'the truth' about anything. To
succeed we all need to take our cues in life from what the market tells us. Neoliberalism is
not about a 'small state'. The state is repurposed to impose the 'all knowing' market on
everyone and everything. That is neoliberalism's political project. It is ultimately not
about 'economics'.
The left have been entirely wrong to believe that neoliberalism is a mobilisation of
anarchic, 'free' markets. It never was so. Only a few more acute thinkers on the left
(Jacques Ranciere, Foucault, Deleuze and, more recently, Mark Fisher, Wendy Brown, Will
Davies and David Graeber) have understood neoliberalism to be a techno-economic order of
control, requiring a state apparatus to enforce wholly artificial directives. Also, the work
of recent critics of data markets such as Shoshana Zuboff has shown capitalism to be evolving
into a totalitarian system of control through cybernetic data aggregation.
Only in theory is neoliberalism a form of laissez-faire. Neoliberalism is not a case of the
state saying, as it were: 'OK everyone, we'll impose some very broad legal parameters, so
we'll make sure the police will turn up if someone breaks into your house; but otherwise
we'll hang back and let you do what you want'. Hayek is perfectly clear that a strong state
is required to force people to act according to market logic. If left to their own devices,
they might collectivise, think up dangerous utopian ideologies, and the next thing you know
there would be socialism. This the paradox of neoliberalism as an intellectual critique of
government: a socialist state can only be prohibited with an equally strong state. That is,
neoliberals are not opposed to a state as such, but to a specifically centrally-planned state
based on principles of social justice - a state which, to Hayek's mind, could only end in t
totalitarianism. Because concepts of social justice are expressed in language, neoliberals
are suspicious of linguistic concepts, regarding them as politically dangerous. Their
preference has always been for numbers. Hence, market bureaucracy aims for the quantification
of all values - translating the entirety of social reality into metrics, data, objectively
measurable price signals. Numbers are safe. The laws of numbers never change. Numbers do not
lead to revolutions. Hence, all the audit, performance review and tick-boxing that has been
enforced into public institutions serves to render them forever subservient to numerical
(market) logic. However, because social institutions are not measurable, attempts to make
them so become increasingly mystical and absurd. Administrators manage data that has no
relation to reality. Quantitatively unmeasurable things - like happiness or success - are
measured, with absurd results.
It should be understood (and I speak above all as a critic of neoliberalism) that
neoliberal ideology is not merely a system of class power, but an entire metaphysic, a way of
understanding the world that has an emotional hold over people. For any ideology to
universalize itself, it must be based on some very powerful ideas. Hayek and Von Mises were
Jewish fugitives of Nazism, living through the worst horrors of twentieth-century
totalitarianism. There are passages of Hayek's that describe a world operating according to
the rules of a benign abstract system that make it sound rather lovely. To understand
neoliberalism, we must see that it has an appeal.
However, there is no perfect order of price signals. People do not simply act according to
economic self-interest. Therefore, neoliberalism is a utopian political project like any
other, requiring the brute power of the state to enforce ideological tenets. With tragic
irony, the neoliberal order eventually becomes not dissimilar to the totalitarian regimes
that Hayek railed against.
Nationalised rail in the UK was under-funded and 'set up to fail' in its latter phase to make
privatisation seem like an attractive prospect. I have travelled by train under both
nationalisation and privatisation and the latter has been an unmitigated disaster in my
experience. Under privatisation, public services are run for the benefit of shareholders and
CEO's, rather than customers and citizens and under the opaque shroud of undemocratic
'commercial confidentiality'.
What has been very noticeable about the development of bureaucracy in the public and private
spheres over the last 40 years (since Thatcher govt of 79) has been the way systems are
designed now to place responsibility and culpability on the workers delivering the services -
Teachers, Nurses, social workers, etc. While those making the policies, passing the laws,
overseeing the regulations- viz. the people 'at the top', now no longer take the rap when
something goes wrong- they may be the Captain of their particular ship, but the
responsibility now rests with the man sweeping the decks. Instead they are covered by tying
up in knots those teachers etc. having to fill in endless check lists and reports, which have
as much use as clicking 'yes' one has understood those long legal terms provided by software
companies.... yet are legally binding. So how the hell do we get out of this mess? By us as
individuals uniting through unions or whatever and saying NO. No to your dumb educational
directives, No to your cruel welfare policies, No to your stupid NHS mismanagement.... there
would be a lot of No's but eventually we could say collectively 'Yes I did the right thing'.
'The left wing dialogue about neoliberalism used to be that it was the Wild West and that
anything goes. Now apparently it's a machine of mass control.'
It is the Wild West and anything goes for the corporate entities, and a machine of control
of the masses. Hence the wish of neoliberals to remove legislation that protects workers and
consumers.
"Bill Gates claiming that he didn't meet with Epstein until 2013 is complete crap. A 2001
newspaper article on Epstein said that Epstein made millions from his business links with Gates
in the 1990s."
"... The recent tale of Israeli-American Michael Kadar, who has been credited with many of early 2017's nearly two thousand bomb scares targeting Jewish community centers and synagogues worldwide, is illustrative. ..."
"... The court in Tel Aviv convicted Kadar on counts including "extortion, disseminating hoaxes in order to spread panic, money laundering and computer hacking over bomb and shooting threats against community centers, schools, shopping malls, police stations, airlines, and airports in North America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Denmark." It claimed that "As a result of 142 telephone calls to airports and airlines, in which he said bombs had been planted in passenger planes or they would come under attack, aircraft were forced to make emergency landings and fighter planes were scrambled." ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
Even though distracted by the havoc resulting from the coronavirus, the United States and
much of Europe is engaged in a frenzied search for anti-Semitism and anti-Semites so that what
the media and chattering class are regarding as the greatest of all crimes and criminals can
finally be extirpated completely. To be sure, there have recently been some horrific instances
of ethnically or religiously motivated attacks on synagogues and individual Jews, but, as is
often the case, however, quite a lot of the story is either pure spin or politically motivated.
A Jewish student walking on a college campus who walks by protesters objecting to Israel's
behavior can claim to feel threatened and the incident is recorded as anti-Semitism, for
example, and slurs written on the sides of buildings or grave stones, not necessarily the work
of Jew-haters, are similarly categorized. In
one case in Israel in 2017, the two street swastika artists were Jews.
Weaponizing one point of view inevitably limits the ability of contrary views to be heard.
The downside is, of course, that the frenzy that has resulted in the criminalization of free
expression relating in any but a positive way to the activity of Jewish groups. It has also
included the acceptance of the dishonest definition that any criticism of Israel is ipso facto
anti-Semitism, giving that nation a carte blanche in terms of its brutal treatment of its
neighbors and even of its non-Jewish citizens.
Jewish dominated Hollywood and the entertainment media have helped to create the
anti-Semitism frenzy and continue to give the public regular doses of the holocaust story.
Currently there are a number of television shows that depict in one form or another the
persecution of Jews. Hunters on Amazon is about Jewish Americans tracking and killing
suspected former Nazis living in New York City in the 1970s. The Plot to Destroy
America on HBO is a retro history tale about how a Charles Lindbergh/Henry Ford regime
installs a fascist government in the 1930s. One critic describes
the televisual revenge feast "as one paranoid Jewish fantasy after another advocating murder as
the solution to what they perceive as the problem of anti-Semitism."
But, as always, nothing is quite so simple as such a black and white portrayal where there
are evil Nazis and Jewish victims who are always justified when they seek revenge. First of
all, as has been demonstrated ,
many recent so-called anti-Semitic attacks on Jews involve easily recognizable Hasidic Jews and
are actually based on community tensions as established neighborhoods are experiencing dramatic
changes with the newcomers using pressure tactics to force out existing residents. And after
the Hasidim take over a town or neighborhood, they defund local schools to support their own
private academies and frequently engage in large scale welfare and other social services fraud
to permit them to spend all their days studying the Talmud, which, inter alia teaches
that gentiles are no better than beasts fit only to serve Jews.
The recent concentration of coronavirus in Orthodox neighborhoods in New York as well as the
eruption of measles cases last year have been attributed to the unwillingness of some
conservative Jews to submit to vaccinations and normal hygienic practices. They also have
persisted in illegal large gatherings at weddings and religious ceremonies, spreading the
coronavirus within their own communities and also to outsiders with whom they have contact.
Regularly exposing anti-Semitism is regarded as a good thing by many Jewish groups because
the state of perpetual victimization that it supports enables them to obtain special benefits
that might otherwise be considered excessive in a pluralistic democracy. Holocaust education in
schools is now mandatory in many jurisdictions and more than 90% of discretionary Department of
Homeland Security funding goes to Jewish organizations. Jewish organizations are
now lining up to get what they choose to believe is their share of Coronavirus emergency
funding.
Claims of increasing anti-Semitism, and the citation of the so-called holocaust, are like
having a perpetual money machine that regularly disgorges reparations from the Europeans as
well as billions of dollars per year from the U.S. Treasury. Holocaust and anti-Semitism
manufactured guilt are undoubtedly contributing factors to the subservient relationship that
the United States enjoys with the state of Israel, most recently manifested in the U.S.
Department of Defense's gift of one million surgical masks
to the Israel Defense Force in spite of there being a shortage of the masks in the United
States (note how the story
was edited after it first appeared by the Jerusalem Post to conceal the U.S. role
but it still has the original email address and the photo cites the Department of Defense).
And then there is the issue of Jewish power, which is discussed regularly by Jews themselves
but is verboten to gentiles. Jews wield hugely disproportionate power in all the Anglophone
states as well as in France and parts of Eastern Europe and even in Latin America. If
anti-Semitism is as rampant as has often been claimed it is odd that there are so many Jews
prominent in politics and the professions, most especially financial services and the media.
Either anti-Semitism is not really "surging" or the actual anti-Semities have proven to be
particularly incompetent in making their case.
Further muddying the waters, there have been a number of instances in which Jews have
themselves been responsible for what have been claimed to be anti-Semitic incidents. There has
also been credible speculation that some of the incidents have been false flags staged by the
Israeli government itself, presumably acting through its intelligence services. The objective
would be to create sympathy among the public in Europe and the U.S. for Israel and to
encourage
diaspora emigration to the Jewish state. The recent tale of Israeli-American Michael
Kadar, who has been credited with many of early 2017's nearly two thousand bomb scares
targeting Jewish community centers and synagogues worldwide, is illustrative.
Kadar, who holds both Israeli and American nationality, was arrested in Ashkelon
Israel on March 2017 by Israeli police in response to the investigation carried out by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Kadar's American address was in New Lenox Illinois but he
actually resided in Israel. Kadar's defense was that he had a brain tumor that caused autism
and was not responsible for his actions, but he was found to be fit for trial and was
sentenced
to 10 years in prison in June 2017. He was apparently subsequently quietly released from
prison and returned to Illinois in
mid-2018. In August 2019 he was
arrested for violation of parole on a firearms and drugs offense.
The court in Tel Aviv convicted Kadar on counts including "extortion, disseminating
hoaxes in order to spread panic, money laundering and computer hacking over bomb and shooting
threats against community centers, schools, shopping malls, police stations, airlines, and
airports in North America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Denmark." It claimed
that "As a result of 142 telephone calls to airports and airlines, in which he said bombs had
been planted in passenger planes or they would come under attack, aircraft were forced to make
emergency landings and fighter planes were scrambled."
It was also claimed
by the court that Kadar had gotten involved with the so-called restricted access "dark web"
to make threats for money. He reportedly earned $240,000 equivalent worth of the digital
currency Bitcoin. Kadar has reportedly refused to reveal the password to his Bitcoin wallet and
its value is believed to have increased to more than $1 million.
The tale borders on the bizarre and right from the beginning there were
many inconsistencies in both the Department of Justice case and in terms of Kadar's
biography and vital statistics. After his arrest and conviction, many of his public, private
and social networking records were either deleted or changed, suggesting that a high-level
cover-up was underway.
Most significant, the criminal
complaint against Kadar included details of the phone calls that were not at all consistent
with the case that he had acted alone. The threats were made using what is referred to as
spoofing telephone services, used by marketers to hide the caller's true number and identify,
but the three cell phone numbers identified by the Department of Justice to make the spoofed
calls were all U.S.-based and one of them was linked to a Jewish Chabad religious leader and
one to the Church of Scientology's counter-intelligence chief in California. In addition, some
of the calls were made when Kadar was in transit between Illinois and Israel, suggesting that
he had not initiated the calls.
DOJ's criminal complaint also included information that the threat caller was a woman who
had "a distinct speech impediment." Michael Kadar's mother has a distinct speech impediment.
Oddly enough she has not been identified in any public documents and the Israelis claimed that
Michael was disguising his voice, but she is believed to be Dr. Tamar Kadar, who resided in
Ashkelon at the same address as Michael. Dr. Kadar is a chemical weapons researcher at the
Mossad-linked Israel Institute for Biological Research ("IIBR").
Michael appears to have U.S. birthright citizenship because he was born in Bethesda in 1990
while his mother was a visiting researcher at the U.S. Army Military Research Institute of
Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID). While Dr. Kadar was at USAMRIID, anthrax went missing from the
Army's lab and may have been subsequently used in the 2001 anthrax letter attacks inside the
U.S., which resulted in the deaths of five people. The FBI subsequently accused two USAMRIID
researchers of the theft, but one was exonerated and the other committed suicide, closing the
investigation.
So, there are some interesting issues raised by the Michael Kadar case. First of all, he
appears to have been the fall guy for what may have been a Mossad directed false-flag operation
actually run by his mother, who is herself an expert on biological weapons and works at an
Israeli intelligence lab. Second, the objective of the operation may have been to create an
impression that anti-Semitism is dramatically increasing, which ipso facto generates a
positive perception of Israel and encourages foreign Jews to emigrate to the Jewish state. And
third, there appears to have been a cover-up orchestrated by the Israeli and U.S. governments,
evident in the disappearance of both official and non-official records, while Michael has been
quietly released from prison and is enjoying his payoff of one million dollars in bitcoins. As
always, whenever something involves promoting the interests of the state of Israel, the deeper
one digs the more sordid the tale becomes.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected] .
Good piece of work Dr. Giraldi. A few things about this case of the Kadars. Basically Israel
refused to cooperate with the FBI at the beginning and resisted giving up the kid.
Furthermore, the FBI was told to "back off" by higher ups in the agency and let Israel handle
it. So the results are what you would expect with a false flag.
The anthrax case still has legs. Bruce Irvins was the microbiologist at Detrick you are
referring to. He was never charged and they never proved he was involved and the FBI could
not place him in any of the spots they wanted. He had some issues and the FBI gang banged him
looking for a patsy. Dr. Hatfill was the "original" Person of Interest whom the Jewish
controlled media followed around and they ruined his life. He sued the FBI and won a lot of
money.
The FBI appeared to intentionally mess up the anthrax samples. Reviews by the National
Academy of Science rocked the idiots at the FBI and they concluded Irvins was not involved.
The real kicker to all of this is that the FBI leader of the investigation was Robert
Mueller! The same Mueller who spent almost 3 years chasing Russian spies well knowing that it
was lie.
And finally who sealed the files so no one could ever come up with the real perpetrators
..Obama!
Antisemitism is pro-Israel, the Nazis included (shipping jews to Palestine).
For some reason I know exactly what a neonazi looks like, how he behaves, how he talks,
how he thinks and even how he feels. But I never met one. Where does this 'knowledge' come
from?
I happen to remember some television that I have seen as a child. Most people don't and
are living in a fantasy world with fantasy enemies and fantasy friends and take it for
reality.
"Further muddying the waters, there have been a number of instances in which Jews have
themselves been responsible for what have been claimed to be anti-Semitic incidents."
There have been so many such incidents over the years that when a synagogue or cemetery
gets spray-painted with swastikas, the default presumption for any subsequent investigation
is automatically "inside-job".
The stereotypical perpetrator would tend to be a deranged student residing at the campus
Hillel House, majoring in film studies or some other flakey college program.
Years ago there was a case of a San Francisco synagogue on fire. After the arsonist, a
Jew, was caught and confessed, the tenor of the response was that one had to feel sorry for
him because he needed help.
In light of such incidents there has even been a visual meme out there: Hey Rabbi
Watcha Doin'?! (See Google Images)
Getting a patsy to do the dirty work is significantly more effective in provoking outrage
and sympathy. Though last year's attack on a synagogue in Halle, Germany, during Yom Kippur
services in early October was highly suspicious, media reports managed to suppress those
aspects and instead generated a victimhood-card bonanza that lasted for weeks.
The German population was easily bamboozled. Prominent Jewish representatives publicly
demanded more stringent laws against "anti-semitism", as recently re-defined, and
parliamentarians duly obliged.
News that had not been much reported about, but was circulating at the outset in
alternative media:
• Mentally deranged perpetrator, who had shared his views on an Internet chat group,
expressed his desire to attack Muslims and Antifa.
• Anonymous "handler / minder" in California offered to pay him half a bitcoin to
redirect his attack toward the synagogue instead.
• Synagogue had just recently been equipped with elaborate security system installed
by Israeli company to withstand shooting and bombing attacks.
• Local police, which normally would provide security outside, during holiday
services, were conspicuously absent during that time, and slow to respond (likely stand-down
orders from above).
• Perpetrator filmed his rampage, which he broadcast in real-time as a live stream
video online (wanting to emulate an earlier attack in New Zealand), enabling his handlers to
monitor the shooting spree while in progress.
• After his mission failed, frustrated perpetrator "spilled the beans" in real-time
and cussed out the Californian bitcoin payer, who had apparently set him up to be framed, as
probably being a Jew.
Of course, by design, the securely locked synagogue door easily withstood the shooting
attack with multiple exterior bullet holes into its wooden exterior. Everybody in the world
probably saw that part.
I was born in Argentina, 1950. There was a populist nationalist government then, strongly
disliked by the US. It included a whole spectrum, right to left. It assisted together with
the Vatican the rescuing of Nazi criminals that settled in the country. There was an
antisemitic movement headed by a provocateur, Juan Guillermo Kelly for name. Jews emigrated
to Israel. In the 80s he made public he was a Mossad agent
@vot
tak How can Jews be a 'colonial occupation force' in any nation that is English-speaking
and has not totally rejected the political and cultural heritage of WASP Empire?
Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy. When the Anglo-Saxon Puritans won their
revolution, they cemented Modern English culture as one twined with Jewish ideas and ideals.
Archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell cemented that doubly by allying with Jewish bankers on the
Continent. From the mid-1600s, Jews have been the defining bankers of English Empire, of WASP
Empire. And bankers are always the opposite of outsiders. Bankers own and eventually come to
control fully.
Anglo-Zionist Empire has existed since at least Oliver Cromwell.
As in the case of the Mossad asset Jeff Epstein, who was running a child-rape assembly line
on his 'Orgy Island' and on his 'Lolita Express,' to ensnare weakling politicians,
video-taping them in the process of raping young girls–and boys–then use that to
blackmail them into becoming an enthusiastic supporter of Israel, the one lead that was never
pursued was, "How many other Epstein's are out there, doing their slimy business for Israel?"
The same could be asked of this 'Mikey' Kadar terrorist, who I'm sure has plenty of
accomplices world-wide, still phoning in threats or maybe spray-painting Jew cemeteries with
the dreaded Nazi Swastika.
This terrorist does about one year in prison, then is set free and off to the USA he runs?
If his name had been Mohammed or he was a skin-headed nationalist, he'd be in prison for the
rest of his life, but since he's from that class of those Chosen by G-d, he gets a
pass.
There was an antisemitic movement headed by a provocateur, Juan Guillermo Kelly
Very interesting information. I did a quick search and the only info I found was this wiki
entry in Spanish.
I used google translate to convert to English.
Do you have any sources that confirm his alleged affiliation with Mossad?
[Hide MORE]
From a young age he was a member of the Nationalist Liberation Alliance. Until then, it
was led by Juan Queraltó and had a clear anti-Semitic profile that Kelly fought
against. The group went on to become a shock force of Peronism.
During the bombing of Plaza de Mayo, when a group of military personnel opposed to the
government of Juan Domingo Perón attempted to assassinate him and carry out a coup
d'état, several squadrons of aircraft belonging to Naval Aviation, bombarded and
machine-gunned them with anti-aircraft ammunition, Plaza de Mayo and the Casa Rosada, as well
as the CGT building, Kelly, aided by the Nationalist Liberation Alliance, dueled with the
Marines responsible for the attack. [2]
After the self-proclaimed liberating revolution dictatorship was established, after a
bombardment of the headquarters of his organization, located in San Martín and
Corrientes Avenue in Buenos Aires. On September 21, the coup armed forces received from
Córdoba the order to eliminate that focus of resistance in the heart of the city of
Buenos Aires and advanced on it with cannons and two Sherman tanks, sending an emissary to
surrender. The cannons and tanks fired and some fifty men, led by Guillermo Patricio Kelly,
surrendered. Those who remained inside died under the rubble of the three-story building,
destroyed with gunshots. The number of deaths that some raise to more than 400 is unknown.
[3] After that, he was arrested by the dictatorship and transferred to the Río
Gallegos prison, where one night in 1957 he starred in a film escape along with John William
Cooke, Jorge Antonio and Héctor Cámpora and other political prisoners managed
to escape, after which he applied for political asylum in Chile, but this was denied. When he
was about to be sent to Argentina, he escaped again, this time dressed as a woman, [required
appointment] to Venezuela where Perón was. When he left Chile for Caracas, he used a
new identity: he was "Doctor Vargas, psychoanalyst".
When on January 26, 1958, the newspaper El Nacional titled "Perón led the
repression against the Venezuelan people," he identified him, along with Kelly, as "National
Security torture consultants" and published Perón's fraternal letters to the head of
that body.
When the revolution broke out in Venezuela, Perón was another of the insurgents'
objectives, along with his collaborators, among whom was Kelly, and they had to take refuge
in the Embassy of the Dominican Republic. Outside, more than a thousand people were shaking
the entrance gate. They had already been locked up for two days, and people were still
outside. All the Argentines looked askance at Kelly. "They are going to kill us all because
of this one," they growled. There were several who wanted to kick him out and someone raised
the motion: to vote if he should withdraw. It was not necessary: Kelly decided
to face up. He only asked for two conditions: that he be given a pair of dark glasses and a
hat. He also asked for silver. When he walked out of the embassy and mixed with the crowd, no
one could recognize him. In the midst of the seizure, Kelly made contact with two CIA agents:
-- The Communists are going to enter the embassy and they are going to kill Perón. And
if they kill him, the entire continent is communicated – he warned them. Finally, the
United States prepared to rescue him, interceding with the revolutionary government to clear
the area and facilitate his departure to the Dominican Republic. [4]
Kelly was stoned from the Caracas airport, obtained refuge in Haiti and, after a turbulent
stay in which he was imprisoned, [5] crossed the border to the Dominican Republic, where he
remained for a few days. He returned to Argentina in 1958 with the passport that he stole
from Roberto Galán and after six months he was arrested and transferred again to the
Ushuaia prison. [6]
Throughout his life he was imprisoned for almost eight years. In 1966 he occupied the
headquarters of the PJ National Coordinating Board for a few hours, from where he launched a
violent proclamation against union leader Augusto Vandor. [appointment required]
In 1981, in the midst of a military dictatorship, he denounced the theft of $ 60 million
from Argentina, 10% of that debt belonging to General Suárez Mason, considering him a
"murderer of the people." According to Kelly, Mason is involved in the YPF emptying in the
1980s. He also said that the military man worked as a mercenary training mercenary troops to
fight in the Caribbean, which received money from the Nord high command, who was accused of
murdering the brother and two nephews of former President Arturo Frondizi. Also involved in
this robbery was former judge Pedro Narvaez who fled to Rio de Janeiro and then to Spain. [7]
[8]
In 1983, he gained notoriety after formulating a series of complaints related to the P-2
Lodge, the YPF dismissal and the murder of Fernando Branca, in addition to filing a criminal
complaint against Emilio Massera. Shortly thereafter, in August of that year, Kelly was
kidnapped and severely beaten by a gang led by Aníbal Gordon, who claimed to have
acted on the orders of the last military dictator Reynaldo Bignone and the Army Corps I.
In 1991, during the presidency of Carlos Menem, he was the host of an ATC program called
Sin Concesiones, in which he maintained that it would reveal "where the children of the
´Noble Ladies´ come from", alluding to the children adopted by the director from
the Clarín newspaper, Ernestina Herrera de Noble. After a meeting between Herrera de
Noble, Héctor Magnetto and Carlos Menem held at the Quinta de Olivos on Thursday, May
2, 1991, Clarín and the government agreed on Kelly's air release at ATC in exchange
for the air output of the program of the journalist Liliana López Foresi, Magazine 13,
Journalism with an opinion, in which Menem was severely criticized. [9] [10] [11] [12]
On the subject of Herrera de Noble's children, Kelly wrote a book published by Arkel
Publishing in 1993 titled Noble: Imperio Corrupto. Only 200 copies were published, although
the author gave several of them to public libraries in the United States. [13]
He died on July 1, 2005 at 8:30 am, a victim of terminal cancer at the German Hospital in
the City of Buenos Aires. [14] [15]
Very much so. Because it helps direct our attention to something very important.
Though they're good at infiltration, subversion, betrayal, destruction and death, they're
no good at social-managment.
Who's "they"?
I refer to them as Jewish Supremacy Inc. (JSI).
It's a distinction worth making because it separates them from Jews who don't hate Whites
and aren't obsessed with being Jewish.
They're out there, however small their numbers might be.
After all, Gilad Atzmon's not the only one.
It's also worth pointing out that JSI gets lots of help from three other groups who aren't
Jewish at all. In fact they're White.
1. the cynical, self-centered whores of opportunity who will do anything to protect their
own materialistic, narcissistic trough.
2. the incurably gullible, pathologically naive Whites from Left-wingy Multi-Culties to
Right-wing Christian Zionists.
3. the perfectly indifferent who walk around with that stroked out look on their face from
watching too much ESPN and Pornhub.
The rest of us are freedom-lovers, or TUR readers/commenters or potential TUR
readers/commenters.
Meaning they'd be open to what the actual readers/commenters have to say and won't fly off
the handle with a knee-jerk reaction before springing into fight or flight mode.
In short, this boils down to a battle of
Dogma versus Pragma
.
What's the difference?
Pragma is open to exposing its ideas to a process of continuous feedback and correction
for the purpose of improving the quality of its social-management
Excuse me, but this is comical. There is no other group in America and the entire West who
are more protected and more privileged than Jews. While White Gentiles are routinely
attacked, beaten to a pulp, raped, and brutally murdered by Blacks, Hispanics, Pakis, Arabs,
in Europe and America, just for having the temerity to walk outside in countries built by
their White ancestors. How does a painted swastika equate with rape-torture murders of the
Christian-Newsom Knoxville Horror? And if you think the Christian-Newsom murders are a rare
crime in America, you are living under a rock. And lest we forget the Christian-Newsom
Murders nor the Wichita Massacre murders were labeled "hate crimes." Despite thousands upon
thousands of Black on White and other nonwhite on White attacks, rapes, murders in this
country, you can bet the house that no one in Washington has voiced concerns over the
violence being perpetrated on White Gentiles daily in America. America is indeed a racist
country and Whites experience that racism every single day.
Remember a couple years ago when someone was calling bomb threats to Jewish Community
Centers? Remember that they found out it was some Jewish guy in a Tel Aviv basement calling
in the bomb threats. Of course at first the (((media))) went through their spiel about how
anti-Semitism was on the rise in America, and then once we all found out that the perpetrator
was a Jewish guy in Israel, ( I believe a dual citizen at that) the (((media))) dropped this
case quicker than you could claim some NY/NJ rabbis were selling body organs.
Most of these hate crime HOAXES are simply Jews and/or Blacks drawing swastikas, hanging a
nooses in a locker, or some other ridiculous and downright childish act that in no way even
if done by a White racist who hates Jews and Blacks, equates to a Mississippi girl named
Jessica Chambers being burned alive, a 12 year old white male being burned alive with a blow
torch by an adult black female in Texas, etc., etc. The fact of the matter is that "hate
crimes" against nonwhites and Jews are downright rare in America, ( not talking about HOAXES
here) and there is no way that a crayon drawing of a swastika or hanging a noose in someone's
locker can be linked as the same as someone dying a horrific and brutal death like the White
victims I listed. IF we lived in a TRULY just and decent country, EVERYONE out there,
regardless of color, creed or religion would recognize that we need to stop all the hate and
violence directed at White Gentiles before moving on to worrying about crayon drawings.
Remember when Noel Ignatiev the Jewish professor stated we need to "abolish Whiteness?" Now
imagine a White professor stating that we need to "abolish Jewishness in America?" Can you
imagine what would have happened to that guy? Is it possible for a Jew in America/Canada or
Europe to be fired from his or here job for making racist or inflammatory remarks about
Whites?
The story of Michael Kadar is reminiscent of the tale of another criminal young male with
dual Israeli US citizenship, Samuel Sheinbein.
Sheinbein and a colleague murdered, dismembered and burnt a fellow high school classmate,
the hispanic Fredo Enrique Tello, Jr., in September, 1997. Sheinbein fled to Israel and in a
long drawn out court battle, Sheinbein's requested extradition to the State of Maryland to
stand trial was refused by Israel's supreme court.
You can read the whole sordid story in Wikipedia including how Sheinbaum was killed in a
shootout with the guards who were escorting him from one prison to another.
@Jake
Here we go with the WASP thing again. A minority of descendants of the Angles were Puritans,
and even fewer Saxons were Puritans. There were also Norse Puritans, Norman Puritans and
Briton Puritans. All Puritans were minorities. Many "Protestant" Churches, including the
Anglican Church, considered Puritans dissenters, verging on heretics, and not really
Protestants beyond protesting the Church of Rome. Knox's Presbyterians had a lot in common
with Puritans as did Dutch Protestants, and there were a lot of Dutch who moved to East
Anglia. Some became Puritans. It's silly to refer to it at it being "Anglo-Saxon Puritans" as
not all were Angles or Saxons. They were Puritans who happened to be Angles, Saxons and
others. WASP is even sillier. Are there Brown, Yellow, or Red Anglo-Saxons?
Cromwell seized power because the Stuarts were unpopular for many reasons, and as with
every revolution, a minority with zealotry seizes power from an apathetic majority. Sure he
turned to the Jewish Amsterdam bankers, who were already funding the Dutch Empire, including
New Amsterdam, but who else would have helped? The Puritans were vehemently anti Catholic and
would have never turned there. They were also vehemently anti-Muslim, so the Ottomans were
out. The Jews were it by elimination.
As for the culture. The culture of the elite is seldom the culture of the general
population.
The "Anglo-Saxons" were more than happy to restore the Stuarts after Cromwell, as long as
they were Protestants. The installation of King Billy, replacing James, was due to James
having converted to Catholicism and the fear of his imposing it on the country.
It was under William and Mary that the newly, created by Parliament, Bank of England was
taken over by Jewish bankers. The same minority Puritan Parliament that restored the Stuarts
and sponsored the overthrow of James.
"The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be
born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear."
– Antonio Gramsci
The Pandemic & Public Health Crisis
On January 20th, 2020, the first confirmed case of COVID-19 infection took place in the
United States. Since then, over 240,000 Americans have tested positive for the COVID-19 virus,
with over 6,000 dying as a result of the pandemic. The New York Times suggests that the
actual numbers are likely 6-10 times higher than is being currently reported.
According to studies from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), people with
underlying health conditions such as diabetes, obesity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure,
heart disease, and those who smoke, are at high-risk of severe illness or death if they
contract the virus. Unfortunately, that's a lot of Americans.
Several days ago, Dr. Anthony Fauci estimated that anywhere between 100,000-240,000
Americans will die from COVID-19 by the end of August, and that's if "we do everything
perfectly," as the good doctor put it. Since no one actually believes that the United States
will conduct the response in a "perfect" manner, we can assume those numbers are low.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume they're correct. For some perspective, 116,708
Americans died in World War I (1914-1918). Roughly 416,800 Americans died in World War II
(1941-1945). Over 40,000 Americans died in the Korean War (1950-1953). And 70,000 Americans
died in the Vietnam War (1965-1975).
Perhaps we throw around large numbers too often, or maybe there's simply no way to humanize
240,000 lives -- regardless, we cannot allow the U.S. government to normalize gross numbers of
fatalities, especially as a result of a completely preventable pandemic. Remember, this isn't a
'Natural Disaster' -- this is a 'Man Made Disaster,' and it should be treated as such. Yes,
Trump is responsible, but he's not the only one. In fact, individuals aren't the problem. The
entire Neoliberal Capitalist project is to blame.
Americans aren't unhealthy because they've made bad choices as individuals. Americans are
disproportionately unhealthy (when compared to both industrialized and industrializing nations)
and susceptible to the worst effects of COVID-19 because Neoliberal Capitalist policies have
created a social, political, economic, and ecological context in which this pandemic can thrive
and impose maximum destruction.
Deindustrialization, privatization, and deregulation, has driven down the cost of labor,
creating millions of working-poor Americans who live on credit and swim in mounds of debt,
while attempting to navigate a social landscape of food deserts, fast food chains, sugar-rich
foods, and low-wage service sector work. This context creates a population of addicted,
depressed, and desperate workers whose sole pleasure at the end of a long shift is a can of
Coke and bag of potato chips.
People don't purposely make themselves obese and unhealthy. When people are put in desperate
situations, they make impulsive decisions. That's how people behave in a context of scarcity
and oppression. Unfortunately, this is exactly the social context in which COVID-19 could cause
extreme and permanent damage.
The Political Crisis
The political context in the U.S. is equally disturbing. Since the 1970s, politicians have
drifted further and further into the realm of absurdity and utter corruption. Gone are the days
of enlightened debates. Enter the age of Trump, Tweets, and trolling.
As empires decline, so does the quality of their leaders. The U.S. might wish to run away
from reality, but Uncle Sam can't run away from history. History has finally caught up with the
U.S. Indeed, Donald Trump is the result of forty-plus years of hyper-individuality, 'greed is
good' culture, superficial materialism, and a politics based not on substance or principles,
but looks, marketability, and adherence to Neoliberal fundamentalist ideologies.
One of the few principled politicians in Washington D.C., Bernie Sanders, was raked over the
coals by the corporate press for simply attempting to give Americans a basic social safety-net.
That, for the Neoliberals, was too much. CNN and MSNBC unleashed the pundit hounds. The New
York Times and Washington Post ran round-the-clock editorials about the "dangers" of
Sanders' policies, his supposed "unelectability," and "radical" following, degrading the tens
of millions of poor and working class people who largely see Bernie's campaign as their last
electoral hope.
Now, Joe Biden is the frontrunner. As a result, virtually everyone I know and work with has
checked out of the electoral scene. Most of my friends have already come to the conclusion that
Trump will win again in 2020. Hell, his numbers continue to rise even in the midst of the
deadliest pandemic in over a 100 years, a pandemic he could've prevented. Frustrating, but not
surprising.
Most Americans have checked out of politics. It's not that they don't care. They just don't
believe that participating will make a difference. Who could blame them, really? I'm 35 years
old. The U.S. government hasn't implemented one major program that's benefitted me since the
day I was born. Obamacare? Get real. Every major political institution in this country has
rapidly deteriorated over the course of my life.
When I was 16, Bush II, with the help of his brother, stole the White House from Al Gore. No
one really did anything about it, even Al Gore. That was 20 years ago. Since then, we've
experienced 9/11, the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, two terms of GWB, the 2008 Recession,
Obama's bullshit 'Hope & Change,' which really meant 'More Of The Same,' the Tea Party,
nationwide union busting efforts, the explosion of charter schools, Citizens United, corporate
consolidation, financial deregulation, increasingly militarized policing, exploding prison
populations, privatization of public goods and services, and elections that no one trusts
because paper ballots are gone and billionaires own the electoral process. And yes, in 2016,
the election of Donald Trump, the perfect ending to a 40 year nightmare.
Let's remember why Trump won in the first place. Trump defeated Hillary Clinton because
Democrats stayed home. Bottom line. Democrats stayed home because they were betrayed by Obama,
disgusted by Clinton, and upset about the entire 2016 primary process. As many others have
pointed out, Trump is a symptom, not the disease. Here, we should be very clear: yes, Trump
poses unique challenges and threats, but he is not the primary source of our collective
problems. Our collective problems are structural, not individual, in nature.
Right now, the entire electoral-parliamentary process of representative democracy should be
in question. Quite obviously, this particular mode of democratic participation has reached its
limits. People are flat-out sick and tired of voting for politicians who answer to
corporations. People are tired of the Democrat vs. Republican electoral carnival. Who could
blame them? I'm tired of it. You're tired of it. We're all tired of it.
This is the toxic legacy of Reaganism, a bankrupt ideology that has destroyed the American
political system, civic society, and popular culture. As a result, both major political parties
have drifted so far to the right that people can barely tell the difference between the two.
The Democratic Party is a walking corpse. And the Republican Party is full-blown batshit crazy.
The Green Party doesn't really stand a chance, but I give them credit for trying to develop an
alternative, however flawed it may be. After all, the Greens, not the Dems, came up with the
'Green New Deal.'
Large NGOs are moribund and, in many ways, counterproductive, even on their best days. Right
now, the left contains no structural articulation of its politics beyond various regional
organizations and radical local unions. In reality, most of 'the left' as we know it primarily
exists in online forums and alternative media projects. The political situation is dire, no
doubt.
The only way out of this mess is through deep organizing at the workplace and within
communities. Tactically, this will take the form of massive strikes, street protests, targeted
direct actions, and militant non-violent resistance. But people also need a vision and a
strategy, and structures and institutions to carry out that vision and strategy. Right now,
both are in short order. However, like all moments of immense historical crises, this context
provides an opportunity to introduce radical alternatives, and hopefully, change course. If
leftwing groups can't use this moment to radicalize and politicize people, shame on us.
The Crisis of Capitalism
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, despite what you might've heard on corporate news outlets,
Global Capitalism was on the ropes. Liberal economists such as Paul Krugman and Dean Baker, but
also leftwing economists such as Jack Rasmus, Doug Henwood, and Richard Wolff, among others,
have been sounding the alarm bells for some time now. The pandemic ended up being the match
that lit a combustible array of socio-economic ingredients, including wide-spread
underemployment, entire legions of workers who've dropped out of the labor pool, millions
living in poverty, millions more on the verge of poverty, stagnating wages, hundreds of
thousands of Americans sleeping on the streets, tens of millions lacking health coverage, and
the majority of Americans drowning in ever-growing debt.
The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the hollowness and brutality of Global Capitalism. The
most vulnerable will endure the brunt of this pandemic. They already have. Those who were
barely surviving before this crisis will be lucky to survive the crisis. And so it goes.
The multitude of injustices and structural inequalities that existed before the pandemic
will be exacerbated during a global health crisis and economic depression. The brutal legacies
of colonization, imperialism, and neo-imperialism put the most vulnerable at risk and expose a
system that's incapable of providing even the most basic necessities to those most in need. In
fact, quite the opposite, as Wall Street receives trillions of dollars for wrecking the global
economy, ordinary Americans will have to wait weeks for their measly $1,200 stimulus
checks.
Unlike 2008, the free marketeers are nowhere to be found. During the Great Financial
Recession, the market fundamentalists wanted the whole system to collapse. The financial press
blamed the recession on overpaid auto workers and poor families, especially poor black
families, who the corporate pundits insisted "bought homes they couldn't afford." That
was the dominant narrative in 2008. The calls for austerity were swift and loud. This time
around, not so much.
Today, millions of Americans identify as socialists, and Bernie Sanders' policies, flawed
and inadequate as they may be, are supported by the majority of Democrats, many Independents,
and even some Republicans. It's true that Bernie's policies aren't 'socialist' in the
traditional sense, but they're socialistic in nature, and provide a welcome alternative to
Neoliberal barbarism. Thanks to Occupy Wall Street and radical unions, today's context is much
different. Americans are much further to the left than they were twelve years ago.
Ralph Nader has long described the U.S. economic system as "socialism for the rich, and
rugged individualism for the rest of us." This is true. As Christian Parenti points out in a
recent article in Jacobin , the financialization of the U.S. economy is already largely
socialized, using public funds to prop-up private institutions, but with little to no social
benefit for poor and working class people. Today, the COVID-19 pandemic shows us that the state
is more important than ever before. Indeed, the Federal Government is the only entity powerful
enough to reign-in capital. Ironically, as Parenti notes, only socialist policies can revive
21st Century Capitalism.
The state is also the only entity capable of dealing with a pandemic: providing healthcare
supplies, financial resources, dealing with supply chain and logistical challenges, directing
private sector production, etc. Here, we are witnessing in real-time the fundamental limits of
private power and market fundamentalism within the context of a global healthcare crisis. Now
is not the time to coddle capitalism -- now is the time to castrate capitalism. Unless the left
has a strategy to bypass the state and provide the many services the state provides by
alternative means, our approach to the ensuing economic depression must include an analysis of
state power, how it relates to capital, and how leftwing organizations and movements relate to
both.
Historian Alfred McCoy, in his recent book, In the Shadows of the
American Century , notes that China will overtake the U.S. as the largest economy in
the world by 2030, perhaps sooner (Trump & COVID-19 have helped). Then again, China faces
its own internal dilemmas, including an increasingly affluent workforce that's very much
interested in liberal democratic norms, and a growing number of repressed workers who are
fighting back against China's unique brand of 'Authoritarian Capitalism.' Some of the same
contradictions and questions can be applied to India, the world's 5th largest economy,
authoritarian-religious nationalism, and hundreds of millions of precarious workers provide a
potentially explosive political context.
Without question, capitalism will survive COVID-19. The unfolding COVID-19 pandemic and
economic crises will alter the future of capitalism. The real question is: how can workers and
ordinary people nudge things in a preferred direction, a path that leads to more collectivism
and cooperation? How can we exploit the contradictions within the system? How can we ruthlessly
expose the inherent limitations and internal contradictions of capital accumulation?
Most importantly, we must not exit this crisis with a more authoritarian version of
capitalism. Giving the banks and multinational corporations more power is a death knell for the
human species and much of the planet. Time is running out. The economic shocks will continue in
frequency and severity. Now is the time for alternatives.
The Crisis of Militarism & Empire
Since 9/11, the U.S. has bombed seven nations: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Syria,
Somalia, and Yemen. U.S. troops remain in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya, with special
forces operations taking place in Pakistan and Somalia. The ongoing war in Afghanistan is the
longest war in U.S. history. And the U.S. continues to economically, logistically, politically,
and militarily support the systematic repression and genocide of the Palestinian people vis a
vi the brutal Israeli regime.
According to military historian, Nick Turse, U.S. forces conduct, on average, three combat
or intelligence missions per day on the continent of Africa. Of course, Uncle Sam's growing
footprint in Africa has gone virtually unreported in the corporate press. In October, 2017,
when 9 U.S. troops were killed in the 'Tongo Tongo Ambush' in Niger, most Americans had no idea
that U.S. troops were even stationed in Niger, let alone conducting combat missions. While it's
true that U.S. Empire is in decline, it's also true that empires throughout history lash out
during their final days, leaving a path of destruction in their wake.
As a result, the human cost of the post-9/11 'War on Terror' has been immense. Iraq:
300,000-1,000,000 dead. Syria: 400,000-600,000 dead. Afghanistan: 120,000 dead. Libya: 30,000
dead. Pakistan: 50,000 dead. Somalia: (unknown). Yemen: 100,000 dead. On the U.S. side, over
7,000 troops have lost their lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Pakistan, with more than
double that number of private contractors dying in U.S.-led conflicts.
The Great Oil Wars of the early 21st Century have also caused the greatest refugee crisis
since World War II, with more than 100,000 Syrian refugees fleeing their war-torn country, and
over 3 million Iraqis internally displaced. Tens of thousands have fled Libya. The same is true
in Pakistan. Millions abroad live in abject poverty and suffer preventable diseases as a result
of Uncle Sam's military adventures.
Veterans of course, also suffer from Uncle Sam's hubris, with over 10,000 having committed
suicide since 9/11. On a personal note, I've lost more of the marines from my platoon than died
during our unit's three combat deployments to Iraq.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said: "The bombs in Vietnam explode at home -- they destroy
the dream and possibility for a decent America." The same is true today, as the United States
spends what the next 15 nations spend combined on its military empire ($750 billion a year), a
monstrosity and sign of deep societal decay. According to Brown University, the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan have cost U.S. taxpayers $5.9 trillion. With that money, the U.S. government
could've paid off every Americans' credit card, student loan, and auto loan debt, and still had
money left over.
As the U.S. spends trillions of dollars on weapons of war, hospitals run out of surgical
masks and ventilators. A ventilator costs anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000 -- a tomahawk
missile costs $1.4 million.
Like every empire, the U.S. has drained its domestic resources to maintain its imperial
hegemony, but that influence is waning with time. As the republic crumbles under the weight of
its own internal contradictions, U.S. allies are distancing themselves, while Uncle Sam's foes
are becoming increasingly empowered with each blunder and catastrophe that's unfolded since
9/11. As Chomsky points out, the U.S. has been in decline since World War II, the peak of Uncle
Sam's imperial prowess.
Already, Trump is using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to ramp-up tensions with both
Venezuela and Iran, two countries the U.S. has been politically, militarily, and economically
terrorizing for decades. During the pandemic, U.S.-imposed sanctions in Iran have caused a
disproportionate number of deaths due to lack of proper health equipment and medicine.
Fortunately, several European countries have broken the sanctions and delivered medical
goods to the Iranian government. Also, as we speak, Trump has directed the U.S. Navy to move
several U.S. Navy ships in close proximity to Venezuelan waters under the pretext of "curbing
drug smuggling" -- no doubt a top priority during the worst pandemic since 1918.
History shows us that every empire eventually confronts the same choice: maintain military
forces and watch the republic crumble from within, or de-escalate conflicts, demilitarize, and
maintain some semblance of a functioning state. The Roman Empire chose the former. The British
Empire chose the latter. The coming decade will determine which path Uncle Sam chooses. If the
last 20 years are a window into the future, God help us all.
If we hope to survive the next pandemic, the U.S. government must redirect the resources
it's currently spending on weapons of war, and instead invest in public healthcare
infrastructure (hospitals, equipment, resources, nurses, personnel, EMTs), public education
(medical schools, tuition free), housing (free and available to all), and research and
development.
If we hope to survive the coming decades, the U.S. government must redirect its vast
resources to mitigating climate change and ecological devastation.
The Climate & Ecological Crisis
The world has ten years to make radical changes to the global economy and its relation to
fossil fuel production and consumption or the planet will be uninhabitable by the end of the
century. Climate Change isn't the issue , it's the overarching context in which we now
exist. Everything we do or don't do over the next ten years will determine whether or not
future generations will inhabit a living planet, or a barren wasteland.
There is simply no way to downplay the urgency of our collective challenge. As author David
Wallace-Wells' notes in his latest book, The Uninhabitable
Earth: Life After Warming , "we could potentially avoid 150 million excess premature
deaths by the end of century from air pollution (the equivalent of 25 Holocausts or twice the
number of deaths from World War II) if we could limit average global warming to 1.5 degrees
Celsius." Right now, we're on track to hit 1.5 degrees Celsius by as early as 2030.
In the future, numbers will matter. The 100,000-240,000 Americans projected to die from
COVID-19 will soon turn into numbers like 1,000,000-5,000,000. What we accept today, we'll be
expected to accept tomorrow.
In some ways, we've already accepted mass death, but our relationship to the living world is
so warped that these numbers don't seem to shake us. Species extinction rates are 100-1,000
times faster than they were, on average, during the evolutionary time-scale of planet Earth.
More than 100 go extinct every single day.
Oceans have been destroyed by toxic materials, dumping, shipping, and large-scale industrial
fishing. Coral reefs are dying. Warming temperatures mean less phytoplankton, which means less
oxygen, which means more carbon dioxide. Some studies suggest that most of the large fish in
the world's oceans will be gone by 2050. Deforestation continues at breakneck speeds, ravaging
ecosystems and leaving nothing behind. Ice caps melt. Prairies destroyed for suburban
developments. Mountains leveled for minerals. Lakes drained for bottled water. Rivers polluted
for industry. Life murdered for profit.
The level of ecological disruption and destruction industrial society has unleashed on the
living world is unparalleled. And time is running out.
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report, Global Warming of 1.5 degree
Celsius , outlines our reality: if we wish to hold the line to 1.5 degrees, we have to cut
emissions by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. Then, we have to reach net-zero around 2050.
That's to avoid the 250 million deaths Wallace-Wells mentioned. So far, none of that is
happening. In fact, we're moving in the opposite direction as global emissions rise each
year.
If we continue at current rates of emission, global temperature could rise by 7 degrees
Celsius, and the number of human deaths from pollution could rise to 1-3 billion by 2100.
That's not including deaths due to habitat loss, crop failure, lack of fresh water, lack of
medical care, lack of housing, rising sea levels, lack of employment, addiction, suicide,
unbearable temperatures, failing governments, collapsing economies, and everything that comes
with those cascading crises: tribal war, banditry, barbarism, and eventually, genocide.
The Totality of Our Crisis
Without question, the stakes couldn't be higher. In many ways, the COVID-19 pandemic and
ensuing economic depression is a dress rehearsal for the future. From here on out, each crisis
will be more pronounced and severe than the last. The new normal is cascading and multilayered
crises all playing out at the same time. How we collectively respond to this crisis will
determine how we respond to the impending large-scale crises of the future, not the least of
which being Climate Change. So far, we're failing miserably.
If the United States can't handle a small-scale pandemic and virus that's moderately deadly,
though admittedly quite disruptive, how can we expect the government to cope with tens of
millions of climate refugees fleeing their homes in the coming decades, while seeking housing,
employment, and safety in cities and counties already strapped for resources?
If capitalists already are taking advantage of this pandemic, netting trillions of dollars
from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury, while simultaneously jacking up the price of
medical equipment and charging poor victims exorbitant amounts of money for health insurance,
needed medicine, and hospital treatment, how can we expect them to behave in the context of
rapid ecological collapse?
If the state is incapable of providing even menial assistance to poor and working class
Americans during the worst pandemic in over 100 years, how can we expect the state to behave in
the context of cascading and multilayered crises unfolding at a rapid pace over a short period
of time, crises that will undoubtedly require massive state intervention in the economy?
Unfortunately, we know the answers to these questions, but only if most poor and working
class people remain unorganized or unwilling to fight back.
Let's remember, all of this takes place within a context of many unnamed crises, many of
which weren't mentioned in this essay. Some of those include gun culture/NRA (weapons sales are
at all-time highs since the pandemic started), police militarism, the prison-industrial complex
(already being used to manufacture surgical masks, while prisoners remain trapped in COVID-19
incubators), patriarchy (domestic violence calls have skyrocketed during the pandemic),
homelessness (500,000 Americans can't 'stay at home'), systemic racism (already, statistics
show that black people are disproportionately impacted by and suffering the worst effects of
COVID-19), housing (Americans already spend a insane amounts of their income toward
rent/mortgage payments -- those problems have only accelerated during the pandemic), childcare
(cash-strapped families and single parents choosing between safety and work), and the list goes
on, and on.
Every single aspect of our society is under extreme stress. Even the most passive
populations can only take so much. Human beings can only take so much. The living world can
only take so much. Eventually, things will explode.
The question is: how? Will poor and working class Americans turn that despair and cynicism
into a righteous anger and rage? And if so, who will that anger and rage be directed toward?
Each other? Or the powerful elites?
The current social context in the U.S. and across the globe is ripe for radical political
change, but that change doesn't necessarily have to be progressive in nature. It could also be
reactionary and fueled by religious extremism, xenophobia, racism, and tribalism. That's up to
us. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Vincent Emanuele
Vincent Emanuele writes for teleSUR English and lives in Michigan City, Indiana. He can
be reached at [email protected]
Let's chalk this up to aristocratic elites. Aristocrats, unlike nobles, are decadent, but
don't stop with that word, understand what it means.
Elites who are not aligned with the actual productive activities of society and are
engaged primarily in activities which are contrary to production, are decadent. This was
true in Ancien Regime France (and deliberately fostered by Louis XIV as a way of
emasculating the nobility.) It is true today of most Western elites: they concentrate on
financial numbers, and not on actual production. Even those who are somewhat competent,
tend not to be truly productive: see the Waltons, who made their money as
distributers–merchants.
"... The more I watch these moves by Pompeo the more sympathetic I become to the most sinister theories about COVID-19, its origins and its launch around the world. Read Pepe Escobar's latest to get an idea of how dark and twisted this tale could be . ..."
There are few things in this life that make me more sick to my stomach than watching
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talking. He truly is one of the evilest men I've ever had the
displeasure of covering.
Into the insanity of the over-reaction to the COVID-19 outbreak, Pompeo wasted no time
ramping up sanctions on firms doing any business with Iran, one of the countries worse-hit by
this virus to date.
It's a seemingly endless refrain, everyday,
more sanctions on Chinese, Swiss and South African firms for having the temerity in these
deflating times to buy oil from someone Pompeo and his gang of heartless psychopaths disapprove
of.
This goes far beyond just the oil industry. Even though I'm well aware that Russia's
crashing the price of oil was itself a hybrid war attack on US capital markets. One that has
had, to date, devastating effect.
While Pompeo mouths the words publicly that humanitarian aid is exempted from sanctions on
Iran, the US is pursuing immense
pressure on companies to not do so anyway while the State Dept. bureaucracy takes its sweet
time processing waiver applications.
Pompeo and his ilk only think in terms of civilizational warfare. They have become so
subsumed by their big war for the moral high ground to prove American exceptionalism that they
have lost any shred of humanity they may have ever had.
Because for Pompeo in times like these to stick to his talking points and for his office to
continue excising Iran from the global economy when we're supposed to be coming together to
fight a global pandemic is the height of soullessness.
And it speaks to the much bigger problem that infects all of our political thinking. There
comes a moment when politics and gaining political advantage have to take a back seat to doing
the right thing.
I've actually seen moments of that impulse from the Democratic leadership in the US Will
wonders never cease?!
Thinking only in Manichean terms of good vs. evil and dehumanizing your opponents is
actually costlier than reversing course right now. Because honey is always better at attracting
flies than vinegar.
But, unfortunately, that is not the character of the Trump administration.
It can only think in terms of direct leverage and opportunity to hold onto what they think
they've achieved. So, until President Trump is no longer consumed with coordinating efforts to
control COVID-19 Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper are in charge of foreign policy.
They will continue the playbook that has been well established.
Maximum pressure on Iran, hurt China any way they can, hold onto what they have in Syria,
stay in Iraq.
To that end Iraqi President Barham Salei nominated Pompeo's best choice to replace Prime
Minister Adil Abdel Mahdi to throw Iraq's future into complete turmoil. According to Elijah
Magnier,
Adnan al-Zarfi is a US asset through and through .
And this looks like Pompeo's Hail Mary to retain US legal presence in Iraq after the Iraqi
parliament adopted a measure to demand withdrawal of US troops from the country. Airstrikes
against US bases in Iraq continue on a near daily basis and there have been reports of US base
closures and redeployments at the same time.
This move looks like desperation by Pompeo et.al. to finally separate the Hashd al-Shaabi
from Iraq's official military. So that airstrikes against them can be carried out under the
definition of 'fighting Iranian terrorism.'
As Magnier points out in the article above if al-Zarfi puts a government together the war in
Iraq will expand just as the US is losing further control in Syria after Turkish President
Erdogan's disastrous attempt to remake the front in Idlib. That ended with his effective
surrender to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It is sad that, to me, I see no reason to doubt Pompeo and his ilk in the US government
wouldn't do something like that to spark political and social upheaval in those places most
targeted by US hybrid war tactics.
But, at the same time, I can see the other side of it, a vicious strike back by China
against its tormentors. And China's government does itself, in my mind, no favors threatening
to withhold drug precursors and having officials run their mouths giving Americans the excuse
they need to validate Trump and Pompeo's divisive rhetoric.
Remaining on the fence about this issue isn't my normal style. But everyone is dirty here
and the reality may well be this is a natural event terrible people on both sides are
exploiting.
And I can only go by what people do rather than what they say to assess the situation. Trump
tries to buy exclusive right to a potential COVID-19 vaccine from a German firm and his
administration slow-walks aid to Iran.
China sends aid to Iran and Italy by the container full. Is that to salve their conscience
over its initial suppression of information about the virus? Good question. But no one covers
themselves in glory by using the confusion and distraction to attempt further regime change and
step up war-footing during a public health crisis, manufactured or otherwise.
While Pompeo unctuously talks the talk of compassion and charity, he cannot bring himself to
actually walk the walk. Because he is a despicable, bile-filled man of uncommon depravity. His
prosecuting a hybrid war during a public health crisis speaks to no other conclusion about
him.
It's clear to me that nothing has changed at the top of Trump's administration. I expect
COVID-19 will not be a disaster for Trump and the US. It can handle this. But the lack of
humanity shown by its diplomatic corps ensures that in the long run the US will be left to fend
for itself when the next crisis hits.
A group of economists and policy experts on Wednesday called on President Donald Trump to
immediately lift the United States' crippling sanctions against Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and
other countries, warning that the economic warfare -- in addition to being cruel in itself --
is "feeding the coronavirus epidemic" by hampering nations' capacity to respond.
"This policy is unconscionable and flagrantly against international law. It is imperative
that the U.S. lift these immoral and illegal sanctions to enable Iran and Venezuela to
confront the epidemic as effectively and rapidly as possible," Columbia University professor
Jeffrey Sachs said in a statement just hours after the Trump administration intensified
sanctions against Iran, which has been devastated by COVID-19.
Promising to "smash" Venezuela's government during a "maximum pressure March," Trump has
imposed crushing sanctions that force Venezuela to spend three times as much as
non-sanctioned countries on coronavirus testing kits.
The 2008 crisis put in the spotlight the psychopathic level of greed, vice, apathy and
short-sightedness from those who wanted to play into the City of London and Wall Street casino
houses. Get rich quick and don't care who you screw in the process, after all, at the end of
the day you're either a winner or a loser.
Since the general public tends to consist of decent people, there is a widespread difficulty
in comprehending how entire economies of countries have been hijacked by these piranhas. That
we have hit such a level of crime that even people's hard earned pensions, education,
health-care, housing etc. are all being gambled away LEGALLY.
Looking upon investment bankers today, one is reminded of those sad addicts in the casino
who are ruined and lose everything, except the difference is, they are given the option to sell
their neighbour's family into slavery to pay off their debt.
It is no secret that much of the "finance" that goes through the City of London and Wall
Street is dirty and yet despite this recognition, there appears to be an inability to address
it and that at this point we are told that if we tried to address it by breaking up and
regulating the "Too Big to Fail" banks, then the whole economy would come tumbling down.
That is, the world is so evidently run by criminal activity that at this point we have
become dependent on its dirty money to keep afloat the world economy.
Faced with the onrushing collapse of the financial system, the greatest Ivy League trained
minds of the world have run into a dead end: the bailouts into the banking system that began
this past September have prevented a chain reaction meltdown for a few months, but as the
liquidity runs out so too will the ideas on where the money justifying bank bailouts will come
from.
With these dead ends, we have seen the lightbulb go off in the minds of a large strata of
economists who have been making the case in recent years that valuable revenue can yet be
generated from one more untapped stream: the decriminalisation and legalisation of vice.
Hell, the major banks have already been doing this covertly as a matter of practice for
generations so why not just come out of the closet and make it official? This is where the
money is at. This is where the job market is at. So let us not "bite the hand that feeds
us"!
But is this truly the case? Is there really no qualitative difference how the
money is generated and how it is spent as long as there is an adequate money flow?
Well it is never a good sign when beside the richest you can also find the poorest just a
stone's throw away. And right beside the largest financial center in the world, the City of
London, there lies the poorest borough in all of London: Tower Hamlets with a 39% poverty
rate and anaverage family income amounting to less than£ 13,
000/year .
A City within a City
" Hell is a city much like London "
– Percy Bysshe Shelley
Although Wall Street has contributed greatly to this sad situation, this banking hub of
America is best understood as the spawn of the City of London.
The City of London is over 800 years old, it is arguably older than England herself, a nd
for over 400 years it has been the financial center of the world.
During the medieval period the City of London, otherwise known as the Square Mile or simply
the City, was divided into 25 ancient wards headed each by an alderman. This continues
today . In addition, there existed the ominously titled City of London Corporation, or
simply the Corporation, which is the municipal governing body of the City. This also still
continues today .
Though the Corporation's origins cannot be specifically dated, since there was never a
"surviving" charter found establishing its "legal" basis, it has kept its functions to this day
based on the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta is a charter of rights agreed to by King John in
1215, which states that " the City of London shall have/enjoy its ancient liberties ".
In other words, the legal function of the Corporation has never been questioned, reviewed,
re-evaluated EVER but rather it has been left to legally function as in accordance with their
"ancient liberties", which is a very grey description of function if you ask me. In other
words, they are free to do as they deem fit.
And it gets worst. The Corporation is not actually under the jurisdiction of the British
government. That is, the British government presently does not have the authority to undermine
how the Corporation of the City chooses to govern the largest financial center in the
world . The City has a separate voting system that allows for, well, corporations to vote
in how their separate "government" should run. It also has its own private police force and
system of private courts.
The Corporation is not just limited to functioning within the City. The City Remembrancer,
which sounds more like a warped version of the ghost of Christmas past, has the role of acting
as a channel of communication between the Corporation and the Sovereign (the Queen), the Royal
Household and Parliament. The Remembrancer thus acts as a "reminder", some would even say
"enforcer", of the will of the Corporation. This position has been held by Paul Double since
2003, it is not clear who bestows this non-elected position.
Mr. Double has the right to act as an official lobbyist in the House of Commons, and sits to
the right of the Speaker's chair, with the purpose of scrutinising and influencing any
legislation he deems affects the interests of the Corporation. He also appears to have the
right to review any piece of legislation as it is being drafted and can even comment on it
affecting its final outcome. He is the only non-elected person allowed into the House of
Commons.
"The City is the only area in the country in which the number of workers significantly
outnumbers the residents and therefore, to be truly representative of its population, offers a
vote to City organisations so they can have their say on the way the City is run."
However, the workers have absolutely no say. The City's organisations they work for have
a certain size vote based on the number of workers they employ, but they do not consult these
workers, and many of them are not even aware that such elections take place.
If you feel like you have just walked through Alice's Looking Glass, you're not alone,
but what appears to be an absurd level of madness is what has been running the largest
financial center in the world since the 1600s, under the machinations of the British
Empire.
Therefore the question is, if the City of London has kept its "ancient liberties" and has
upheld its global financial power, is the British Empire truly gone?
Offshore Banking: Adam Smith's Invisible Hand?
Contrary to popular naïve belief, the empire on which the sun never sets (some say "
because God wouldn't trust them in the dark ")
never went away .
After WWII, colonisation was meant to be done away with, and many thought, so too with the
British Empire. Countries were reclaiming their sovereignty, governments were being set up by
the people, the system of looting and pillaging had come to an end.
It is a nice story, but could not be further from the truth.
In the 1950s, to "adapt" to the changing global financial climate, the City of London set up
what are called "secrecy jurisdictions". These were to operate within the last remnants of
Britain's small territories/colonies. Of Britain's 14 oversea territories, 7 are bona fide tax
havens or "secrecy jurisdictions". A separate international financial market was also created
to facilitate the flow of this offshore money, the Eurodollar market. Since this market has its
banks outside of the UK and U.S., they are not under the jurisdiction of either country.
By 1997, nearly 90% of all international loans were made through this market.
What is often misunderstood is that the City of London's offshore finances are not contained
in a system of banking secrecy but rather of trusts. The difference being that a trust
ultimately plays with the concept of ownership. The idea is that you hand over your assets to a
trustee and at that point, legally those assets are no longer yours anymore and you are not
responsible for accounting for them. Your connection to said assets is completely hidden.
In addition, within Britain's offshore jurisdictions, there is no qualification required for
who can become a trustee: anyone can set up a trust and anyone can become a trustee. There is
also no registry of trusts in these territories. Thus, the only ones who know about this
arrangement are the trustee and the settler.
John Christensen, an investigative economist, estimates that this capital that legally
belongs to nobody could amount to as high as $50 trillion within these British territories.
Not only is this not being taxed, but a significant portion of it has been stolen from sectors
of the real economy.
So how does this affect "formerly" colonised countries?
There lies the rub for most developing nations. According to John Christensen, the combined
external debts of Sub-Saharan African countries was $177 billion in 2008. However, the wealth
that these countries' elites moved offshore, between 1970-2008, is estimated at $944 billion,
5X their foreign debt. This is not only dirty money, this is also STOLEN money from the
resources and productivity of these economies. Thus, as Christensen states, "Far from being a
net debtor to the world, Sub-Saharan Africa is a net creditor" to offshore finance.
Put in this context, the so-called "backwardness" of Africa is not due to its incapability
to produce, but rather that it has been experiencing uninterrupted looting since these regions
were first colonised.
These African countries then need to borrow money, which is happily given to them at high
interest rates, and accrues a level of debt that could never be repaid. These countries are
thus looted twice over, leaving no money left to invest in their future, let alone to
put food on the table.
Offshore havens are what make this sort of activity "legal" and rampant.
And it doesn't stop there. Worldwide, it is estimated that developing countries lose $1
trillion every year in capital flight and tax evasion. Most of this wealth goes back into the
UK and U.S. through these offshore havens, and allows their currencies to stay strong whilst
developing nations' currencies are kept weak.
However, developing nations are not the only ones to have suffered from this system of
looting. The very economies of the UK and U.S. have also been gutted. In the 1960s and onward,
the UK and U.S., to compensate for the increase in money flow out of their countries decided
that it was a good idea to open their domestic markets to the trillions of dollars passing
through its offshore havens.
However, such banks are not interested in putting their money into industry and
manufacturing, they put their money into real estate speculation, financial speculation and
foreign currency trade. And thus the financialization of British and American economies
resulted, and the real jobs coming from the real economy decreased or disappeared.
Although many economists try to claim differently, the desperation has boiled over and
movements like the yellow vests are reflections of the true consequences of these economic
policies.
We have reached a point now where every western first world country is struggling with a
much higher unemployment rate and a lower standard of living than 40 years ago. Along with
increased poverty has followed increased drug use, increased suicide and increased crime.
A Stable Economy based on Freedom or Slavery?
According to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) report in
2017 , the UK has by far the highest rate of drug overdose in all of Europe at 31% followed
by Germany at 15%. That is, the UK consists of 1/3 drug overdoses that occur in all of
Europe.
The average family income in the UK is presently £28, 400. The poverty rate within the
UK is ~20%.
The average family income of what was once the epicentre of world industrialisation,
Detroit, has an average family income of $26, 249. The poverty rate of Detroit is ~34.5%.
What is the solution?
Reverse Margaret Thatcher's 1986 Big Bang deregulation of the banking system that destroyed
the separation of commercial banking, investment banking, trusts and insurance for starters. A
similar restoration of Glass-Steagall in the USA should follow suit, not only to break up the
"Too Big to Fail" banking system but to restore the authority of nation states over private
finance once more. IF these emergency measures were done before the markets collapse (and they
will collapse), then the industrial-infrastructure revival throughout trans-Atlantic nations
can still occur.
Let us end here by hearkening to the words of Clement Attlee, UK Prime Minister from
1945-1951:
" Over and over again we have seen that there is another power than that which has its
seat at Westminster. The City of London, a convenient term for a collection of financial
interests, is able to assert itself against the government of the country. Those who control
money can pursue a policy at home and abroad contrary to that which is being decided by the
people. "
Neoliberalism destroys solidarity; as the result it destroys both the society and individuals
Notable quotes:
"... Thirty years of neoliberalism, free-market forces and privatisation have taken their toll, as relentless pressure to achieve has become normative. If you're reading this sceptically, I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others. ..."
"... On top of all this, you are flexible and impulsive, always on the lookout for new stimuli and challenges. In practice, this leads to risky behaviour, but never mind, it won't be you who has to pick up the pieces. The source of inspiration for this list? The psychopathy checklist by Robert Hare , the best-known specialist on psychopathy today. ..."
"... the financial crisis illustrated at a macro-social level (for example, in the conflicts between eurozone countries) what a neoliberal meritocracy does to people. Solidarity becomes an expensive luxury and makes way for temporary alliances, the main preoccupation always being to extract more profit from the situation than your competition. Social ties with colleagues weaken, as does emotional commitment to the enterprise or organisation. ..."
"... Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace. This is a typical symptom of the impotent venting their frustration on the weak – in psychology it's known as displaced aggression. There is a buried sense of fear, ranging from performance anxiety to a broader social fear of the threatening other. ..."
"... Constant evaluations at work cause a decline in autonomy and a growing dependence on external, often shifting, norms ..."
"... More important, though, is the serious damage to people's self-respect. Self-respect largely depends on the recognition that we receive from the other, as thinkers from Hegel to Lacan have shown. Sennett comes to a similar conclusion when he sees the main question for employees these days as being "Who needs me?" For a growing group of people, the answer is: no one. ..."
"... A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents, meaning responsibility lies entirely with the individual and authorities should give people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal. ..."
"... the paradox of our era as: "Never have we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." ..."
An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities
'We are forever told that we are freer to choose the course of our lives than ever before, but the freedom to choose
outside the success narrative is limited.'
We tend to perceive our identities as stable and largely separate from outside forces. But over decades of research and therapeutic
practice, I have become convinced that economic change is having a profound effect not only on our values but also on our personalities.
Thirty years of neoliberalism, free-market forces and privatisation have taken their toll, as relentless pressure to achieve has
become normative. If you're reading this sceptically, I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain
personality traits and penalises others.
There are certain ideal characteristics needed to make a career today. The first is articulateness, the aim being to win over
as many people as possible. Contact can be superficial, but since this applies to most human interaction nowadays, this won't really
be noticed.
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a lot of people, you've got plenty of experience
under your belt and you recently completed a major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact
that they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and feel little guilt. That's why
you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
On top of all this, you are flexible and impulsive, always on the lookout for new stimuli and challenges. In practice, this leads
to risky behaviour, but never mind, it won't be you who has to pick up the pieces. The source of inspiration for this list? The psychopathy
checklist by Robert Hare , the best-known specialist on psychopathy today.
This description is, of course, a caricature taken to extremes. Nevertheless, the financial crisis illustrated at a macro-social
level (for example, in the conflicts between eurozone countries) what a neoliberal meritocracy does to people. Solidarity becomes
an expensive luxury and makes way for temporary alliances, the main preoccupation always being to extract more profit from the situation
than your competition. Social ties with colleagues weaken, as does emotional commitment to the enterprise or organisation.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace. This is a typical symptom of the impotent
venting their frustration on the weak – in psychology it's known as displaced aggression. There is a buried sense of fear, ranging
from performance anxiety to a broader social fear of the threatening other.
Constant evaluations at work cause a decline in autonomy and a growing dependence on external, often shifting, norms.
This results in what the sociologist
Richard Sennett has aptly described
as the "infantilisation of the workers". Adults display childish outbursts of temper and are jealous about trivialities ("She got
a new office chair and I didn't"), tell white lies, resort to deceit, delight in the downfall of others and cherish petty feelings
of revenge. This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and that fails to treat employees
as adults.
More important, though, is the serious damage to people's self-respect. Self-respect largely depends on the recognition that we
receive from the other, as thinkers from Hegel
to Lacan have shown. Sennett comes to a similar conclusion
when he sees the main question for employees these days as being "Who needs me?" For a growing group of people, the answer is: no
one.
Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough, all the while reinforcing privilege and
putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and exhausted citizens. An increasing number of people fail, feeling humiliated,
guilty and ashamed. We are forever told that we are freer to choose the course of our lives than ever before, but the freedom to
choose outside the success narrative is limited. Furthermore, those who fail are deemed to be losers or scroungers, taking advantage
of our social security system.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents, meaning responsibility lies
entirely with the individual and authorities should give people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal. For those who believe
in the fairytale of unrestricted choice, self-government and self-management are the pre-eminent political messages, especially if
they appear to promise freedom. Along with the idea of the perfectible individual, the freedom we perceive ourselves as having in
the west is the greatest untruth of this day and age.
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the
paradox of our era as: "Never have we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the sense
that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like.
We can do all these things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference. Yet,
on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There
are regulations about everything, from the salt content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is, "make" something of ourselves. You don't
need to look far for examples. A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person
with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure
success. A young woman who wants to become a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a
master's degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture. Yet our norms and values make up an integral
and essential part of our identity. So they cannot be lost, only changed. And that is precisely what has happened: a changed economy
reflects changed ethics and brings about changed identity. The current economic system is bringing out the worst in us.
Under neoliberalism inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve: Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of
human relations and redefines citizens as consumers
Notable quotes:
"... Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you'll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you know what it is? ..."
"... Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness , the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump . ..."
"... Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve. ..."
"... Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning. ..."
"... We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances. ..."
"... Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it's your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers. ..."
"... Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia. ..."
"... It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice should have been promoted with the slogan 'there is no alternative' ..."
"... Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed internationally, through trade treaties incorporating " investor-state dispute settlement ": offshore tribunals in which corporations can press for the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have voted to restrict sales of cigarettes , protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy bills or prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations have sued, often successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre. ..."
"... Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one ..."
"... Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition relies upon universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime of assessment and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the losers. The doctrine that Von Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic nightmare of central planning has instead created one. ..."
"... When you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that they have you over a barrel . ..."
"... Those who own and run the UK's privatised or semi-privatised services make stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India, oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone services and soon became the world's richest man. ..."
"... Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in Why We Can't Afford the Rich , has had a similar impact. "Like rent," he argues, "interest is ... unearned income that accrues without any effort". ..."
"... Chris Hedges remarks that "fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the 'losers' who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment". When political debate no longer speaks to us, people become responsive instead to slogans, symbols and sensation . To the admirers of Trump, for example, facts and arguments appear irrelevant. ..."
"... Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of anonymities. ..."
"... The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry, has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that Charles and David Koch , two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the Tea Party movement . We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks, noted that "in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised". ..."
"... The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. ..."
"... Neoliberalism's triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the 70s, there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008 there was ... nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years. ..."
"... What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is that it's not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century. ..."
Financial meltdown, environmental disaster and even the rise of Donald Trump –
neoliberalism has played its part in them all. Why has the left failed to come up with an
alternative? @GeorgeMonbiot
Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology
that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you'll be
rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before, they will struggle to
define it. Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?
Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has
played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8,
the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a
glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the
epidemic of loneliness , the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump . But we respond to these
crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had
– a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?
Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that
everyone gets what they deserve.
So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even
recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian
faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin's theory of evolution.
But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of
power.
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of
human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best
exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It
maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by
planning.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty.
Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation
of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market
distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality
is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to
enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally
corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich
persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages
– such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The
poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their
circumstances.
Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's
because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card
is maxed out, you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a
school playing field: if they get fat, it's your fault. In a world governed by competition,
those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.
Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What
About Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance
anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it's unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology
has been most rigorously applied, is
the loneliness capital of Europe . We are all neoliberals now.
***
The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938.
Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and
Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin
Roosevelt's New Deal and the gradual development of Britain's welfare state, as manifestations
of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.
In The Road to Serfdom , published in 1944, Hayek argued
that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian
control. Like Mises's book Bureaucracy , The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It
came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to
free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation
that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism – the Mont Pelerin Society – it was supported financially by
millionaires and their foundations.
As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek's view
that governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way
– among American apostles such as Milton Friedman
– to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward for efficiency.
Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost
its name. In 1951, Friedman was happy to describe
himself as a neoliberal . But soon after that, the term began to disappear. Stranger still,
even as the ideology became crisper and the movement more coherent, the lost name was not
replaced by any common alternative.
At first, despite its lavish funding, neoliberalism remained at
the margins. The postwar consensus was almost universal: John Maynard Keynes 's economic
prescriptions were widely applied, full employment and the relief of poverty were common goals
in the US and much of western Europe, top rates of tax were high and governments sought social
outcomes without embarrassment, developing new public services and safety nets.
But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and
economic crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter the
mainstream. As Friedman remarked, "when the time came that you had to change ... there was an
alternative ready there to be picked up". With the help of sympathetic journalists and
political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially its prescriptions for monetary
policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter's administration in the US and Jim Callaghan's government
in Britain.
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice should have
been promoted with the slogan 'there is no alternative'
After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of
the package soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions,
deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services. Through the IMF,
the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation, neoliberal policies
were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much of the world. Most
remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged to the left: Labour and the
Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes, "it is hard to think of another utopia to have
been as fully realised."
***
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom
should have been promoted with the slogan "there is no alternative". But, as Hayek remarked on a
visit to Pinochet's Chile – one of the first nations in which the programme was
comprehensively applied – "my personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship
rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism". The freedom that
neoliberalism offers, which sounds so beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to
mean freedom for the pike, not for the minnows.
Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the
freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the
freedom to poison rivers , endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest and design
exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth
that lifts people out of poverty.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest Naomi Klein documented that neoliberals advocated the use of crises to
impose unpopular policies while people were distracted. Photograph: Anya Chibis/The
Guardian
As Naomi Klein documents in The Shock Doctrine ,
neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were
distracted: for example, in the aftermath of Pinochet's coup, the Iraq war and Hurricane
Katrina, which Friedman described as "an opportunity to radically reform the educational
system" in New Orleans
.
Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are
imposed internationally, through trade treaties incorporating "
investor-state dispute settlement ": offshore tribunals in which corporations can press for
the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have voted to restrict
sales of cigarettes ,
protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy bills or prevent pharmaceutical
firms from ripping off the state, corporations have sued, often successfully. Democracy is
reduced to theatre.
Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it
rapidly became one
Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition
relies upon universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers
and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime of assessment
and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the losers. The doctrine that Von
Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic nightmare of central planning has instead
created one.
Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it
rapidly became one. Economic growth has been markedly slower in the neoliberal era (since 1980
in Britain and the US) than it was in the preceding decades; but not for the very rich.
Inequality in the distribution of both income and wealth, after 60 years of decline, rose
rapidly in this era, due to the smashing of trade unions, tax reductions, rising rents,
privatisation and deregulation.
The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as
energy, water, trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set up
tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government,
for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price for a
train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel,
wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that
they have you over a barrel .
In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all phone services
and soon became the world's richest man. Photograph: Henry Romero/Reuters
Those who own and run the UK's privatised or semi-privatised
services make stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India,
oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico,
Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone services and soon
became the world's richest man.
Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in Why We Can't Afford the
Rich , has had a similar impact. "Like rent," he argues, "interest is ... unearned
income that accrues without any effort". As the poor become poorer and the rich become richer,
the rich acquire increasing control over another crucial asset: money. Interest payments,
overwhelmingly, are a transfer of money from the poor to the rich. As property prices and the
withdrawal of state funding load people with debt (think of the switch from student grants to
student loans), the banks and their executives clean up.
Sayer argues that the past four decades have been characterised by
a transfer of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy:
from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those who make their
money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest or capital gains. Earned
income has been supplanted by unearned income.
Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not
only are the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering
public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in Ill Fares the
Land , Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot be allowed to collapse, which
means that competition cannot run its course. Business takes the profits, the state keeps the
risk.
The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes.
Governments use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise
remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and
re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every organ of the public
sector.
Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the
economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced,
our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead,
neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to
spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally
distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and
former left adopt
similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of
people have been shed from politics.
Chris Hedges
remarks that "fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the
politically inactive, the 'losers' who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to
play in the political establishment". When political debate no longer speaks to us, people
become responsive instead
to slogans, symbols and sensation . To the admirers of Trump, for example, facts and
arguments appear irrelevant.
Judt explained that when the thick mesh of interactions between
people and the state has been reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, the only
remaining force that binds us is state power. The totalitarianism Hayek feared is more likely
to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that arises from the delivery of
public services, are reduced to "cajoling, threatening and ultimately coercing people to obey
them".
***
Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the
zombie doctrine staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of
anonymities.
The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by
invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them.
We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media
against the further regulation of the tobacco industry,
has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that
Charles and David
Koch , two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the
Tea
Party movement . We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks,
noted that "in order
to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be
widely advertised".
The nouveau riche were once disparaged by those who had
inherited their money. Today, the relationship has been reversed
The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they
elucidate. "The market" sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like
gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What "the market
wants" tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. "Investment", as Sayer notes,
means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful
activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest,
dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities "camouflages the
sources of wealth", leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.
A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had
inherited their money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off as
rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors style
themselves entre preneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.
These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and
placelessness of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for
whom they toil ; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy regimes so
complex that even the
police cannot discover the beneficial owners ; the tax arrangements that bamboozle
governments; the financial products no one understands.
The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are
influenced by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some
justice – that it is used today only pejoratively . But they
offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves as classical liberals or libertarians, but
these descriptions are both misleading and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there
is nothing novel about The Road to Serfdom , Bureaucracy or Friedman's classic
work, Capitalism and Freedom .
***
For all that, there is something admirable about the neoliberal
project, at least in its early stages. It was a distinctive, innovative philosophy promoted by
a coherent network of thinkers and activists with a clear plan of action. It was patient and
persistent. The Road to Serfdom became the path to power.
Neoliberalism, Locke and the Green party |
Letters Read more
Neoliberalism's triumph also reflects the failure of the left.
When laissez-faire economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive
economic theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the 70s,
there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008 there was ...
nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have produced no new general
framework of economic thought for 80 years.
Every invocation of Lord Keynes is an admission of failure. To
propose Keynesian solutions to the crises of the 21st century is to ignore three obvious
problems. It is hard to mobilise people around old ideas; the flaws exposed in the 70s have not
gone away; and, most importantly, they have nothing to say about our gravest predicament: the
environmental crisis. Keynesianism works by stimulating consumer demand to promote economic
growth. Consumer demand and economic growth are the motors of environmental
destruction.
What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is
that it's not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For
Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic
Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the
21st century.
George Monbiot's How Did We Get into This Mess? is
published this month by Verso. To order a copy for £12.99 (RRP £16.99) ) go to
bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online
orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99.
"... Corporate capitalism is supranational . It owes no loyalty to any nation-state. It uses the projection of military power by the United States to protect and advance its economic interests but at the same time cannibalizes the U.S., dismantling its democratic institutions, allowing its infrastructure to decay and deindustrializing its factory centers to ship manufacturing abroad to regions where workers are treated as serfs. ..."
"... Resistance to this global cabal of corporate oligarchs must also be supranational. It must build alliances with workers around the globe. It must defy the liberal institutions, including the Democratic Party, which betray workers. It is this betrayal that has given rise to fascist and protofascist movements in Europe and other countries ..."
"... Capitalism, at its core, is about the commodification of human beings and the natural world for exploitation and profit. To increase profit, it constantly seeks to reduce the cost of labor and demolish the regulations and laws that protect the common good. But as capitalism ravages the social fabric, it damages, like any parasite, the host that allows it to exist. It unleashes dark, uncontrollable yearnings among an enraged population that threaten capitalism itself. ..."
"... "We live in a global economy, highly interconnected," North went on. "A globalized process of production, financial system. The ruling class has an international policy. They organize themselves on an international scale. The labor movement has remained organized on a national basis. It has been completely incapable of answering this [ruling-class policy]. Therefore, it falls behind various national protectionist programs. The trade unions support Trump." ..."
"... "How many times can you turn on a mainstream news like CNN and expect to hear the word 'capitalism' discussed? Bernie [Sanders] did one thing. He called himself a democratic socialist , which was a bit transformational simply in terms of rhetoric. He's saying there's something other than capitalism that we ought to be talking about." ..."
"... When feminism was turned into that kind of leaning in, it created an identity politics that legitimizes the very system that needs to be critiqued. The early feminists were overtly socialists. As was [Martin Luther] King. But all that got erased." ..."
"... "The left became a kind of grab bag of discrete, siloed identity movements," Derber said. "This is very connected to moral purity. You're concerned about your advancement within the existing system. You're competing against others within the existing system. Everyone else has privilege. You're just concerned about getting your fair share." ..."
"... "Identity politics is to a large degree a right-wing discourse," Derber said. "It focuses on tribalism tied in modern times to nationalism, which is always militaristic. When you break the left into these siloed identity politics, which are not contextualized, you easily get into this dogmatic fundamentalism. The identity politics of the left reproduces the worse sociopathic features of the system as a whole. It's scary." ..."
There will be no economic or political justice for the poor, people of color, women or
workers within the framework of global, corporate capitalism. Corporate capitalism, which uses
identity politics ,
multiculturalism and racial justice to masquerade as politics, will never halt the rising
social inequality, unchecked militarism, evisceration of civil liberties and omnipotence of the
organs of security and surveillance. Corporate capitalism cannot be reformed, despite its
continually rebranding itself. The longer the self-identified left and liberal class seek to
work within a system that the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin calls " inverted
totalitarianism ," the more the noose will be tightened around our necks. If we do not rise
up to bring government and financial systems under public control -- which includes
nationalizing banks, the fossil fuel industry and the arms industry -- we will continue to be
victims.
Corporate capitalism is
supranational . It owes no loyalty to any nation-state. It uses the projection of military
power by the United States to protect and advance its economic interests but at the same time
cannibalizes the U.S., dismantling its democratic institutions, allowing its infrastructure to
decay and deindustrializing its factory centers to ship manufacturing abroad to regions where
workers are treated as serfs.
Resistance to this global cabal of corporate oligarchs must also be supranational. It must
build alliances with workers around the globe. It must defy the liberal institutions, including
the Democratic Party, which betray workers. It is this betrayal that has given rise to fascist
and protofascist movements in Europe and other countries. Donald Trump would never have been
elected but for this betrayal. We will build a global movement powerful enough to bring down
corporate capitalism or witness the rise of a new, supranational totalitarianism.
The left, seduced by the culture wars and identity politics, largely ignores the primacy of
capitalism and the class struggle. As long as unregulated capitalism reigns supreme, all
social, economic, cultural and political change will be cosmetic. Capitalism, at its core, is
about the commodification of human
beings and the natural world for exploitation and profit. To increase profit, it constantly
seeks to reduce the cost of labor and demolish the regulations and laws that protect the common
good. But as capitalism ravages the social fabric, it damages, like any parasite, the host that
allows it to exist. It unleashes dark, uncontrollable yearnings among an enraged population
that threaten capitalism itself.
"This is a crisis of global dimensions," David North , the national chairman
of the Socialist Equality Party in the
United States, told me when we spoke in New York. "It is a crisis that dominates every element
of American politics. The response that we're seeing, the astonishing changes in the state of
the government, in the decay of political life, the astonishingly low level of political and
intellectual discourse, is in a certain sense an expression of the bewilderment of the ruling
elite to what it's going through."
"We can expect a monumental explosion of class struggle in the United States," he said. "I
think this country is a social powder keg. There is an anger that exists over working
conditions and social inequality. However [much] they may be confused on many questions,
workers in this country have a deep belief in democratic rights. We totally reject the
narrative that the working class is racist. I think this has been the narrative pushed by the
pseudo-left, middle-class groups who are drunk on identity politics, which have a vested
interest in constantly distracting people from the essential class differences that exist in
the society. Dividing everyone up on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference fails to
address the major problem."
North argues, correctly, that capitalism by its nature lurches from crisis to crisis. This
makes our current predicament similar to past crises.
"All the unanswered questions of the 20th century -- the basic problem of the nation-state
system, the reactionary character of private ownership with the means of production, corporate
power, all of these issues which led to the first and Second world wars -- are with us again,
and add to that fascism," he said.
"We live in a global economy, highly interconnected," North went on. "A globalized process
of production, financial system. The ruling class has an international policy. They organize
themselves on an international scale. The labor movement has remained organized on a national
basis. It has been completely incapable of answering this [ruling-class policy]. Therefore, it
falls behind various national protectionist programs. The trade unions support Trump."
"We don't really have a left because we don't have conversations about capitalism," Derber
said. "How many times can you turn on a mainstream news like CNN and expect to hear the word
'capitalism' discussed? Bernie [Sanders] did one thing. He
called himself a democratic socialist , which was a bit transformational simply in terms of
rhetoric. He's saying there's something other than capitalism that we ought to be talking
about."
"As the [capitalist] system universalizes and becomes more and more intersectional, we need
intersectional resistance," Derber said. "At the end of the 1960s, when I was getting my own
political education, the universalizing dimensions of the left, which was growing in the '60s,
fell apart. The women began to feel their issues were not being addressed. They were treated
badly by white males, student leaders. Blacks, Panthers, began to feel the whites could not
speak for race issues. They developed separate organizations. The upshot was the left lost its
universalizing character. It no longer dealt with the intersection of all these issues within
the context of a militarized, capitalist, hegemonic American empire. It treated politics as
siloed group identity problems. Women had glass ceilings. Same with blacks. Same with
gays."
The loss of this intersectionality was deadly. Instead of focusing on the plight of all of
the oppressed, oppressed groups began to seek representation for their own members within
capitalist structures.
"Let's take a modern version of this," Derber said. " Sheryl Sandberg , the COO of
Facebook, she did a third-wave feminism thing. She said 'lean in.' It captures this identity
politics that has become toxic on the left. What does 'lean in' mean? It means women should
lean in and go as far as they can in the corporation. They should become, as she has, a major,
wealthy executive of a leading corporation. When feminism was turned into that kind of leaning
in, it created an identity politics that legitimizes the very system that needs to be
critiqued. The early feminists were overtly socialists. As was [Martin Luther] King. But all
that got erased."
"The left became a kind of grab bag of discrete, siloed identity movements," Derber
said. "This is very connected to moral purity. You're concerned about your advancement within
the existing system. You're competing against others within the existing system. Everyone else
has privilege. You're just concerned about getting your fair share."
"People in movements are products of the system they're fighting," he continued. "We're all
raised in a capitalistic, individualistic, egoistic culture, so it's not surprising. And it has
to be consciously recognized and struggled against. Everybody in movements has been brought up
in systems they're repulsed by. This has created a structural transformation of the left. The
left offers no broad critique of the political economy of capitalism. It's largely an
identity-politics party. It focuses on reforms for blacks and women and so forth. But it
doesn't offer a contextual analysis within capitalism."
Derber, like North, argues that the left's myopic, siloed politics paved the way for
right-wing, nativist, protofascist movements around the globe as well as the ascendancy of
Trump.
"When you bring politics down to simply about helping your group get a piece of the pie, you
lose that systemic analysis," he said. "You're fragmented. You don't have natural connections
or solidarity with other groups. You don't see the larger systemic context. By saying I want,
as a gay person, to fight in the military, in a funny way you're legitimating the American
empire. If you were living in Nazi Germany, would you say I want the right of a gay person to
fight in combat with the Nazi soldiers?"
"I don't want to say we should eliminate all identity politics," he said. "But any identity
politics has to be done within the framework of understanding the larger political economy.
That's been stripped away and erased. Even on the left, you cannot find a deep conversation
about capitalism and militarized capitalism. It's just been erased. That's why Trump came in.
He unified a kind of very powerful right-wing identity politics built around nationalism,
militarism and the exceptionalism of the American empire."
"Identity politics is to a large degree a right-wing discourse," Derber said. "It focuses on
tribalism tied in modern times to nationalism, which is always militaristic. When you break the
left into these siloed identity politics, which are not contextualized, you easily get into
this dogmatic fundamentalism. The identity politics of the left reproduces the worse
sociopathic features of the system as a whole. It's scary."
"How much of the left," he asked, "is reproducing what we are seeing in the society that
we're fighting?"
Many of us have come across the term "neoliberal," or "neoliberalism" before, but for all
its use, few have ever taken the chance to actually explain what it is. An inadequate popular
definition has allowed the term to be abused and misrepresented in a variety of ways. Despite
these misrepresentations, however, "neoliberalism" is a concept that is very useful for
understanding the world we live in today.
In simple terms, neoliberalism is a broad ideology that became popular in political,
economic, and governmental circles in the 1970's and reached its peak in global popularity in
the 1980's.
Neoliberalism describes the political paradigm we are in right now, the political conditions of
modern society . As the name suggests, it calls for a revitalization of the classical
liberal view of economic policy. It's important to understand that "classical liberal" here
refers to an older understanding of the word liberal than the one it has in modern America- it
is referencing the liberalism of the Enlightenment era, represented by thinkers like Adam Smith
and John Locke, not modern social liberalism as embodied by Barack Obama and much of the rest
of the Democratic Party. In concrete policy terms, neoliberalism means free trade, low taxes,
deregulation, privatization, and balanced budgets.
Neoliberalism emerged as a reaction to welfare state politics and Keynesian economics that
had become popular in the West following the end of World War II.
What is Keynesian Economics? Two major schools of economic thought are Classical
Economics and Keynesian Economics. Adam Smith's (1723-1790) theory of Classical Economics
asserts that the market is a rapidly-adjusting, self-correcting entity. John Maynard Keynes
(1883-1946) believed that Classical Economics was flawed. If classical economics were true,
Keyes asserted, waves of massive unemployment wouldn't exist, as the market would quickly
self-adjust for the downturn. Keynes theorized that during an economic downturn, consumer
demand tended to drop, causing employers to lay off employees, which would then decrease
overall consumer demand, and the cycle would continue. Keynes concluded that in periods of
economic downturn, government could manipulate demand by hiring, directly or through
policy, unemployed workers and break the cycle.
Following a long period of significant prosperity,
the 1970's brought with it a phenomenon known as "stagflation" - simultaneous stagnation
(where worker wages are kept flat) and inflation (where the cost of living rises). Keynesians,
who had been the dominant group in American economics at the time, believed it was impossible
for stagflation to exist for any extended period of time.
As the Keynesians tried to make sense of economic realities of the day, a new wave of
economists began to create other schools of thought. Milton Friedman (known as "the Chicago
School" or "monetarists") made the case not only for a different approach to monetary policy in
order to solve stagflation, but also for the idea that many forms of governmental involvement
in the economy are in fact harmful. Others, like James Buchanan pioneered a field known as
"public choice theory," which made the case to the economics profession that government
bureaucrats acted in personal self-interest, not in the public interest, and thus that policy
prescriptions should be much more cautious in calling for governmental solutions to economic
issues.
Activist Business
At the same time as the intellectual environment began to shift toward the political right
in economics,
the business community also began to be more aggressive in asserting their interests in
politics. This development was prompted in part by soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Lewis
F. Powell, Jr. writing a memo to
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1971, arguing that "the American economic system is under
attack" from progressive critics of big business and that the business community should fight
back. A number of conservative and libertarian think tanks and advocacy organizations were
created and expanded during this period in order to make the intellectual case for "freer"
capitalism, including the Heritage Foundation (1973), the Cato Institute (1974), and the
American Enterprise Institute (founded in 1938 but becoming influential during the
1970′s).
A Radical Message
Combine a turn against government in the field of economics and a growing assertion of
political power by businesses, and throw in increased public skepticism of government after
Vietnam and Watergate, and you have a recipe for fundamental political change. Between the
economic disarray, the public distrust, and both intellectual and financial support for an
alternative to post-war welfare statism, a new ideology became dominant in the political
sphere. This ideology was encapsulated by the presidency of Ronald Reagan, who summed it up
perfectly with his famous quote: "in this current crisis, government is not the solution to the
problem; government is the problem."
Such a claim may sound like standard conservative fare today, but
both Reagan and his message were quite radical at the time, even among Republicans. At the
time of his election, Reagan was seen by some (
including Gerald Ford ) as simply too far right to win. The last (elected) Republican
president before him, Nixon, created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), and a number of other progressive
programs. He also called for healthcare reform that could arguably be called
stronger than Obamacare, and
an expansion of welfare , the latter of which was the inspiration for the Earned Income Tax
Credit, passed shortly after he left office. Pieces of Nixon's economic agenda were noticeably
left-wing, so much so that one journalist at the time noted that he left the
Democrats having to resort to "me-tooism."
Importantly, this era also saw the start of the growth in the importance of campaign
donations. Republicans had not only a strong base of think tanks to provide them with a network
of intellectual support, they also had far more money from the corporate interests they were
serving. Congressional Republicans beat their Democratic counterparts in campaign expenditures in every
election year from 1976 to 1992.
Traditionally, Democrats had relied on unions as a critical source of both campaign
donations and organizational support. With union strength declining (a trend the Reagan
administration encouraged through policy), the Democrats were being totally outgunned.
According to Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's book "Winner-Take-All Politics":
Even with the emergence of conservative "Reagan Democrats" during the 1980's, the game had
changed for the Democratic Party. Recognizing this, a number of Democrats (including Bill
Clinton) joined together in a group called the Democratic Leadership Council with the goal of
dragging the party to the right and boosting campaign contributions. They succeeded.
When Clinton eventually won the presidency, he cemented neoliberalism as the law of the
land by making it clear that the Democrats would not challenge the new fundamental doctrine
of limited government involvement in many parts of the economy, and as a result made the
Democrats politically competitive again. (Both the previously mentioned "Winner-Take-All
Politics" and Thomas Ferguson and Joel Roger's "Right Turn" go more into detail on this issue,
and on neoliberalism more generally).
Instead of challenging the entirety of Reagan's assertion of government-as-problem, Clinton
espoused a "third way" ideology: in his second inauguration, he
said that "Government is not the problem, and Government is not the solution. We -- the
American people -- we are the solution." Though the Clinton White House at times backed
left-liberal policies like mild tax hikes on the wealthy, the Children's Health Insurance
Program, and the Family Medical Leave Act, it also continued the neoliberal march of rolling
back progressive achievements through the deregulation of Wall Street (the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act of 1999, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, etc.), conservative welfare
reform in 1996, NAFTA, and the gutting of public housing
.
A One-Party System
Clinton himself was aware of the way that American politics was moving to the right, and he
was sometimes frustrated with it. Allegedly, he once entered a meeting in the Oval Office
complaining : "Where are all the Democrats? I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower
Republicans. We're Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We
stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?"
Neoliberalism within the Democratic Party looks less like a proposal to privatize or abolish
Social Security as much as it does a commitment to benefit-cutting "entitlement reform." It can
be seen both in language (the constant discussion of education as an "investment" in "skills"
necessary for "improving the workforce," instead of a guaranteed right for all citizens) and in
policy (proposing tax cuts for the middle class instead of social spending even when taxes are
at some of their
lowest rates in decades ; compromis[ing] in advance
on major policy proposals like the 2009 stimulus; advocating piecemeal technocratic reforms to
healthcare and finance instead of deeper, fundamental reform; etc.).
With their opponents on the defensive and partially compliant with their agenda, the
Republicans continued to push further right under the leadership of Newt Gingrich and his
"Contract with America." The Democrats started to dig their heels in and push back a little
for the first time during the later part of the George W. Bush administration as his (and the
wars') approval ratings sank, and they now seem to have more or less stabilized. An
increasingly loud progressive coalition of activists and advocates continues to push for ideas
like single-payer healthcare, often dismissed as radical despite both being an international
norm and the
explicit goal of many mainstream Democratic politicians before neoliberalism's rise. The
Democratic party establishment, on the contrary, is largely fine holding on to ideological
territory that is, in certain areas, to the right of where it was several decades ago.
With the establishment of both major political parties accepting neoliberal ideology, it
became default wisdom among economic, political, and media elites. Because the most powerful
class of America accepted it as fact, it was instilled into the American consciousness as
"common sense" that can't be seriously challenged. Ideas in direct opposition to neoliberalism
were largely marginalized, and as a result, much of our modern debate now takes place within
its bounds. Today, though, this marginalization is rapidly disappearing.
Today, we are witnessing the collapse of neoliberalism's "common sense" status. Republican
elites took neoliberalism being one of their root organizing principles for granted while
running campaigns using dog-whistle racism, never realizing that they were attracting a base of
voters who hated immigrants a lot more than they hated regulation. The Republicans have drifted
so far to the right that unabashed nationalists like Trump can now take the lead of the party,
even as he espouses racist xenophobia-inspired protectionism that are in conflict with the
neoliberal ideals of the party's business wing.
Even during their neoliberalization, the Democrats always had a left-wing occupied by social
democrats. Today they largely occupy the Congressional Progressive Caucus. They were empowered
by both opposition to the Iraq War late in the Bush era and the subsequent economic crash that
occurred as a result of neoliberal deregulation of the finance sector. Obama ran as a
semi-progressive but governed as a standard Democrat, leaving progressive disappointment and
frustration to rise to the surface again once a primary was held to determine who would be the
Democratic candidate after Obama: thus, the Bernie phenomenon.
Globalism &
Neoliberalism
It seems as though the extinction of neoliberalism is embedded in the formula of
neoliberalism itself.
Neoliberalism and accompanying globalization have resulted in inequality and poverty for
significant portions of the population, leaving many people economically impoverished and
politically alienated. This prompts an inevitable political reaction, angry and populist in
nature. The center-left (ex. Hillary Clinton) and center-right (ex. Jeb Bush) sing the praises
of neoliberal globalization, while the left (ex. Bernie Sanders) vigorously attacks the
"neoliberal" part of it, and the far-right (ex. Donald Trump) vigorously attack the
"globalization" part of it. Today, progressives dislike neoliberalism, but also believe that
the far-right's disdain for all forms of globalization is a distraction and misidentification
of the root issue, using foreigners and people of color as scapegoats.
The problem is not globalization, but globalization implemented in such a way so as to benefit
the wealthy and powerful.
Neoliberalism is a powerful ideology and way of looking at the world. The neoliberal views
most government involvement in the economy as harmful, and seeks to leave social problems to be
solved by private enterprise and markets whenever possible. This is an idea that, over the last
several decades, has become widely accepted to varying degrees by people across the political
spectrum, and as such has been embedded into modern government and public policy.
A number of other industrialized countries have undergone neoliberalization on roughly the
same time frame as the US, and are now experiencing similar backlashes: the U.K.,
neoliberalized under Margaret Thatcher and others, now has UKIP on its right and Jeremy Corbyn
and social democratic Scottish nationalists on its left. France has witnessed the rise of not
only the National Front on its far-right, but also the rise of populist socialists like
Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Germany has the AfD and Pegida on its right and Die Linke on its
left. New Zealand has New Zealand First. Sweden has the Sweden Democrats. Spain has Podemos.
Additionally, backlash against "Washington Consensus" neoliberalism in Latin America
contributed to a revitalization of left-populism in many countries. Though there are some
nations that have experienced some form of neoliberalism without such political effects, a
definite connection between neoliberalism and the emergence of anti-neoliberal populism
certainly seems to exist.
"... US national politics is gang warfare. The Crips vs. the Bloods. Two criminal enterprises with roughly the same aims and tactics, fighting for turf. With minor differences of style. Trump upsets the leadership of the Bloods in 2016, but it turns out that, outrageous as he is, he is good for business, so all the Bloods but the wimps with a weak stomach fall in behind him. ..."
"... But let's just suppose that the old Crips are not quite as pathetic as they look. Let's imagine that they actually learned something in 2016. It was supposed to be easy for them in 2016, and they were surprised. So they have had four years to hone their election-stealing skills. And most of the traditional election stealing organizations in this country seem largely to hate Trump. ..."
"... So let's posit that the FBI & CIA, or whoever it is manages to prop up Biden, and succeed in stealing the election for him. Who would object to that? ..."
"... Not two gangs but one Deep State political mafia with two families running a protection racket (MIC), prostitution (media propaganda, psyops), drugs (industry incentives), and gambling (overseas adventurism) ..."
The setup: US national politics is gang warfare. The Crips vs. the Bloods. Two criminal
enterprises with roughly the same aims and tactics, fighting for turf. With minor differences
of style. Trump upsets the leadership of the Bloods in 2016, but it turns out that,
outrageous as he is, he is good for business, so all the Bloods but the wimps with a weak
stomach fall in behind him.
The Crips are bloated and in decline. A bunch of naïve, starry eyed nobodies mount a
campaign to take the Crips legit. The old Crips are irritated that they have to take time out
from grifting so as to squash the upstart pests.
That is where I see us today. But let's just suppose that the old Crips are not quite as
pathetic as they look. Let's imagine that they actually learned something in 2016. It was
supposed to be easy for them in 2016, and they were surprised. So they have had four years to
hone their election-stealing skills. And most of the traditional election stealing
organizations in this country seem largely to hate Trump.
So let's posit that the FBI & CIA, or whoever it is manages to prop up Biden, and
succeed in stealing the election for him. Who would object to that?
Yes, exactly – all the Trump die-hards, and 'tribal' gang bangers would object. It
could get really nasty.
And so far, I have not seen any evidence that any of the characters that would be willing
to play such a gambit have any inclination to give a shit for the consequences for us little
people.
Not two gangs but one Deep State political mafia with two families running a protection
racket (MIC), prostitution (media propaganda, psyops), drugs (industry incentives), and
gambling (overseas adventurism)...
The Tammany Society emerged as the center for Democratic-Republican Party politics in
the city in the early 19th century. After 1854, the Society expanded its political control
even further by earning the loyalty of the city's rapidly expanding immigrant community,
which functioned as its base of political capital. The business community appreciated its
readiness, at moderate cost, to cut through red tape and legislative mazes to facilitate
rapid economic growth... Tammany Hall also served as an engine for graft and political
corruption, perhaps most infamously under William M. "Boss" Tweed in the mid-19th
century....
[Tweed's biographer wrote:]
It's hard not to admire the skill behind Tweed's system ... The Tweed ring at its
height was an engineering marvel, strong and solid, strategically deployed to control key
power points: the courts, the legislature, the treasury and the ballot box. Its frauds
had a grandeur of scale and an elegance of structure: money-laundering, profit sharing
and organization.
trailertrash @6 --- Americans have been railroaded into endless squabbling about voting and
democracy instead of demanding good governance. How does choosing between two similarly
corrupt parties deliver good governance?
Voting in the lesser evil is still choosing evil.
What does it profit a nation to have voting every 4 years when excrement covers her
sidewalks? and vets suicide themselves daily? and soldiers get raped daily by fellow
soldiers?
"... The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is not billing patients for coronavirus testing, according to Business Insider . "But there are other charges you might have to pay, depending on your insurance plan, or lack thereof," Business Insider noted. "A hospital stay in itself could be costly and you would likely have to pay for tests for other viruses or conditions." ..."
"... Congress needs to immediately pass a bill appropriating funding to cover 100% of the cost of all coronavirus testing & care within the United States. We will not have a chance at containing it otherwise. @tedlieu - as my rep, can you please ensure this is brought up? ..."
"... In the case of the Wucinskis, Kliff reported that "the ambulance company that transported [them] charged the family $2,598 for taking them to the hospital." ..."
"... Last week, the Miami Herald reported that Osmel Martinez Azcue "received a notice from his insurance company about a claim for $3,270" after he visited a local hospital fearing that he contracted coronavirus during a work trip to China. ..."
"... Did anyone expect the unconscionable greed of capitalism to cease when a public health crisis emerges? This is just testing for the virus, wait until a vaccine has been developed so expensive that the majority of the US populace can not afford it at all and people are dropping like flies. Wall Street, never-the-less, will continue to have its heydays ..."
"... The very idea that the defense and "Homeland" security budgets are bloated and additional funding approved year after year but the citizens of this country are not afforded 100% health coverage In a time of global health crisis that could become a pandemic. ..."
"Huge surprise medical bills [are] going to make sure people with symptoms don't get tested. That is bad for everyone." by
Jake Johnson, staff writer Public health
advocates, experts, and others are demanding that the federal government cover coronavirus testing and all related costs after several
reports detailed how Americans in recent weeks have been saddled with exorbitant bills following medical evaluations.
Sarah Kliff of the New York Times
reported Saturday
that Pennsylvania native Frank Wucinski "found a pile of medical bills" totaling $3,918 waiting for him and his three-year-old daughter
after they were released from government-mandated quarantine at Marine Corps Air Station in Miramar, California.
"My question is why are we being charged for these stays, if they were mandatory and we had no choice in the matter?" asked Wucinski,
who was evacuated by the U.S. government last month from Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak.
"I assumed it was all being paid for," Wucinski told the Times . "We didn't have a choice. When the bills showed up, it was just
a pit in my stomach, like, 'How do I pay for this?'"
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is not billing patients for coronavirus testing,
according
to Business Insider . "But there are other charges you might have to pay, depending on your insurance plan, or lack thereof,"
Business Insider noted. "A hospital stay in itself could be costly and you would likely have to pay for tests for other viruses or
conditions."
Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University, told the Times that
"the most important rule of public health is to gain the cooperation of the population."
"There are legal, moral, and public health reasons not to charge the patients,"
Gostin said.
Congress needs to immediately pass a bill appropriating funding to cover 100% of the cost of all coronavirus testing & care
within the United States. We will not have a chance at containing it otherwise.
@tedlieu - as my rep, can you please ensure this
is brought up?
In the case of the Wucinskis, Kliff reported that "the ambulance company that transported [them] charged the family $2,598
for taking them to the hospital."
"An additional $90 in charges came from radiologists who read the patients' X-ray scans and do not work for the hospital," Kliff
noted.
The CDC declined to respond when Kliff asked whether the federal government would cover the costs for patients like the Wucinskis.
The Intercept 's Robert Mackey
wrote
last Friday that the Wucinskis' situation spotlights "how the American government's response to a public health emergency, like trying
to contain a potential coronavirus epidemic, could be handicapped by relying on a system built around private hospitals and for-profit
health insurance providers."
We should be doing everything we can to encourage people with
#COVIDー19 symptoms to come forward.
Huge surprise medical bills is going to make sure people with symptoms don't get tested. That is bad for everyone, regardless
of if you are insured. https://t.co/KOUKTSFVzD
Play this tape to the end and you find people not going to the hospital even if they're really sick. The federal government
needs to announce that they'll pay for all of these bills https://t.co/HfyBFBXhja
Last week, the Miami Herald reported
that Osmel Martinez Azcue "received a notice from his insurance company about a claim for $3,270" after he visited a local hospital
fearing that he contracted coronavirus during a work trip to China.
"He went to Jackson Memorial Hospital, where he said he was placed in a closed-off room," according to the Herald . "Nurses
in protective white suits sprayed some kind of disinfectant smoke under the door before entering, Azcue said. Then hospital staff
members told him he'd need a CT scan to screen for coronavirus, but Azcue said he asked for a flu test first."
Azcue tested positive for the flu and was discharged. "Azcue's experience shows the potential cost of testing for a disease
that epidemiologists fear may develop into a public health crisis in the U.S.," the Herald noted.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, highlighted Azcue's case in a tweet last Friday.
"The coronavirus reminds us that we are all in this together," Sanders wrote. "We cannot allow Americans to skip doctor's visits
over outrageous bills. Everyone should get the medical care they need without opening their wallet -- as a matter of justice and
public health."
Last week, as Common Dreams
reported , Sanders argued that the coronavirus outbreak demonstrates the urgent need for Medicare for All.
The coronavirus reminds us that we are all in this together. We cannot allow Americans to skip doctor's visits over outrageous
bills.
Everyone should get the medical care they need without opening their wallet -- as a matter of justice and public health.
https://t.co/c4WQMDESHU
The number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the U.S.
surged by more than two
dozen over the weekend, bringing the total to 89 as the Trump administration continues to
publicly downplay the severity of the outbreak.
Dr. Matt McCarthy, a staff physician at NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital,
said
in an appearance on CNBC 's "Squawk Box" Monday morning that testing for the coronavirus is still not widely available.
"Before I came here this morning, I was in the emergency room seeing patients," McCarthy said. "I still do not have a rapid
diagnostic test available to me."
"I'm here to tell you, right now, at one of the busiest hospitals in the country, I don't have it at my finger tips," added
McCarthy. "I still have to make my case, plead to test people. This is not good. We know that there are 88 cases in the United
States. There are going to be hundreds by middle of week. There's going to be thousands by next week. And this is a testing issue."
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Did anyone expect the unconscionable greed of capitalism to cease when a public health crisis emerges? This is just testing
for the virus, wait until a vaccine has been developed so expensive that the majority of the US populace can not afford it at
all and people are dropping like flies. Wall Street, never-the-less, will continue to have its heydays
A wall street bank or private predator may own your emergency room. A surprise bill may await your emergency treatment above
insurance payments or in some instances all of the bill.
An effort was made recently in congress to stop surprise billings but enough dems joined repubs to kill it. More important
to keep campaign dollars flowing than keep people alive.
fernSmerl 12h I know emergency rooms are being purchased by organizations like Tenet (because they are some of
the most expensive levels of care) and M.D.s provided by large agencies. I'm not as up on this as I should be but a friend of
mine tells me that some of this is illegal. I have received bills that were later discharged by challenge. This is worth investigating
further. Atlasoldie 11h Hmmmm A virus that
overwhelmingly kills the elderly and/or those with pre-exisitng conditions.
Sounds like a medical insurance companies wet dream. As well as .gov social security/medicare wet dream.
The very idea that the defense and "Homeland" security budgets are bloated and additional funding approved year after year
but the citizens of this country are not afforded 100% health coverage In a time of global health crisis that could become a pandemic.
And as has been stated, the unconscionable idea suggested that a possible vaccine (a long way away or perhaps not developed at
all) might not be affordable to the workers who pay the taxes that fund the government? That's insane.
Another example of "American Exceptionalism." China doesn't charge its coronavirus patients, neither does South Korea. I guess
they are simply backward countries.
I own my own home after years of hard work paying it off. It's the only thing of value, besides my old truck, that I have.
If I get the virus, I will stay home and try to treat it the best I can. I can't afford to go to the hospital and pay thousands in
medical bills, with the chance that they'll come after my possessions. America, the land of the _______. Fill in the blank. (Hint:
it's no longer free).
There are other ways to protect your home. Homesteading or living trust. I'm not good at this but I know there are ways to
do it. Hopefully, it would never come to that but outcomes are not certain even with treatment in this case.
As someone
who lost a mother at 5 years old I can sympathize with your grief in losing a daughter-in-law and especially seeing her four children
orphaned. However, I think you miss the point here: This is about we becoming a society invested in each others welfare and not a
company town that commodifies everything including the health and well being of us all.
As a revision it is better but flawed. It is a cost containment bill based on the same research as the republican plan with global
budgets and block grants.
Edited: I encourage you to read this: -ttps://www.rand.org/blog/2018/10/misconceptions-about-medicare-for-all.html Giovanna-Lepore10h oldie:
Part D
Higher education is not free but they do need to become free for the students and payed by us as a society.
Part D is a scam, a Republican scam also supported by corporate democrats because of its profit motive and its privatization
Medicare only covers 80% and does not cover eye and dental care and older folks especially need these services. Medicaid helps but there are limits and one cannot necessarily use it where one needs to go.
Expanded, Improved Medicare For All is a vast improvement. because it covers everyone in one big pool and, therefore, much more dignified
than the rob Paul to pay peter system we have.
Social Security too can be improved. Why should it simply be based on the income of the person which means that a person working
in a low paying job in a capitalist system gone wild with greed will often work until they die.
Pell grants can be eliminated when we have what the French have: publicly supported education for everyone.
The demise of unions certainly did not help but it was part of the long strategy of the Right to privatize everything to the enrichment
of the few.
The overall competence that Canada is handling this outbreak, compared to the USA, is stark. First world (Canada) versus third-world
(USA). Testing is practically available for free, to any suspect person, sick or not, as Toronto alone can run 1000 tests a day and
have results in 4 hours. That is far more than all the US's capacity for 330 million people.
I wonder how long before Canada closes its borders to USAns? Me and my wife (both in a vulnerable age/medical group) should seriously
consider fleeing to my brother's place in Toronto as the first announced cases in Pittsburgh are probably only days away. What about
our poor cat though? We could try to smuggle her across the border, but she is a loud and talkative kitty
Don't want to discourage anyone from any protective measures – but the
"low down" from my veggie store today was that a lot of health professionals
shop there and they think it's being hyped by media. Did get this from my NJ Sen. Menendez –
Center for Disease and Control and Prevention (CDC)
There is currently no vaccine to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The best way to prevent illness is to avoid being
exposed to this virus. However, everyday preventive actions can help prevent the spread of respiratory diseases:
Wash your hands often
Avoid close contact with people who are sick.
Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth.
Stay home when you are sick.
Cover your cough or sneeze with a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash.
For more information : htps://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/prevention-treatment.html
How it spreads : The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person. It may be possible that a person can get
COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their
eyes, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads. [Read more.] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/transmission.html )
Symptoms : For confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, reported illnesses have ranged from mild symptoms to
severe illness and death. Symptoms can include fever, cough, and shortness of breath.
Don't want to discourage anyone from any protective measures – but the
"low down" from my veggie store today was that a lot of health professionals
shop there and they think it's being hyped by media.
I agree it is being hyped by the media to the point of being fear mongering. At the same time it is being ignored by the administration to such an extent that really little almost nothing is being done. At some point the two together will create an even bigger problem.
It is like the old adage: "Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you." Each over/under reach in considering the reality of the situation has its own problem, which multiply when combined. Every morning when I wake up I say a little atheistic prayer to myself before I get out of bed: "Another day and for better or
worse...".
Well, two reported here in Florida tonight. One in my county, one in the county next door. And more of the "we already knew, but told you late". One person checked into the hospital on Wednesday. We hear it Monday night.
Both were ignored far a long time it seems, and 84 in particular are being watched (roommates, friends, hospital workers not alerted
for several days, the usual). But no one knows every place they had been since becoming infected.
Oh, and they have tested a handful of people. No worry?
I can't see anyway that this level of incompetency is an accident. Spring break is just starting usually a 100's of thousand tourist
bonanza.
So the question is do they want to kill us, or just keep us in fear?
I think the later. But the end result is a crap shoot. So once again, it is a gamble with our lives.
The business of America is business. Sometimes that can go too far and this is one of those times. Making money from the loss,
distress, harm and suffering of others is perverse beyond belief.
re ... Your house foreclosed upon by shady bank: naked capitalism, .0001% paid on interest
savings: naked capitalism, poor wages: naked capitalism, dangerous workplace: naked
capitalism, etc. ...
"naked capitalism" is not a clear description. Consider using "predatory capitalism",
which clearly describes what it is.
Here's the Wiki dictionary definition:
Predatory--
1. relating to or denoting an animal or animals preying naturally on others.
synonyms: predacious, carnivorous, hunting, raptorial, ravening;
Example: "predatory birds".
2. seeking to exploit or oppress others.
synonyms: exploitative, wolfish, rapacious, greedy, acquisitive, avaricious
Example: "I could see a predatory gleam in his eyes"
Note where the word comes from:
The Latin "praedator", in English meaning "plunderer".
And "plunderer" helps the reader understand and perhaps recognize what is happening.
It is an illusion to talk of "the Left" and "the Right" anymore, because the USA have become
outright criminal: A Mafia-system ruled by some syndicates.
Think of this enormous sum of 23 (I believe) trillion Dollars missing in the Pentagon. And
the House even decided to not research where this money went! To this see
https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1407-mark-skidmore-on-the-pentagons-missing-trillions/
Or think of the Ukraine and Joe and Hunter Biden (and other corrupt persons from the EU).
Author Bill Martin mentions this above with :"dirty business in Ukraine".
But its not only about corruption. Now it's also about a murder-attempt -- as every Mafia
would never hesitate to execute. And Western media doesn't report this.
This has happened: Because of Joe Biden's quid-pro-quo demand to former Ukrainian
president Poroshenko (no billions of Dollars from the US, if Shokin was not fired) state
prosecutor Shokin was then fired. But some months ago there had now also been a poison-attack
on Shokin.
And now Shokin goes after Joe Biden -- and he must, if he wants to survive!: To this on
the site https://youtube.com/channel/UCdeMVChrumySxV9N1w0Au-w
There click the video "JOE BIDEN, UKRAINE AND VIKTOR SHOKIN MERCURY POISONING".
Savorywill Yes, I agree completely (though I would have to study the materials more
carefully to fully understand it all). It is mentioned that one accomplishment of Trump was his
take-down of the Bush dynasty for the lies spun justifying the Iraq war. It was in S. Caroline
that Trump did this, in a debate of Republican candidates at the start of the election campaign
in 2016. I knew nothing about Trump at the time, having lived in Japan and Australia for many
years, never saw the Apprentice or even heard of him. So, when he started snipping at Jeb
saying that Jeb's brother George, led America in the biggest mistake in US history by starting
the war on Iraq, and the audience started booing, to which Trump replied, 'oh, those are just
paid for lobbyists – I don't need them as my campaign is self-funded', it was absolutely
astonishing and I could hardly believe my ears, or eyes. Yet, there it was on TV, one of the
first debates of the Republican party for their candidate. I then saw that Trump was, indeed,
something very different from what we had ever seen in American politics.
I was rapt when he defeated Hillary, and completely surprised as it was so unexpected. It
did give me faith in America again, to some degree. Here is the woman who orchestrated the
criminal destruction of Libya, and then laughed about the horrific murder of Gaddafi, who was
only trying to provide a decent society for Libyan citizens and deal with the madness of the
forces around him. What happened to him, and to Libya, was just so heartbreaking, and she
thought it was a big joke and tried to do the same in Syria. So, I was thrilled when she got
beaten. Not that everything Trump has done since then has met with my approval, but he seems to
be winding down the wars as he promised and I don't mind listening to his speeches at the
rallies, which I sometimes do watch. I particularly like when he went to a farming area in
California and signed a bill enabling local farmers to access water, something they were unable
to do because of various regulations. I never heard of any other presidents so hands-on with
their involvement with such things and I thought his speech in India, recently, was incredible.
I couldn't stand listening to Hillary for any more than a few minutes. Even Obama never really
rang true to me. He would say things like 'change we can believe in', or 'hope for more hope',
vague platitudes like that that didn't really have many specifics. I can understand Clint
Eastwood's speech talking to the empty chair (representing Obama) at the Republican convention
in 2012, actually. Obama seems like a media projection, or something. Hard to identify or see
him as an actual person.
sharon marlowe ,
"Not that everything Trump has done since then has met with my approval, but he seems to be
winding down the wars as he promised"
What is "winding down the wars"? Do mean that you stopped paying attention?
Savorywill ,
Seems like they are winding down, don't you think? Just today I read the the Taliban just
signed an agreement to that effect, to finally finish that war going on for nearly 20 years,
no closer to success since the start. The US is not overtly involved in the Syrian conflict
as well as it seems to be trying to get out of Iraq.
Had Hillary won, she would have gone full bore into Syria and probably would have made
matters much, much worse. She is a thorough warmonger, her track record clearly demonstrated
that.
sharon marlowe ,
First, an attempted assassination-by-drone on President Maduro of Venezuela happened. Then
Trump dropped the largest conventional bomb on Afghanistan, with a mile-wide radius. Then
Trump named Juan Guido as the new President of Venezuela in an overt coup. Then he bombed
Syria over a fake chemical weapons claim. He bombed it before even an investigation was
launched. Then the Trump regime orchestrated a military coup in Bolivia. Then he claimed that
he was pulling out of Syria, but instead sent U.S. troops to take over Syrian oil fields.
trump then assassinated Gen. Solemeni. Then he claimed that he will leave Iraq at the request
of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi government asked the U.S. to leave, and Trump rejected the
request. The Trump regime has tried orchestrating a coup in Iran, and a coup in Hong Kong. He
expelled Russian diplomats en masse for the Skripal incident in England, before an
investigation. He has sanctioned Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and Venezuela. He has
bombed Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Those are the things I'm
aware of, but what else Trump has done in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America you
can research if you wish. And now, the claim of leaving Afghanistan is as ridiculous as when
he claimed to be leaving Syria and Iraq.
"winding down the wars" makes no sense.
Antonym ,
Trump just signed a peace pact with the Taliban. As they are basically CIA -ISI irregulars he
got the green light from Langley.
He needs this gesture for his re-election campaign.
Savorywill ,
Yes, what you say is right. However, he did warn both the Syrian and Russian military of the
attack in the first instance, so no casualties, and in the second attack, he announced that
the missiles had been launched before they hit the target, again resulting in no casualties.
When the US drone was shot down by an Iranian missile, he considered retaliation. But, when
advised of likely casualties, he called it off saying that human lives are more valuable than
the cost of the drone. Yes, he did authorize the assassination of the Iranian general, and
that was very bad. His claims that the general had organized the placement of roadside bombs
that had killed US soldiers rings rather hollow, considering those shouldn't have been in
Iraq in the first place.
I am definitely not stating that he is perfect and doesn't do objectionable things. And he
has authorized US forces to control the oil wells, which is against international law, but at
least US soldiers are not actively engaged in fighting the Syrian government, something
Hillary set in motion. However, the military does comprise a huge percentage of the US
economy and there have to be reasons, and enemies, to justify its existence, so his situation
as president must be very difficult, not a job I would want, that is for sure.
There were at least nine people killed when Trump bombed Douma.
Only a psychopath would kill people because one of its spy drones was shot down. You don't
get points for considering killing people for it and then changing your mind.
People should get over Hillary and pay attention to what Trump has been doing. Why even
mention what Hillary would have done in Syria, then proceed to be an apologist for what Trump
has done around the world in just three years? Trump has been quite a prolific imperialist in
such a short time. A second term could well put him above Bush and Obama as the 21st
century's most horrible leaders on earth.
Dungroanin ,
Sharon,
Who has done the shit under the Trump Regime (lol Regime! You lot)
Trump – not.
Regime – yes.
Dungroanin ,
Sharon,
Magically? No.
Factually yes.
If you think that the potus is the omnipotent ruler of everything he certainly seems to be
having some problems with his minions in the CIA, NSA, FBI..State Dept etc.
The potus is best described (by Assad actually) as a CEO of a board of directors appointed
by the shareholders who collectively determine their OWN interests.
Your gaslighting ain't succeeding round here – Regime! So desperate, so so sad
🤣
sharon marlowe ,
Are you seven years old? There's no such thing as omnipotent rulers. I said Trump was the
leader of the U.S. regime. That's how it's said in the real world;)
Dungroanin ,
Right – and the regime of which he is the leader of has been trying to usurp him from
day one, correct?
So in your world view Trump has been trying to overthrow himself?
That all the Russiagate, Ukrainegate – coupgates in short are all Trump doing it to
himself!!!
Who is being childish by conflating all of that?
Koba ,
He's sent more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan he strayed several coups in Latin America and
was game for taking on the dprk until they got nukes and wants to bomb Iran! Winding down?!
Dungroanin ,
Yeah yeah and 'he' gave Maduro 7 days to let their kid takeover in Venezuela! And built a
wall. And got rid of obamacare and started a nuke war with Rocketman and and and
Dungroanin ,
Savory,
In 2016 Trumps role (whether he fully realised it or not) was to get rid of all the
existing Republican candidates that may have stopped Hillary getting her crown.
He and the Clinton family were old friends in NY and he played golf with Bill
regularly.
What you haven't identified in what you saw in 2016 is the choreographed pantomime
villainy of The Donald during the debates with Hillary.
It was designed for him to lose appeal and keep GOP voters at home.
The reason Hillary lost :
The stitch up of Bernie and his supporters as revealed by the DNC email leaks which kept
them from voting for her;
Her failure to campaign effectively being a cold hearted murdering bitch that couldn't
empathise with a kitten;
A load of ordinary poorish Americans who got a bit pissed at being labelled 'deplorable'
by her.
Simple as that.
Donald was as suprised as anyone to have actually won that night – he had to go chat
to the Clintons and say "what the fuck am I supposed to do now? I have a whole load of
Apprentice episodes lined up to film, and Hotels & Golf courses to build!"
Obviously he couldn't say it must be a mistake and his friends the Clintons should be
allowed back into the White House as planned – that wouldn't have washed – so he
ended up in the Oval Office.
As potus he would have to make decisions which no one including the Clintons could force
him to do anything HE ultimately didn't want to do. No matter how many of the stooges imposed
upon him tried to get away with murder.
He quickly realised there was some nasty goings on that he was supposed to rubberstamp and
he rebelled against it at his inauguration speech which gave the establishment a slap across
the face as Pres George W Bush quipped to his dad PresGeorge Bush
"That was some weird shit"
And all else followed the yellow brick road to right here, right now.
Good innit?
Antonym ,
The Left has fallen into reactionary insanity
The other main proof for the above: they support Islamism just because the "alt-right"
opposes it.
Islamism kicks all the Left's causes in the teeth: equality only for Muslims, as all the
others are despicable kaffirs; misogyny to the power of 2; LGTB rights below zero; nothing
against shark capitalism in the Koran.
The Iranian Left was massacred in 1988 by
the Iranian Islamists.
Dungroanin ,
Antzy the Bush's from Grandaddy Prescot to the CIA JFK killers and Pres George Senior to Pres
Dubya to all current scions are bestties with the most extreme form of islamists in hostory
the Wahhabists who enable the Saudis to control Saudi Arabia and it's wealth – they
have even been referred to as the most Likudist state outside of Israel by Nuttyyahoo!
So there.
Koba ,
The Jew defender has spoken! Show me this support for Islamism! Im yet to find even a
mainstream or fringe left wing party support that at all! Good goy a shekel has been
deposited into your account
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot
for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his
narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars.
Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business.
Trump is not an asset.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Okay, I'll admit that he is a Russian Federation asset in so far as he is Putin's &
Russian Federation Intelligence asset fodder that Putin can utilize at will whenever he
desires but aside from being the biggest dumb arse in the Western Empire he is really an
ignorant ignoramus when you drill right down to it.
I support the USA Deep State conspiracy to rid the good people of the United States of
America of the Orange Oaf conundrum. The global business community would rather restore
business fundamentals IMHO.
As MOU my perspective is absolute, sorry.
Like Josef Stalin I too have a reputation to uphold.
MOU
Joerg ,
It is an illusion to talk of "the Left" and "the Right" anymore, because the USA have become
outright criminal: A Mafia-system ruled by some syndicates.
Think of this enormous sum of 23 (I believe) trillion Dollars missing in the Pentagon. And
the House even decided to not research where this money went! To this see
https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1407-mark-skidmore-on-the-pentagons-missing-trillions/
Or think of the Ukraine and Joe and Hunter Biden (and other corrupt persons from the EU).
Author Bill Martin mentions this above with :"dirty business in Ukraine".
But its not only about corruption. Now it's also about a murder-attempt – as every
Mafia would never hesitate to execute. And Western media doesn't report this.
This has happened: Because of Joe Biden's quid-pro-quo demand to former Ukrainian president
Poroshenko (no billions of Dollars from the US, if Shokin was not fired) state prosecutor
Shokin was then fired. But some months ago there had now also been a poison-attack on Shokin.
And now Shokin goes after Joe Biden – and he must, if he wants to survive!: To this on
the site https://youtube.com/channel/UCdeMVChrumySxV9N1w0Au-w
There click the video "JOE BIDEN, UKRAINE AND VIKTOR SHOKIN MERCURY POISONING".
paul ,
Trump, Sanders and Corbyn were all in their own way agents of creative destruction.
Trump tapped into the popular discontent of millions of Americans who realised that the
system no longer even pretended to work in their interests, and were not prepared to be
diverted down the Identity Politics Rabbit Hole.
The Deep State was outraged that he had disrupted their programme by stealing Clinton's seat
in the game of Musical Chairs. Being the most corrupt, dishonest and mendacious political
candidate in all US history (despite some pretty stiff opposition) was supposed to be
outweighed by her having a vagina. The Deplorables failed to sign up for the programme.
Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were,
lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to
the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from
behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid
criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the
world to see. This cannot be undone.
For all his pandering to Adelson and the Zionist Mafia, for all his Gives to Netanyahu, Trump
has failed to deliver on the Big Ticket Items. Syria was supposed to have been invaded by
now, with Hillary cackling demonically over Assad's death as she did over Gaddafi, and
rapidly moving on to the main event with Iran. They will not forgive him for this. They
realise they are under severe time pressure. It took them a century to gain their
stranglehold over America, and this is a wasting asset. America is in terminal decline, and
may soon be unable to fulfil its ordained role as dumb goy muscle serving Zionist interests.
And the parasite will find it difficult to find a replacement host.
paul ,
Sanders was shafted in 2016 by the corrupt DNC machine, and he is being shafted again.
He will probably be sidelined in favour of some third rate hack like Buttplug, or some other
synthetic, manufactured nonentity.
If he isn't, and by some miracle does secure the nomination, they will fail to support him
and just allow him to be defeated by Trump. It doesn't matter.
There are millions of decent people who have long been persuaded to play the game of Lesser
Evils. They will be as disenchanted as was Trump's Base by a transparently corrupt, rigged
system, and finally withdraw their support.
This has to be seen as a positive development.
They can no longer paper over the cracks.
paul ,
Likewise, there are more than a few crumbs of comfort to be drawn from the smearing and
destruction of Corbyn.
As in America, it forced the Deep State to step out from behind the curtain and take direct
control. The Zionist wire pullers had to step out into the spotlight and reveal the true
extent of their domination.
The endless treachery and backstabbing of the Blairites have shown the Labour Party to be a
lost cause, a dead end, a waste of time, effort and energy, and a waste of a man's rations,
making way for something more worthwhile. This is another positive development.
Koba ,
Paul the people playing the lesser of two evils game aren't good people. They pretend they
are. That's it. In a nutshell.
Dungroanin ,
Well Bill you make great points especially around the Impeachment minutiae – Eric the
Schiffleur, Paul, a genuine legal expert, Schiffs shape changing and snakeeyed mesmerising ,
the levitation of Bolton into a Saviour? Holly shit!! Yanks eat some nasty foods no wonder
there is great obesity (gratuitous I know).
BUT Bill, you will insist on working the old long con – the Left/Right imaginary one
dimensional divide.
WHY?
There is only a 3-D Top-Bottom construct in the world in a roughly Pyramidal 'con' shape
which shifts its peaks and size in time (4D).
It is the super rich oligarch owning Pathocracy in the hidden heights and their visible
representative Kings and plutocrats at the top and their circles of diminishing powers and
affluence down to the majority of humans below – kept in the dirt and slavery through
indenture where they can't by shear violence of slave masters and dog soldiers.
There is only that top – bottom, squashed by bought priests and philosophers and
'economists' into first a 2-D triangle and then squashed into a 1-D line that people are told
is left and right. The great owners of everything having disappeared of that scale but
represented by their ciphers:-
Clintons / Obama are Left – Bush's / Trump are right.
Crap – they are just pawns in the top down 4D game trying to claw up the peaks
– no wonder Donald named his son Baron – it may be his way of giving the finger
to the glass ceiling he aims to shatter.
Bernie is a threat to that pyramid as Jeremy was here in the UK.
They had to stop Jeremy at any cost and the Judaeo-phobic smear was massive, added to the
terrorist smear in the 2017 election. Along with the he was both a Brexiteer and anti
Brexiteer smear and a Commie!
It was still not quite certain so the US openly interfered in rhe UK election with
Pompeo's Gauntlet to stop Corbyn – where the fuck is the concerned democratic purveyors
of the US on that election interference by the Sec of State and a pressure group upon a
another sovereign country ?
Where are the judges? The IG's ? The glitterati? The Intellectuals ?
YOU Bill?
They FIXED the postal ballots to make sure – even after making sure a unprecedented
winter, December, short daylight, prexmas date to minimise turnout.
Yes they did.
Sanders looks like he is going to get the gauntlet but being Jewish to start with –
it will be harder to throw the Judaeophobe mud at him – so the shit thrown is,
COMMUNIST ! It has already started, but to make sure the election will also be rigged,
whether via the delegates or by the 'hanging chard de nous jour'.
Only a massive turnout and careful independent international election inspectors would
ever get near that – though they didn't stop the Bolivian coup by the CIA did they?
Anyway Trump has a trump card he will play anyday soon – a NEW YALTA – which
will turn him into a giant statesman of the world stage and he'll stomp home for his second
term – for these above in the Pyramid better the devil they know and give Baron a
baronial peak of his own snd Donald his pound if flesh!
George Mc ,
Haven't you just agreed with him here?
He thinks the left died in the 1960s, over a half century ago. It's pretty simple to
identify a leftist: anti-imperialist/ anti-capitalist. The Democrats are imperialists.
People who vote for the Democrats and Republicans are imperialists. This article is a
confused mess, that's my whole point;)
If the Democrats and Republicans (and those who vote for them) are imperialists (which
they are) then the left are indeed dead – at least as far as political representation
goes. Although to be sure, that makes his point confused to say the least. He seems to be
attempting to drum up support for Sanders who, by his own logic, isn't going to make a damn
bit of difference (any more than Corbyn would have made had HE been elected in the UK).
George Mc ,
Truth be told, I usually tend to glaze over when I see articles about Trump's impeachment. Or
indeed articles about American politics in general. And I see the Corbyn fiasco as the
ultimate indication that UK politics is just another rigged show. The ultimate irony being,
as I've said, that Corbyn would not have made a difference even if elected anyway. The fact
that the media went so ruthlessly after him is an indication that even the appearance of
socialism is too much for them. But I feel that, in the spirit of "What else can we write
about?", we will continue to have articles on the minutiae of shenanigans between Boris and
Patel etc. It seems to me that the only hope we now have is from events outside the political
system which threaten to burst the charade apart.
George Mc ,
I think that if Corbyn had been elected, there would have been a severe limit as to what he
could have achieved. (While of course, the media would be going into meltdown about plans for
a new Auschwitz on the M1 etc.) However – I grant that the very election of such an
"extreme" figure would cause a similar meltdown behind the scenes as it would lead to the
deadliest thing of all: hope! It would have been a signal that an extensive part – even
the majority – of the British public were sick of this neoliberal cancer. Thus, while
the practical effect of a Corbyn victory would have been limited, the psychological effect
(the damage done to the showbiz façade) would have been profound.
sharon marlowe ,
"Truth be told, I usually tend to glaze over when I see articles about Trump's impeachment.
Or indeed articles about American politics in general."
lol So do I:)
It definitely irked me that such an article appeared here. It looked like a
U.S.-TV-political-pundit-monologue thing.
"... Is she effective? What has she done to make her a spy mastermind? She is obviously a torturer, but is that a qualification in any way useful to be a intelligence agency boss? ..."
"... The outcomes of incompetence and malicious intent are sometimes indistinguishable from one another. ..."
Is she effective? What has she done to make her a spy mastermind? She is obviously a
torturer, but is that a qualification in any way useful to be a intelligence agency boss?
I have the suspicion Haspel was elevated to their office by threatening "I know where all
the bodies are buried (literally) and if you don't make me boss, I will tell". Blackmail can
helping a career lots if successful.
The outcomes of incompetence and malicious intent are sometimes indistinguishable from one
another. With the people Trump has surrounded himself with, horrible, nasty outcomes are par
for the course because these guys are both incompetent and chock full of malicious intent.
Instead of draining the swamp, he's gone and filled it with psychotic sociopaths.
Even when critical of US actions, media commentary on recent US bombings and
assassinations in the Middle East is premised on the assumption that the US has the right
to use violence (or the threat of it) to assert its will, anytime, anywhere. Conversely,
corporate media coverage suggests that any countermeasure -- such as resistance to the US
presence in Iraq -- is inherently illegitimate, criminal and/or terroristic.
Iranian
puppeteers
One step in this dance is depicting US military forces in Iraq as innocent bystanders under
attack by sadistic Iranian puppetmasters. Media analysis of the US murder of Iranian Gen.
Qassem Soleimani consistently asserted that he was "an architect of international terrorism
responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans" ( New York Times , 1/3/20
) or "a terrorist with the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands" ( Washington
Post ,
1/7/20 ). According to Leon Panetta ( Washington Post ,
1/7/20 ), a former Defense secretary and CIA director,
The death of Soleimani should not be mourned, given his responsibility for the killing of
thousands of innocent people and hundreds of US military personnel over the years.
There is little evidence for this contention that Iran in general or Soleimani personally is
responsible for killing hundreds of Americans. When the State Department
claimed last April that Iran was responsible for the deaths of 608 American servicemembers
in Iraq between 2003 and 2011, investigative journalist Gareth Porter ( Truthout ,
7/9/19 ) asked Navy Commander Sean Robertson for evidence, and Robertson "acknowledged that
the Pentagon doesn't have any study, documentation or data to provide journalists that would
support such a figure."
Porter showed that the US attribution of deaths in Iraq to Iran is an unsubstantiated
government talking point from the Cheney era, one that was exposed at the time when Lt. Gen.
Ray Odierno admitted that, though the US had attributed Iraqi resistance fighters' weapons to
Iran, US troops found many sites in Iraq at which such weapons were being
manufactured.
Gareth Porter reported in Truthout (
7/9/19 ) that "the myth that Tehran is responsible for killing over 600 US troops in the
Iraq War is merely a new variant of a propaganda line that former Vice President Dick Cheney
used to attempt to justify a war against Iran more than a decade ago."
Scholar Stephen Zunes ( Progressive ,
1/7/20 ) similarly demonstrated the lack of evidence for the idea that Iran is behind the
killing of US forces in Iraq. Zunes noted that the National Intelligence
Estimate on Iraq , compiled by America's 16 intelligence agencies, downplayed Iran's role
in Iraq's violence at roughly the same time that the Bush administration was saying that Iran
was culpable.
As Porter pointed out, there was a much simpler explanation for American deaths in the
period: The US targeted Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Mahdi Army fought back, imposing
more casualties on US troops.
That the pundits dusted off 13-year-old propaganda to rationalize killing Soleimani is a
clear indication that they were desperately grasping for any imperialist apologia within reach.
If the American public is led to believe that Soleimani killed hundreds of Americans, large
swathes of it are likely to regard his assassination as justified, necessary, or at worst a
feature of the tit-for-tat ugliness inherent to war.
The narrative also ideologically shores up the US war on Iran in
the American popular consciousness by presenting Iranians as primordially violent savages out
to spill the blood of Americans, notably those in the military who are in the Middle East,
presumably doing nothing but minding their own business. Presenting Iran as the reason for
attacks on US forces in Iraq also implies that Iraqis had little objection to the US invasion,
legitimizing the US's ongoing military presence in the country. The most obvious point about
the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq is that they wouldn't happen if US soldiers weren't in
Iraq.
When violence isn't violence
Another media dance move is to condemn anti-imperial violence while naturalizing imperialist
violence. An editorial in the New York Times ( 1/3/20 ) said that
Soleimani
no doubt had a role in the campaign of provocations by Shiite militias against American
forces in Iraq that recently led to the death of an American defense contractor and a
retaliatory American airstrike against the militia responsible for the attack.
Having US troops in Iraq, a country in which the US is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of
thousands , is not a "provocation," in the Times ' perspective; opposition to their
presence is the provocation.
The December 27 attack
that killed the US contractor did not occur in a vacuum. In 2018, the US was suspected of
bombing affiliates of Kataib Hezbollah, the group the US blames for killing the contractor.
Israel is suspected of carrying out a string of deadly bombings of the Iraqi Popular
Mobilization Forces, of which Kataib Hezbollah is a key component, between July and September,
a scenario at which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hinted
.
The US reportedly confirmed
that Israel was behind at least one of the bombings, and said it supports Israel's actions
while denying direct participation. In any case, the US's
lavish military support for Israel means that the former is effectively a party to the
latter's bombing. Thus, the Kataib Hezbollah attack that killed the contractor can be seen as "
retaliatory ," which
complicates the notion that the subsequent US attack was as well.
Another Times editorial ( 1/4/20
) describes Soleimani as "one of the region's most powerful and, yes, blood-soaked military
commanders." At no point is Trump or any other US leader described as "blood-soaked" or
anything comparable -- here, or in any of the mainstream media coverage I can find -- even as
he and his predecessors are sopping with that of
Afghans ,
Iraqis ,
Libyans and
Syrians , to cite only a few recent cases. Evidently imperial violence is so righteous it
leaves no trace behind.
Stephen Hadley, national security adviser in the George W Bush administration, wrote in the
Washington Post (
1/5/20 ):
What is clear is that one of the PMFs, Kataib Hezbollah, has been behind the
escalating violence over the past
several months as part of a campaign (assuredly with Iranian approval) to force out US
troops. The campaign culminated in the December 31 attack on the
US Embassy in Baghdad. (The head of Kataib Hezbollah, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was
killed
with Soleimani.)
By expelling US forces, the Iraqi government would be falling into Kataib Hezbollah's trap:
rewarding the militia's violent campaign, strengthening the Iranian-backed PMFs, weakening the
Iraqi government and state sovereignty, and jeopardizing the fight against the Islamic
State.
Kataib Hezbollah's actions are called "violence" twice in these three sentences, with their
apex apparently being "the December 31 attack on the
US Embassy in Baghdad." Remarkably, the author makes no mention of the December 29 US
airstrikes on five sites in Iraq and Syria that the US says belong to Kataib Hezbollah,
bombings that reportedly killed 25 and injured 55 . Those, it
would seem, do not constitute "violence." Iraqis damaging the embassy of the country whose
economic sanctions killed half a million Iraqi
children is "violence," but the US's lethal air raids are not. And expelling foreign armies
weakens state sovereignty!
"No one in Baghdad was fooled" by anti-US protests in Iraq, which were "almost certainly
a Soleimani-staged operation to make it look as if Iraqis wanted America out," declared Thomas
Friedman ( New York Times ,
1/3/20 ). (In a 2016
poll , 93% of young Iraqis said that they perceived the US as an "enemy.")
Thomas Friedman's Times article (
1/3/20 ) on Soleimani's murder was bad even by Thomas Friedman standards. He dismissed the
protests at the US embassy:
The whole "protest" against the United States Embassy compound in Baghdad last week was
almost certainly a Soleimani-staged operation to make it look as if Iraqis wanted America out
when in fact it was the other way around. The protesters were paid pro-Iranian militiamen. No
one in Baghdad was fooled by this.
In a way, it's what got Soleimani killed. He so wanted to cover his failures in Iraq he
decided to start provoking the Americans there by shelling their forces, hoping they would
overreact, kill Iraqis and turn them against the United States. Trump, rather than taking the
bait, killed Soleimani instead.
That there were thousands of protesters at the US embassy and that the Iraqi security forces
stood aside to allow them to demonstrate suggests that what happened at the embassy cannot
be reduced to a hoax stage-managed and paid for by Iran. Furthermore, the US did kill Iraqis
two days before the protests, and that's what ignited them (to say nothing of the longer term
record of the US
devastating Iraq ). Like Hadley, however, Friedman pretends that the US's December 27
bombings didn't happen.
In the imperial imagination, the US has the right to violently pursue its objectives
wherever it wants, and any resistance is illegitimate.
And yet their are 'fact checkers' out out the pro-Iran /
anti-American media juggernaut, someone went to Tehran and reported on Soleimani's funeral,
gasp, she must be denounced as a useful idiot because that was staged. All events we don't
like are staged. Did Iran let people out of school or advertise the time and place of the
procession? Most likely but so was JFK's funeral. In any case, who actually bothered to
find out if the Iranians forced or paid people to attend Soleimani's funeral.
I do feel violated being subjected to Friedman's self-proclaimed expertise. He does not
feel any need to actually validate his statements other than to say, 'no one was fooled'
and voila it is so. Great work if you can get it. Reply
What's FAIR
FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias,
spin and misinformation. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater
diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest,
minority and dissenting viewpoints. We expose neglected news stories and defend working
journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, we believe that structural reform is
ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public
broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information. Contact Fairness
& Accuracy In Reporting
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001
It's not just a populist backlash – many economists who once swore by free trade have changed their minds, too. How had
they got it so wrong?
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email T he annual January gathering of the World Economic Forum in
Davos is usually a placid affair: a place for well-heeled
participants to exchange notes on global business opportunities, or powder conditions on the local ski slopes, while cradling champagne
and canapes. This January, the ultra-rich and the sparkling wine returned, but by all reports the mood was one of anxiety, defensiveness
and self-reproach.
The future of economic globalisation, for which the Davos men and women see themselves as caretakers, had been shaken by a series
of political earthquakes. "Globalisation" can mean many things, but what lay in particular doubt was the long-advanced project of
increasing free trade in goods across borders. The previous summer, Britain had voted to leave the largest trading bloc in the world.
In November, the unexpected victory of Donald Trump
, who vowed to withdraw from major trade deals, appeared to jeopardise the trading relationships of the world's richest country.
Forthcoming elections in France and Germany suddenly seemed to bear the possibility of anti-globalisation parties garnering better
results than ever before. The barbarians weren't at the gates to the ski-lifts yet – but they weren't very far.
In a panel titled Governing Globalisation , the economist
Dambisa Moyo , otherwise a well-known supporter of free trade, forthrightly asked the audience to accept that "there have been
significant losses" from globalisation. "It is not clear to me that we are going to be able to remedy them under the current infrastructure,"
she added. Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund,
called for a policy hitherto foreign to the World Economic Forum : "more redistribution". After years of hedging or discounting
the malign effects of free trade, it was time to face facts: globalisation caused job losses and depressed wages, and the usual Davos
proposals – such as instructing affected populations to accept the new reality – weren't going to work. Unless something changed,
the political consequences were likely to get worse.
The backlash to globalisation has helped fuel the extraordinary political shifts of the past 18 months. During the close race
to become the Democratic party candidate, senator Bernie Sanders relentlessly attacked Hillary Clinton on her
support for free trade . On the campaign trail, Donald Trump openly proposed tilting the terms of trade in favour of American
industry. "Americanism, not globalism, shall be our creed," he bellowed at the Republican national convention last July.
The vote for Brexit was strongest in the regions of the UK devastated by the flight of manufacturing. At Davos in January, British
prime minister Theresa May, the leader of the party of capital and inherited wealth, improbably picked up the theme, warning that,
for many, "talk of greater globalisation means their jobs being outsourced and wages undercut." Meanwhile,
the European far right has been warning against free movement of people as well as goods. Following her qualifying victory in
the first round of France's presidential election,
Marine Le Pen warned darkly that "the main thing at stake in this election is the rampant globalisation that is endangering our
civilisation."
It was only a few decades ago that globalisation was held by many, even by some critics, to be an inevitable, unstoppable force.
"Rejecting globalisation," the American journalist George Packer has written, "was like rejecting the sunrise."
Globalisation could take place in services, capital
and ideas, making it a notoriously imprecise term; but what it meant most often was making it cheaper to trade across borders – something
that seemed to many at the time to be an unquestionable good. In practice, this often meant that industry would move from rich countries,
where labour was expensive, to poor countries, where labour was cheaper. People in the rich countries would either have to accept
lower wages to compete, or lose their jobs. But no matter what, the goods they formerly produced would now be imported, and be even
cheaper. And the unemployed could get new, higher-skilled jobs (if they got the requisite training). Mainstream economists and politicians
upheld the consensus about the merits of globalisation, with little concern that there might be political consequences.
Back then, economists could calmly chalk up anti-globalisation sentiment to a marginal group of delusional protesters, or disgruntled
stragglers still toiling uselessly in "sunset industries". These days, as sizable constituencies have voted in country after country
for anti-free-trade policies, or candidates that promise to limit them, the old self-assurance is gone. Millions have rejected, with
uncertain results, the punishing logic that globalisation could not be stopped. The backlash has swelled a wave of soul-searching
among economists, one that had already begun to roll ashore with the financial crisis. How did they fail to foresee the repercussions?
I n the heyday of the globalisation consensus, few economists questioned its merits in public. But in 1997, the Harvard economist
Dani Rodrik published a
slim book that created a stir. Appearing just as the US was about to enter a historic economic boom, Rodrik's book, Has Globalization
Gone Too Far?, sounded an unusual note of alarm.
Rodrik pointed to a series of dramatic recent events that challenged the idea that growing free trade would be peacefully accepted.
In 1995, France had adopted a programme of fiscal austerity in order to prepare for entry into the eurozone; trade unions responded
with the largest wave of strikes since 1968. In 1996, only five years after the end of the Soviet Union – with Russia's once-protected
markets having been forcibly opened, leading to a sudden decline in living standards – a communist won 40% of the vote in Russia's
presidential elections. That same year, two years after the passing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), one of the
most ambitious multinational deals ever accomplished, a white nationalist running on an "America first" programme of economic protectionism
did surprisingly well in the presidential primaries of the Republican party.
What was the pathology of which all of these disturbing events were symptoms? For Rodrik, it was "the process that has come to
be called 'globalisation'". Since the 1980s, and especially following the collapse of the Soviet Union, lowering barriers to international
trade had become the axiom of countries everywhere. Tariffs had to be slashed and regulations spiked. Trade unions, which kept wages
high and made it harder to fire people, had to be crushed. Governments vied with each other to make their country more hospitable
– more "competitive" – for businesses. That meant making labour cheaper and regulations looser, often in countries that had once
tried their hand at socialism, or had spent years protecting "homegrown" industries with tariffs.
These moves were generally applauded by economists. After all, their profession had long embraced the principle of comparative
advantage – simply put, the idea countries will trade with each other in order to gain what each lacks, thereby benefiting both.
In theory, then, the globalisation of trade in goods and services would benefit consumers in rich countries by giving them access
to inexpensive goods produced by cheaper labour in poorer countries, and this demand, in turn, would help grow the economies of those
poorer countries.
But the social cost, in Rodrik's dissenting view, was high – and consistently underestimated by economists. He noted that since
the 1970s, lower-skilled European and American workers had endured a major fall in the real value of their wages, which dropped by
more than 20%. Workers were suffering more spells of unemployment, more volatility in the hours they were expected to work.
While many economists attributed much of the insecurity to technological change – sophisticated new machines displacing low-skilled
workers – Rodrik suggested that the process of globalisation should shoulder more of the blame. It was, in particular, the competition
between workers in developing and developed countries that helped drive down wages and job security for workers in developed countries.
Over and over, they would be held hostage to the possibility that their business would up and leave, in order to find cheap labour
in other parts of the world; they had to accept restraints on their salaries – or else. Opinion polls registered their strong levels
of anxiety and insecurity, and the political effects were becoming more visible. Rodrik foresaw that the cost of greater "economic
integration" would be greater "social disintegration". The inevitable result would be a huge political backlash.
As Rodrik would later recall, other economists tended to dismiss his arguments – or fear them.
Paul Krugman , who would win the Nobel prize in 2008
for his earlier work in trade theory and economic geography, privately warned Rodrik that his work would give "ammunition to the
barbarians".
It was a tacit acknowledgment that pro-globalisation economists, journalists and politicians had come under growing pressure from
a new movement on the left, who were raising concerns very similar to Rodrik's. Over the course of the 1990s, an unwieldy international
coalition had begun to contest the notion that globalisation was good. Called "anti-globalisation" by the media, and the "alter-globalisation"
or "global justice" movement by its participants, it tried to draw attention to the devastating effect that free trade policies were
having, especially in the developing world, where globalisation was supposed to be having its most beneficial effect. This was a
time when figures such as the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman had given the topic a glitzy prominence by
documenting his time among what he
gratingly called "globalutionaries" : chatting amiably with the CEO of Monsanto one day, gawking at lingerie manufacturers in
Sri Lanka the next. Activists were intent on showing a much darker picture, revealing how the record of globalisation consisted mostly
of farmers pushed off their land and the rampant proliferation of sweatshops. They also implicated the highest world bodies in their
critique: the G7, World Bank and IMF. In 1999, the movement reached a high point when a unique coalition of trade unions and environmentalists
managed to shut down the meeting of the
World Trade Organization in Seattle.
In a state of panic, economists responded with a flood of columns and books that defended the necessity of a more open global
market economy, in tones ranging from grandiose to sarcastic. In January 2000,
Krugman used his first piece as
a New York Times columnist to denounce the "trashing" of the WTO, calling it "a sad irony that the cause that has finally awakened
the long-dormant American left is that of – yes! – denying opportunity to third-world workers".
Where Krugman was derisive, others were solemn, putting the contemporary fight against the "anti-globalisation" left in a continuum
of struggles for liberty. "Liberals, social democrats and moderate conservatives are on the same side in the great battles against
religious fanatics, obscurantists, extreme environmentalists, fascists, Marxists and, of course, contemporary anti-globalisers,"
wrote the Financial Times columnist and former World Bank
economist Martin Wolf in his book Why Globalization Works. Language like this lent the fight for globalisation the air of an
epochal struggle. More common was the rhetoric of figures such as Friedman, who in his book The World is Flat mocked the "pampered
American college kids" who, "wearing their branded clothing, began to get interested in sweatshops as a way of expiating their guilt".
ss="rich-link"> Globalisation once made the world go around. Is it about to grind to a halt? Read more
Arguments against the global justice movement rested on the idea that the ultimate benefits of a more open and integrated economy
would outweigh the downsides. "Freer trade is associated with higher growth and higher growth is associated with reduced poverty,"
wrote the Columbia University economist Jagdish Bhagwati in his book In Defense of Globalization. "Hence, growth reduces poverty."
No matter how troubling some of the local effects, the implication went, globalisation promised a greater good.
The fact that proponents of globalisation now felt compelled to spend much of their time defending it indicates how much visibility
the global justice movement had achieved by the early 2000s. Still, over time, the movement lost ground, as a policy consensus settled
in favour of globalisation. The proponents of globalisation were determined never to let another gathering be interrupted. They stopped
meeting in major cities, and security everywhere was tightened. By the time of the invasion of Iraq, the world's attention had turned
from free trade to George Bush and the "war on terror," leaving the globalisation consensus intact.
Above all, there was a widespread perception that globalisation was working as it was supposed to. The local adverse effects that
activists pointed to – sweatshop labour, starving farmers – were increasingly obscured by the staggering GDP numbers and fantastical
images of gleaming skylines coming out of China. With some lonely exceptions – such as Rodrik and the former World Bank chief and
Columbia University professor Joseph Stiglitz –
the pursuit of freer trade became a consensus position for economists, commentators and the vast majority of mainstream politicians,
to the point where the benefits of free trade seemed to command blind adherence. In a 2006 TV interview, Thomas Friedman was asked
whether there was any free trade deal he would not support. He replied that there wasn't, admitting, "I wrote a column supporting
the Cafta, the Caribbean Free Trade initiative. I didn't even know what was in it. I just knew two words: free trade."
I n the wake of the financial crisis, the cracks began to show in the consensus on globalisation, to the point that, today, there
may no longer be a consensus. Economists who were once ardent proponents of globalisation have become some of its most prominent
critics. Erstwhile supporters now concede, at least in part, that it has produced inequality, unemployment and downward pressure
on wages. Nuances and criticisms that economists only used to raise in private seminars are finally coming out in the open.
A few months before the financial crisis hit, Krugman was already confessing to a "guilty conscience". In the 1990s, he had been
very influential in arguing that global trade with poor countries had only a small effect on workers' wages in rich countries. By
2008, he was having doubts: the data seemed to suggest that the effect was much larger than he had suspected.
In the years that followed, the crash, the crisis of the eurozone and the worldwide drop in the price of oil and other commodities
combined to put a huge dent in global trade. Since 2012, the IMF reported in its
World Economic Outlook for October 2016 , trade was
growing at 3% a year – less than half the average of the previous three decades. That month, Martin Wolf argued in a column that
globalisation had "lost dynamism", due to a slackening of the world economy, the "exhaustion" of new markets to exploit and a rise
in protectionist policies around the world. In an interview earlier this year, Wolf suggested to me that, though he remained convinced
globalisation had not been the decisive factor in rising inequality, he had nonetheless not fully foreseen when he was writing Why
Globalization Works how "radical the implications" of worsening inequality "might be for the US, and therefore the world". Among
these implications appears to be a rising distrust of the establishment that is blamed for the inequality. "We have a very big political
problem in many of our countries," he said. "The elites – the policymaking business and financial elites – are
increasingly
disliked . You need to make policy which brings people to think again that their societies are run in a decent and civilised
way."
That distrust of the establishment has had highly visible political consequences: Farage, Trump, and Le Pen on the right; but
also in new parties on the left, such as Spain's Podemos, and curious populist hybrids, such as Italy's
Five
Star Movement . As in 1997, but to an even greater degree, the volatile political scene reflects public anxiety over "the process
that has come to be called 'globalisation'". If the critics of globalisation could be dismissed before because of their lack of economics
training, or ignored because they were in distant countries, or kept out of sight by a wall of police, their sudden political ascendancy
in the rich countries of the west cannot be so easily discounted today.
Over the past year, the opinion pages of prestigious newspapers have been filled with belated, rueful comments from the high priests
of globalisation – the men who appeared to have defeated the anti-globalisers two decades earlier. Perhaps the most surprising such
transformation has been that of Larry Summers. Possessed of a panoply of elite titles – former chief economist of the World Bank,
former Treasury secretary, president emeritus of Harvard, former
economic adviser to President Barack Obama – Summers was renowned in the 1990s and 2000s for being a blustery proponent of globalisation.
For Summers, it seemed, market logic was so inexorable that its dictates prevailed over every social concern. In an
infamous World Bank memo from 1991 , he held
that the cheapest way to dispose of toxic waste in rich countries was to dump it in poor countries, since it was financially cheaper
for them to manage it. "The laws of economics, it's often forgotten, are like the laws of engineering," he said in a speech that
year at a World Bank-IMF meeting in Bangkok. "There's only one set of laws and they work everywhere. One of the things I've learned
in my short time at the World Bank is that whenever anybody says, 'But economics works differently here,' they're about to say something
dumb."
Over the last two years, a different, in some ways unrecognizable Larry Summers has been appearing in newspaper editorial pages.
More circumspect in tone, this humbler Summers has been arguing that economic opportunities in the developing world are slowing,
and that the already rich economies are finding it hard to get out of the crisis. Barring some kind of breakthrough, Summers says,
an era of slow growth is here to stay.
In Summers's recent writings, this sombre conclusion has often been paired with a surprising political goal: advocating for a
"responsible nationalism". Now he argues that politicians must recognise that "the basic responsibility of government is to maximise
the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global good".
O ne curious thing about the pro-globalisation consensus of the 1990s and 2000s, and its collapse in recent years, is how closely
the cycle resembles a previous era. Pursuing free trade has always produced displacement and inequality – and political chaos, populism
and retrenchment to go with it. Every time the social consequences of free trade are overlooked, political backlash follows. But
free trade is only one of many forms that economic integration can take. History seems to suggest, however, that it might be the
most destabilising one.
Nearly all economists and scholars of globalisation like to point to the fact that the economy was rather globalised by the early
20th century. As European countries colonised Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, they turned their colonies into suppliers of raw materials
for European manufacturers, as well as markets for European goods. Meanwhile, the economies of the colonisers were also becoming
free-trade zones for each other. "The opening years of the 20th century were the closest thing the world had ever seen to a free
world market for goods, capital and labour," writes the Harvard professor of government Jeffry Frieden in his standard account, Global
Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the 20th Century. "It would be a hundred years before the world returned to that level of globalisation."
In addition to military force, what underpinned this convenient arrangement for imperial nations was the gold standard. Under
this system, each national currency had an established gold value: the British pound sterling was backed by 113 grains of pure gold;
the US dollar by 23.22 grains, and so on. This entailed that exchange rates were also fixed: a British pound was always equal to
4.87 dollars. The stability of exchange rates meant that the cost of doing business across borders was predictable. Just like the
eurozone today, you could count on the value of the currency staying the same, so long as the storehouse of gold remained more or
less the same.
When there were gold shortages – as there were in the 1870s – the system stopped working. To protect the sanctity of the standard
under conditions of stress, central bankers across the Europe and the US tightened access to credit and deflated prices. This left
financiers in a decent position, but crushed farmers and the rural poor, for whom falling prices meant starvation. Then as now, economists
and mainstream politicians largely overlooked the darker side of the economic picture.
In the US, this fuelled one of the world's first self-described "populist" revolts, leading to the nomination of William Jennings
Bryan as the Democratic party candidate in 1896. At his nominating convention, he gave a famous speech lambasting gold backers: "You
shall not press down upon the brow of labour this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." Then as now,
financial elites and their supporters in the press were horrified. "There has been an upheaval of the political crust," the Times
of London reported, "and strange creatures have come forth."
Businessmen were so distressed by Bryan that they backed the Republican candidate, William McKinley, who won partly by outspending
Bryan five to one. Meanwhile, gold was bolstered by the discovery of new reserves in colonial South Africa. But the gold standard
could not survive the first world war and the Great Depression. By the 1930s, unionisation had spread to more industries and there
was a growing worldwide socialist movement. Protecting gold would mean mass unemployment and social unrest. Britain went off the
gold standard in 1931, while Franklin Roosevelt took the US off it in 1933; France and several other countries would follow in 1936.
The prioritisation of finance and trade over the welfare of people had come momentarily to an end. But this wasn't the end of
the global economic system.
T he trade system that followed was global, too, with high levels of trade – but it took place on terms that often allowed developing
countries to protect their industries. Because, from the perspective of free traders, protectionism is always seen as bad, the success
of this postwar system has been largely under-recognised.
Over the course of the 1930s and 40s, liberals – John Maynard Keynes among them – who had previously regarded departures from
free trade as "an imbecility and an outrage" began to lose their religion. "The decadent international but individualistic capitalism,
in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war, is not a success,"
Keynes found himself writing in 1933 . "It
is not intelligent, it is not beautiful, it is not just, it is not virtuous – and it doesn't deliver the goods. In short, we dislike
it, and we are beginning to despise it." He claimed sympathies "with those who would minimise, rather than with those who would maximise,
economic entanglement among nations," and argued that goods "be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible".
The international systems that chastened figures such as Keynes helped produce in the next few years – especially the Bretton
Woods agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt) – set the terms under which the new wave of globalisation would
take place.
The key to the system's viability, in Rodrik's view, was its flexibility – something absent from contemporary globalisation, with
its one-size-fits-all model of capitalism. Bretton Woods stabilised exchange rates by pegging the dollar loosely to gold, and other
currencies to the dollar. Gatt consisted of rules governing free trade – negotiated by participating countries in a series of multinational
"rounds" – that left many areas of the world economy, such as agriculture, untouched or unaddressed. "Gatt's purpose was never to
maximise free trade," Rodrik writes. "It was to achieve the maximum amount of trade compatible with different nations doing their
own thing. In that respect, the institution proved spectacularly successful."
Partly because Gatt was not always dogmatic about free trade, it allowed most countries to figure out their own economic objectives,
within a somewhat international ambit. When nations contravened the agreement's terms on specific areas of national interest, they
found that it "contained loopholes wide enough for an elephant to pass", in Rodrik's words. If a nation wanted to protect its steel
industry, for example, it could claim "injury" under the rules of Gatt and raise tariffs to discourage steel imports: "an abomination
from the standpoint of free trade". These were useful for countries that were recovering from the war and needed to build up their
own industries via tariffs – duties imposed on particular imports. Meanwhile, from 1948 to 1990, world trade grew at an annual average
of nearly 7% – faster than the post-communist years, which we think of as the high point of globalisation. "If there was a golden
era of globalisation," Rodrik has written, "this was it."
Gatt, however, failed to cover many of the countries in the developing world. These countries eventually created their own system,
the United Nations conference on trade and development (UNCTAD). Under this rubric, many countries – especially in Latin America,
the Middle East, Africa and Asia – adopted a policy of protecting homegrown industries by replacing imports with domestically produced
goods. It worked poorly in some places – India and Argentina, for example, where the trade barriers were too high, resulting in factories
that cost more to set up than the value of the goods they produced – but remarkably well in others, such as east Asia, much of Latin
America and parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where homegrown industries did spring up. Though many later economists and commentators
would dismiss the achievements of this model, it theoretically fit Larry Summers's recent rubric on globalisation: "the basic responsibility
of government is to maximise the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global good."
The critical turning point – away from this system of trade balanced against national protections – came in the 1980s. Flagging
growth and high inflation in the west, along with growing competition from Japan, opened the way for a political transformation.
The elections of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were seminal, putting free-market radicals in charge of two of the world's five
biggest economies and ushering in an era of "hyperglobalisation". In the new political climate, economies with large public sectors
and strong governments within the global capitalist system were no longer seen as aids to the system's functioning, but impediments
to it.
Not only did these ideologies take hold in the US and the UK; they seized international institutions as well. Gatt renamed itself
as the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the new rules the body negotiated began to cut more deeply into national policies. Its
international trade rules sometimes undermined national legislation. The WTO's appellate court intervened relentlessly in member
nations' tax, environmental and regulatory policies, including those of the United States: the US's fuel emissions standards were
judged to discriminate against imported gasoline, and its
ban on imported shrimp caught without turtle-excluding
devices was overturned. If national health and safety regulations were stricter than WTO rules necessitated, they could only
remain in place if they were shown to have "scientific justification".
The purest version of hyperglobalisation was tried out in Latin America in the 1980s. Known as the "Washington consensus", this
model usually involved loans from the IMF that were contingent on those countries lowering trade barriers and privatising many of
their nationally held industries. Well into the 1990s, economists were proclaiming the indisputable benefits of openness. In an influential
1995 paper, Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner wrote: "We find no cases to support the frequent worry that a country might open and
yet fail to grow."
But the Washington consensus was bad for business: most countries did worse than before. Growth faltered, and citizens across
Latin America revolted against attempted privatisations of water and gas. In Argentina, which followed the Washington consensus to
the letter, a grave crisis resulted in 2002
, precipitating an economic collapse and massive street protests that forced out the government that had pursued privatising
reforms. Argentina's revolt presaged a left-populist upsurge across the continent: from 1999 to 2007, leftwing leaders and parties
took power in Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, all of them campaigning against the Washington consensus on globalisation.
These revolts were a preview of the backlash of today.
R odrik – perhaps the contemporary economist whose views have been most amply vindicated by recent events – was himself a beneficiary
of protectionism in Turkey. His father's ballpoint pen company was sheltered under tariffs, and achieved enough success to allow
Rodrik to attend Harvard in the 1970s as an undergraduate. This personal understanding of the mixed nature of economic success may
be one of the reasons why his work runs against the broad consensus of mainstream economics writing on globalisation.
"I never felt that my ideas were out of the mainstream," Rodrik told me recently. Instead, it was that the mainstream had lost
touch with the diversity of opinions and methods that already existed within economics. "The economics profession is strange in that
the more you move away from the seminar room to the public domain, the more the nuances get lost, especially on issues of trade."
He lamented the fact that while, in the classroom, the models of trade discuss losers and winners, and, as a result, the necessity
of policies of redistribution, in practice, an "arrogance and hubris" had led many economists to ignore these implications. "Rather
than speaking truth to power, so to speak, many economists became cheerleaders for globalisation."
In his 2011 book The Globalization Paradox
, Rodrik concluded that "we cannot simultaneously pursue democracy, national determination, and economic globalisation." The
results of the 2016 elections and referendums provide ample testimony of the justness of the thesis, with millions voting to push
back, for better or for worse, against the campaigns and institutions that promised more globalisation. "I'm not at all surprised
by the backlash," Rodrik told me. "Really, nobody should have been surprised."
But what, in any case, would "more globalisation" look like? For the same economists and writers who have started to rethink their
commitments to greater integration, it doesn't mean quite what it did in the early 2000s. It's not only the discourse that's changed:
globalisation itself has changed, developing into a more chaotic and unequal system than many economists predicted. The benefits
of globalisation have been largely concentrated in a handful of Asian countries. And even in those countries, the good times may
be running out.
Statistics from Global Inequality
, a 2016 book by the development economist Branko Milanović, indicate that in relative terms the greatest benefits of globalisation
have accrued to a rising "emerging middle class", based preponderantly in China. But the cons are there, too: in absolute terms,
the largest gains have gone to what is commonly called "the 1%" – half of whom are based in the US. Economist Richard Baldwin has
shown in his recent book, The Great Convergence, that nearly all of the gains from globalisation have been concentrated in six countries.
Barring some political catastrophe, in which rightwing populism continued to gain, and in which globalisation would be the least
of our problems – Wolf admitted that he was "not at all sure" that this could be ruled out – globalisation was always going to slow;
in fact, it already has. One reason, says Wolf, was that "a very, very large proportion of the gains from globalisation – by no means
all – have been exploited. We have a more open world economy to trade than we've ever had before." Citing The Great Convergence,
Wolf noted that supply chains have already expanded, and that future developments, such as automation and the use of robots, looked
to undermine the promise of a growing industrial workforce. Today, the political priorities were less about trade and more about
the challenge of retraining workers , as technology renders old jobs obsolete and transforms the world of work.
Rodrik, too, believes that globalisation, whether reduced or increased, is unlikely to produce the kind of economic effects it
once did. For him, this slowdown has something to do with what he calls "premature deindustrialisation". In the past, the simplest
model of globalisation suggested that rich countries would gradually become "service economies", while emerging economies picked
up the industrial burden. Yet recent statistics show the world as a whole is deindustrialising. Countries that one would have expected
to have more industrial potential are going through the stages of automation more quickly than previously developed countries did,
and thereby failing to develop the broad industrial workforce seen as a key to shared prosperity.
For both Rodrik and Wolf, the political reaction to globalisation bore possibilities of deep uncertainty. "I really have found
it very difficult to decide whether what we're living through is a blip, or a fundamental and profound transformation of the world
– at least as significant as the one that brought about the first world war and the Russian revolution," Wolf told me. He cited his
agreement with economists such as Summers that shifting away from the earlier emphasis on globalisation had now become a political
priority; that to pursue still greater liberalisation was like showing "a red rag to a bull" in terms of what it might do to the
already compromised political stability of the western world.
Rodrik pointed to a belated emphasis, both among political figures and economists, on the necessity of compensating those displaced
by globalisation with retraining and more robust welfare states. But pro-free-traders had a history of cutting compensation: Bill
Clinton passed Nafta, but failed to expand safety nets. "The issue is that the people are rightly not trusting the centrists who
are now promising compensation," Rodrik said. "One reason that Hillary Clinton didn't get any traction with those people is that
she didn't have any credibility."
Rodrik felt that economics commentary failed to register the gravity of the situation: that there were increasingly few avenues
for global growth, and that much of the damage done by globalisation – economic and political – is irreversible. "There is a sense
that we're at a turning point," he said. "There's a lot more thinking about what can be done. There's a renewed emphasis on compensation
– which, you know, I think has come rather late."
"... Neoliberalism and its usual prescriptions – always more markets, always less government – are in fact a perversion of mainstream economics. ..."
"... The term is used as a catchall for anything that smacks of deregulation, liberalisation, privatisation or fiscal austerity. Today it is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas and practices that have produced growing economic insecurity and inequality, led to the loss of our political values and ideals, and even precipitated our current populist backlash. ..."
"... The use of the term "neoliberal" exploded in the 1990s, when it became closely associated with two developments, neither of which Peters's article had mentioned. One of these was financial deregulation, which would culminate in the 2008 financial crash and in the still-lingering euro debacle . The second was economic globalisation, which accelerated thanks to free flows of finance and to a new, more ambitious type of trade agreement. Financialisation and globalisation have become the most overt manifestations of neoliberalism in today's world. ..."
"... That neoliberalism is a slippery, shifting concept, with no explicit lobby of defenders, does not mean that it is irrelevant or unreal. Who can deny that the world has experienced a decisive shift toward markets from the 1980s on? Or that centre-left politicians – Democrats in the US, socialists and social democrats in Europe – enthusiastically adopted some of the central creeds of Thatcherism and Reaganism, such as deregulation, privatisation, financial liberalisation and individual enterprise? Much of our contemporary policy discussion remains infused with principles supposedly grounded in the concept of homo economicus , the perfectly rational human being, found in many economic theories, who always pursues his own self-interest. ..."
Neoliberalism and its usual prescriptions – always more markets, always less government – are in fact a perversion of
mainstream economics.
As even its harshest critics concede, neoliberalism is hard to pin down. In broad terms, it
denotes a preference for markets over government, economic incentives over cultural norms, and
private entrepreneurship over collective action. It has been used to describe a wide range of
phenomena – from Augusto Pinochet to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, from the
Clinton Democrats and the UK's New Labour to the economic opening in China and the reform of
the welfare state in Sweden.
The term is used as a catchall for anything that smacks of deregulation, liberalisation,
privatisation or fiscal austerity. Today it is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas
and practices that have produced growing economic insecurity and inequality, led to the loss of
our political values and ideals, and even precipitated our current populist backlash.
We live in the age of neoliberalism, apparently. But who are neoliberalism's adherents and
disseminators – the neoliberals themselves? Oddly, you have to go back a long time to
find anyone explicitly embracing neoliberalism. In 1982, Charles Peters, the longtime editor of
the political magazine Washington Monthly, published an essay titled
A Neo-Liberal's Manifesto . It makes for interesting reading 35 years later, since the
neoliberalism it describes bears little resemblance to today's target of derision. The
politicians Peters names as exemplifying the movement are not the likes of Thatcher and Reagan,
but rather liberals – in the US sense of the word – who have become disillusioned
with unions and big government and dropped their prejudices against markets and the
military.
The use of the term "neoliberal" exploded in the 1990s, when it became closely associated
with two developments, neither of which Peters's article had mentioned. One of these was
financial deregulation, which would culminate in the 2008
financial crash and in the still-lingering euro debacle . The second was economic
globalisation, which accelerated thanks to free flows of finance and to a new, more ambitious
type of trade agreement. Financialisation and globalisation have become the most overt
manifestations of neoliberalism in today's world.
That neoliberalism is a slippery, shifting concept, with no explicit lobby of defenders,
does not mean that it is irrelevant or unreal. Who can deny that the world has experienced a
decisive shift toward markets from the 1980s on? Or that centre-left politicians –
Democrats in the US, socialists and social democrats in Europe – enthusiastically adopted
some of the central creeds of Thatcherism and Reaganism, such as deregulation, privatisation,
financial liberalisation and individual enterprise? Much of our contemporary policy discussion
remains infused with principles supposedly grounded in the concept of homo
economicus , the perfectly rational human being, found in many economic theories, who
always pursues his own self-interest.
But the looseness of the term neoliberalism also means that criticism of it often misses the
mark. There is nothing wrong with markets, private entrepreneurship or incentives – when
deployed appropriately. Their creative use lies behind the most significant economic
achievements of our time. As we heap scorn on neoliberalism, we risk throwing out some of
neoliberalism's useful ideas.
The real trouble is that mainstream economics shades too easily into ideology, constraining
the choices that we appear to have and providing cookie-cutter solutions. A proper
understanding of the economics that lie behind neoliberalism would allow us to identify –
and to reject – ideology when it masquerades as economic science. Most importantly, it
would help us to develop the institutional imagination we badly need to redesign capitalism for
the 21st century.
N eoliberalism is typically understood as being based on key tenets of mainstream economic
science. To see those tenets without the ideology, consider this thought experiment. A
well-known and highly regarded economist lands in a country he has never visited and knows
nothing about. He is brought to a meeting with the country's leading policymakers. "Our country
is in trouble," they tell him. "The economy is stagnant, investment is low, and there is no
growth in sight." They turn to him expectantly: "Please tell us what we should do to make our
economy grow."
The economist pleads ignorance and explains that he knows too little about the country to
make any recommendations. He would need to study the history of the economy, to analyse the
statistics, and to travel around the country before he could say anything.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest Tony Blair and Bill Clinton: centre-left politicians who enthusiastically
adopted some of the central creeds of Thatcherism and Reaganism. Photograph: Reuters
But his hosts are insistent. "We understand your reticence, and we wish you had the time for
all that," they tell him. "But isn't economics a science, and aren't you one of its most
distinguished practitioners? Even though you do not know much about our economy, surely there
are some general theories and prescriptions you can share with us to guide our economic
policies and reforms."
The economist is now in a bind. He does not want to emulate those economic gurus he has long
criticised for peddling their favourite policy advice. But he feels challenged by the question.
Are there universal truths in economics? Can he say anything valid or useful?
So he begins. The efficiency with which an economy's resources are allocated is a critical
determinant of the economy's performance, he says. Efficiency, in turn, requires aligning the
incentives of households and businesses with social costs and benefits. The incentives faced by
entrepreneurs, investors and producers are particularly important when it comes to economic
growth. Growth needs a system of property rights and contract enforcement that will ensure
those who invest can retain the returns on their investments. And the economy must be open to
ideas and innovations from the rest of the world.
But economies can be derailed by macroeconomic instability, he goes on. Governments must
therefore pursue a sound
monetary policy , which means restricting the growth of liquidity to the increase in
nominal money demand at reasonable inflation. They must ensure fiscal sustainability, so that
the increase in public debt does not outpace national income. And they must carry out
prudential regulation of banks and other financial institutions to prevent the financial system
from taking excessive risk.
Now he is warming to his task. Economics is not just about efficiency and growth, he adds.
Economic principles also carry over to equity and social policy. Economics has little to say about how
much redistribution a society should seek. But it does tell us that the tax base should be as
broad as possible, and that social programmes should be designed in a way that does not
encourage workers to drop out of the labour market.
By the time the economist stops, it appears as if he has laid out a fully fledged neoliberal
agenda. A critic in the audience will have heard all the code words: efficiency, incentives,
property rights, sound money, fiscal prudence. And yet the universal principles that the
economist describes are in fact quite open-ended. They presume a capitalist economy – one
in which investment decisions are made by private individuals and firms – but not much
beyond that. They allow for – indeed, they require – a surprising variety of
institutional arrangements.
So has the economist just delivered a neoliberal screed? We would be mistaken to think so,
and our mistake would consist of associating each abstract term – incentives, property
rights, sound money – with a particular institutional counterpart. And therein lies the
central conceit, and the fatal flaw, of neoliberalism: the belief that first-order economic
principles map on to a unique set of policies, approximated by a Thatcher/Reagan-style
agenda.
Consider property rights. They matter insofar as they allocate returns on investments. An
optimal system would distribute property rights to those who would make the best use of an
asset, and afford protection against those most likely to expropriate the returns. Property
rights are good when they protect innovators from free riders, but they are bad when they
protect them from competition. Depending on the context, a legal regime that provides the
appropriate incentives can look quite different from the standard US-style regime of private
property rights.
This may seem like a semantic point with little practical import; but China's phenomenal
economic success is largely due to its orthodoxy-defying institutional tinkering. China turned
to markets, but did not copy western practices in property rights. Its reforms produced
market-based incentives through a series of unusual institutional arrangements that were better
adapted to the local context. Rather than move directly from state to private ownership, for
example, which would have been stymied by the weakness of the prevailing legal structures, the
country relied on mixed forms of ownership that provided more effective property rights for
entrepreneurs in practice. Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs), which spearheaded Chinese
economic growth during the 1980s, were collectives owned and controlled by local governments.
Even though TVEs were publicly owned, entrepreneurs received the protection they needed against
expropriation. Local governments had a direct stake in the profits of the firms, and hence did
not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
China relied on a range of such innovations, each delivering the economist's higher-order
economic principles in unfamiliar institutional arrangements. For instance, it shielded its
large state sector from global competition, establishing special economic zones where foreign
firms could operate with different rules than in the rest of the economy. In view of such
departures from orthodox blueprints, describing China's economic reforms as neoliberal –
as critics are inclined to do – distorts more than it reveals. If we are to call this
neoliberalism, we must surely look more kindly on the ideas behind the most dramatic
poverty reduction in history.
One might protest that China's institutional innovations were purely transitional. Perhaps
it will have to converge on western-style institutions to sustain its economic progress. But
this common line of thinking overlooks the diversity of capitalist arrangements that still
prevails among advanced economies, despite the considerable homogenisation of our policy
discourse.
What, after all, are western institutions? The size of the public sector in OECD countries
varies, from a third of the economy in Korea to nearly 60% in Finland. In Iceland, 86% of
workers are members of a trade union; the comparable number in Switzerland is just 16%. In the
US, firms can fire workers almost at will;
French labour laws have historically required employers to jump through many hoops first.
Stock markets have grown to a total value of nearly one-and-a-half times GDP in the US; in
Germany, they are only a third as large, equivalent to just 50% of GDP.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest 'China turned to markets, but did not copy western practices ... '
Photograph: AFP/Getty
The idea that any one of these models of taxation, labour relations or financial
organisation is inherently superior to the others is belied by the varying economic fortunes
that each of these economies have experienced over recent decades. The US has gone through
successive periods of angst in which its economic institutions were judged inferior to those in
Germany, Japan, China, and now possibly Germany again. Certainly, comparable levels of wealth
and productivity can be produced under very different models of capitalism. We might even go a
step further: today's prevailing models probably come nowhere near exhausting the range of what
might be possible, and desirable, in the future.
The visiting economist in our thought experiment knows all this, and recognises that the
principles he has enunciated need to be filled in with institutional detail before they become
operational. Property rights? Yes, but how? Sound money? Of course, but how? It would perhaps
be easier to criticise his list of principles for being vacuous than to denounce it as a
neoliberal screed.
Still, these principles are not entirely content-free. China, and indeed all countries that
managed to develop rapidly, demonstrate the utility of those principles once they are properly
adapted to local context. Conversely, too many economies have been driven to ruin courtesy of
political leaders who chose to violate them. We need look no further than
Latin American populists or eastern European communist regimes to appreciate the practical
significance of sound money, fiscal sustainability and private incentives.
O f course, economics goes beyond a list of abstract, largely common-sense principles. Much
of the work of economists consists of developing
stylised models of how economies work and then confronting those models with evidence.
Economists tend to think of what they do as progressively refining their understanding of the
world: their models are supposed to get better and better as they are tested and revised over
time. But progress in economics happens differently.
Economists study a social reality that is unlike the physical universe. It is completely
manmade, highly malleable and operates according to different rules across time and space.
Economics advances
not by settling on the right model or theory to answer such questions, but by improving our
understanding of the diversity of causal relationships. Neoliberalism and its customary
remedies – always more markets, always less government – are in fact a perversion
of mainstream economics. Good economists know that the correct answer to any question in
economics is: it depends.
Does an increase in the minimum wage depress employment? Yes, if the labour market is really
competitive and employers have no control over the wage they must pay to attract workers; but
not necessarily otherwise. Does trade liberalisation increase economic growth? Yes, if it
increases the profitability of industries where the bulk of investment and innovation takes
place; but not otherwise. Does more government spending increase employment? Yes, if there is
slack in the economy and wages do not rise; but not otherwise. Does monopoly harm innovation?
Yes and no, depending on a whole host of market circumstances.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest 'Today [neoliberalism] is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas
that have produced growing economic inequality and precipitated our current populist backlash'
Trump signing an order to take the US out of the TPP trade pact. Photograph: AFP/Getty
In economics, new models rarely supplant older models. The basic competitive-markets model
dating back to Adam Smith has been modified over time by the inclusion, in rough historical
order, of monopoly, externalities, scale economies, incomplete and asymmetric information,
irrational behaviour and many other real-world features. But the older models remain as useful
as ever. Understanding how real markets operate necessitates using different lenses at
different times.
Perhaps maps offer the best analogy. Just like economic models, maps are highly
stylised representations of reality . They are useful precisely because they abstract from
many real-world details that would get in the way. But abstraction also implies that we need a
different map depending on the nature of our journey. If we are travelling by bike, we need a
map of bike trails. If we are to go on foot, we need a map of footpaths. If a new subway is
constructed, we will need a subway map – but we wouldn't throw out the older maps.
Economists tend to be very good at making maps, but not good enough at choosing the one most
suited to the task at hand. When confronted with policy questions of the type our visiting
economist faces, too many of them resort to "benchmark" models that favour the
laissez-faire approach. Kneejerk solutions and hubris replace the richness and humility of
the discussion in the seminar room. John Maynard Keynes once defined economics as the "science
of thinking in terms of models, joined to the art of choosing models which are relevant".
Economists typically have trouble with the "art" part.
This, too, can be illustrated with a parable. A journalist calls an economics professor for
his view on whether free trade is a good idea. The professor responds enthusiastically in the
affirmative. The journalist then goes undercover as a student in the professor's advanced
graduate seminar on international trade. He poses the same question: is free trade good? This
time the professor is stymied. "What do you mean by 'good'?" he responds. "And good for whom?"
The professor then launches into an extensive exegesis that will ultimately culminate in a
heavily hedged statement: "So if the long list of conditions I have just described are
satisfied, and assuming we can tax the beneficiaries to compensate the losers, freer trade has
the potential to increase everyone's wellbeing." If he is in an expansive mood, the professor
might add that the effect of free trade on an economy's longterm growth rate is not clear
either, and would depend on an altogether different set of requirements.
This professor is rather different from the one the journalist encountered previously. On
the record, he exudes self-confidence, not reticence, about the appropriate policy. There is
one and only one model, at least as far as the public conversation is concerned, and there is a
single correct answer, regardless of context. Strangely, the professor deems the knowledge that
he imparts to his advanced students to be inappropriate (or dangerous) for the general public.
Why?
The roots of such behaviour lie deep in the culture of the economics profession. But one
important motive is the zeal to display the profession's crown jewels – market
efficiency, the invisible hand, comparative advantage – in untarnished form, and to
shield them from attack by self-interested barbarians, namely
the protectionists . Unfortunately, these economists typically ignore the barbarians on the
other side of the issue – financiers and multinational corporations whose motives are no
purer and who are all too ready to hijack these ideas for their own benefit.
As a result, economists' contributions to public debate are often biased in one direction,
in favour of more trade, more finance and less government. That is why economists have
developed a reputation as cheerleaders for neoliberalism, even if mainstream economics is very
far from a paean to laissez-faire. The economists who let their enthusiasm for free markets run
wild are in fact not being true to their own discipline.
H ow then should we think about globalisation in order to liberate it from the grip of
neoliberal practices? We must begin by understanding the positive potential of global markets.
Access to world markets in goods, technologies and capital has played an important role in
virtually all of the economic miracles of our time. China is the most recent and powerful
reminder of this historical truth, but it is not the only case. Before China, similar miracles
were performed by South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and a few non-Asian countries such as Mauritius
. All of these countries embraced globalisation rather than turn their backs on it, and they
benefited handsomely.
Defenders of the existing economic order will quickly point to these examples when
globalisation comes into question. What they will fail to say is that almost all of these
countries joined the world economy by violating neoliberal strictures. South Korea and Taiwan,
for instance, heavily subsidised their exporters, the former through the financial system and
the latter through tax incentives. All of them eventually removed most of their import
restrictions, long after economic growth had taken off.
But none, with the sole exception of Chile in the 1980s under Pinochet, followed the
neoliberal recommendation of a rapid opening-up to imports. Chile's
neoliberal experiment eventually produced the worst economic crisis in all of Latin
America. While the details differ across countries, in all cases governments played an active
role in restructuring the economy and buffering it against a volatile external environment.
Industrial policies, restrictions on capital flows and currency controls – all prohibited
in the neoliberal playbook – were rampant.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest Protest against Nafta in Mexico City in 2008: since the reforms of the
mid-90s, the country's economy has underperformed. Photograph: EPA
By contrast, countries that stuck closest to the neoliberal model of globalisation were
sorely disappointed. Mexico provides a particularly sad example. Following a series of
macroeconomic crises in the mid-1990s, Mexico embraced macroeconomic orthodoxy, extensively
liberalised its economy, freed up the financial system, sharply reduced import restrictions and
signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). These policies did produce
macroeconomic stability and a significant rise in foreign trade and internal investment. But
where it counts – in overall productivity and economic growth – the
experiment failed . Since undertaking the reforms, overall productivity in Mexico has
stagnated, and the economy has underperformed even by the undemanding standards of Latin
America.
These outcomes are not a surprise from the perspective of sound economics. They are yet
another manifestation of the need for economic policies to be attuned to the failures to which
markets are prone, and to be tailored to the specific circumstances of each country. No single
blueprint fits all.
A s Peters's 1982 manifesto attests, the meaning of neoliberalism has changed considerably
over time as the label has acquired harder-line connotations with respect to deregulation,
financialisation and globalisation. But there is one thread that connects all versions of
neoliberalism, and that is the
emphasis on economic growth . Peters wrote in 1982 that the emphasis was warranted because
growth is essential to all our social and political ends – community, democracy,
prosperity. Entrepreneurship, private investment and removing obstacles that stand in the way
(such as excessive regulation) were all instruments for achieving economic growth. If a similar
neoliberal manifesto were penned today, it would no doubt make the same point.
Critics often point out that this emphasis on economics debases and sacrifices other
important values such as equality, social inclusion, democratic deliberation and justice. Those
political and social objectives obviously matter enormously, and in some contexts they matter
the most. They cannot always, or even often, be achieved by means of technocratic economic
policies; politics must play a central role.
Still, neoliberals are not wrong when they argue that our most cherished ideals are more
likely to be attained when our economy is vibrant, strong and growing. Where they are wrong is
in believing that there is a unique and universal recipe for improving economic performance, to
which they have access. The fatal flaw of neoliberalism is that it does not even get the
economics right. It must be rejected on its own terms for the simple reason that it is bad
economics.
A version of this article first appeared in Boston
Review
"... The acquaintance, socialite and distant relative to the royals Christina Oxenberg, said that Maxwell also told her that Epstein bought a private helicopter because commercial pilots were "eyes and ears" he did not need. ..."
"... Maxwell has been accused by several alleged Epstein victims of both facilitating and participating in sexual crimes. She has vehemently denied the claims and has not been charged with any crimes in connection to Epstein's activities. ..."
Jeffrey Epstein's alleged 'madam' told a former acquaintance that she and
the now-dead pedophile had "everything on videotape," according to
The Telegraph .
The acquaintance, socialite and distant relative to the royals Christina Oxenberg, said that
Maxwell also told her that Epstein bought a private helicopter because commercial pilots were
"eyes and ears" he did not need.
She revealed she had spoken to the FBI about what she had been told.
Ms Oxenberg, 57, first met Maxwell in the early 1990s and said she would never forget a
conversation the pair once had in Maxwell's home.
"We were alone," she said. "She said many things. All creepy. Unorthodox. Strange. I could
not believe whatever she was saying was real. Stuff like: 'Jeffrey and I have everyone on
videotape.'"...
Maxwell has been accused by several alleged Epstein victims of both facilitating and
participating in sexual crimes. She has vehemently denied the claims and has not been charged
with any crimes in connection to Epstein's activities.
L Brands went public in 1969 and Wexner was a billionaire by the 1980s, a person familiar with his finances has
said. A self-proclaimed workhorse, Wexner preferred to focus on his job rather than managing his money,
according to people who knew him at the time.
Then Epstein showed up.
The former math teacher and Bear Stearns Cos. banker became a central figure in the billionaire's life. The
pair met in the late 1980s in Palm Beach, Florida, when Epstein was hustling for clients of his
money-management firm that he said catered only to billionaires. The New Yorker and Wexner, one of the nation's
richest people at the time, struck up a friendship that seemed odd to some who were close to the fashion mogul.
Wexner soon abandoned the money manager he had been working with. In 1991, he gave Epstein power of attorney.
He explained in a letter to his philanthropic foundation in August -- days before Epstein hanged himself in his
Manhattan jail cell -- that the financier previously had "wide latitude to act on my behalf with respect to my
personal finances."
'Good Decisions'
One of Epstein's roles was to manage Wexner's soaring stock holdings, but his duties also included suburban
planning and yacht design. He represented Wexner when the billionaire sold a New York townhouse to the German
government in 1991, according to Jessica Rohm, a retired real estate agent. Epstein was the beneficiary of
hand-me-downs including a Boeing 727 and another Manhattan mansion on East 71st Street.
"He votes the shares. I decide when to sell it," Epstein said in a 2003 interview at his private Caribbean
island. "If you take a look back you'll see I've made very good decisions."
Wexner has a
$7 billion
fortune, according to the
Bloomberg Billionaires Index
. Less than a fifth of that is tied up in L Brands, thanks in part to the share
sales Epstein oversaw. The mandate proved enormously profitable for him. Epstein's Financial Trust Co.
collected
$208 million
in fee income from 2003 through 2006, according to accounts first obtained by the New York
Times.
The filings indicate that Wexner was his central -- perhaps only -- backer in those years. When the two cut
ties in 2007, fee income at Financial Trust fell to
$4
million
that year from
$66 million
in 2006.
Epstein's Backer
Fee income at financier's firm cratered after Wexner cut ties
Twelve years later, in July 2019, those ties sparked a crisis for Wexner after Epstein was arrested and charged
with sex trafficking. After weeks of silence, Wexner disavowed the convicted pedophile, who had served time on
other charges in Florida a decade earlier, noting his former money manager had "misappropriated vast sums of
money from me and my family." Days later, Epstein was dead.
"... If you want proof that private equity is predatory, you need go not further than its concerted efforts to extend and intensify the devastating practice of surprise billing. ..."
"... Physicians' groups, it turns out, can opt out of a contract with insurers even if the hospital has such a contract. The doctors are then free to charge patients, who desperately need care, however much they want. ..."
"... This has made physicians' practices in specialties such as emergency care, neonatal intensive care and anesthesiology attractive takeover targets for private equity firms . ..."
"... Emergency rooms, neonatal intensive care units and anesthesiologists' practices do not operate like an ordinary marketplace. Physicians' practices in these specialties do not need to worry that they will lose patients because their prices are too high. ..."
"... It's not only patients that are victimized by unscrupulous physicians' groups. These doctors' groups are able to coerce health insurance companies into agreeing to pay them very high fees in order to have them in their networks. ..."
If you want proof that
private equity is predatory, you need go not further than its concerted efforts to extend and
intensify the devastating practice of surprise billing.
Bad enough that patients develop
afflictions or have accidents that land them in the hospital. Recovering physically is hard
enough. But to then have the stress and financial damage of large and unexpected bills, which
are exercises in rent extraction, is the sort of thing that creates Madame DeFarges.
Private equity experts Eileen Appelbaum and Rosemary Batt did the sleuthing to document how
private equity has greatly extended and profited from this abuse. What most people do not
realize is the degree to which hospitals have outsourced what most people would assume were
core functions provided by doctors on the hospital's payroll, such as emergency room doctors.
With many large nominally not-for-profit hospital groups run by MBAs out to justify higher pay
packages for themselves, many practice areas are in fact outsourced. Private equity has
hoovered up these groups. They, and not the hospital, provide the personnel for a particular
case, and they make sure to get some out of network practitioners on the team to pad the
bills.
One metric: a Stanford study determined that the odds of getting a surprise bill had
increased from 32% in 2010 to 43% in 2016, and the average amount had risen over that time
period from $220 to $628. A new study in Health Affairs found that this out of network billing
raises health care costs by $40 billion per year .
Physicians' groups, it turns out, can opt out of a contract with insurers even if the
hospital has such a contract. The doctors are then free to charge patients, who desperately
need care, however much they want.
This has made physicians' practices in specialties such as emergency care, neonatal
intensive care and anesthesiology attractive takeover targets for private equity firms
.
Emergency rooms, neonatal intensive care units and anesthesiologists' practices do not
operate like an ordinary marketplace. Physicians' practices in these specialties do not need
to worry that they will lose patients because their prices are too high.
Patients can go to a hospital in their network, but if they have an emergency, have a baby
in the neonatal intensive care unit or have surgery scheduled with an in-network surgeon,
they are stuck with the out-of-network doctors the hospital has outsourced these services to
.
It's not only patients that are victimized by unscrupulous physicians' groups. These
doctors' groups are able to coerce health insurance companies into agreeing to pay them very
high fees in order to have them in their networks.
They do this by threatening to charge high out-of-network bills to the insurers' covered
patients if they don't go along with these demands. High payments to these unethical doctors
raise hospitals' costs and everyone's insurance premiums.
Appelbaum cited Yale economists who'd examined what happened when hospitals outsourced their
emergency room staffing to the two biggest players, EmCare, which has been traded among several
private equity firms and is now owned by KKR and TeamHealth, held by Blackstone:
.after EmCare took over the management of emergency services at hospitals with previously
low out-of-network rates, they raised out-of-network rates by over 81 percentage points. In
addition, the firm raised its charges by 96 percent relative to the charges billed by the
physician groups they succeeded.
The study also described how TeamHealth extorted insurers by threatening them with high
out-of-network charges for "must have" services:
in most instances, several months after going out-of-network, TeamHealth physicians
rejoined the network and received in-network payment rates that were 68 percent higher than
previous in-network rates.
California and the Federal government tried to pass legislation to curb surprise billing. As
we noted, the California bill was yanked suddenly and no one felt compelled to offer an
explanation. The bi-partisan Federal effort also failed.
Early in the summer of 2019, Congress appeared poised to protect consumers from surprise
medical bills and to hold insured patients financially harmless in situations where they were
unable to choose their doctor .
Two solutions, both of which take surprise charges to patients out of the equation, have
been put forward. Employers, patient advocates, and insurance companies favor paying
out-of-network doctors a rate "benchmarked" to rates negotiated with in-network doctors to
hold down health costs. Not surprisingly, this solution is opposed by large physician
staffing companies and specialist physician practices that want to continue to charge prices
higher than the in-network fees. These doctors' practices, some backed by private equity
firms, have been lobbying intensively for a second option that would allow doctors
dissatisfied with a negotiated rate to seek a higher fee via an arbitration process that they
believe will ensure higher physician pay and higher company revenues and profits.
The campaign by Physicians for Fair Coverage, a private equity-backed group lobbying on
behalf of large physician staffing firms, launched a $1.2 million national ad campaign in
July to push for this second approach.8 The lobbying campaign bore fruit. In July, [sponsors
of the House bill] Pallone and Walden accepted an amendment to allow arbitration, but only in
special cases, and it required the arbitrator to use negotiated rates instead of provider
charges when deciding on disputes over payment.9 But the private equity-owned physician
staffing companies were not satisfied. In late July, a mysterious group called Doctor Patient
Unity launched a $28 million ad and lobbying campaign (now up to nearly $54 million) aimed at
keeping any legislation to protect patients from surprise medical bills from passing. In
mid-September, a representative for Doctor Patient Unity finally revealed what many observers
already suspected -- that PE-owned doctor staffing firms Envision Healthcare and TeamHealth
were behind the campaign
Agreement on a joint House and Senate bipartisan bill by Senators Alexander and Murray and
Congressmen Pallone and Walden nearly made it into the omnibus continuing resolution that
passed in December 2019. It was stymied when Massachusetts Congressman Richard Neal, Chair of
the House Ways and Means Committee, offered a last-minute alternative. The Neal bill protects
consumers from surprise medical bills but requires disputes between providers and insurance
companies to be resolved through arbitration. This, of course, is what the PE-owned staffing
firms and the doctors' practices they own lobbied for. Lack of support from the Democratic
leadership in the Senate and the House delayed passage of the legislation. In his September
2019 fundraising report, Neal reported receipt of $29,000 from Blackstone, owner of
TeamHealth.
The entire article is
very much worth reading , since it offers more detail on how the private equity firms
tightened their grip on these chokepoints. And the threat of legal curbs has had an impact. As
the piece also explains, the value of the debt on Envision, the parent of EmCare, and
TeamHealth both fell into junk terrain and rebounded a bit when the bills were sidelined for
2019, but remains distressed:
Appelbaum and Batt are pessimistic that anything will get done in 2020:
In the current legislative session, Congress is again working to pass legislation to
protect patients from surprise medical bills. But the disagreements in Congress remain
unresolved Chances of a compromise bill emerging in this session of Congress do not look good
as of this writing (mid-February 2020), and relief for insured patients from unexpected
medical bills does not appear to be on the horizon.
However, bond investors clearly think there's still a risk of legislation with some teeth,
although the earliest possibility is 2021. Keep your fingers crossed.
Where I live the emergency room doctors are contracted out to a private group. This
has been the practice for over a decade. Recently the local hospital got rid of their
dialysis services by selling it to a private company. When a person is sick they don't think
about asking if the provider is in their network. They simply want treatment to help
recover.Another problem is in many areas there isn't a choice. Expensive services can have
only one or no providers. That means you have to go out of you area and probably your
network. I'm on medicare and chose to be on traditional medicare. You aren't locked into a
small network of providers. My supplemental is through my former employer. Unfortunately it's
network plan. Occasionally I have services not paid because they are out of network, even
though medicare covers 80%. The deductible for out of network is so high that I end up with
paying the 20%. I believe there is only one reason for network heart care. It's to increase
profits and has little to do with reducing costs.
I was thinking of Al Capone and his almost untouchable Chicago 'enterprise'. He was
untouchable in Chicago because his racket paid off the judges, prosecutors, aldermen, and
politicians. It took the feds stepping in to shut Capone down.
How many more people will go bankrupt, or avoid going to the doctor or hospital for
fear of bankruptcy because of this PE surprise billing racket? Several state leges are
passing or trying to pass legislation to block surprise billing.
I hope that you've been negotiating your out of network billings! A third or half
off may not be unreasonable. Heck, the hospital only collects about 25% of its total
billings!
This is one reason we need traditional M4A. Traditional Medicare has payment limits
that the provider has to accept if they bill Medicare. (Medicare fraud is a problem, but it
is tracked and prosecuted.)
Maybe I'm missing something, but offhand I don't see how this can even be a thing
under a single-payer health-care system. If someone knows better otherwise, please enlighten
me.
If I've got that much right, could this be another part of the motivation against
M4A?
Of course providers are all worried that compensations will be too meager and
oppressive. For instance if the docs' income expectations go unmet, then they will certainly
buck!
But the "providers," as in the MDs, are not the beneficiaries, or at least not much.
It's the companies that own the practices .which are owned by PE funds.
This reminds me of the TV ad running lately featuring a nice young couple opening
their cable bill and declaring "Its a ransom note!" as if its the height of comedy that we
are living in a kleptocracy where everyone is constantly subject to "your money or your life"
banditry we pretend were left behind in central park muggings of the 1970s.
I have recently had multiple occasions that I needed to write on patient
responsibility forms that out of network and balance billing is refused, followed with
letters citing applicable state laws and CMS contracts barring conduct in my state. It's
insane.
Still I have stacks of collection notices I must beat back and win every time. They only need
to win once to destroy someone. Have we no prisons?
The rapine and dispossession of late-stage American crapitalism (can we finally get
to End Stage?) always exceeds our worst expectations.
Crime-infested swamp of a country.
Dare we hope a movement can coalesce and endure after a decent man in his waning
years is thrust into an historical opportunity to move this train wreck from
disaster?
He's the community organizer Obama never was and the new dealer FDR never quite
was.
In the flatness of our current political terrain, Bernie's grandfatherly menscheism
makes him a moral colossus next to the sniveling careerists and the nefarious old
crassus.
1776, 1860, 1932, 1968. What will we make of this year?
Can you put the rebuttal into your own easily reproducible form? Either a neat page
to staple thoroughly to the bills (copied/printed in needed quantities) or a big rubber stamp
with blanks to fill in if applicable?
Yes, if you can provide it, I would make it a post. Your version with your state's
language and how to find similar language in other states. This is VERY important.
Note I have heard one reader say that their doctors said they wouldn't schedule the
surgery if she made an issue out of out of network MDs, that she needed to go elsewhere. So
those doctors were completely on board with this practice.
Doesn't mean that can't get a judgment against you! Then you spend the rest of your
life trying to avoid having people send money via Paypal or other services direct to your
bank account since they can take it. Or winning the lottery or buying a new car the list is
endless.
As in "Privatize Sovereignty, Socialize Property" by David Cieplay, Blackstone and
its ilk have this very business model. In this case they are buying up emergency room
doctors' practices – with the promise they will make more money – and passing the
cost on to insurance companies (poetic justice) and the state and federal gov. Because we
have no laws against this sort of corporate privateering (heaven forbid congress should
suddenly remember how and why to legislate), all the costs of health care are socialized and
because the PE funds are untouchable they have effectively privatized sovereignty. When we
all realize their useful function in this scam is one big nothing burger, congress will have
to act. It's just another testament to how venal, immoral, lazy and rotten congress is. I can
smell it from here.
Besides PE, it also makes sense that the real estate sector in general would be
opposed to anything that reduces financial burden (particularly anything that would lessen
medical debt) on middle- and lower-middle-income households, because foreclosures and
desperation fire sales would then dry up.
The law protects consumers from surprise medical bills when:
An enrollee goes to an in-network facility such as a hospital, lab or imaging center, but
services are provided by an out-of-network health provider.
An enrollee receives emergency services from a doctor or hospital that is not
contracted with the patient's health plan or medical group.
I've been a relatively healthy individual and so rarely use my insurance. I used it
for the first time in 20 years for a full yearly physical (just because it was "that time",
not for any health problems). The annual full checkup is, supposedly, fully covered, and I
chose a local clinic in my network.
The various clinics involved ended up billing me directly, so far, for over
$3500.00, and that was before the colonoscopy bill which still hasn't arrived. I checked my
Insurance Portal and, sure enough, the supposed covered charges were listed as
"Denied".
So, considering all these costs were supposed to be covered, I took a full day off
work (6 solid hours on various phone calls) to get it straightened out. While going through
all these bills and working through each charge I discovered 1 bill for a clinic appt (a
subsidiary of CVS) that never happened and 1 very high bill for standard blood tests (Quest)
that never happened due to a screwup initiated by the CVS-owned clinic. We'll see what
happens.
But while talking with one of the Insurance Co. reps she told me a classic surprise
billing horror story that happened to her. She gets occasional nosebleeds and one day got a
serious one while on the highway before her exit. A CHP officer pulled up behind her after
she pulled over to take care of the situation and refused to let her continue on without
going to the nearest Emergency Room, so she went.
Her visit lasted 1/2 hour. She was handed a bucket of clean water and a towel. After
cleaning up, she waited around for awhile, gave up waiting, washed the towel out, cleaned the
bucket out and left. She went on to tell me that 30 days later she recieved a bill from the
Emergency Services group at the hospital for $45,000.00. For a towel and a bucket of
water.
It took her two days of unpaid time off to get it straightened out and the bill
removed.
She then told me she's voting for Sanders, too.
So I've learned three lessons from this; 1) even with insurance things go wrong far
too often when it comes to billing issues, and 2) Surprise Billing is far more common than I
was led to believe, and 3) Health Insurance/care in this country is riddled with fraud and
outright criminality.
Hate to tell you, but with a colonoscopy, the exam is covered by Obamacare, but any
snipping of polyps is not, and that can easily run to $1000.
The US Is the only advanced economy where colonoscopies are recommended for everyone
over 50. In other countries, they are recommended only for people in high risk
groups.
If you get an annual ( and it needs to be annual ) fecal occult blood test
(easy and cheap, MD puts gloved finger in you, wipes test panel, and tells you right there),
the results in terms of detection are on par with colonoscopies.
Les Wexner is stepping down as chairman and CEO of L Brands as the company prepares to sell
a 55% stake in its flagship brand, Victoria's Secret, to private equity firm Sycamore Partners
for $525 million, according to a pair of reports from
Bloomberg and WSJ.
Last month, we reported that Wexner, a longtime friend, benefactor and mentor to financier
pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, was preparing to sell the company that he essentially built and led
for decades.
WSJ
described the decision to give up control of Victoria's Secret was an acknowledgement that
82-year-old billionaire Wexner "couldn't revei the fortunes of a troubled lingerie brand he had
built around shopping malls and sex appeal.
Three other L Brands board members will step down along with Wexner, though Abigail's will
remain on the board. A successor has already been chosen, per WSJ.
In an internal memo to staff, Mr. Wexner shared news of the deal and his departure. "I've
thought about where I fit in the picture," he wrote in the email. "In keeping with this same
thoughtful examination, I have decided that now is the right time to pass the reins to new
leadership."
L Brands said it had promoted one of its longtime executives, Andrew Meslow, to take over
as chief executive and be added to the board when the Sycamore deal closes. Mr. Meslow, who
joined the company in 2003, is chief operating officer of its Bath & Body Works
chain.
Three longtime board members, including L Brand's lead independent director, will step
down at the next annual meeting. Two other directors left last year amid pressure from an
activist investor. Mr. Wexner, who owns a 17% stake, and his wife Abigail will keep seats on
the board.
The deal will spin off VS as a separate company with a valuation worth $1.1 billion, just a
fraction of the $34 billion valuation for Lululemon Athletica and other rivals.
Pft 85 < The Constitution of the United States of America is a corporate charter. in
form and substance, it redirected the distribution of profits from shareholders to feudal
lords.
What it has been doing since Lincoln was shot is to develop lordships (called monopoly
possessing corporations) and making sure those lordships were vested by rule of law, war in
foreign land, and other measures as needed, to make sure the feudal lords and their
corporations were always profitable no matter what and to be sure that any need or want the
feudal lords had need for, the USA corporation would extract from those (called Americans)
that it governs. ..
When the feudal lords fail, the government is made to give the feudal lord the money it
needs to keep going. until the failed feudal lord can realize by its bull shit existence to
be profitable again.
Comment les Etats-Unis ont demandé à la communauté internationale de
soutenir leur plan israélo-palestinien.or look for lefigaro.fr then international,then
moyen orient.
Posted by: willie | Feb 13 2020 0:48 utc | 94
Interesting willie. Yes the best about Trump is that it makes the US system so visibly
transparent: The king and his servants (acolytes) looking for personal advantage ...
Hillarious. Don't you second-rate allies/acolytes use the wrong words. We better give you
talking points.
"Those who accept the policies of the Trump administration, cancellation of the JCPOA with
Iran, seizing oil fields in Syria, endless sanctions on nation after nation, Europe
blackmailed, endless threats emanating almost hourly from Trump's iPhone as "national policy"
or even criminally deranged is simply not paying attention."
Excellent come back for the Qanon fantasy, which, IMO, ranks right up there with Ayn
Rand's fevered dreams...
Ran across this quote which is more true than not.
There is no America. Everything is just one vast corporation, an association of
corporations. There's no Britain. There's no America. There's no Holland. There's no China.
There's no Russia. It's one conglomerate of corporations. Money runs the thing."
-- Peter Finch as character Howard Beale, in the movie "Network
Its true when you consider the interlocking ownership of the elites in the major
corporations and industries, which also capture governments political parties and regulatory
agencies, and in China of course these local global elites make up parts of the party elite.
While money is an important attribute of power, I think its a means and not an end to them.
Their motivations is an ideology based on Platos Republic where they are pholisopher kings
ruling the rest, and a religious idea that they, as elites may evolve to become like God and
recover what was lost after the fall - as man was originally made in Gods image. Another name
for it is Transhumanism which actually is idea that came from gnostic Judeo-Christian
beliefs. Religion like Eugenics has not disappeared, both have just been renamed and
repurposed. The Elites are Gods chosen people and the rest exist to serve.
Exactly Penelope, that is precisely what the Trump and establishment oligarchy want. Red
herrings to mesmerise and nimble fingers to pick pockets and all backed by their 'rule of
law', their thugs, their assault on humanity.
Benign neglect of the safety of citizens as part of this strategy of creating high level
terror (be it actual violence or a coronavirus)is called out in
this excellent analysis .
"... - Alex Acosta Federal Prosecutor was told to tank the case against Epstein because Epstein was Intelligence, who gave Acosta the order, his Boss AG Gonzales who reported directly the Bush Jr aka Clinton's brother from another mother ? ..."
"... He's not being terminated, he's being removed from the scene. Financier of pedofile ring and abuser of women is not positive for the brand. Even if branch is only throw away underwear - maybe he can move into adult diaper industry. ..."
Victoria's Secret Sale To Sycamore Imminent; L Brands' Shares Pop by Tyler Durden Mon, 02/10/2020 -
07:15 0 SHARES Shares of Victoria's Secret parent company L Brands jumped 10% Monday on news
private equity firm Sycamore Partners is close to a deal to purchase the women's lingerie
brand, reported CNBC
.
News of the potential deal involving Sycamore was released in the overnight hours, with more
details expected this week.
There was no word on a succession plan for L Brands CEO Les Wexner. Still, as we noted
several weeks ago, his mediocre performance as CEO and
controversial relationship with late sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein , assured that his time
at the helm of the company is coming to an end. That said, since we first previewed the
potential sale of Victoria's Secret, there has been no indication if the transaction is tied to
Wexner's relationship with Epstein.
Victoria's Secret has experienced declining sales in the last four years, which triggered a
mass exodus of investors from L Brands' stock, sending it plunging 74% since 2016. Shareholders
criticized Wexner for his inability to evolve Victoria's Secret to changing consumer demands,
despite L Brands having massive success in its other companies, such as Bath & Bodyworks
personal care shop.
Victoria's Secret generated $7.4 billion in sales last year but has been considered a dying
brand among consumers.
WEXNER & THE OTHER OLIGARCHS WHO FINANCED EPSTEIN'S KIDDIE SEX SLAVE OPERATION
- Should have all of their cash and assets frozen and confiscated under Global
Magnetski
- FBI, DOJ and Federal Courts have totally collapsed and can not enforce Laws where the
Elite Pedos are involved
- Trump and Mnuchin don't have the balls to seize the assets from 20+ Jewish Oligarch
Billionaire sex slave traffickers
- Ban kiddie sex involved Barak from entry into the US same for Bibi if he doesn't give
the blackmail videos to the criminal court in the Hauge and the US Justice Dept
while the DOJ, FBI and Federal Courts continue to provide cover for the Elite Pedos
- 2 x CIA and 1 former Mosad have stated that Epstein was a Mosad Compromise
Operation
- The operation created Control Files on the Business, Academic (MIT, Harvard etc) and
Political Elite in the US and Europe
- Dershowitz and Weinstein were frequent Flyers as were both Clintons
- Virginia Roberts testified she was forced to have sex with Dershowitz who she found
repulsive
- Prince Andrew was photographed embracing under age Roberts inside of the Wexner-Epstein
kiddie sex mansion in NYC as was Israeli PM Barak who also supplied Weinstein with former
Mosad contact; company that specialized in making PR problems go away, Black Cube
- Asia Argento, Me Too, accused Weinstein of raping her and up to 100 other actresses;
boyfriend Antony Bordain who had outspoken against Weinstein died after x Mosad was employed
to solve problems
- Epstein was a Globalist who belonged to the CFR and Tri Lateral Commission
- Epstein ran a Eugenics program in NM, in the Middle of the Governor's Ranch, Zorro
Ranch
- Bill Gates was friends with Epstein after Epstein's kiddi-sex conviction
- McCain's wife said they knew about Epstein, and did zero for the kiddie-sex-slaves
- Epstein's neighbor in the Virgin Island also ran a sex slave cult operation, Nexium
- Alex Acosta Federal Prosecutor was told to tank the case against Epstein because Epstein
was Intelligence, who gave Acosta the order, his Boss AG Gonzales who reported directly the
Bush Jr aka Clinton's brother from another mother ?
- AG Barr successfully defended the Acosta deal as AG, the next day the Federal Judge who
approved the original deal told the kiddie sex victime 30+ of them to piss up a rope or
better luck next time
- Epstein's "death" ended all legal action in the courts
- Sleeping guards, the cameras were broken, hung himself with toilet paper from 3 feet
etc, videos lost and erased from prison. 4- chan reported Epstein taken out of prison in van
minutes before death announcement was made
He's not being terminated, he's being removed from the scene. Financier of pedofile ring and abuser of women is not positive for the brand. Even if branch is only throw away underwear - maybe he can move into adult diaper
industry.
Sycamore Partners was founded in 2011 by Stefan Kaluzny and Peter Morrow. Before
Sycamore, Kaluzny was a Managing Partner at Golden Gate Capital and was
employed since the firm's inception. Prior to joining Golden Gate, he co-founded Delray
Farms, Inc. and also served as its Chief Executive Officer. Kaluzny received a BA from
Yale University
and an MBA from Harvard Business School .
Morrow served as a Principal at Golden Gate before co-founding Sycamore. Morrow received a
BA from Stanford University and an MBA from
Stanford Graduate
School of Business .
LBO = Asset Stripping, Pension Stripping, Part time workers, WalMart Pay Scale, No
benefits, Everything Made in Slave Countries ????
New York: Stefan Kaluzny has made a ton of money -- and drawn his share of critics --
buying down-on-the-heels retailers using lots of debt.
Now, Kaluzny's Sycamore Partners is under scrutiny again, after completing a deal that
left even seasoned leveraged-buyout experts agog. On Tuesday, Sycamore pulled off a $5.4
billion refinancing of Staples Inc., which it bought in 2017, that funded a staggering $1
billion dividend to the private equity firm.
The dividend is among the biggest in recent memory, even in a world where buyout firms
routinely extract large sums for themselves after taking companies private. Combined with a
payment it took in January, it means Sycamore has recovered -- in less than two years --
roughly 80% of the equity it originally put up as part of the deal. Private equity investors
typically run their companies for five to seven years before taking profits and exiting the
investment. - Sycamore Partners under scrutiny after pocketing $1 billion from Staples deal,
live mint.com
Draw a huge oval shaped ring around the San Luis Valley of Colorado, at the top edge is
Vail, at the bottom edge is the Epstein Zorro Ranch. In the center is the Blood-of Christ
Mnt, Crestone and the Baca Grande Ranch which was owned by Maurice Strong, and where his wife
Hanne & Nazi paperclip Vrill communicated with non-human beings starting in 1978.
In 1982
Maurice convened in Vail a gathering of the 300 top world leaders to 'hand them' the plan
during a week long gathering in which they were drugged with psychedelics. 10 years later
Maurice gave us Agenda 21 then in 2015 Agenda 2030, meanwhile, trade with China expanded and
factories were relocated to China, the European Union was created and the North American
Union was being created in secret. All seemed to be progressing well to bring about the plan,
the One World Government & Religion (GAIA).
Did China get suckered by the globalist & democrats into thinking they were going to
takeover the United States? Even worse, did the globalist think they were playing the top of
the game?
Jeffery Epstein is thought to be the Messiah of biblical prophesy by many of the most
powerful people. China is now a sort of leper colony. Saint James, kin to Jesus, and a
central theme of this play, it is home of Rothschild & Epstein & Ghislaine Maxwell.
The associated mindset/group, they bring to us this plague of bat theme.
The brains were at the northern edge, that ring, in Vail. The
"... In our late-imperial phase, we seem to have reached that moment when, whatever high officials say in matters of the empire's foreign policy, we must consider whether the opposite is in fact the case. So we have it now. ..."
"... Lawlessness begets lawlessness is the operative (and obvious) principle. In a remarkable speech at the Hoover Institution last week, Pompeo termed the Soleimani assassination "the restoration of deterrence" and appeared to promise other such operations against other nations Washington considers adversaries. Ominously enough, Pompeo singled out China and Russia. ..."
"... Against the background of the events noted above, it is clear from this speech alone that our secretary of state is a dangerously incompetent figure when it comes to judging global events, the proper responses to them, and the probable consequences of a given response. If we are going to think about costs, the heaviest will fall on Americans in months to come. ..."
"... Immediately after the U.S. drone that killed Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport, Mohammad Javad Zarif sent out a message whose importance should not be missed. "End of US's malign presence in West Asia has begun," Iran's foreign minister wrote. These few words, rendered in Twitterese, bear careful consideration given they come from an official whose nation had just sustained a critical blow. ..."
"... Gradually but rather certainly now, the community of nations is losing its patience with late-phase imperial America. With exceptions such as Japan and Israel, the Baltics and Saudi Arabia, this is so across both oceans and more or less across the non–Western world. In the Middle East, the American presence will remain for the time being, but we are now in the beginning-of-the-end phase. This was Zarif's meaning. And we now know the end will come neither peaceably nor lawfully. ..."
"... Amazing how the US government is bringing back the old days: "Slave markets" See: reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-rights/executions-torture-and-slave-markets-persist-in-libya-u-n-idUSKBN1GX1JY "Pillage", as pointed out in this article. ..."
"... To have such a person as the top diplomat in the USA shows how low the USA has sunk. For him to pretend to be some sort of Christian is sinister and extremely dangerous for everyone. There is NO reason for the US animosity towards Iran except subservience to Israel, which, again without real justification, claims to be terrified of Iran, which unlike Israel is NOT attacking others and has not for centuries. ..."
"... SecStae's remarks about deterrence befit a military commander, NOT a diplomat. Paranoia, grandiosity and violence begin with potus and cascade downward and about. Congress does its part in investing in machinery of war. ..."
"... Pompeo reminds me of the pigs in Animal Farm. He is a grotesque figure, steely-eyed, cold-blooded, fanatical, and hateful. "We lied, cheated, and stole" Pompous Maximus will get his comeuppance one of these days ..."
"... Pillage as policy. The Empire has fully embraced gangster capitalism for its modus operandi. ..."
"... Here is an interesting article that explains how governments have changed the rules so that they can justify killing anyone who they believe may at some point in time have the potential to be involved in a terrorist plot: viableopposition.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-new.html ..."
"... This rather Orwellian move gives governments the justification that they to kill any of us just because they feel that we might pose a threat and that is a very, very scary prospect. It is very reminiscent of the movie Minority Report where crimes of the future are punished in the present. ..."
Of all the preposterous assertions made since the drone assassination of Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad on Jan. 3, the prize for
bottomless ignorance must go to the bottomlessly ignorant Mike Pompeo.
Speaking after the influential Iranian general's death, our frightening secretary of state declaimed on
CBS's Face the Nation
, "There was sound and just and legal reason for the actions the President took, and the world is safer as a result." In
appearances on
five
news programs on the same Sunday morning, the evangelical paranoid who now runs American foreign policy was a singer with a one-note
tune. "It's very clear the world's a safer place today," Pompeo said on ABC's Jan. 5 edition of This
Week.
In our late-imperial phase, we seem to have reached that moment when, whatever high officials say in matters of the empire's
foreign policy, we must consider whether the opposite is in fact the case. So we have it now.
We are not safer now that Soleimani, a revered figure across much of the Middle East, has been murdered. The planet has just become
significantly more dangerous, especially but not only for Americans, and this is so for one simple reason: The Trump administration,
Pompeo bearing the standard, has just tipped American conduct abroad into a zone of probably unprecedented lawlessness, Pompeo's
nonsensical claim to legality notwithstanding .
This is a very consequential line to cross.
Hardly does it hold that Washington's foreign policy cliques customarily keep international law uppermost in their minds and that
recent events are aberrations. Nothing suggests policy planners even consider legalities except when it makes useful propaganda to
charge others with violating international statutes and conventions.
Neither can the Soleimani assassination be understood in isolation: This was only the most reckless of numerous policy decisions
recently taken in the Middle East. Since late last year, to consider merely the immediate past, the Trump administration has acted
ever more flagrantly in violation of all international legal authorities and documents -- the UN Charter, the International Criminal
Court, and the International Court of Justice in the Hague chief among them.
Washington is into full-frontal lawlessness now.
'Keeping the Oil'
Shortly after Trump announced the withdrawal of U.S. forces from northern Syria last October, the president reversed course --
probably under Pentagon and State Department pressure -- and said some troops would remain to protect Syria's oilfields. "We want
to keep the oil," Trump declared in
the course of a Twitter storm. It soon emerged that the administration's true intent was to prevent the Assad government in Damascus
from reasserting sovereign control over Syrian oilfields.
The Russians had the honesty to call this for what it was. "Washington's attempt to put oilfields there under [its] control is
illegal,"
Sergei Lavrov said at the time. "In fact, it's tantamount to robbery," the Russian foreign minister added. (John Kiriakou, writing
for Consortium News, pointed out
that it is a violation of the 1907 Hague Convention. It is call pillage.)
Few outside the Trump administration, and possibly no one, has argued that Soleimani's murder was legitimate under international
law. Not only was the Iranian general from a country with which the U.S. is not at war, which means the crime is murder; the drone
attack was also a clear violation of Iraqi sovereignty, as has been widely reported.
In response to Baghdad's subsequent demand that all foreign troops withdraw from Iraqi soil,
Pompeo flatly refused even to discuss
the matter with Iraqi officials -- yet another openly contemptuous violation of Iraqi sovereignty.
It gets worse. In his own response to Baghdad's decision to evict foreign troops,
Trump threatened sanctions -- "sanctions like they've never seen before" -- and said Iraq would have to pay the U.S. the cost
of the bases the Pentagon has built there despite binding agreements that all fixed installations the U.S. has built in Iraq are
Iraqi government-owned.
At Baghdad's Throat
Trump, who seems to have oil eternally on his mind, has been at Baghdad's throat for some time. Twice since taking office three
years ago, he has
tried
to intimidate the Iraqis into "repaying" the U.S. for its 2003 invasion with access to Iraqi oil. "We did a lot, we did a lot
over there, we spent trillions over there, and a lot of people have been talking about the oil," he said on the second of these occasions.
Baghdad rebuffed Trump both times, but he has been at it since, according to Adil Abdul–Mahdi, Iraq's interim prime minister.
Last year the U.S. administration
asked Baghdad for 50 percent of the nation's oil output -- in total roughly 4.5 million barrels daily -- in exchange for various
promised reconstruction projects.
Rejecting the offer, Abdul–Mahdi
signed an "oil
for reconstruction" agreement with China last autumn -- whereupon Trump threatened to instigate widespread demonstrations in
Baghdad if Abdul–Mahdi did not cancel the China deal. (He did not do so and, coincidentally or otherwise, civil unrest ensued.)
U.S. Army forces operating in southern Iraq, April. 2, 2003. (U.S. Navy)
Blueprints for Reprisal
If American lawlessness is nothing new, the brazenly imperious character of all the events noted in this brief résumé has nonetheless
pushed U.S. foreign policy beyond a tipping point.
No American -- and certainly no American official or military personnel -- can any longer travel in the Middle East with an assurance
of safety. All American diplomats, all military officers, and all embassies and bases in the region are now vulnerable to reprisals.
The Associated Press reported after the Jan. 3 drone strike that
Iran has developed 13 blueprints for reprisals
against the U.S.
Lawlessness begets lawlessness is the operative (and obvious) principle. In a remarkable speech
at the Hoover Institution last week, Pompeo termed the Soleimani assassination "the restoration of deterrence" and appeared to promise
other such operations against other nations Washington considers adversaries. Ominously enough, Pompeo singled out China and Russia.
Here is a snippet from Pompeo's remarks:
"In strategic terms, deterrence simply means persuading the other party that the costs of a specific behavior exceed its benefits.
It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it. Your adversary must understand not only do you have the capacity to impose
costs but that you are, in fact, willing to do so . In all cases we have to do this."
Against the background of the events noted above, it is clear from this speech alone that our secretary of state is a dangerously
incompetent figure when it comes to judging global events, the proper responses to them, and the probable consequences of a given
response. If we are going to think about costs, the heaviest will fall on Americans in months to come.
Immediately after the U.S. drone that killed Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport, Mohammad Javad Zarif
sent out a message
whose importance should not be missed. "End of US's malign presence in West Asia has begun," Iran's foreign minister wrote. These
few words, rendered in Twitterese, bear careful consideration given they come from an official whose nation had just sustained a
critical blow.
24 hrs ago, an arrogant clown -- masquerading as a diplomat -- claimed people were dancing in the cities of Iraq.
Today, hundreds of thousands of our proud Iraqi brothers and sisters offered him their response across their soil.
Gradually but rather certainly now, the community of nations is losing its patience with late-phase imperial America. With exceptions
such as Japan and Israel, the Baltics and Saudi Arabia, this is so across both oceans and more or less across the non–Western world.
In the Middle East, the American presence will remain for the time being, but we are now in the beginning-of-the-end phase. This
was Zarif's meaning. And we now know the end will come neither peaceably nor lawfully.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune , is a columnist,
essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him
on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is
Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via
his Patreon site .
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Well, there's two relevant bits here. Bullshit walks and money talks. Our money stopped talking $23T ago.
What goes around, comes around. Whenever, however it comes down, it's gonna hurt.
Antiwar7 , January 21, 2020 at 13:46
Amazing how the US government is bringing back the old days: "Slave markets"
See: reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-rights/executions-torture-and-slave-markets-persist-in-libya-u-n-idUSKBN1GX1JY "Pillage", as pointed out in this article.
rosemerry , January 21, 2020 at 13:28
To have such a person as the top diplomat in the USA shows how low the USA has sunk. For him to pretend to be some sort of
Christian is sinister and extremely dangerous for everyone. There is NO reason for the US animosity towards Iran except subservience
to Israel, which, again without real justification, claims to be terrified of Iran, which unlike Israel is NOT attacking others
and has not for centuries.
Even if the USA hates Iran, it has already done inestimable damage to the Islamic Republic before this disgraceful action. Cruelty
to 80 million people who have never harmed, even really threatened, the mighty USA, by tossing out a working JCPOA and installing
economic "sanctions", should not be accepted by the rest of the world-giving in to blackmail encourages worse behavior, as we
have already seen.
"It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it. " This is exactly what should be rejected by us all. These "leaders" will
not change their behavior without solidarity among "allies" like the European Union, which has already caved in and blamed Iran
for the changes -Iran has explained clearly why it made- to the JCPOA which the USA has left.
Abby , January 21, 2020 at 20:15
The only difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump doesn't hide the US naked aggression as well as Obama did. So far
Trump hasn't started any new wars. By this time in Obama's tenure we had started bombing more countries and accepted one coup.
dfnslblty , January 21, 2020 at 12:43
SecStae's remarks about deterrence befit a military commander, NOT a diplomat.
Paranoia, grandiosity and violence begin with potus and cascade downward and about.
Congress does its part in investing in machinery of war.
Cheyenne , January 21, 2020 at 11:49
The above comment shows exactly why bellicose adventurism for oil etc. is so stupid and dangerous. If we continually prance
around robbing people, they're gonna unite to slap us down.
Hardly seems like anyone should need that pointed out but if anybody mentioned it to Trump or any other gung ho warhawk, he
must not have been listening.
Trump and Pompeo seem to have entered the Wild West stage of recent American history. I think they watch too many western movies,
without understanding the underrlying plot of 100% of them. It is the bad guys take over a town, where they impose their will
on the population, terrorizing everyone into obediance. They steal everything in sight and any who oppose them are summarily killed
off. In the end a good guy ( In American parlance, " a good guy with a gun" shows up . The town`s people approach him and beg
him to oppose the bad guys. He then proceeds to kill off the bad guys after the general population joins him in his crusade. it
looks as though we are at the stage in the movie where the general population is ready to take up arms against the bad guys.
The moral of the story the bad guys, the bullies, Pompeo and Trump, are either killed or chased out of town. But perhaps the
problem is that this plot is too difficult for Trump and Pompeo to understand. So they don`t quite get the peril that there gunmen
and killers are now in. They don`t see the writing on the wall.
Caveman , January 21, 2020 at 11:30
It seems the only US considerations in the assassination were – will it weaken Iran, will it strengthen the American position?
On that perspective, the answer is probably yes on both counts. Legal considerations do not seem to have carried any weight. In
the UK we recently saw a chilling interview with Brian Hook, U.S. Special Representative for Iran and Senior Policy Advisor to
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. It was clear that he saw the assassination as another nail in the coffin of the Iranian regime,
simply furthering a policy objective.
Vera Gottlieb , January 21, 2020 at 11:19
What is even sadder is the world's lack of gonads to stand up to this bully nation – that has caused so much grief and still
does.
Michael McNulty , January 21, 2020 at 11:01
The US government became a crime syndicate. Today its bootleg liquor is oil, the boys they send round to steal it are armies
and their drive-by shootings are Warthog strafings using DU ammunition. Their drug rackets in the back streets are high-grade
reefer, heroin and amphetamines, with pharmaceutical-grade chemicals on Main Street. They still print banknotes just as before;
but this time it's legal but still doesn't make them enough, so to make up the shortfalls they've taken armed robbery abroad.
paul easton , January 21, 2020 at 12:55
The US Government is running a protection racket, literally. In return for US protection of their sources of oil, the NATO
countries provide international support for US war crimes. But now that the (figurative) Don is visibly out of his mind, they
are likely to turn to other protectors.
One need not step back very far in order to look at the bigger longer range picture. What immediately comes into focus is that
this is simply the current moment in what is now 500 plus years of Western colonialism/neocolonialism. When has the law EVER had
anything to do with any of this?
ML , January 21, 2020 at 10:31
Pompeo reminds me of the pigs in Animal Farm. He is a grotesque figure, steely-eyed, cold-blooded, fanatical, and hateful.
"We lied, cheated, and stole" Pompous Maximus will get his comeuppance one of these days. I hope he plans more overseas trips
for himself. He is a vile person, a psychopath proud of his psychopathy. He alone would make anyone considering conversion to
Christianity, his brand of it, run screaming into the night. Repulsive man.
Michael Crockett , January 21, 2020 at 09:40
Pillage as policy. The Empire has fully embraced gangster capitalism for its modus operandi. That said, IMO, the axis of resistance
has the military capability and the resolve to fight back and win. Combining China and Russia into a greater axis of resistance
could further shrink the Outlaw US Empire presence in West Asia. Thank you Patrick for your keen insight and observations. The
Empires days are numbered.
Sally Snyder , January 21, 2020 at 07:28
Here is an interesting article that explains how governments have changed the rules so that they can justify killing anyone
who they believe may at some point in time have the potential to be involved in a terrorist plot: viableopposition.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-new.html
This rather Orwellian move gives governments the justification that they to kill any of us just because they feel that we might
pose a threat and that is a very, very scary prospect. It is very reminiscent of the movie Minority Report where crimes of the
future are punished in the present.
Globalism requires rapacious capitalism. Globalism is billionaires and multi-millionaires
getting richer while the middle classes of the entire Western world get squeezed and then
squeezed more, with once stable working classes ruined.
Liberal voters fall for it because the Globalists swear they are helping all the blacks
and browns of the world. Liberal academics, journalists, artists, and 'ordinary rich' people
back it because they invariably despise both the white working class and the non-Liberal
white middle class. Neocons (WASPs as well as Jews) practice rapacious capitalism religiously
because they worship Mammon.
Hausmeister and I discussed rule by fear, "deimocracy".
That was off topic, and belongs more properly here.
And to that discussion I wish to proffer an interesting related essay>
@ steelcityscribblings.(uk)"Talking WW3 Blues" "...For me the scariest thing is not that
the world is ruled by gangsters – a criminal elite with the US ruling class its top
mafia family. It is that this particular family, and the lesser criminals who ride its
coat-tails, are justifiably worried...."
They too are ruled by fear. Not logos, not knowledge, fear, and panic.
What can go wrong with that?
They conjure up these, the lesser gods of the wars they've made since ...you name a
date... And thus themselves are ruled, as they rule the people, by war and fear and
panic.
For the former tank commander, murder -- not simply double-tapping the target with a
firearm, but blowing him into meaty chunks with a Hellfire missile -- is "real
deterrence."
Pompeo
said during a speech at Stanford University's Hoover Institute "there was 'a bigger
strategy' behind the killing of Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force, Iran's elite
foreign espionage and paramilitary force.
The USG Mafia Hit Strategy on steroids is not confined to threatening Iran, however. Pompeo
eluded to Russia and China's leaders being assassinated.
Pompeo didn't come out and say Trump's government will steer Hellfire missiles specifically
at Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, or even Kim Jung-un . The message, however, is inescapable,
especially for folks opposed to neoliberal crony capitalist domination of their national
economies, industries, public services, and natural resources
Iran wants a nuke to prevent an attack by the USG in collaboration with the Zionist
government in Israel. Ditto, North Korea. It remembers when the USG bombed virtually every
city, town, and hamlet in the country and killed a third of the population. No doubt the
mullahs in Tehran vividly recall Muammar Gaddafi's fate. They also remember how the CIA
colluded with the Brits to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran and
installed a monarchial tyrant.
It is entirely rational to seek the most effective deterrent to foreign invasion and mass
murder campaigns waged relentlessly by the crony capitalist neolib USG and its little vicious
client, Israel, the racist state where only Jews are considered first-class citizens and Arabs
are tortured and killed -- or at best maimed (during anti-occupation protests, Israel snipers
are instructed to aim for
the eyes ).
For neocons, Trumpsters, and Fox News teleprompter readers, "taking out" Soleimani in Mafia
hit fashion "was a brilliant move."
Yes, of course, murdering leaders of recalcitrant nations is considered a "brilliant move"
by psychopaths. The Italian-Jewish Mafia killed opponents one-by-one or in small groups while
the USG kills opponents in the thousands, even the millions. The Gambino family and Kosher
Nostra founded by Arnold Rothstein (who was himself assassinated) would have loved to take out
their opponents with Reaper drones and Hellfire missiles, courtesy of witless US taxpayers and
debt-serfs.
State Department officials involved in U.S. embassy security were not made aware of
imminent threats to four specific U.S. embassies, two State Department officials said,
further undermining Trump's claims that Soleimani posed an imminent threat. https://t.co/sG9ZXyxOa3
USG embassies were not and are not under threat by Iran. In Iraq, the people protesting
outside the embassy are Iraqis. They want the USG and its contractors out of their country
which is still reeling from Bush the Lesser's invasion, a follow-up on more than a decade of
child-killing (over 500,000) sanctions and a previous invasion by Junior's father, the former
CIA boss who would become president.
Corporate war propaganda media is pushing the narrative that Trump impulsively decided to
slaughter Soleimani, as if it simply came to him out of the blue.
. @douglaslondon5 , who retired
from CIA at the end of 2018, writes that he and his team "often struggled in persuading the
president to recognize the most important threats" because of Trump's "focus on celebrity,
headlines, and immediate gratification." https://t.co/1SlVDNb44l
Hardly. This is simply another anti-Trump gimmick. If you look beyond this one-dimensional
pre-election circus, you'll see Trump's orthodox Jewish son-in-law, Sheldon Adelson, and a cast
of Zionist characters steering the president into war with Israel's enemies. Indeed, Trump is
driven by a pathological need for attention and this has been successfully exploited by neocons
in the service of a tiny nation based on racial and religious superiority.
The basic method Trump used to kill Soleimani was developed by the Israelis >30 years
ago. Here's a screen shot from "Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted
Assassinations," by Israeli author Ronen Bergman, here describing Israeli developments in
late 1980s pic.twitter.com/MWKifPPjPF
The neolib USG with its Israel-first neocon faction is the largest and most deadly Mafia
organization in the world.
The US government has killed millions since the end of FDR's war under false pretense and
has overthrown countries far and wide. It trains and enables sadistic paramilitaries, has armed
crazed Wahhabi jihadists, and is the only country to have used a nuclear weapon against
innocent civilians.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this articl e was
originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
December 3, 1993 The CIA Drug ConnectionIs as Old as the Agency
LONDON -- The Justice Department is investigating allegations that officers of a special
Venezuelan anti-drug unit funded by the CIA smuggled more than 2,000 pounds of cocaine into
the United States with the knowledge of CIA officials – despite protests by the Drug
Enforcement Administration, the organization responsible for enforcing U.S. drug laws.
Bush older was the first president from CIA. He was already a senior CIA official at the time
of JFK assassination and might participate in the plot to kill JFK. At least he was in Dallas at
the day of assassination. .
That Iraq is to say the least unstable is attributable to the ill-advised U.S. invasion
of 2003.
Nothing to do with 9 years of sanctions on Iraq that killed a million Iraqis, "half of
them children," and US control of Iraqi air space, after having killed Iraqi military in a
turkey-shoot, for no really good reason other than George H W Bush seized the "unipolar
moment" to become king of the world?
Maybe it's just stubbornness: I think Papa Bush is responsible for the "imperial pivot,"
in the Persian Gulf war aka Operation Desert Storm, 29 years and 4 days ago -- January 17,
1991.
According to Jeffrey Engel, Bush's biographer and director of the Bush library at Southern
Methodist University, Gorbachev harassed Bush with phone calls, pleading with him not to go
to war over Kuwait
(It's worth noting that Dennis Ross was relatively new in his role on Jim Baker's staff
when Baker, Brent Skowcroft, Larry Eagleburger & like minded urged Bush to take the
Imperial Pivot.)
According to Vernon Loeb, who completed the writing of King's Counsel after Jack
O'Connell died, Jordan's King Hussein, in consultation with retired CIA station chief
O'Connell, parlayed with Arab leaders to resolve the conflict on their own, i.e. Arab-to-Arab
terms, and also pleaded with Bush to stay out, and to let the Arabs solve their own problems.
Bush refused. https://www.c-span.org/video/?301361-6/kings-counsel
See above: Bush was determined to "seize the unipolar moment."
Once again insist on entering into the record: George H Bush was present at the creation
of the Global War on Terror, July 4, 1979, the Jerusalem Conference hosted by Benzion and
Benjamin Netanyahu and heavily populated with Trotskyites – neocons.
I think Papa Bush is responsible for the "imperial pivot," in the Persian Gulf war aka
Operation Desert Storm, 29 years and 4 days ago -- January 17, 1991.
Yes I remember it well. I came back from a long trip & memorable vacation, alas I was
a young man, to the television drama that was unfolding with Arthur Kent 'The Scud
Stud' and others reporting from the safety of their hotel balconies filming aircaft and
cruise missiles. It was surreal.
You are correct of course.
I've heard and read about a claim that Trump actually called PM Abdul Mahdi and demanded that
Iraq hand over 50 percent of their proceeds from selling their oil to the USA, and then
threatened Mahdi that he would unleash false flag attacks against the Iraqi government and
its people if he did not submit to this act of Mafia-like criminal extortion. Mahdi told
Trump to kiss his buttocks and that he wasn't going to turn over half of the profits from oil
sales.
This makes Trump sound exactly like a criminal mob boss, especially in light of the fact
that the USA is now the world's #1 exporter of oil – a fact that the arrogant Orange
Man has even boasted about in recent months. Can anyone confirm that this claim is accurate?
If so, then the more I learn about Trump the more sleazy and gangster like he becomes.
I mean, think about it. Bush and Cheney and mostly jewish neocons LIED us into Iraq based
on bald faced lies, fabricated evidence, and exaggerated threats that they KNEW did not
exist. We destroyed that country, captured and killed it's leader – who used to be a
big buddy of the USA when we had a use for him – and Bush's crime gang killed close to
2 million innocent Iraqis and wrecked their economy and destroyed their infrastructure. And,
now, after all that death, destruction and carnage – which Trump claimed in 2016 he did
not approve of – but, now that Trump is sitting on the throne in the Oval office
– he has the audacity and the gall to demand that Iraq owes the USA 50 percent of their
oil profits? And, that he won't honor and respect their demand to pull our troops out of
their sovereign nation unless they PAY US back for the gigantic waste of tax payers money
that was spent building permanent bases inside their country?
Not one Iraqi politician voted for the appropriations bill that financed the construction
of those military bases; that was our mistake, the mistake of our US congress whichever POTUS
signed off on it.
...Trump learned the power of the purse on the streets of NYC, he survived by playing ball
with the Jewish and Italian Mafia. Now he has become the ultimate Godfather, and the world
must listen to his commands. Watch and listen as the powerful and mighty crumble under US
Hegemony.
Right TG, traditionally, as you said up there first, and legally too, under the supreme law
of the land. Economic sanctions are subject to the same UNSC supervision as forcible
coercion.
UN Charter Article 41: "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the
use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon
the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or
partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio,
and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."
US "sanctions" require UNSC authorization. Unilateral sanctions are nothing but illegal
coercive intervention, as the non-intervention principle is customary international law,
which is US federal common law.
The G-192, that is, the entire world, has affirmed this law. That's why the US is trying
to defund UNCTAD as redundant with the WTO (UNCTAD is the G-192's primary forum.) In any
case, now that the SCO is in a position to enforce this law at gunpoint with its
overwhelmingly superior missile technology, the US is going to get stomped and tased until it
complies and stops resisting.
In 2018 total US petroleum production was under 18 million barrels per day, total
consumption north of 20 mmb/d. What does it matter if the US exports a bunch of super light
fracked product the US itself can't refine if it turns around and imports it all back in
again and then some.
The myths we tell ourselves, like a roaring economy that nevertheless generates a $1
trillion annual deficit, will someday come back to bite us. Denying reality is not a winning
game plan for the long run.
I long tought that US foreign policies were mainly zionist agenda – driven, but the
Venezuelan affair and the statements of Trump himself about the syrian oil (ta be "kept"
(stolen)) make you think twice.
Oil seems to be at least very important even if it's not the main cause of middle east
problems
So maybe it's the cause of illegal and cruel sanctions against Iran : Get rid of
competitor to sell shale oil everywhere ?( think also of Norstream 2 here)
Watch out US of A. in the end there is something sometimes referred to as the oil's
curse . some poor black Nigerians call oil "the shit of the devil", because it's such a
problem – related asset Have you heard of it ? You get your revenues from oil easily,
so you don't have to make effort by yourself. And in the end you don't keep pace with China
on 5G ? Education fails ? Hmm
Becommig a primary sector extraction nation sad destiny indeed, like africans growing cafe,
bananas and cacao for others. Not to mention environmental problems
What has happened to the superb Nation that send the first man on the moon and invented
modern computers ?
Disapointment
Money for space or money for war following the Zio. Choose Uncle Sam !
Difficult to have both
Everyone seems to forget how we avoided war with Syria all those years ago It was when John
Kerry of all people gaffed, and said "if Assad gives up all his chemical weapons." That was
in response to a reporter who asked "is there anything that can stop the war?" A intrepid
Russian ambassador chimed in loud enough for the press core to hear his "OK" and history was
averted. Thinking restricting the power of the President will stop brown children from dying
at the hands of insane US foreign policy is a cope. "Bi-partisanship" voted to keep troops in
Syria, that was only a few months ago, have you already forgotten? Dubya started the drone
program, and the magical African everyone fawns over, literally doubled the remote controlled
death. We are way past pretending any elected official from either side is actually against
more ME war, or even that one side is worse than the other.
The problem with the supporters Trump has left is they so desperately want to believe in
something bigger than themselves. They have been fed propaganda for their whole lives, and as
a result can only see the world in either "this is good" or "this is bad." The problem with
the opposition is that they are insane. and will say or do anything regardless of the truth.
Trump could be impeached for assassinating Sulimani, yet they keep proceeding with fake and
retarded nonsense. Just like keeping troops in Syria, even the most insane rabid leftoids are
just fine with US imperialism, so long as it's promoting Starbucks, Marvel and homosex, just
like we see with support for HK. That is foreign meddling no matter how you try to justify
it, and it's not even any different messaging than the hoax "bring
democracyhumanrightsfreedom TM to the poor Arabs" justification that was used in Iraq. They
don't even have to come up with a new play to run, it's really quite incredible.
@OverCommenter
A lot of right-wingers also see military action in the Middle East as a way for America to
flex its muscles and bomb some Arabs. It also serves to justify the insane defence budget
that could be used to build a wall and increase funding to ICE.
US politics has become incredibly bi-partisan, criticising Trump will get you branded a
'Leftist' in many circles. This extreme bipartisanship started with the Obama birth
certificate nonsense which was being peddled by Jews like Orly Taitz, Philip J. Berg, Robert
L. Shulz, Larry Klayman and Breitbart news – most likely because Obama was pursuing the
JCPOA and not going hard enough on Iran – and continued with the Trump Russian agent
angle.
Now many Americans cannot really think critically, they stick to their side like a fan
sticks to their sports team.
The first person I ever heard say sanctions are acts of war was Ron Paul. The repulsive
Madeleine Albright infamously said the deaths of 500,000 Iranian children due to US sanctions
was worth it. She ought to be tried as a war criminal. Ron Paul ought to be Secretary of
State.
"... Trump's threats of auto tariffs to gain trade concessions with the Europeans is certainly nothing new, but using the same to dictate foreign policy is, notes WaPo's diplomatic correspondent John Hudson. ..."
"... Interestingly, in Wednesday's joint statement the European signatories attempted to distance their drastic action away from Washington's so-called "maximum pressure" campaign. "Our three countries are not joining a campaign to implement maximum pressure against Iran," they said . ..."
"... The statement also underscored Europe hopes to use the mechanism "to bring Iran back into full compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA" and in the words of one official quoted in The Guardian to prevent nuclear advancement to the point that the Iranians "learn something that it is not possible for them to unlearn" . ..."
A bombshell revelation from The Washington Post a day after France, Britain and Germany took unprecedented action against Iran
by
formally triggering the dispute resolution mechanism regulating conformity to the deal, seen as the harshest measure taken by
the European signatories thus far. The European powers officially see Iran as in breach of the deal which means UN and EU punitive
sanctions are now on the table.
But according to The Post , how things quickly escalated
to this point is real story : " Days before Europeans warned Iran of nuclear deal violations, Trump secretly threatened to impose
25% tariff on European autos if they didn't," says the report.
This came as a "shock" to all three countries, with one top European official
calling it essentially "extortion" and a new level of hardball tactics from the Trump administration.
After the US leveraged the new tariffs threat according to the report, European capitals moved quick to trigger the mechanism,
which involved the individual European states formally notifying the agreement's guarantor, the European Union, that Iran is in breach
of the nuclear deal.
This followed the Jan.6 declaration of Tehran's leadership to no longer be beholden to uranium enrichment limits. And that's where
things got interesting as Washington's pressure campaign dramatically turned up the heat on Europe.
"Within days, the three countries would formally accuse Iran of violating the deal, triggering a recourse provision that could
reimpose United Nations sanctions on Iran and unravel the last remaining vestiges of the Obama-era agreement," the report
continues .
However, the report notes France, the UK, and Germany were already in deep discussion on moving forward with triggering the mechanism.
"We didn't want to look weak, so we agreed to keep the existence of the threat a secret," a European official cited by WaPo claims.
Trump's threats of auto tariffs to gain trade concessions with the Europeans is certainly nothing new, but using the same to dictate
foreign policy is, notes WaPo's diplomatic correspondent John Hudson.
Interestingly, in Wednesday's joint statement the European signatories attempted to distance their drastic action away from Washington's
so-called "maximum pressure" campaign. "Our three countries are not joining a campaign to implement maximum pressure against Iran,"
they said .
The statement also underscored Europe hopes to use the mechanism "to bring Iran back into full compliance with its commitments
under the JCPOA" and in the words of one official quoted in
The Guardian to prevent nuclear advancement to the point that the Iranians "learn something that it is not possible for them
to unlearn" .
Now that the mechanism has been enacted, the clock starts on 65 days of intensive negotiations before UN sanctions would be reimposed
if no resolution is reached. Specifically a blanket arms embargo would be imposed among other measures, and certainly it would mark
the deal's final demise, given the Europeans are Iran's last hope for being equal partners in the deal.
Also interesting is that in the hours before The Washington Post report was published, Iranian FM Zarif charged that the EU investigation
into Iran's alleged non-compliance meant Europe is allowing itself to be bulled by the United States .
Indeed the new revelation of the secret threats attempting to dictate Europe's course appear to confirm precisely Zarif's words
to reporters
earlier on Wednesday : "They say 'We are not responsible for what the United States did.' OK, but you are independent" he began.
And then added a stinging rebuke: "Europe, EU, is the largest global economy. So why do you allow the United States to bully you
around?"
elley Vlahos
comments on the president's willingness to send more U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia:
It is time to claw back from this toxic relationship, and the first place to start is to transform our current mission of paternalistic
"power projection" to one of "national defense." Who cares what the House of Saud wants to buy -- it's not what the American taxpayer
pays for, and amen to Amash for putting it in such bald terms.
Trump's statement that he will send more troops to Saudi Arabia in exchange for payment sums up his foreign policy worldview quite
well. He has no objection to sending U.S. troops to other countries, and he doesn't mind putting them in harm's way, as long as he
thinks someone will pay for it. Trump is not interested in whether a particular mission makes the U.S. more secure, and he certainly
doesn't think strategically about what the U.S. should be trying to accomplish. He just wants to get someone to fork over some cash.
The absurd thing is that the cash is never forthcoming, but Trump keeps sending the troops to these places anyway.
We saw the same mercenary attitude during the campaign when he
talked about
setting up a "big, beautiful safe zone" in Syria, which he
assured
us would be paid for by Arab client states. We have seen it several times when he talks about "taking the oil" from this or that
country to compensate the U.S. for our military interventions. As long as the Saudis and Emiratis are paying customers for weapons
that they use to kill Yemenis, Trump will happily put their preferences and interests first.
Oddly enough for a self-proclaimed nationalist, the president has no notion of the national interest, but sees everything in narrow
terms of wealth that can be extracted from others. This is why he talks about NATO as if it were a protection racket and shakes down
South Korea for more money, and it is why he thinks it is acceptable to keep U.S. forces in Syria illegally so that they can control
Syrian oil fields. It is why he insists that Iraq pay us for the cost of the installations that the U.S. built during the occupation
of their country. It is also one reason why he relies so heavily on economic warfare in his attempt to coerce other states to do
what he wants, because he seems to think that everyone is just as preoccupied with getting money as he is.
Contrary to the common assumption that Trump espouses some sort of "Jacksonian" foreign policy, this is an approach that ignores
national honor and interest and focuses solely on lucre. Trump resembles nothing so much as a minor German prince from the 17th or
18th century who hires out his soldiers to fight the wars of other countries. This is what a mercenary foreign policy looks like,
and it has nothing to do with making the U.S. more secure
Even granted that Trump doesn't meet the low bar of Jacksonianism in foreign policy, I'm weary of even that much - all the talk
of national honour seems to amount to little more than doing incredibly stupid and wicked things, and then persisting in them,
because to do otherwise would cause a loss of face or credibility.
True believers will not be suaded by mere "facts". (When "fact" has become a synonym for "fake news".) Nor even if their little
noses are rubbed in the Trumpoo. Not even when Trump's daily circus empowers the Left and discourages the old conservatives.
We are begging for a national trauma and we will get it.
The old English and American republicans were exactly right about the dangers of a "standing army" (that is, the professionionalization
of the military). I'm for reinstating the draft not as a means of bolstering our ranks but as a means of mobilizing a permanent
antiwar movement.
I've never liked applying the term "Jacksonian" to foreign policy because the Jackson presidency didn't have much of a foreign
policy (unlike, say, his protégé
James K. Polk ). Most of what gets passed off as "Jacksonian" in terms of foreign policy is really just Gen. Jackson's military
policy during the Creek War, the War of 1812, and the annexation of Spanish Florida. In other words, "Jacksonian foreign policy"
is just another for "militarized foreign policy."
Indeed, I can only imagine how outraged Jackson would be with the imperialism that "conservative" pundits are justifying in
his name. Jackson was fiercely loyal to the ideal of the citizen-soldier/militiaman - and to the men themselves - and would have
been furious if foreign influence in the government turned them into mercenaries. Knowing Jackson, the men responsible for such
treachery might not have lived for very much longer.
To the extent that Jackson even addressed foreign policy, he
(like John Quincy Adams) echoed the wisdom of the Founding Fathers:
If we turn to our relations with foreign powers, we find our condition equally gratifying. Actuated by the sincere desire
to do justice to every nation and to preserve the blessings of peace, our intercourse with them has been conducted on the part
of this Government in the spirit of frankness; and I take pleasure in saying that it has generally been met in a corresponding
temper. Difficulties of old standing have been surmounted by friendly discussion and the mutual desire to be just, and the
claims of our citizens, which had been long withheld, have at length been acknowledged and adjusted and satisfactory arrangements
made for their final payment; and with a limited, and I trust a temporary, exception, our relations with every foreign power
are now of the most friendly character, our commerce continually expanding, and our flag respected in every quarter of the
world.
While I am thus endeavoring to press upon your attention the principles which I deem of vital importance in the domestic
concerns of the country, I ought not to pass over without notice the important considerations which should govern your policy
toward foreign powers. It is unquestionably our true interest to cultivate the most friendly understanding with every nation
and to avoid by every honorable means the calamities of war, and we shall best attain this object by frankness and sincerity
in our foreign intercourse, by the prompt and faithful execution of treaties, and by justice and impartiality in our conduct
to all. But no nation, however desirous of peace, can hope to escape occasional collisions with other powers, and the soundest
dictates of policy require that we should place ourselves in a condition to assert our rights if a resort to force should ever
become necessary. Our local situation, our long line of seacoast, indented by numerous bays, with deep rivers opening into
the interior, as well as our extended and still increasing commerce, point to the Navy as our natural means of defense. It
will in the end be found to be the cheapest and most effectual, and now is the time, in a season of peace and with an overflowing
revenue, that we can year after year add to its strength without increasing the burdens of the people. It is your true policy,
for your Navy will not only protect your rich and flourishing commerce in distant seas, but will enable you to reach and annoy
the enemy and will give to defense its greatest efficiency by meeting danger at a distance from home. It is impossible by any
line of fortifications to guard every point from attack against a hostile force advancing from the ocean and selecting its
object, but they are indispensable to protect cities from bombardment, dockyards and naval arsenals from destruction, to give
shelter to merchant vessels in time of war and to single ships or weaker squadrons when pressed by superior force. Fortifications
of this description can not be too soon completed and armed and placed in a condition of the most perfect preparation. The
abundant means we now possess can not be applied in any manner more useful to the country, and when this is done and our naval
force sufficiently strengthened and our militia armed we need not fear that any nation will wantonly insult us or needlessly
provoke hostilities. We shall more certainly preserve peace when it is well understood that we are prepared for War.
To the extent that Jackson is even endorsing war rather than peace and trade, it is in the context of national defense - literally
defending our national borders from attack, not defending our military bases on/within the borders of foreign countries from attack.
To add to the many outrages of the day coming out of this admin, now sending the troops as mercenaries for hire to saudi takes
it down to a new low, these lows being set almost every week.
The murder of Iranian general must put a new low on the military as well as the drone operators are now in a place not good,
assassins of someone outside of a war and/or combat. It hearkens back to obama's killing program and its probable continuation
by trump.
Not good programs to be affiliated with for the US military for anyone with a conscience.
Looks like the end of Full Spectrum Dominance the the USA enjoyed since 1991. Alliance of Iran, Russia and China (with Turkey
and Pakistan as two possible members) is serious military competitor and while the USA has its set of trump cards, the military
victory against such an alliance no longer guaranteed.
Days after the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, new and important information is
coming to light from a speech given by the Iraqi prime minister. The story behind Soleimani's
assassination seems to go much deeper than what has thus far been reported, involving Saudi
Arabia and China as well the US dollar's role as the global reserve currency .
The Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, has revealed details of his interactions with
Trump in the weeks leading up to Soleimani's assassination in a speech to the Iraqi parliament.
He tried to explain several times on live television how Washington had been browbeating him
and other Iraqi members of parliament to toe the American line, even threatening to engage in
false-flag sniper shootings of both protesters and security personnel in order to inflame the
situation, recalling similar modi operandi seen in Cairo in 2009, Libya in 2011, and Maidan in
2014. The purpose of such cynicism was to throw Iraq into chaos.
Here is the reconstruction of the story:
[Speaker of the Council of Representatives of Iraq] Halbousi attended the parliamentary
session while almost none of the Sunni members did. This was because the Americans had
learned that Abdul-Mehdi was planning to reveal sensitive secrets in the session and sent
Halbousi to prevent this. Halbousi cut Abdul-Mehdi off at the commencement of his speech and
then asked for the live airing of the session to be stopped. After this, Halbousi together
with other members, sat next to Abdul-Mehdi, speaking openly with him but without it being
recorded. This is what was discussed in that session that was not broadcast:
Abdul-Mehdi spoke angrily about how the Americans had ruined the country and now refused
to complete infrastructure and electricity grid projects unless they were promised 50% of oil
revenues, which Abdul-Mehdi refused.
The complete (translated)
words of Abdul-Mahdi's speech to parliament:
This is why I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the
construction instead. Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement.
When I refused, he threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my
premiership.
Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that
if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings
target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me.
I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us
rescinding our deal with the Chinese.
After this, when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting
both protestors and security personnel alike (just as Trump had threatened he would do), I
received a new call from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we
kept on talking about this "third party".
Nobody imagined that the threat was to be applied to General Soleimani, but it was difficult
for Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi to reveal the weekslong backstory behind the terrorist
attack.
I was supposed to meet him [Soleimani] later in the morning when he was killed. He came to
deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered to the Iranians from
the Saudis.
We can surmise, judging by Saudi Arabia's reaction , that some kind of
negotiation was going on between Tehran and Riyadh:
The Kingdom's statement regarding the events in Iraq stresses the Kingdom's view of the
importance of de-escalation to save the countries of the region and their people from the
risks of any escalation.
Above all, the Saudi
Royal family wanted to let people know immediately that they had not been informed of the
US operation:
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia was not consulted regarding the US strike. In light of the
rapid developments, the Kingdom stresses the importance of exercising restraint to guard
against all acts that may lead to escalation, with severe consequences.
And to emphasize his reluctance for war, Mohammad bin Salman
sent a delegation to the United States.
Liz Sly , the Washington Post Beirut bureau chief, tweated:
Saudi Arabia is sending a delegation to Washington to urge restraint with Iran on behalf
of [Persian] Gulf states. The message will be: 'Please spare us the pain of going through
another war'.
What clearly emerges is that the success of the operation against Soleimani had nothing to
do with the intelligence gathering of the US or Israel. It was known to all and sundry that
Soleimani was heading to Baghdad in a diplomatic capacity that acknowledged Iraq's efforts to
mediate a solution to the regional crisis with Saudi Arabia.
It would seem that the Saudis, Iranians and Iraqis were well on the way towards averting a
regional conflict involving Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Riyadh's reaction to the American strike
evinced no public joy or celebration. Qatar, while not seeing eye to eye with Riyadh on many
issues, also immediately expressed solidarity with Tehran, hosting a meeting at a senior
government level with Mohammad Zarif Jarif, the Iranian foreign minister. Even Turkey
and
Egypt , when commenting on the asassination, employed moderating language.
This could reflect a fear of being on the receiving end of Iran's retaliation. Qatar, the
country from which the drone that killed Soleimani took off, is only a stone's throw away from
Iran, situated on the other side of the Strait of Hormuz. Riyadh and Tel Aviv, Tehran's
regional enemies, both know that a military conflict with Iran would mean the end of the Saudi
royal family.
When the words of the Iraqi prime minister are linked back to the geopolitical and energy
agreements in the region, then the worrying picture starts to emerge of a desperate US lashing
out at a world turning its back on a unipolar world order in favor of the emerging multipolar
about which
I have long written .
The US, now considering itself a net energy exporter as a result of the shale-oil revolution
(on which the jury is still out), no longer needs to import oil from the Middle East. However,
this does not mean that oil can now be traded in any other currency other than the US
dollar.
The petrodollar is what ensures that the US dollar retains its status as the global reserve
currency, granting the US a monopolistic position from which it derives enormous benefits from
playing the role of regional hegemon.
This privileged position of holding the global reserve currency also ensures that the US can
easily fund its war machine by virtue of the fact that much of the world is obliged to buy its
treasury bonds that it is simply able to conjure out of thin air. To threaten this comfortable
arrangement is to threaten Washington's global power.
Even so, the geopolitical and economic trend is inexorably towards a multipolar world order,
with China increasingly playing a leading role, especially in the Middle East and South
America.
Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Qatar and Saudi Arabia together make up the overwhelming
majority of oil and gas reserves in the world. The first three have an elevated relationship
with Beijing and are very much in the multipolar camp, something that China and Russia are keen
to further consolidate in order to ensure the future growth for the Eurasian supercontinent
without war and conflict.
Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is pro-US but could gravitate towards the Sino-Russian camp
both militarily and in terms of energy. The same process is going on with Iraq and Qatar thanks
to Washington's numerous strategic errors in the region starting from Iraq in 2003, Libya in
2011 and Syria and Yemen in recent years.
The agreement between Iraq and China is a prime example of how Beijing intends to use the
Iraq-Iran-Syria troika to revive the Middle East and and link it to the Chinese Belt and Road
Initiative.
While Doha and Riyadh would be the first to suffer economically from such an agreement,
Beijing's economic power is such that, with its win-win approach, there is room for
everyone.
Saudi Arabia provides China with most of its oil and Qatar, together with the Russian
Federation, supply China with most of its LNG needs, which lines up with Xi Jinping's 2030
vision that aims to greatly reduce polluting emissions.
The US is absent in this picture, with little ability to influence events or offer any
appealing economic alternatives.
Washington would like to prevent any Eurasian integration by unleashing chaos and
destruction in the region, and killing Soleimani served this purpose. The US cannot contemplate
the idea of the dollar losing its status as the global reserve currency. Trump is engaging in a
desperate gamble that could have disastrous consequences.
The region, in a worst-case scenario, could be engulfed in a devastating war involving
multiple countries. Oil refineries could be destroyed all across the region, a quarter of the
world's oil transit could be blocked, oil prices would skyrocket ($200-$300 a barrel) and
dozens of countries would be plunged into a global financial crisis. The blame would be laid
squarely at Trump's feet, ending his chances for re-election.
To try and keep everyone in line, Washington is left to resort to terrorism, lies and
unspecified threats of visiting destruction on friends and enemies alike.
Trump has evidently been convinced by someone that the US can do without the Middle East,
that it can do without allies in the region, and that nobody would ever dare to sell oil in any
other currency than the US dollar.
Soleimani's death is the result of a convergence of US and Israeli interests. With no other
way of halting Eurasian integration, Washington can only throw the region into chaos by
targeting countries like Iran, Iraq and Syria that are central to the Eurasian project. While
Israel has never had the ability or audacity to carry out such an assassination itself, the
importance of the Israel Lobby to Trump's electoral success would have influenced his decision,
all the more so in an election year .
Trump believed his drone attack could solve all his problems by frightening his opponents,
winning the support of his voters (by equating Soleimani's assassination to Osama bin Laden's),
and sending a warning to Arab countries of the dangers of deepening their ties with China.
The assassination of Soleimani is the US lashing out at its steady loss of influence in the
region. The Iraqi attempt to mediate a lasting peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been
scuppered by the US and Israel's determination to prevent peace in the region and instead
increase chaos and instability.
Washington has not achieved its hegemonic status through a preference for diplomacy and calm
dialogue, and Trump has no intention of departing from this approach.
Washington's friends and enemies alike must acknowledge this reality and implement the
countermeasures necessary to contain the madness.
Very good article, straight to the point. In fact its much worse. I know is hard to
swallow for my US american brother and sisters.
But as sooner you wake up and see the reality as it is, as better chances the US has to
survive with honor. Stop the wars around the globe and do not look for excuses. Isnt it
already obvious what is going on with the US war machine? How many more examples some people
need to wake up?
Not all said in video above is accurate but the recent events in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan,
Africa are all related to prevent China from overtaking the zionist hegemonic world and to
recolonize China (at least the parasite is trying to hop to China as new host).
Trade war, Huawei, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet ..... the concerted efforts from all zionist
controlled media (ZeroHedge included) to slander, smearing, fake news against China should
tell you what the Zionists agenda are :)
The American President's threatened the Iraqi Prime Minister to liquidate him directly
with the Minister of Defense. The Marines are the third party that sniped the demonstrators
and the security men:
Abdul Mahdi continued:
"After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I
also refused, and he threatened me with massive demonstrations that would topple me. Indeed,
the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event of
non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, so that the third party (Marines snipers) would
target the demonstrators and security forces and kill them from the highest structures and
the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and cancel the China
agreement, so I did not respond and submitted my resignation and the Americans still insist
to this day on canceling the China agreement and when the defense minister said that who
kills the demonstrators is a third party, Trump called me immediately and physically
threatened me and defense minister in the event of talk about the third party."
.........
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission found George W. Bush guilty of war crimes in absentia
for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Bush, **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers
Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in
absentia in Malaysia.
Unfortunately, this article makes a lot of sense. The US is losing influence and lashing
out carelessly. I hope the rest of the world realizes how detached majority of the citizens
within the states are from the federal government. The Federal government brings no good to
our nation. None. From the mis management of our once tax revenues to the corrupt Congress
who accepts bribes from the highest bidder, it's a rats best that is not only harmful to its
own people, but the world at large. USD won't go down without a fight it seems... All empires
end with a bang. Be ready
On January 5th, the Iraqi parliament voted on a resolution to expel US troops from the
country. In attendance was, caretaker Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi, who, according to
reports provided insight into why specifically Iraq was in this situation, and predominantly
spoke about threats that came his way from US President Donald Trump and the US policy
towards the country.
The following is the summary of reports regarding Abdul-Mehdi's comments during the
January 5 vote of the Iraqi Parliament. These reports have been nor officially confirmed nor
denied by the Prime Minister office.
Abdul-Mehdi adressed the US hostile actions against the country. For example, the
politician reportedly said that the US refused to complete the infrastructure and electricity
grid projects unless it is promised 50% of oil revenues. The Prime Minister refused to make
the concession.
Then, when the Prime Minister visited China and reached an important agreement to
undertake construction of the projects instead of the US, President Donald Trump allegedly
called him, telling him to rescind the agreement with China, otherwise there would be massive
demonstrations against him, that would force him out of his seat.
HINT : A 50-person Iraqi delegation visited China in 2019 and that protests began on
October 1st, observed a religious holiday, and then ramped up once again on October 25th.
The flames of the protests were further fanned by mainstream media outlets.
Then, when massive demonstrations materialized against Adel Abdul-Mahdi, Trump once again
allegedly called him. The US President allegedly threatened to position US marine snipers
"atop the highest buildings," who will target and kill protesters and security forces alike
in an attempt to pressure the Prime Minister.
Instead of complying, Adel Abdul-Mahdi refused and handed in his resignation and the US
still attempt to pressure him in cancelling the supposed deal with China.
Later on, when the Iraqi Minister of Defense publicly said that a third side was targeting
both protesters and security forces alike, Abdul-Mahdi allegedly received a new call from
Trump who threatened to kill both him and the Minister of Defense if they kept talking about
this "third side".
Assad said that he finds Trumps brutal honesty refreshing. Instead of hiding behind nicely
worded threats Trump just comes out and tells people what he means. up 19 users have voted.
--
America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity
of her own people.
- strife delivery
This is how a MAFIA BOSS operates. Trump made an offer Abdul Mahdi couldn't refuse. Trump is
a GODFATHER and his clique is literally a gangster MAFIA using extortion and OPERATING A
PROTECTION RACKET.
Trump had already
asked Iraqi Prime Ministers -twice- if the U.S. could get Iraq's oil as reward for
invading and destroying their country. The requests were rejected. Now we learn that Trump
also uses
gangster methods (ar) to get the oil of Iraq. The talk by the Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul
Mahdi happened during the recent parliament session in Iraq (machine translation):
Al-Halbousi, Speaker of the Iraqi Council of Representatives, blocked the speech of Mr.
Abdul Mahdi in the scheduled session to discuss the decision to remove American forces from
Iraq.
At the beginning of the session, Al-Halbousi left the presidential seat and sat next to
Mr. Abdul-Mahdi, after his request to cut off the live broadcast of the session, a public
conversation took place between the two parties. The voice of Adel Abdul Mahdi was
raised.
Mr. Abdul Mahdi spoke with an angry tone, saying:
"The Americans are the ones who destroyed the country and wreaked havoc on it. They are
those who refuse to complete building the electrical system and infrastructure projects.
They have bargained for the reconstruction of Iraq in exchange for giving up 50% of Iraqi
oil imports, so I refused and decided to go to China and concluded an important and
strategic agreement with it, and today Trump is trying to cancel this important
agreement."
The American President's threatened the Iraqi Prime Minister to liquidate him directly
with the Minister of Defense. The Marines are the third party that sniped the demonstrators
and the security men:
Abdul Mahdi continued:
"After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I
also refused, and he threatened me with massive demonstrations that would topple me.
Indeed, the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the
event of non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, so that the third party (Marines
snipers) would target the demonstrators and security forces and kill them from the highest
structures and the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and
cancel the China agreement, so I did not respond and submitted my resignation and the
Americans still insist to this day on canceling the China agreement and when the defense
minister said that who kills the demonstrators is a third party, Trump called me
immediately and physically threatened me and defense minister in the event of talk about
the third party."
The reliable Based Cat in Iraq seems to confirm the timeline:
TØM CΛT @TomtheBasedCat - 4:00 UTC · Jan 7,
2020
Yes a 50-person delegation visited China in 2019 and then the protests started on October
1st until the Arbaeen dates, then picked up again on Oct 25th. I'm skeptical about the 3rd
party but the timing itself was interesting. The flames were fanned by Gulf media and
Al-Hurra.
A scandal is developing as one consequence of Trump's evil deed after Iraq's Prime Minister
Adel Abdul Mahdi revealed the gangster methods U.S. President Trump used in his attempts to
steal Iraq's oil.
Well well well, looks like Trump has been studying Cheney's map lately now that he is not
fixated on Kim and accusations of being Putin's Puddle.
What is described by the PM is typical behavior of a gangster threatening a weaker
opponent. Trump had better get some LSD to get him back in touch with Reality.
MoA has done great reporting but this report is astounding.
It is stunning.
But it is the standard operating procedure of US elites. Trump is nothing unusual except
for his persona. He gives away the game. Clinton/Bush/Obama/Trump, they are all power mad,
vindictive, and vile. The elites that run the two major parties are together in pushing
forward to war behind their political posturing.
Last month, American military forces
physically blocked Russian troops from proceeding down a road near the town of Rmelan,
Syria. U.S. troops were acting on orders of President Trump, who said back in October that
Washington would be
"protecting" oil fields currently under control of the anti-Assad, Kurdish Syrian Defense
Forces.
Meanwhile, the Russians are acting on behalf of Syrian president Bashar Assad, who says the
state is ultimately in control of those fields. While no shots were fired in this case, the
next time Moscow's forces might not go so quietly.
U.S. officials offered few details about the January stand-off, but General Alexus
Grynkewich, deputy commander of the anti-ISIS campaign, said: "We've had a number of different
engagements with the Russians on the ground." Late last month the Syrian Observatory for Human
Rights reported: "Tensions have continued to increase significantly in recent days between U.S.
and Russian forces in the northeastern regions of Syria."
Stationed in Syria illegally, with neither domestic nor international legal authority,
American personnel risked life and limb to occupy another nation's territory and steal its
resources. What is the Trump administration doing?
American policy in Syria has long been stunningly foolish, dishonest, and counterproductive.
When the Arab Spring erupted in 2011, Washington first defended Assad. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton even called him a "reformer." Then she decided that he should be ousted and
demanded that the rest of the world follow Washington's new policy.
There is a real danger for gangstrism mode of forign policy -- policimakers live in a bubble,
an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are based on faulty inputs...
Diplomacy, accommodation, compromise, mutuality, the perspectives of others: It is already
clear these are among the defining features of 21 st century statecraft. Jealous of
its dissipating preeminence, the U.S. proves indifferent to all such considerations. There is
no longer even the pretense of deriving authority by way of example, so radical is Washington's
preference for coercive might alone. The paradox is not difficult to grasp: In displays of
unadorned power we also find the limits of power. The Trump administration's conduct of foreign
policy -- primarily but not only in the Mideast -- makes failure and an American comeuppance
inevitable.
... ... ...
Many years ago, during the first term of George W. Bush, Karl Rove gave
an interview in which he asserted that the U.S. was no longer bound by "discernible
reality," as the White House aide put it. "That's not the way the world really works anymore,"
Rove explained. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while
you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new
realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out."
Rove Warning Overlooked
This singularly arrogant remark was much noted at the time but was thought to reflect only
the kookier extremes of the Bush II administration. What a misinterpretation that has proven to
be. Rove was effectively warning us that the U.S. had already begun its fundamental shift
toward sheer power as the instrument of its foreign policies. This is plain in hindsight.
... These policies share two features. They rest on power alone -- in this they are Karl
Rove's dream made flesh -- and they are bound to fail, if they are not already failing.
It is evident now that the European allies will
defy U.S. efforts to sabotage NordStream 2 and keep Huawei out of 5–G.
London announced last week that it will allow Huawei to participate in its 5–G
development program. Germany made
a similar decision last autumn.
In the Middle East, it is equally clear that Iran has no intention of buckling under U.S.
sanctions and military threats. U.S. influence in the region has already begun to decline since
the drone assassination of a top Iranian general on Iraqi soil early last month. The Pentagon
now faces popular
Iraqi demands to withdraw its troops.
And now the Mideast -- Israel and Palestine. The Trump administration sacrificed all claim
to "honest broker" status when it recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital in December 2017 --
a unilateral move that prompted the Palestinians to stop talking to the U.S. about the plan
Jared Kushner was by then developing. Of all that is wrong with the new Trump–Kushner
plan, the absence of Palestinian input more or less assures that it will prove dead on
arrival.
Power alone is power blind. Power blind is certain to fail, for it cannot see its way.
There is a real danger for foreign policy advisors and analysts – and especially those
they serve – when they are in a bubble, an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are
based on faulty inputs. Needless to say it's even worse when they believe they can
create their own reality and invent outcomes out of whole cloth.
Things seldom go as planned in these circumstances.
President Trump was sold a bill of goods on the assassination of Iran's
revered military leader, Qassim Soleimani, likely by a cabal around Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo and the
long-discredited neocon David Wurmser. A former Netanyahu advisor and Iraq war
propagandist, Wurmser reportedly sent memos to his mentor, John Bolton, while Bolton was
Trump's National Security Advisor (now, of course, he's the hero of the #resistance for having
turned on his former boss) promising that killing Soleimani would be a cost-free operation that
would catalyze the Iranian people against their government and bring about the long-awaited
regime change in that country. The murder of Soleimani – the architect of the defeat of
ISIS – would "rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them
upon which the [Iranian] regime depends for stability and survival," wrote Wurmser.
As is most often the case with neocons, he was dead wrong.
The operation was not cost-free. On the contrary. Assassinating Soleimani on Iraqi soil
resulted in the Iraqi parliament – itself the product of our "bringing democracy" to the
country – voting to expel US forces even as the vote by the people's representatives was
roundly rejected by the people who brought the people the people's representatives. In a manner
of speaking.
Trump's move had an effect opposite to the one promised by neocons. It did not bring
Iranians out to the street to overthrow their government – it catalyzed opposition across
Iraq's various political and religious factions to the continued US military presence and
further tightened Iraq's relationship with Iran. And short of what would be a catastrophic war
initiated by the US (with little or no support from allies), there is not a thing Trump can do
about it.
Iran's retaliatory attack on two US bases in Iraq was initially sold by President Trump as
merely a pin-prick. No harm, no foul, no injuries. This despite the fact that he must have
known about US personnel injured in the attack. The reason for the lie was that Trump likely
understands how devastating it would be to his presidency to escalate with Iran. So the truth
began to trickle out slowly – 11 US military members were injured, but it was just "like
a headache." Now we know that 50 US troops were treated for traumatic brain injury after the
attack. This may not be the last of it – but don't count on the mainstream media to do
any reporting.
The Iranian FARS news agency reported at the time of the attack that US personnel had been
injured and the response by the US government was to completely take that media outlet off the
Internet
by order of the US Treasury !
Last week the US House
voted to cancel the 2002 authorization for war on Iraq and to prohibit the use of funds for
war on Iran without Congressional authorization. It is a significant, if largely symbolic, move
to rein in the oft-used excuse of the Iraq war authorization for blatantly unrelated actions
like the assassination of Soleimani and Obama's
thousands of airstrikes on Syria and Iraq .
President Trump has argued that prohibiting funds for military action against Iran actually
makes war more likely, as he would be restricted from the kinds of
military-strikes-short-of-war like his attack on Syria after the alleged chemical attack in
Douma in 2018 (claims which have recently
fallen apart ). The logic is faulty and reflects again the danger of believing one's own
propaganda. As we have seen from the Iranian military response to the Soleimani assassination,
Trump's military-strikes-short-of-war are having a ratchet-like effect rather than a
pressure-release or deterrent effect.
As the financial and current events analysis site ZeroHedge
put it recently:
[S]ince last summer's "tanker wars", Trump has painted himself into a corner on Iran,
jumping from escalation to escalation (to this latest "point of no return big one" in the
form of the ordered Soleimani assassination) -- yet all the while hoping to avoid a major
direct war. The situation reached a climax where there were "no outs" (Trump was left with
two 'bad options' of either back down or go to war).
The Iranians have little to lose at this point and America's European allies are, even if
impotent, fed up with the US obsession with Saudi Arabia and Israel as a basis for its Middle
East policy.
So why open this essay with a photo of Trump celebrating his dead-on-arrival "Deal of The
Century" for Israel and Palestine? Because this is once again a gullible and weak President
Trump being led by the nose into the coming Middle East conflagration. Left without even a
semblance of US sympathy for their plight, the Palestinians after the roll-out of this "peace"
plan will again see that they have no friends outside Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. As Israel
continues to flirt with the idea of simply annexing large parts of the West Bank, it is
clear that the brakes are off of any Israeli reticence to push for maximum control over
Palestinian territory. So what is there to lose?
Trump believes he's advancing peace in the Middle East, while the excellent Mondoweiss
website rightly
observes that a main architect of the "peace plan," Trump's own son-in-law Jared Kushner,
"taunts Palestinians because he wants them to reject his 'peace plan.'" Rejection of the plan
is a green light to a war of annihilation on the Palestinians.
It appears that the center may not hold, that the self-referential echo chamber that passes
for Beltway "expert" analysis will again be caught off guard in the consequence-free profession
that is neocon foreign policy analysis. "Gosh we didn't see that coming!" But the next day they
are back on the teevee stations as great experts.
It is hard to believe that Trump has any confidence in Jared Kushner. Yet, he does enough
to go public with a one-sided plan developed without Palestinian input.
a real danger for foreign policy advisors and analysts – and especially those they
serve – when they are in a bubble, an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are
based on faulty inputs.
The same is true of the economists and financial analysts who live in the bubble of the
NSYE and the echo chamber of Manhattan. All of their conclusions are based on faulty
inputs.
If Trump continues to be 'dumb' enough to consistently hire these people and
consistently listen to them, and if his supporters continue to be dumb enough to
consistently believe all the lies and excuses, then Trump and his supporters are 100%
involved in the neoCON.
The reaction that L Brands shareholders displayed last week following reports that Les Wexner was planning to sell Victoria's Secret and step down from leading the parent company is
all readers really need to know when it comes to Wexner's legacy.
As the founder and CEO of L Brands, Wexner took Victoria's Secret, a brand he bought in 1980
for a million dollars and transformed it into a multibillion dollar juggernaut in women's
fashion. But years of tepid sales, combined with the cancellation of the VS fashion show and
the canning of longtime marketing chief Ed Razek last August were harbingers of more change to
come. And after Wexner's name was once again dragged through the mud thanks to his status as a
key enabler of former protege Jeffrey Epstein (with whispers that his conduct as Epstein's
biggest financial benefactor might even have verged on criminal), it seemed obvious that the
man who once ruled the company from a position of untouchable strength had finally lost the
confidence of the board, and - more importantly - of its investors.
When news
of the pending sale of VS and Wexner's plan for retirement hit the tape last week, some
wondered about the timing, seeing as the company's earnings report isn't due for another
three-and-a-half weeks.
Well, a report published Saturday by the New
York Times might offer a few clues. After four Times reporters interviewed more than two
dozen former models and employees, the paper put together a #MeToo-style expose revealing
allegations of abusive behavior by top executives - behavior that Wexner was aware of, and
which he openly condoned.
But rampant sexism and a culture that protected bullies and sex pests weren't Wexner's only
shortcomings, according to NYT. He also rebuffed and punished executives who tried to steer
Victoria's Secret in a more progressive and contemporary direction - for example, executives
who suggested selling underwear that could actually fit American women.
Six current and former executives said in interviews that when they tried to steer the
company away from what one called its "porny" image, they were rebuffed. Three said they had
been driven out of the company.
Criticism of Victoria's Secret's anachronistic marketing went viral in 2018 when Mr. Razek
expressed no interest in casting plus-size and "transsexual" models in the fashion show.
When it came to depredations targeting models, Razek showed no qualms about flexing his
power and leverage to try and push models to date him.
He also clearly allowed Epstein to portray himself as an executive at the company as a ruse
to meet with models.
"I had spent all of my savings getting Victoria's Secret lingerie to prepare for what I
thought would be my audition," a woman identified as Jane Doe said in a statement read aloud
last summer in a federal court hearing in the Epstein case. "But instead it seemed like a
casting call for prostitution. I felt like I was in hell."
Razek left the company in August, just before the company cancelled the Victoria's Secret
fashion show. But the blame for his behavior ultimately falls on Wexner, an executive who
clearly had no qualms about enabling abusers, especially when their victims were minors and/or
women.
"With the exception of Les, I've been with L Brands longer than anyone," Mr. Razek wrote
to employees in August when he announced he was leaving the company he had joined in
1983.
Mr. Razek was instrumental in selecting the brand's supermodels - known as "Angels" and
bestowed with enormous, feathery wings - and in creating the company's macho TV ads.
But his biggest legacy was the annual fashion show, which became a global cultural
phenomenon.
"That's really where he sunk his teeth into the business," said Cynthia Fedus-Fields, the
former chief executive of the Victoria's Secret division responsible for its catalog. By
2000, she said, Mr. Razek had grown so powerful that "he spoke for Les."
Wexner was also portrayed as behind the times, particularly where his views on the 'body
positive' movement were concerned
In March, at a meeting at Victoria's Secret headquarters in Columbus, Ohio, an employee
asked Mr. Wexner what he thought about the retail industry's embrace of different body types.
He was dismissive.
"Nobody goes to a plastic surgeon and says, 'Make me fat'" Mr. Wexner replied, according
to two attendees.
Razek would sometimes directly remind models that he could make or break their careers.
Mr. Razek often reminded models that their careers were in his hands, according to models
and current and former executives who heard his remarks.
Alyssa Miller, who had been an occasional Victoria's Secret model, described Mr. Razek as
someone who exuded "toxic masculinity." She summed up his attitude as: "I am the holder of
the power. I can make you or break you."
He would sometimes pester models for their phone numbers while they were standing around in
VS lingerie. He also showed a preference for young, typically barely legal models.
At castings, Mr. Razek sometimes asked models in their bras and underwear for their phone
numbers, according to three people who witnessed his advances. He urged others to sit on his
lap. Two models said he had asked them to have private dinners with him.
One was Ms. Muise. In 2007, after two years of wearing the coveted angel wings in the
Victoria's Secret runway show, the 19-year-old was invited to dinner with Mr. Razek. She was
excited to cultivate a professional relationship with one of the fashion industry's most
powerful men, she said.
Mr. Razek picked her up in a chauffeured car. On the way to the restaurant, he tried to
kiss her, she said. Ms. Muise rebuffed him; Mr. Razek persisted.
For months, he sent her intimate emails, which The Times reviewed. At one point he
suggested they move in together in his house in Turks and Caicos. Another time, he urged Ms.
Muise to help him find a home in the Dominican Republic for them to share.
"I need someplace sexy to take you!" he wrote.
Ms. Muise maintained a polite tone in her emails, trying to protect her career. When Mr.
Razek asked her to come to his New York home for dinner, Ms. Muise said the prospect of
dining alone with Mr. Razek made her uneasy; she skipped the dinner.
She soon learned that for the first time in four years, Victoria's Secret had not picked
her for its 2008 fashion show.
One incident reported by the NYT is particularly cringe-worthy: Razek allegedly made a lewd
comment about supermodel Bella Hadid's "titties", and whether they would meet TV standards,
right in front of the influential model and her team.
In 2018, at a fitting ahead of the fashion show, the supermodel Bella Hadid was being
measured for underwear that would meet broadcast standards. Mr. Razek sat on a couch,
watching.
"Forget the panties," he declared, according to three people who were there and a fourth
who was told about it. The bigger question, he said, was whether the TV network would let Ms.
Hadid walk "down the runway with those perfect titties." (One witness remembered Mr. Razek
using the word "breasts," not "titties.")
At the same fitting, Mr. Razek placed his hand on another model's underwear-clad crotch,
three people said.
And with that, the same newspaper that helped launch the #MeToo movement has claimed another
scalp in its crusade to rework American culture in accordance with its progressive, 'body
positive' agenda. The age of Wexner and Razek at L Brands has ended. What's next? Only time
will tell.
This is a very valuable article, probably the best written in 2019 on the topic, that discusses several important aspects of neoliberalism
better then its predecessors...
Notable quotes:
"... For some, and especially for those in the millennial generation, the Great Recession and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started a process of reflection on what the neoliberal era had delivered. ..."
"... neoliberal policies had already wreaked havoc around the world ..."
"... "excessively rapid financial and capital market liberalization was probably the single most important cause of the crisis"; he also notes that after the crisis, the International Monetary Fund's policies "exacerbated the downturns." ..."
"... In study after study, political scientists have shown that the U.S. government is highly responsive to the policy preferences of the wealthiest people, corporations, and trade associations -- and that it is largely unresponsive to the views of ordinary people. The wealthiest people, corporations, and their interest groups participate more in politics, spend more on politics, and lobby governments more. Leading political scientists have declared that the U.S. is no longer best characterized as a democracy or a republic but as an oligarchy -- a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. ..."
"... Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and marketization of everything, indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism. ..."
"... neoliberalism's radical individualism has increasingly raised two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into identity groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity. ..."
"... Demagogues rely on this fracturing to inflame racial, nationalist, and religious antagonism, which only further fuels the divisions within society. Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and marketization of everything, thus indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the preconditions for a free and democratic society. ..."
"... The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy. ..."
"... They thought globalization was inevitable and that ever-expanding trade liberalization was desirable even if the political system never corrected for trade's winners and losers. They were wrong. These aren't minor mistakes. ..."
"... In spite of these failures, most policymakers did not have a new ideology or different worldview through which to comprehend the problems of this time. So, by and large, the collective response was not to abandon neoliberalism. After the Great Crash of 2008, neoliberals chafed at attempts to push forward aggressive Keynesian spending programs to spark demand. President Barack Obama's advisers shrank the size of the post-crash stimulus package for fear it would seem too large to the neoliberal consensus of the era -- and on top of that, they compromised on its content. ..."
"... When it came to affirmative, forward-looking policy, the neoliberal framework also remained dominant. ..."
"... It is worth emphasizing that Obamacare's central feature is a private marketplace in which people can buy their own health care, with subsidies for individuals who are near the poverty line ..."
"... Fearful of losing their seats, centrists extracted these concessions from progressives. Little good it did them. The president's party almost always loses seats in midterm elections, and this time was no different. For their caution, centrists both lost their seats and gave Americans fewer and worse health care choices. ..."
"... The Republican Party platform in 2012, for example, called for weaker Wall Street, environmental, and worker safety regulations; lower taxes for corporations and wealthy individuals; and further liberalization of trade. It called for abolishing federal student loans, in addition to privatizing rail, western lands, airport security, and the post office. Republicans also continued their support for cutting health care and retirement security. After 40 years moving in this direction -- and with it failing at every turn -- you might think they would change their views. But Republicans didn't, and many still haven't. ..."
"... Although neoliberalism had little to offer, in the absence of a new ideological framework, it hung over the Obama presidency -- but now in a new form. Many on the center-left adopted what we might call the "technocratic ideology," a rebranded version of the policy minimalism of the 1990s that replaced minimalism's tactical and pragmatic foundations with scientific ones. The term itself is somewhat oxymoronic, as technocrats seem like the opposite of ideologues. ..."
"... The technocratic ideology preserves the status quo with a variety of tactics. We might call the first the "complexity canard." ..."
"... The most frequent uses of this tactic are in sectors that economists have come to dominate -- international trade, antitrust, and financial regulation, for example. The result of this mind-set is that bold, structural reforms are pushed aside and highly technical changes adopted instead. Financial regulation provides a particularly good case, given the 2008 crash and the Great Recession. When it came time to establish a new regulatory regime for the financial sector, there wasn't a massive restructuring, despite the biggest crash in 70 years. ..."
"... Instead, for the most part, the Dodd-Frank Act was classically technocratic. It kept the sector basically the same, with a few tweaks here and there. There was no attempt to restructure the financial sector completely. ..."
"... The Volcker Rule, for example, sought to ban banks from proprietary trading. But instead of doing that through a simple, clean breakup rule (like the one enacted under the old Glass-Steagall regime), the Volcker Rule was subject to a multitude of exceptions and carve-outs -- measures that federal regulators were then required to explain and implement with hundreds of pages of technical regulations ..."
"... Dodd-Frank also illustrates a second tenet of the technocratic ideology: The failures of technocracy can be solved by more technocracy. ..."
"... Dodd-Frank created the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a government body tasked with what is called macroprudential regulation. What this means is that government regulators are supposed to monitor the entire economy and turn the dials of regulation up and down a little bit to keep the economy from another crash. But ask yourself this: Why would we ever believe they could do such a thing? We know those very same regulators failed to identify, warn about, or act on the 2008 crisis. ..."
"... In the first stage, neoliberalism gained traction in response to the crises of the 1970s. It is easy to think of Thatcherism and Reaganism as emerging fully formed, springing from Zeus's head like the goddess Athena. ..."
"... Early leaders were not as ideologically bold as later mythmakers think. In the second stage, neoliberalism became normalized. It persisted beyond the founding personalities -- and, partly because of its longevity in power, grew so dominant that the other side adopted it. ..."
"... Eventually, however, the neoliberal ideology extended its tentacles into every area of policy and even social life, and in its third stage, overextended. The result in economic policy was the Great Crash of 2008, economic stagnation, and inequality at century-high levels. In foreign policy, it was the disastrous Iraq War and ongoing chaos and uncertainty in the Middle East. ..."
"... The fourth and final stage is collapse, irrelevance, and a wandering search for the future. With the world in crisis, neoliberalism no longer has even plausible solutions to today's problems. ..."
"... The solutions of the neoliberal era offer no serious ideas for how to restitch the fraying social fabric, in which people are increasingly tribal, divided, and disconnected from civic community ..."
Welcome
to theDecade From Hell,
our look back at an arbitrary 10-year period that began with a great outpouring of hope and
ended in a cavalcade of despair.The long-dominant ideology brought us forever
wars, the Great Recession, and extreme inequality. Good riddance.
With the 2008 financial crash and the Great Recession, the ideology of neoliberalism lost
its force. The approach to politics, global trade, and social philosophy that defined an era
led not to never-ending prosperity but utter disaster. "Laissez-faire is finished," declared
French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted in testimony
before Congress that his ideology was flawed. In an extraordinary statement, Australian Prime
Minister Kevin Rudd declared that the crash "called into question the prevailing neoliberal
economic orthodoxy of the past 30 years -- the orthodoxy that has underpinned the national and
global regulatory frameworks that have so spectacularly failed to prevent the economic mayhem
which has been visited upon us."
Sen. John McCain's widow says "everyone" knew about Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking ring,
but were "afraid" to do anything about it.
"Epstein was hiding in plain sight," said McCain, during an appearance at the State of the
World 2020 conference in Florida, according to the Washington
Examiner .
" We all knew about him. We all knew what he was doing, but we had no one that was -- no
legal aspect that would go after him . They were afraid of him. For whatever reason, they were
afraid of him."
McCain said a girl from her daughter's high school was one of Epstein's victims and that
she hopes Epstein "is in hell."
Epstein's massive
wealth and his connections to powerful politicians and
celebrities allowed him to continue trafficking young women and girls long after many had
exposed his devious interests.
Dr. Barbara Sampson, the New York City medical examiner, said Epstein died by suicide at a
Manhattan federal detention facility last August. His death and the circumstances surrounding
it have created controversy after the former medical examiner of New York, Dr. Michael Baden,
told 60 Minutes that he believes Epstein
was murdered . - Washington
Examiner
It's amazing all the money in the State Department and other intelligence agencies should be
attracting the best minds. Yet a bunch of us sitting here watching this from our boring
office jobs realize how genuinely stupid US foreign policy has been.
A separate Sunni state in West Iraq would be doomed. We need to leave these people alone,
we've made enough foolish mistakes and this will get a lot of people killed. That's along
with US troops being put in harms way for ridiculous reasons like stealing Syrian oil and now
occupying Iraq against their parliaments wishes.
Back in the day you told someone you were American and they wanted to shake your hand and
ask you about this place or that. Now they want to spit in our faces
How is it possible that Maxwell's lawyers keep doing all this work for her when nobody
apparently knows where she is?
I know all kind of civil lawyers are trying to reach her for questioning, depositions,
etc? If her lawyers know where she is, do they have to reveal this? I guess not. Or they are
working for someone they never even talk to?
Jean Brunnell, the modeling agency executive and another one of Epstein's main procurers
of girls, is another important Epstein accomplice who is apparently on the lam (and another
co-accoplice authorities have not arrested or even questioned).
Brunnell's lawyer has actually admitted in interviews that he has no idea where his client
is.
Brunnel had previously been quoted that he would be eager and willing to work with
authorities or answer their questions. This same lawyer responded to this quote, with the
comment, "I don't know about that." I at least give him points for honesty.
They need not be allowed a defense unless they appear. Tried in absentia, with a
defense... convicted without the ability to appeal due to their failure to appear. And the
lawyers should be sent to gitmo until they give them up.
It has now been over a year since the DOJ "re-opened" its "investigation" into Epstein.
Any prosecutor who has just passed his bar exam would need only a few weeks to compile a
mountain of evidence against Ghislaine Maxwell. Enough to charge her with scores of
crimes.
And it's not like the Feds were starting from scratch. In 2007, the FBI did its own
investigation (until it was spiked) and this after the Palm Beach Police Department had
compiled its own mountains of evidence. Plus, there have been numerous civil court filings
that prove her guilt and complicity as well as numerous public comments of former victims,
all of whom implicate and name her as Epstein's key partner.
The fact she is so clearly "off limits" is the greatest tell about the scale of corruption
and the extent of the cover-up involved here.
... Now, I do think at some point authorities will conclude they have no choice but to
charge her (given that the entire world thinks just like me), so it will be interesting how
they handle her if and when she is arrested. They certainly will not use her to reveal the
entire real story. They simply cannot do this at this point without charging scores of
current and former government employees.
Why are the FBI and DOJ even being allowed to lead this "Investigation?"
In a day like yesterday....US merits to remain in Iraq getting 50% oil revenues while
contributing zero to rebuilt the country they previosuly destroyed and funding and spreading
chaos, unrest and terrorism...
On this day in 1991, the US bombed an infant formula production plant in Iraq as part of
Operation Desert Storm. The US lied, calling it a biological weapons facility, but in
actuality, "it was the only source of infant formula food for children one year and younger
in Iraq."
"... The Americans are the ones who destroyed the country and wreaked havoc on it. They have refused to finish building the electrical system and infrastructure projects. They have bargained for the reconstruction of Iraq in exchange for Iraq giving up 50% of oil imports. So, I refused and decided to go to China and concluded an important and strategic agreement with it. Today, Trump is trying to cancel this important agreement. ..."
"... After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I also refused, and he threatened [that there would be] massive demonstrations to topple me. Indeed, the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event of non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, whereby a third party [presumed to be mercenaries or U.S. soldiers] would target both the demonstrators and security forces and kill them from atop the highest buildings and the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and cancel the China agreement." ..."
"... It could also explain why President Trump is so concerned about China's growing foothold in Iraq, since it risks causing not only the end of the U.S. military hegemony in the country but could also lead to major trouble for the petrodollar system and the U.S.' position as a global financial power. Trump's policy aimed at stopping China and Iraq's growing ties is clearly having the opposite effect, showing that this administration's "gangster diplomacy" only serves to make the alternatives offered by countries like China and Russia all the more attractive. ..."
After the feed was cut, MPs who were present wrote down Abdul-Mahdi's remarks, which were
then given to the Arabic news outlet Ida'at .
Per that transcript , Abdul-Mahdi stated that:
The Americans are the ones who destroyed the country and wreaked havoc on it. They
have refused to finish building the electrical system and infrastructure projects. They have
bargained for the reconstruction of Iraq in exchange for Iraq giving up 50% of oil imports.
So, I refused and decided to go to China and concluded an important and strategic agreement
with it. Today, Trump is trying to cancel this important agreement. "
Abdul-Mahdi continued his remarks, noting that pressure from the Trump administration over
his negotiations and subsequent dealings with China grew substantially over time, even
resulting in death threats to himself and his defense minister:
After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I
also refused, and he threatened [that there would be] massive demonstrations to topple me.
Indeed, the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the
event of non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, whereby a third party [presumed to be
mercenaries or U.S. soldiers] would target both the demonstrators and security forces and
kill them from atop the highest buildings and the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and
submit to his wishes and cancel the China agreement."
"I did not respond and submitted my resignation and the Americans still insist to this day
on canceling the China agreement. When the defense minister said that those killing the
demonstrators was a third party, Trump called me immediately and physically threatened myself
and the defense minister in the event that there was more talk about this third party."
Very few English language outlets
reported on Abdul-Mahdi's comments. Tom Luongo, a Florida-based Independent Analyst and publisher of The Gold
Goats 'n Guns Newsletter, told MintPress that the likely reasons for the "surprising"
media silence over Abdul-Mahdi's claims were because "It never really made it out into official
channels " due to the cutting of the video feed during Iraq's Parliamentary session and due to
the fact that "it's very inconvenient and the media -- since Trump is doing what they want him
to do, be belligerent with Iran, protected Israel's interests there."
"They aren't going to contradict him on that if he's playing ball," Luongo added, before
continuing that the media would nonetheless "hold onto it for future reference .If this comes
out for real, they'll use it against him later if he tries to leave Iraq." "Everything in
Washington is used as leverage," he added.
Given the lack of media coverage and the cutting of the video feed of Abdul-Mahdi's full
remarks, it is worth pointing out that the narrative he laid out in his censored speech not
only fits with the timeline of recent events he discusses but also the tactics known to have
been employed behind closed doors by the Trump administration, particularly after Mike Pompeo
left the CIA to become Secretary of State.
For instance, Abdul-Mahdi's delegation to China ended on September 24, with the protests
against his government that Trump reportedly threatened to start on October 1. Reports of a
"third side" firing on Iraqi protesters were picked up by major media outlets at the time, such
as in this
BBC report which stated:
Reports say the security forces opened fire, but another account says unknown gunmen
were responsible .a source in Karbala told the BBC that one of the dead was a guard at a
nearby Shia shrine who happened to be passing by. The source also said the origin of the
gunfire was unknown and it had targeted both the protesters and security forces .
(emphasis added)"
U.S.-backed protests in other countries, such as in Ukraine in 2014, also saw evidence of a
"
third side " shooting both protesters and security forces alike.
After six weeks of intense protests , Abdul-Mahdi
submitted
his resignation on November 29, just a few days after Iraq's
Foreign Minister praised the new deals, including the "oil for reconstruction" deal, that had
been signed with China. Abdul-Mahdi has since stayed on as Prime Minister in a caretaker role
until Parliament decides on his replacement.
Abdul-Mahdi's claims of the covert pressure by the Trump administration are buttressed by
the use of similar tactics against Ecuador, where, in July 2018, a U.S. delegation at the
United Nations
threatened the nation with punitive trade measures and the withdrawal of military aid if
Ecuador moved forward with the introduction of a UN resolution to "protect, promote and support
breastfeeding."
The New York Times reported at the time that the U.S. delegation was seeking to
promote the interests of infant formula manufacturers. If the U.S. delegation is willing to use
such pressure on nations for promoting breastfeeding over infant formula, it goes without
saying that such behind-closed-doors pressure would be significantly more intense if a much
more lucrative resource, e.g. oil, were involved.
Regarding Abdul-Mahdi's claims, Luongo told MintPress that it is also worth
considering that it could have been anyone in the Trump administration making threats to
Abdul-Mahdi, not necessarily Trump himself. "What I won't say directly is that I don't know it
was Trump at the other end of the phone calls. Mahdi, it is to his best advantage politically
to blame everything on Trump. It could have been Mike Pompeo or Gina Haspel talking to
Abdul-Mahdi It could have been anyone, it most likely would be someone with plausible
deniability .This [Mahdi's claims] sounds credible I firmly believe Trump is capable of making
these threats but I don't think Trump would make those threats directly like that, but it would
absolutely be consistent with U.S. policy."
Luongo also argued that the current tensions between U.S. and Iraqi leadership preceded the
oil deal between Iraq and China by several weeks, "All of this starts with Prime Minister Mahdi
starting the process of opening up the Iraq-Syria border crossing and that was announced in
August. Then, the Israeli air attacks happened in September to try and stop that from
happening, attacks on PMU forces on the border crossing along with the ammo dump attacks near
Baghdad This drew the Iraqis' ire Mahdi then tried to close the air space over Iraq, but how
much of that he can enforce is a big question."
As to why it would be to Mahdi's advantage to blame Trump, Luongo stated that Mahdi "can
make edicts all day long, but, in reality, how much can he actually restrain the U.S. or the
Israelis from doing anything? Except for shame, diplomatic shame To me, it [Mahdi's claims]
seems perfectly credible because, during all of this, Trump is probably or someone else is
shaking him [Mahdi] down for the reconstruction of the oil fields [in Iraq] Trump has
explicitly stated "we want the oil."'
As Luongo noted, Trump's interest in the U.S. obtaining a significant share of Iraqi oil
revenue is hardly a secret. Just last March, Trump
asked Abdul-Mahdi "How about the oil?" at the end of a meeting at the White House,
prompting Abdul-Mahdi to ask "What do you mean?" To which Trump responded "Well, we did a lot,
we did a lot over there, we spent trillions over there, and a lot of people have been talking
about the oil," which was widely interpreted as Trump asking for part of Iraq's oil revenue in
exchange for the steep costs of the U.S.' continuing its now unwelcome military presence in
Iraq.
With Abdul-Mahdi having rejected Trump's "oil for reconstruction" proposal in favor of
China's, it seems likely that the Trump administration would default to so-called "gangster
diplomacy" tactics to pressure Iraq's government into accepting Trump's deal, especially given
the fact that China's deal was a much better offer. While Trump demanded half of Iraq's oil
revenue in exchange for completing reconstruction projects (according to Abdul-Mahdi), the deal
that was signed between Iraq and China would see around
20 percen t of Iraq's oil revenue go to China in exchange for reconstruction. Aside from
the potential loss in Iraq's oil revenue, there are many reasons for the Trump administration
to feel threatened by China's recent dealings in Iraq.
The Iraq-China oil deal – a prelude to something more?
When Abdul-Mahdi's delegation traveled to Beijing last September, the "oil for
reconstruction" deal was only
one of eight total agreements that were established. These agreements cover a range of
areas, including financial, commercial, security, reconstruction, communication, culture,
education and foreign affairs in addition to oil. Yet, the oil deal is by far the most
significant.
Per the agreement, Chinese firms will work on various reconstruction projects in exchange
for roughly 20 percent of Iraq's oil exports, approximately 100,00 barrels per day, for a
period of 20 years. According to Al-Monitor
, Abdul-Mahdi had the following to say about the deal: "We agreed [with Beijing] to set up a
joint investment fund, which the oil money will finance," adding that the agreement prohibits
China from monopolizing projects inside Iraq, forcing Bejing to work in cooperation with
international firms.
The agreement is similar to one negotiated
between Iraq and China in 2015 when Abdul-Mahdi was serving as Iraq's oil minister. That
year, Iraq joined China's Belt and Road Initiative in a deal that also involved exchanging oil
for investment, development and construction projects and saw China awarded several projects as
a result. In a notable similarity to recent events, that deal was put on hold due to "political
and security tensions" caused by unrest and the surge of ISIS in Iraq, that is until
Abdul-Mahdi saw Iraq rejoin the
initiative again late last year through the agreements his government signed with China
last September.
Chinese President Xi Jinping, center left, meet with Iraqi Prime Minister
Adil Abdul-Mahdi, center right, in Beijing, Sept. 23, 2019. Lintao Zhang | AP
Notably, after recent tensions between the U.S. and Iraq over the assassination of Soleimani
and the U.S.' subsequent refusal to remove its troops from Iraq despite parliament's demands,
Iraq quietly announced that it would dramatically increase its oil exports to China to
triple the
amount established in the deal signed in September. Given Abdul-Mahdi's recent claims about
the true forces behind Iraq's recent protests and Trump's threats against him being directly
related to his dealings with China, the move appears to be a not-so-veiled signal from
Abdul-Mahdi to Washington that he plans to deepen Iraq's partnership with China, at least for
as long as he remains in his caretaker role.
Iraq's decision to dramatically increase its oil exports to China came just one day after
the U.S. government
threatened to cut off Iraq's access to its central bank account, currently held at the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, an account that
currently holds $35 billion in Iraqi oil revenue. The account was
set up after the U.S. invaded and began occupying Iraq in 2003 and Iraq currently removes
between $1-2 billion per month to cover essential government expenses. Losing access to its oil
revenue stored in that account would lead to the "
collapse " of Iraq's government, according to Iraqi government officials who spoke to
AFP .
Though Trump publicly promised to rebuke Iraq for the expulsion of U.S. troops via
sanctions, the threat to cut off Iraq's access to its account at the NY Federal Reserve Bank
was delivered privately and directly to the Prime Minister, adding further credibility to
Abdul-Mahdi's claims that Trump's most aggressive attempts at pressuring Iraq's government are
made in private and directed towards the country's Prime Minister.
Though Trump's push this time was about preventing the expulsion of U.S. troops from Iraq,
his reasons for doing so may also be related to concerns about China's growing foothold in the
region. Indeed, while Trump has now lost his desired share of Iraqi oil revenue (50 percent) to
China's counteroffer of 20 percent, the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq may see American
troops replaced with their Chinese counterparts as well, according to Tom Luongo.
"All of this is about the U.S. maintaining the fiction that it needs to stay in Iraq So,
China moving in there is the moment where they get their toe hold for the Belt and Road
[Initiative]," Luongo argued. "That helps to strengthen the economic relationship between Iraq,
Iran and China and obviating the need for the Americans to stay there. At some point, China
will have assets on the ground that they are going to want to defend militarily in the event of
any major crisis. This brings us to the next thing we know, that Mahdi and the Chinese
ambassador discussed that very thing in the wake of the Soleimani killing."
Indeed, according to news reports, Zhang Yao -- China's ambassador to Iraq -- " conveyed
Beijing's readiness to provide military assistance" should Iraq's government request it
soon after Soleimani's assassination. Yao made the offer a day after Iraq's parliament voted to
expel American troops from the country. Though it is currently unknown how Abdul-Mahdi
responded to the offer, the timing likely caused no shortage of concern among the Trump
administration about its rapidly waning influence in Iraq. "You can see what's coming here,"
Luongo told MintPress of the recent Chinese offer to Iraq, "China, Russia and Iran are
trying to cleave Iraq away from the United States and the U.S. is feeling very threatened by
this."
Russia is also playing a role in the current scenario as Iraq initiated talks with Moscow
regarding the
possible purchase of one of its air defense systems last September, the same month that
Iraq signed eight deals, including the oil deal with China. Then, in the wake of Soleimani's
death, Russia
again offered the air defense systems to Iraq to allow them to better defend their air
space. In the past, the U.S.
has threatened allied countries with sanctions and other measures if they purchase Russian
air defense systems as opposed to those manufactured by U.S. companies.
The U.S.' efforts to curb China's growing influence and presence in Iraq amid these new
strategic partnerships and agreements are limited, however, as the U.S. is increasingly relying on China
as part of its Iran policy, specifically in its goal of reducing Iranian oil export to zero.
China remains Iran's main crude oil and condensate importer, even after it reduced its imports
of Iranian oil significantly following U.S. pressure last year. Yet, the U.S. is now attempting to
pressure China to stop buying Iranian oil completely or face sanctions while also
attempting to privately sabotage the China-Iraq oil deal. It is highly unlikely China will
concede to the U.S. on both, if any, of those fronts, meaning the U.S. may be forced to choose
which policy front (Iran "containment" vs. Iraq's oil dealings with China) it values more in
the coming weeks and months.
Furthermore, the recent signing of the "phase one" trade deal with China revealed another
potential facet of the U.S.' increasingly complicated relationship with Iraq's oil sector given
that the trade deal
involves selling U.S. oil and gas to China at very low cost , suggesting that the Trump
administration may also see the Iraq-China oil deal result in Iraq emerging as a potential
competitor for the U.S. in selling cheap oil to China, the world's top oil importer.
The Petrodollar and the Phantom of the Petroyuan
In his televised statements last week following Iran's military response to the U.S.
assassination of General Soleimani, Trump insisted that the U.S.' Middle East policy is no
longer being directed by America's vast oil requirements. He
stated specifically that:
Over the last three years, under my leadership, our economy is stronger than ever before
and America has achieved energy independence. These historic accomplishments changed our
strategic priorities. These are accomplishments that nobody thought were possible. And
options in the Middle East became available. We are now the number-one producer of oil and
natural gas anywhere in the world. We are independent, and we do not need Middle East
oil . (emphasis added)"
Yet, given the centrality of the recent Iraq-China oil deal in guiding some of the Trump
administration's recent Middle East policy moves, this appears not to be the case. The
distinction may lie in the fact that, while the U.S. may now be less dependent on oil imports
from the Middle East, it still very much needs to continue to dominate how oil is traded and
sold on international markets in order to maintain its status as both a global military
and financial superpower.
Indeed, even if the U.S. is importing less Middle Eastern oil, the petrodollar system --
first forged in the 1970s -- requires that the U.S. maintains enough control over the global
oil trade so that the world's largest oil exporters, Iraq among them, continue to sell their
oil in dollars. Were Iraq to sell oil in another currency, or trade oil for services, as it
plans to do with China per the recently inked deal, a significant portion of Iraqi oil would
cease to generate a demand for dollars, violating the key tenet of the petrodollar
system.
Chinese representatives speak to defense personnel during a weapons expo organized
by the Iraqi defense ministry in Baghdad, March, 2017. Karim Kadim | AP
The takeaway from the petrodollar phenomenon is that as long as countries need oil, they
will need the dollar. As long as countries demand dollars, the U.S. can continue to go into
massive amounts of debt to fund its network of global military bases, Wall Street bailouts,
nuclear missiles, and tax cuts for the rich."
Thus, the use of the petrodollar has created a system whereby U.S. control of oil sales of
the largest oil exporters is necessary, not just to buttress the dollar, but also to support
its global military presence. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the issue of the U.S. troop
presence in Iraq and the issue of Iraq's push for oil independence against U.S. wishes have
become intertwined. Notably, one of the architects of the petrodollar system and the man who
infamously described U.S. soldiers as "dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign
policy", former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, has been advising
Trump and informing his China policy since 2016.
This take was also expressed by economist Michael Hudson,
who recently noted that U.S. access to oil, dollarization and U.S. military strategy are
intricately interwoven and that Trump's recent Iraq policy is intended "to escalate America's
presence in Iraq to keep control of the region's oil reserves," and, as Hudson says, "to back
Saudi Arabia's Wahabi troops (ISIS, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Nusra and other divisions of what are
actually America's foreign legion) to support U.S. control of Near Eastern oil as a buttress of
the U.S. dollar."
Hudson further asserts that it was Qassem Soleimani's efforts to promote Iraq's oil
independence at the expense of U.S. imperial ambitions that served one of the key motives
behind his assassination.
America opposed General Suleimani above all because he was fighting against ISIS and other
U.S.-backed terrorists in their attempt to break up Syria and replace Assad's regime with a
set of U.S.-compliant local leaders – the old British "divide and conquer" ploy. On
occasion, Suleimani had cooperated with U.S. troops in fighting ISIS groups that got "out of
line" meaning the U.S. party line. But every indication is that he was in Iraq to work
with that government seeking to regain control of the oil fields that President Trump has
bragged so loudly about grabbing. (emphasis added)"
Hudson adds that " U.S. neocons feared Suleimani's plan to help Iraq assert control of its
oil and withstand the terrorist attacks supported by U.S. and Saudi's on Iraq. That is what
made his assassination an immediate drive."
While other factors -- such as pressure
from U.S. allies such as Israel -- also played a factor in the decision to kill Soleimani,
the decision to assassinate him on Iraqi soil just hours before he was set to meet with
Abdul-Mahdi in a diplomatic role suggests that the underlying tensions caused by Iraq's push
for oil independence and its oil deal with China did play a factor in the timing of his
assassination. It also served as a threat to Abdul-Mahdi, who has claimed that the U.S.
threatened to kill both him and his defense minister just weeks prior over tensions directly
related to the push for independence of Iraq's oil sector from the U.S.
It appears that the ever-present role of the petrodollar in guiding U.S. policy in the
Middle East remains unchanged. The petrodollar has long been a driving factor behind the U.S.'
policy towards Iraq specifically, as one of the key triggers for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was
Saddam Hussein's decision to sell Iraqi oil in Euros opposed to dollars beginning in the year
2000. Just weeks before the invasion began, Hussein boasted that Iraq's Euro-based oil revenue
account was earning a higher interest rate than
it would have been if it had continued to sell its oil in dollars, an apparent signal to other
oil exporters that the petrodollar system was only really benefiting the United States at their
own expense.
Beyond current efforts to stave off Iraq's oil independence and keep its oil trade aligned
with the U.S., the fact that the U.S. is now seeking to limit China's ever-growing role in
Iraq's oil sector is also directly related to China's publicly known efforts to create its own
direct competitor to the petrodollar, the petroyuan.
Since 2017, China has made its plans for the petroyuan -- a direct competitor to the
petrodollar -- no secret, particularly after China eclipsed the U.S. as the world's largest
importer of oil.
The new strategy is to enlist the energy markets' help: Beijing may introduce a new way to
price oil in coming months -- but unlike the contracts based on the U.S. dollar that currently dominate global
markets, this benchmark would use China's own currency. If there's widespread adoption, as the
Chinese hope, then that will mark a step toward challenging the greenback's status as the
world's most powerful currency .The plan is to price oil in yuan using a gold-backed futures contract in
Shanghai, but the road will be long and arduous."
If the U.S. continues on its current path and pushes Iraq further into the arms of China and
other U.S. rival states, it goes without saying that Iraq -- now a part of China's Belt and Road
Initiative -- may soon favor a petroyuan system over a petrodollar system, particularly as the
current U.S. administration threatens to hold Iraq's central bank account hostage for pursuing
policies Washington finds unfavorable.
It could also explain why President Trump is so concerned about China's growing foothold
in Iraq, since it risks causing not only the end of the U.S. military hegemony in the country but
could also lead to major trouble for the petrodollar system and the U.S.' position as a global
financial power. Trump's policy aimed at stopping China and Iraq's growing ties is clearly having
the opposite effect, showing that this administration's "gangster diplomacy" only serves to make
the alternatives offered by countries like China and Russia all the more attractive.
One can see how all these recent wars and military actions have a financial motive at their
core. Yet the mass of gullible Americans actually believe the reasons given, to "spread
democracy" and other wonderful things. Only a small number can see things for what they really
are. It's very frustrating to deal with the stupidity of the average person on a daily basis.
This is not Trump's policy, it is American policy and the variation is in how he implements
it. Any other person would have fallen in line with it as well. US policy has it's own inner
momentum that can't change course. The US depends upon continuation of the dollar as the
world's reserve currency. Were that to be lost the US likely would descend into chaos without
end. When the USSR came apart it was eventually able to downsize into the Russian state. We
don't have that here; there is no core ethnicity with it's own territory left anymore, it's
just a jumble. For the US it's a matter of survival.
There were brutal sanctions against Iraq in the 90s. After that the country was devastated by
the invasion of 2003. Hostility against Iran has been continuous. It's no suprise that things
are not going well in the region and that American politics failed. But this was to be
expected.
Good relations with Iran were possible. Even recently Iran thought that the nuclear
agreement could lead to better relations with the West. Iran should be our best ally in the
region because the middle classes there feel close to the West and are very friendly with
Westerners who visit the country. We could have had better results if we had tryed a more
reasonable politics. But it seems that there were other forces that wanted conflict with Iran
and the destruction of Iraq independently of the interests of the US which would have gained
from a more reasonable position. We can say the same about Russia.
After wars and sanctions the only way to hold everything together is through military
means. There was as doctrine which promoted unbridled militarism and the use of force (wasn't
there a saying that "Americans are from Mars, Europeans from Venus"?). Everybody who didn't
submit to our rules and interests was viewed as an enemy, military force was seen as the
solution to everything.
This is not functioning well. Americans have been decieved by this militaristic doctrine,
this is not going to work. Russia has challenged this, a part of Europe isn't very happy, in
South America you can only run the system ressorting to radical politicians like Bolsonaro
who destroy the environment and create more poverty, in other places this politics created
instability and enemies. I think it should be the time for the American elites to discuss
seriously the ways that the country has been following simply because there are better ways
to have better results.
@anonymous Yes, for the American Empire to exist (and expand) it needs the Petro-dollar,
because only if it is widely used in the world can its collapse be prevented. But why is the
dollar so shaky? Because it is no real money, based on real value, but created out of thin
air as debt and it can only function in an ever expanding pyramid scheme.
The origin of this fraud is the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913. And yes that
was mainly a Jewish creation. Nobody, not even Ron Paul, dares to mention that.
Iraq's decision to dramatically increase its oil exports to China came just one day
after the U.S. government threatened to cut off Iraq's access to its central bank account,
currently held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, an account that currently holds $35
billion in Iraqi oil revenue. The account was set up after the U.S. invaded and began
occupying Iraq in 2003 and Iraq currently removes between $1-2 billion per month to cover
essential government expenses. Losing access to its oil revenue stored in that account
would lead to the "collapse" of Iraq's government, according to Iraqi government officials
who spoke to AFP.
A very revealing article.
It doesn't make sense for any country to hold reserves in the US. The Zio-Glob CIA
gangsters are ready to defraud or smash up any country that challenges their petrodollar
system. Witness Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, Iran and their hostility to Russia and China.
You don't need to twist yourself into a pretzel to figure out why Trump whacked
–the Mafia term–Soleimani.
Jared the Snake's Tel Aviv masters told him they wanted Zion Don to pull the trigger and
their will was done.
I voted for a President Trump and instead, got President Shecky, beholden to Jew and
Israeli interests who has bent over backwards to please the Israeli terrorists, but who will
now go back to his old shtick; pretending to be MAGA or KAG until he gets re-elected, then it
will be gloves off and most likely, another War for Israel and Wall Street in 2021.
Having an Israeli-Firster in the WH isn't unusual, but when you have a vain simpleton who
doesn't understand foreign policy or is so damned lazy, he lets a slumlord take care of it is
a prescription for a major disaster.
"... In my last post, I said it was time to close down this blog, mostly due to its ineffectiveness, short reach, and choir preaching. I wrote that I might as well pound sand for all the good it did. ..."
"... The US began targeting Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This included "freezing" -- polite-speak for theft -- around $12 billion in Iranian assets, including gold, property, and bank holdings. After Obama agreed to return this filched property and money as part of the nuke deal (minus any real nukes), neocons said he gave away US taxpayer money to international terrorists. This warped lie became part of the narrative, yet another state-orchestrated fake news "alternative fact." ..."
In my last post, I said it was time to close down this blog, mostly due to its
ineffectiveness, short reach, and choir preaching. I wrote that I might as well pound sand for
all the good it did.
A few days later, Trump killed a high level Iranian military leader and I have decided a
post is in order, never mind that a round of tiddlywinks will have about the same influence as
a post here. The wars just keep on coming, no matter what we do.
Let's turn to social media where dimwits, neocon partisans, and clueless Democrats are
running wild after corporate Mafia boss and numero uno Israeli cheerleader Donald Trump ordered
a hit on Gen. Qasem Soleimani and others near Baghdad's international airport on Thursday.
Let's begin with this teleprompter reader and "presenter" from Al Jazeera:
"This is what happens when you put a narcissistic, megalomaniacal, former reality TV star
with a thin skin and a very large temper in charge of the world's most powerful military You
know who else attacks cultural sites? ISIS. The Taliban." – me on Trump/Iran on MSNBC
today: pic.twitter.com/YCRARB2anv
It is interesting how the memory of such people only goes back to the election of Donald
Trump.
The US began targeting Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This included "freezing"
-- polite-speak for theft -- around $12 billion in Iranian assets, including gold, property,
and bank holdings. After Obama agreed to return this filched property and money as part of the
nuke deal (minus any real nukes), neocons said he gave away US taxpayer money to international
terrorists. This warped lie became part of the narrative, yet another state-orchestrated fake
news "alternative fact."
Here's another idiot. He was the boss of the DNC for a while and unsuccessfully ran for
president.
Nice job trump and Pompeo you dimwits. You've completed the neocon move to have Iraq
become a satellite of Iran. You have to be the dumbest people ever to run the US government.
You can add that to being the most corrupt. Get these guys out of here. https://t.co/gQHhHSeiJQ
Once again, history is lost in a tangle of lies and omission. Centuries before John Dean
thought it might be a good idea to run for president, Persians and Shias in what is now Iraq
and Iran were crossing the border -- later drawn up by invading Brits and French -- in
pilgrimages to the shrines of Imam Husayn and Abbas in Karbala. We can't expect an arrogant
sociopath like Mr. Dean to know about Ashura, Shia pilgrimages, the Remembrance of Muharram,
and events dating back to 680 AD.
Shias from Iran pilgrimage to other Iraqi cities as well, including An-Najaf, Samarra,
Mashhad, and Baghdad (although the latter is more important to Sunnis).
Corporate fake news teleprompter reader Stephanopoulos said the Geneva Conventions
(including United Nations Security Council Resolution 2347) outlaw the targeting of cultural
sites, which Trump said he will bomb.
Trump said there are 52 different sites; the number is not arbitrary, it is based on the 52
hostages, many of them CIA officers, taken hostage during Iran's revolution against the
US-installed Shah and his brutal secret police sadists.
Pompeo said Trump won't destroy Iran's cultural and heritage sites. Pompeo, as a dedicated
Zionist operative, knows damn well the US will destroy EVERYTHING of value in Iran, same as it
did in Iraq and later Libya and Syria. This includes not only cultural sites, but civilian
infrastructure -- hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, and mosques.
STEPHANOPOULOS: The Geneva Conventions outlaws attacks on cultural objects & places of
worship. Why is Trump threatening Iran w/ war crimes?
POMPEO: We'll behave lawfully
S: So to be clear, Trump's threat wasn't accurate?
Although I believe Jill Stein is living in a Marxian fantasy world, I agree with her tweet
in regard to the Zionist hit on Soleimani:
Now THIS is grounds for #impeachment
– treachery unleashing the unthinkable for Americans & people the world over: Trump
asked Iraqi prime minister to mediate with #Iran then
assassinated Soleimani – on a mediation mission. https://t.co/f0F9FEMALD
Trump should be impeached -- tried and imprisoned -- not in response to some dreamed-up and
ludicrous Russian plot or even concern about the opportunist Hunter Biden using his father's
position to make millions in uber-corrupt Ukraine, but because he is a war criminal responsible
for killing women and children.
As for the planned forever military occupation of Iraq,
USA Today reports:
Iraq's Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi told lawmakers that a timetable for the withdrawal
of all foreign troops, including U.S. ones, was required "for the sake of our national
sovereignty." About 5,000 American troops are in various parts of Iraq.
The latest:
-- Iraqi lawmakers voted to oust U.S. troops
-- U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS has paused operations
-- Hundreds of thousands mourned General Suleimani in Iran
-- President Trump said the U.S. has 52 possible targets in Iran in case of retaliation
https://t.co/pmUuAQdKlc
No way in hell will Sec. State Pompeo and his Zionist neocon handlers allow this to happen
without a fight. However, it shouldn't be too difficult for the Iraqis to expel 5,000
brainwashed American soldiers from the country, bombed to smithereens almost twenty years ago
by Bush the Neocon Idiot Savant.
Never mind Schumer's pretend concern about another war. This friend of Israel from New York
didn't go on national television and excoriate Obama and his cutthroat Sec. of State Hillary
Clinton for killing 30,000 Libyans.
I'm concerned President Trump's impulsive foreign policy is dragging America into another
endless war in the Middle East that will make us less safe.
Meanwhile, it looks like social media is burning the midnight oil in order to prevent their
platforms being used to argue against Trump's latest Zionist-directed insanity.
It is absolutely crazy that Twitter is auto-locking the accounts of anyone who posts this
"No war on Iran" image, and forcing them to delete the anti-war tweet in order to unlock
their account.
This is complete and utter bullshit, but I'm sure the American people will gobble it down
without question. Trump's advisers are neocons and they are seriously experienced in the art of
promoting and engineering assassination, cyber-attacks, invasions, and mass murder.
Newsmax scribbler John Cardillo thinks he has it all figure out.
"In mid-October Soleimani instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and
other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the country using
sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran "
Imagine this, however improbable and ludicrous: Iran invades America and assassinates
General Hyten or General McConville, both top members of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Now
imagine the response by the "exceptional nation."
We can't leave out the Christian Zionist from Indiana, Mike Pence. Mike wants you to believe
Iran was responsible for 9/11, thus stirring up the appropriate animosity and consensus for
mass murder.
Neither Iran nor Soleimani were linked to the terror attack in the "9/11 Commission
Report." Pence didn't even get the number of hijackers right. https://t.co/QtQZm2Yyh9
Finally, here is the crown jewel of propaganda -- in part responsible for the death of well
over a million Iraqis -- The New York Times showing off its rampant hypocrisy.
In Opinion
The editorial board writes, "It is crucial that influential Republican senators like
Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell remind President Trump of his promise to keep
America out of foreign quagmires" https://t.co/2swusvBWbg
Never mind Judith Miller, the Queen of NYT pro-war propaganda back in the day, spreading
neocon fabricated lies about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. America -- or
rather the United States (the government) -- is addicted to quagmires and never-ending war.
This is simply more anti-Trump bullshit by the NYT editorial board. The newspaper loves war
waged in the name of Israel, but only if jumpstarted by Democrats.
Trump the fool, the fact-free reality TV president will eventually unleash the dogs of war
against Iran, much to the satisfaction of Israel, its racist Zionists, Israel-first neocons in
America, and the chattering pro-war class of "journalists," and "foreign policy experts" (most
former Pentagon employees).
Expect more nonsense like that dispensed by the robot Mike Pence, the former tank commander
now serving as Sec. of State, and any number of neocon fellow travelers, many with coveted blue
checkmarks on Twitter while the truth-tellers are expelled from the conversation and exiled to
the political wilderness.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this
article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global
Research.
@Rev. Spooner I would highly doubt Trump has had sex with minors or raped women. It
doesn't fit his MO. Crass, big-mouthed, a braggart? Yes, but not a rapist or a child abuser.
Trump likes big, glamorous women who he can impress with his money, who make HIM look good,
the type who come to him, not little girls who are frightened. He's into enticing women with
his status.
The type who would want a frightened little girl (someone like a Bill Clinton) is a much
more devious character. They're into power. They crave fear. "Look how powerful I am, they're
frightened of me." Now this is a sick individual.
And no way Trump is a rapist. He doesn't have to be; it would be beneath him, in his
mind.
"... Of course, Biden in 2019 said "I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else -- even distant family -- about their business interests. Period." ..."
"... James Biden : Joe's younger brother James has been deeply involved in the lawmaker's rise since the early days - serving as the finance chair of his 1972 Senate campaign. And when Joe became VP, James was a frequent guest at the White House - scoring invites to important state functions which often "dovetailed with his overseas business dealings," writes Schweizer. ..."
"... According to Fox Business 's Charlie Gasparino in 2012, HillStone's Iraq project was expected to "generate $1.5 billion in revenues over the next three years," more than tripling their revenue. According to the report, James Biden split roughly $735 million with a group of minority partners . ..."
"... David Richter - the son of HillStone's parent company's founder - allegedly told investors at a private meeting; it really helps to have "the brother of the vice president as a partner." ..."
Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer is out with a new book, "
Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America's Progressive Elite," in which he reveals
that five members of the Biden family, including Hunter, got rich using former Vice President
Joe Biden's "largesse, favorable access and powerful position."
While we know of Hunter's profitable exploits in Ukraine and China - largely in part thanks
to Schweizer, Joe's brothers James and Frank, his sister Valerie, and his son-in-law Howard all
used the former VP's status to enrich themselves.
Of course, Biden in 2019 said "I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else --
even distant family -- about their business interests. Period."
As Schweizer puts writes in the
New York Post ; "we shall see."
James Biden : Joe's younger brother James has been deeply involved in the lawmaker's rise since the early days - serving
as the finance chair of his 1972 Senate campaign. And when
Joe became VP, James was a frequent guest at the White House - scoring invites to important
state functions which often "dovetailed with his overseas business dealings," writes Schweizer.
Consider the case of
HillStone International , a subsidiary of the huge construction management firm, Hill
International. The president of HillStone International was Kevin Justice, who grew up in
Delaware and was a longtime Biden family friend. On November 4, 2010, according to White
House visitors' logs, Justice visited the White House and met with Biden adviser Michele
Smith in the Office of the Vice President .
Less than three weeks later, HillStone announced that James Biden would be joining the
firm as an executive vice president . James appeared to have little or no background in
housing construction, but that did not seem to matter to HillStone. His bio on the company's
website noted his "40 years of experience dealing with principals in business, political,
legal and financial circles across the nation and internationally "
James Biden was joining HillStone just as the firm was starting negotiations to win a
massive contract in war-torn Iraq. Six months later, the firm announced a contract to build
100,000 homes. It was part of a $35 billion, 500,000-unit project deal won by TRAC
Development , a South Korean company. HillStone also received a $22 million U.S. federal
government contract to manage a construction project for the State Department. -
Peter Schweizer, via NY Post
According to Fox Business 's Charlie Gasparino in 2012, HillStone's Iraq project was
expected to "generate $1.5 billion in revenues over the next three years," more than tripling
their revenue. According to the report, James Biden split roughly $735 million with a group of
minority partners .
David Richter - the son of HillStone's parent company's founder - allegedly told investors
at a private meeting; it really helps to have "the brother of the vice president as a
partner."
Unfortunately for James, HillStone had to back out of the major contract in 2013 over a
series of problems, including a lack of experience - but the company maintained "significant
contract work in the embattled country" of Iraq, including a six-year contract with the US Army
Corps of Engineers.
In the ensuing years, James Biden profited off of Hill's lucrative contracts for dozens of
projects in the US, Puerto Rico, Mozambique and elsewhere.
Frank Biden , another one of Joe's brothers (who said the Pennsylvania Bidens
voted for Trump over Hillary), profited handsomely on real estate, casinos, and solar power
projects after Joe was picked as Obma's point man in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Months after Joe visited Costa Rica, Frank partnered with developer Craig Williamson and the
Guanacaste Country Club on a deal which appears to be ongoing.
In real terms, Frank's dream was to build in the jungles of Costa Rica thousands of homes,
a world-class golf course, casinos, and an anti-aging center. The Costa Rican government was
eager to cooperate with the vice president's brother.
As it happened, Joe Biden had been asked by President Obama to act as the Administration's
point man in Latin America and the Caribbean .
Frank's vision for a country club in Costa Rica received support from the highest levels
of the Costa Rican government -- despite his lack of experience in building such
developments. He met with the Costa Rican ministers of education and energy and environment,
as well as the president of the country. -
NY Post
And in 2016, the Costa Rican Ministry of Public Education inked a deal with Frank's Company,
Sun Fund Americas to install solar power facilities across the country - a project the Obama
administration's OPIC authorized $6.5 million in taxpayer funds to support.
This went hand-in-hand with a solar initiative Joe Biden announced two years earlier, in
which "American taxpayer dollars were dedicated to facilitating deals that matched U.S.
government financing with local energy projects in Caribbean countries, including Jamaica,"
known as the Caribbean Energy Security Initiative (CESI).
Frank Biden's Sun Fund Americas announced later that it had signed a power purchase
agreement (PPA) to build a 20-megawatt solar facility in Jamaica.
Valerie Biden-Owens , Joe's sister, has run all of her brother's Senate campaigns - as well
as his 1988 and 2008 presidential runs.
She was also a senior partner in political messaging firm Joe Slade White & Company ,
where she and Slade White were listed as the only two executives at the time.
According to Schweizer, " The firm received large fees from the Biden campaigns that Valerie
was running . Two and a half million dollars in consulting fees flowed to her firm from
Citizens for Biden and Biden For President Inc. during the 2008 presidential bid alone."
Dr. Howard Krein - Joe Biden's son-in-law, is the chief medical officer of StartUp Health -
a medical investment consultancy that was barely up and running when, in June 2011, two of the
company's execs met with Joe Biden and former President Obama in the Oval Office .
The next day, the company was included in a prestigious health care tech conference run by
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - while StartUp Health executives became
regular White House visitors between 2011 and 2015 .
StartUp Health offers to provide new companies technical and relationship advice in
exchange for a stake in the business. Demonstrating and highlighting the fact that you can
score a meeting with the president of the United States certainly helps prove a strategic
company asset: high-level contacts. -
NY Post
Speaking of his homie hookup, Krein described how his company gained access to the highest
levels of power in D.C.:
"I happened to be talking to my father-in-law that day and I mentioned Steve and Unity were
down there [in Washington, D.C.]," recalled Howard Krein. "He knew about StartUp Health and was
a big fan of it. He asked for Steve's number and said, 'I have to get them up here to talk with
Barack.' The Secret Service came and got Steve and Unity and brought them to the Oval
Office."
And then, of course, there's Hunter Biden - who was paid millions of dollars to sit on the
board of Ukrainian energy giant Burisma while his father was Obama's point man in the
country.
But it goes far beyond that for the young crack enthusiast.
With the election of his father as vice president, Hunter Biden launched businesses fused
to his father's power that led him to lucrative deals with a rogue's gallery of governments
and oligarchs around the world . Sometimes he would hitch a prominent ride with his father
aboard Air Force Two to visit a country where he was courting business. Other times, the
deals would be done more discreetly. Always they involved foreign entities that appeared to
be seeking something from his father.
There was, for example, Hunter's involvement with an entity called Burnham Financial Group
, where his business partner Devon Archer -- who'd been at Yale with Hunter -- sat on the
board of directors. Burnham became the vehicle for a number of murky deals abroad, involving
connected oligarchs in Kazakhstan and state-owned businesses in China.
But one of the most troubling Burnham ventures was here in the United States, in which
Burnham became the center of a federal investigation involving a $60 million fraud scheme
against one of the poorest Indian tribes in America , the Oglala Sioux.
Devon Archer was arrested in New York in May 2016 and
charged with "orchestrating a scheme to defraud investors and a Native American tribal
entity of tens of millions of dollars." Other victims of the fraud included several public
and union pension plans. Although Hunter Biden was not charged in the case, his fingerprints
were all over Burnham . The "legitimacy" that his name and political status as the vice
president's son lent to the plan was brought up repeatedly in the trial. -
NY Post
Yes! The inability to tell the truth about the genuine aim of policy despite its being published because that policy goal--to
attain Full Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people such that neoliberal bankers can rule the world--is actually 100%
against genuine American Values as expressed by the Four Freedoms (1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship; 3.Freedom from want;
4.Freedom from fear) and the articulated goals/vision of the UN Charter--World Peace arrived at via collective security and diplomacy,
not war--which are still taught in schools along with Wilson's 14 Points. Then of course, there's the war against British Tyranny
known as the Spirit of '76 and the Revolutionary War for Independence and the documents that bookend that era. In 1948, Kennan
stated, in an internal discussion that was never censored, the USA consumed 60% of global resources with only 5% of the population
and needed to somehow come up with a policy to both continue and justify that great disparity to both the domestic and international
audience. Yet, those truths were never provided in an overt manner to the American public or the international audience. The upshot
being the US federal government since it dropped the bombs on Japan has been lying or misleading its people such that it's now
habitual. And Trump's diatribe against the generals reflects the reality that he too was taken in by those lies.
"... Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute, ..."
"... "Washington is treating the EU as an adversary. It is dealing the same way with Mexico, Canada, and with allies in Asia. This policy will provoke counter-reactions across the world." ..."
"... The National Interest ..."
"... Treasury's War: The Unleashing of a New Era of Financial Warfare ..."
"... "We must increase Europe's autonomy and sovereignty in trade, economic and financial policies ... It will not be easy, but we have already begun to do it." ..."
When the US places financial sanctions one one country, it de facto sanctions many
other countries as well -- including many of its allies.
This is because not all countries and firms are interested in participating in the US
sanctions-based foreign policy.
Sanctions, after all, have become a favorite go-to strategy for American policymakers who
seek to isolate or punish foreign states that don't cooperate with US international policy
goals.
In recent years, the US has been most active in imposing new sanctions on Russia and Iran,
with many consequences for US allies who are still open to doing business with both of those
countries.
The US can retaliate against organizations that violate US sanctions in a variety of ways.
In the past, the US has sued firms such as the Netherlands' ING Groep and Switzerland Credit
Suisse. Both firms have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines in the past. The US has
been known to
go after individuals .
US bureaucrats like to remind firms that penalties await them, should then not buckle under
US sanctions plan. In November 2018, for example, US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo
announced :
I promise you that doing business in Iran in defiance of our sanctions will ultimately be
a much more painful business decision than pulling out of Iran.
Fear of sanctions has caused some firms to stop work mid project, such as
when Swiss pipe-laying company Allseas Group abandoned a $10 billion pipeline that was
nearing completion.
Not surprisingly, these firms -- who employ people, pay taxes, and contribute to economic
growth -- have put pressure on their governments to protest the mounting interference from the
US into private trade.
As a result, some European politicians are increasingly looking for ways
to get around US sanctions . In a tweet last week, Germany's deputy foreign minister Niels
Annen wrote "Europe needs new instruments to be able to defend itself from licentious
extraterritorial sanctions."
Another "senior German government official" concluded, "Washington is treating the EU as
an adversary. It is dealing the same way with Mexico, Canada, and with allies in Asia. This
policy will provoke counter-reactions across the world."
But how is the US so easily able to sanction so much of the world, including companies in
huge and influential countries like Germany?
The answer lies in the fact the US dollar and the US economy remain at the center of the
international trade system.
SWIFT: How the US Sanctions the World
By the waning days of the Cold War, the US dollar had become the dominant currency in the
non-communist world, thanks to the Bretton Woods agreement, the petrodollar, and the sheer size
of the US economy.
Once the Communist Bloc collapsed, the dollar was poised to grow even more in importance,
and the world's financial institutions searched for a way to make global trade and investing
even faster and easier.
Henry Farrell at The National Interestdescribes
what came next:
Financial institutions wanted to communicate with other financial institutions so that
they could send and receive money. This led them to abandon inefficient
institution-to-institution communications and to converge on a common solution: the financial
messaging system maintained by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial
Telecommunication (SWIFT) consortium, based in Belgium. Similarly, banks wanted to make
transactions in the globally dominant currency, the U.S. dollar. ... In practice, the
physical infrastructure, for a variety of efficiency reasons, tended to channel global flows
through a small number of central data cables and switch points.
At the time, Europe was still years away from creating the euro, and it only seemed natural
that a centralized dollar-transfer system be developed for all the world.
SWIFT personnel have always maintained their organization is apolitical, neutral, and only
interested in providing a service. But geopolitical realities have long intervened. Farrell
continues:
The centralizing tendencies meant that the new infrastructure of global networks was
asymmetric: some nodes and connections were far more important than others. ... What this
meant was that a few states -- most prominently the United States -- had the latent ability
to transform the global economic infrastructures ... into an architecture of global power and
information gathering.
By 2001, the power of this centralized system had become apparent. And in the wake of 9/11,
the US used the "War on Terror" and an opportunity to turn SWIFT into an enormous international
tool for surveillance and financial power.
In his book Treasury's War: The Unleashing of a New Era of Financial Warfare Juan Zarate shows
how the US Treasury officials pressured SWIFT and its personnel to provide the US government
with the means to use this international financial "plumbing" to deprive the US's enemies of
access to markets.
This started out slow, and SWIFT officials were concerned it would become widely known that
SWIFT was becoming politicized and largely a tool of the US and US allies. Nevertheless, the
American regime pressed its advantage, and by 2012 "for the first time ever, SWIFT unplugged
designated Iranian banks from its system, in accordance with a European directive and under the
threat of possible US legislation."
This only strengthened worries among both world regimes and the world's financial
institutions that the basic technical infrastructure of the international financial system was
really a political tool.
The World Searches for Alternatives
Naturally, Russia and China have been highly motivated to find alternatives to SWIFT. But
even perennial US allies have grown far more wary of leaving the financial system in a place
where it can be so easily dominated by the US regime. If Iranian banks can be "unplugged" so
easily from the global system, what's to stop the US from taking similar steps against German
banks, French banks, or Italian banks?
This, of course, is an implied threat behind US demands that European companies not try to
work around US sanctions or face "punishment." From the US perspective, if Germans refuse to
kowtow to US policy, then there's an easy solution: simply cut the Germans off from the
international banking system.
Consequently, Germany's Foreign Minister Heiko Maas announced
in 2008
"We must increase Europe's autonomy and sovereignty in trade, economic and financial
policies ... It will not be easy, but we have already begun to do it."
By late 2019, the UK, France, and Germany had put together a workaround called "INSTEX"
designed to facilitate continued trade with Iran without using the dollar and the SWIFT system
built upon it. Belgium, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden have joined the
system as well.
As of January 2020, however, the cumbersome system remains unused. But we remain in the very
early stages of European efforts to get a divorce from the dollar-dominated financial system.
The INSTEX system has been devised, for now, for a limited purpose. But there is no reason it
cannot be expanded in the future. The short-term prospects for a functional system are low.
Longer-term, however, things are different. The motivation for a long-term workaround is
growing. The Trump administration has embraced showmanship that looks good in a short-term news
cycle, but which encourages US allies to pull away. Farrell continues:
Unlike Obama, Donald Trump did not use careful diplomacy to build international support
for [new sanctions] against Iran. Instead, he imposed them by fiat, to the consternation of
European allies, who remained committed to the [Iran agreement put in place under Obama]. The
United States now threatened to impose draconian penalties on its allies' firms if they
continued to work inside the terms of an international agreement that the United States
itself had negotiated. The EU invoked a blocking statute, which effectively made it illegal
for European firms to comply with U.S. sanctions, but without any significant consequences.
SWIFT, for example, avoided the statute by never formally stating that it was complying with
U.S. sanctions; instead explaining that it was regrettably suspending relations with Iranian
banks "in the interest of the stability and integrity of the wider global financial
system."
All of this is viewed with alarm by not only Europe, but by China and Russia as well. The
near-constant stream of threats by the US administration to impose ever harsher limits and
sanctions on both China and Europe has pushed the rest of the world to accelerate plans to get
around US sanctions. After all, as of mid-2019, the US
had nearly 8,000 sanctions in place against various states and organizations and
individuals. The term now being used in reference to American sanctions is "
overuse ." It was one thing when the US imposed sanctions in some extreme cases. But now
the US appears increasingly fond of using and threatening sanctions regularly, without
consulting allies.
This makes continued US dominance in this regard less likely as allies the world pour more
and more resources into ending the US-SWIFT control of the system. In a 2018 report, "Towards a
Stronger International Role of the Euro," the European Commission described U.S. sanctions as "
wake-up call regarding Europe's economic and monetary sovereignty. "
The effort still has a long way to go, but perhaps not as far as many think.
The dollar remains far ahead of the euro in terms of the dollar's use as a reserve currency,
but the dollar and the euro are move evenly matched
when it comes to international payment transactions.
If the rest of the world remains sufficiently motivated, more can certainly be done to rein
in dollar-based sanctions. Indeed, in 2019, former US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew
admitted :
the plumbing is being built and tested to work around the United States. Over time as
those tools are perfected, if the United States stays on a path where it is seen as going it
alone there will increasingly be alternatives that will chip away at the centrality of the
United States.
If the US finds itself not longer at the center of the global financial system, this will
bring significant disadvantages for the US regime and US residents. A decline in demand for the
dollar would also lead to less demand for US debt. This would put upward pressure on interest
rates and thus bring higher debt-payment obligations for the US regime. This would constrain
defense spending and the ability of the US to project its power to every corner of the globe.
At the same time, central bank efforts to drive interest rates back down would bring a greater
need to monetize the debt. The resulting price inflation in either consumer goods or assets
would be significant.
The fact none of this will become obvious next week or next month
doesn't mean it will never happen . But the US's enthusiasm for sanctions means the world
is already learning the price of doing business with the United States and with the dollar.
Took three months to pass the legislation to seize control of the Gold supply even though
they knew the U.S defaulted on the War debt of first world war and America was only partially
involved.
Better move fast. U.S has not declared War for real since Pearl Harbour.
Best way to avert it is to look at the economic calculations being made and slow what they
need for this extended and probably apocalyptic war to start.
They need man power for what is planned but I have a suspicion this time they are planning
for megadeath on all sides.
Nothing will be destroyed. Situations like this are about chipping away and crumbling.
Rome was not built in a day. People sit in wait to find a weak spot of the hegemon and if you
think that the US is a perfect and perpetual hegemon than you are as delusional as Obama.
He bragged in 2015 that he/they twisted arms of countries when they did not do what he
'needed' them to do. (See y-tube). Every country, every person who had arms twisted is
sitting in wait to hit back. Chisel away, apply needlepricks, obedience can be forced; desire
for revenge never dies.
You need to treat people well on your way up because you are meeting them all again on
your way down.
Will The US Obsession With Sanctions Destroy The Dollar?
Hopefully it will destroy the US BULLY TOO...
This saga of Sanctions all started with the Black Jesus Obama and Russia. It was a
disaster then, harmful to Russian women and children and never affect the oligarchs. It is
Stalingrad stuff.
Then along comes the pile of **** known as the Orange Jesus. Considering Trump's pretend
hatred of Obama, he sure loved the community organizers weaponizing of the Dollar Reserve...
So much so the orange ******* now has 40% of the world population under Dollar Reserve
Sanctions. More Stalingrad ****. And the world hates it.
So there is no question that nations will find ways around sanctions and the mother fking
pencil necked poodles that support this mfkirng ****. They can't comprehend that if TRUMP
does this to some country, he can do it to them.
The Dollar Reserve was intended to be apolitical a means of global commerce. At Bretton
Woods, Maynard Keynes addressed the Reserve Currency to avoid this. He recommended a
synthetic reserve currency composed of five of the world's leading currencies called the
BANCOR. He was voted down by the US delegation that only would accept the Dollar over the
Pound. Britain was too weak after the war to oppose the US. So that set up the Dollar Reserve
by intimidation and bullying. What else is new.
Now the US uses their 800 military bases to enforce their Sanctions and Dollar reserve
weaponizing.
This will come to an end. Europe is a larger economy than the US and Asia is larger than
the US and Europe Combined. So this dollar reserve weaponizing crap will end.
Interesting isn't it that the two most economically illiterate presidents in history, love
sanctions. I promise, the Dollar reserve as the primary currency of exchange is THE DEAD MAN
WALKING.... They are also the most RACIST presidents in US History.
Goldamn did a white paper on this... If the US loses the Dollar Reserve the GDP would tank
30%. So yeah... welcome to the the stone age and fighting in the streets. But to neutralize
the dollar Reserve damage only requires competition to the US Dollar.
So far the Yuan is not printed in enough quantity to compete in a big way. The Euro has
never shown the inclination to be anything but a poodle.
WWII has never ended. Look at NATO... who are they opposing... RUSSIA. Give it a rest.
Russia is not going to attack Europe. So this NATO military facade is about to crumble. Trump
attempting to get NATO to attack Iran and enter the Middle east is laughable and won't
happen. Only the British Poodles are stupid enough for that.
And why is Britain fking with anybody... Doesn't the Queen have enough RYSIST issues now
that Harry and Megan have called her a RYSIST? Love to see Britain go it alone but they are
real pussies and have filled the world with hatred so there will be consequences.
Sanctions use the same philosophy of the the Mafia and having to use it means the days of
the dollar hegemony are gradually ending. What goes around comes around. yin-yang.
YES but for the first time they are present. The Euro is a Reserve Currency but Europe has
never asserted its status. Likely due to Germany. Germany destroys Europe in so many way.
Merkel is pathetic.
Now the Yuan as of 2016 is a reserve currency and they are trading Iron ore from Australia
and Brazil in Yuan. Also China has a 24 Trillion dollar internal commodities market that
trades in Yuan. So the mechanics of massive Trade are already set in place in China and
Asia.
Traditionally the largest trading nation had the reserve currency. The US is no longer the
largest trading nation. They are the largest debtor nation however.
This only Bretton woods post World War II rules. Back in the old days gold was trusted
because people who had it actually hd to produce or trade for it. War economy is always pure
fiat even if it means killing your own soldiers and robbing their families.
If it gets dirty everyone is going to have to play the game. Why do you think they are
still dealing with Afghanistan like its the centre of the universe for the last 20 years.
PTSD and ******** propaganda on young men is enough to push them over the edge. Same thing
for the nasty **** that happens to women.
All these currencies are pure fiat floating against perceived demand and ********
technocrats. People want to die in these situations they are going to monetize human misery.
The opiate epidemics in the 60s pushed the U.S of the Gold standard. Where do you think the
French got all those U.S dollars from straight after the war.
Ever heard of this little thing called cryptocurrency? It can't be weaponized like a CB
currency because there is no centralized authority and no need for a trusted third party. It
can cross international borders at the speed of light and cheaply to boot. It's quite clever.
I imagine it will become all the rage in the next couple years.
I dont think you understand the concept of war. They napalmed kids to heard their parents
into concentration camps. That was the Pentagon. Theyre not going to spare your internet
service provider in the name of free trade and libertarian finance.
Bit coin can be used the same way as the military script just by switching off your
computer and forcing you to adopt another currency. They did it every few months in Vietnam.
IBM ran the analytics with a super computer and they still didnt beat the Tet Offensive which
was just people letting of steam for lunar new year by killing anyone who worked with the
Americans.
Hedge. Iodine for fallout. Water purification tablets. Toilet Paper and Sanitary wipes and
shoes. Batteries. You wont be allowed to grow food when it starts.
Economic sanctions, sanctions of any kind, are like pepper: use cautiously, sparingly, and
only when the recipe calls for it. Don't inhale, either. Massive sneeze attacks can follow
and the dish can be ruined.
signed by Trump in 2017 means we have essentially entered into a world where the American
regime is weaponizing sanctions to dominate the planet.
Of course, karma is a law, which cannot be avoided, and this article is right. It is only a
matter of time. Moreover, he is right in that when we lose this status our ability to wage
endless wars throughout the planet will stop. I hope to see that day.
It is my feeling that the primary reason we are not in a major war at this moment is that
our "adversaries" have noted our decline, as well have many astute and not so astute ZH
members have, and are waiting us out. The other is that our military is not as good as we
claim and some of us know it.
GOLD should be trading currently at least at 4,800 and SILVER should be trading today
at triple digits -- The Federal Reserve and PPT like to manipulate the precious metals, stop
manipulating the PM morons.
Let's take a look at the SILVER chart:
SILVER -- TF = Daily -- SILVER --time frame is daily-- has developed a very well known
technical pattern CUP and HANDLE -- SILVER STRONG BUY -- https://invst.ly/pie5l
"Donny Appleseed" send$ his tiding$ to the American lemming... counting all those "0"s
that are only gettin bigger with each sweep of the EST "second hand".
Still allowed to be "alive" after all that damage and all these years!
I just attended a China - US conference. The chinese fund managers who spoke there said
that China's economy is at a standstill and now is the time for "VULTURE" funds to be active
acquiring heavily discounted firms which are over-leveraged. Not the sounds of a ready for
prime time currency. And the market know as less than 2% of global reserves are Yuan as in
the chart and Chinese dollar reserves are 30% of what they were years ago.
Germany's deputy foreign minister Niels Annen wrote "Europe needs new instruments to be
able to defend itself from licentious extraterritorial sanctions."
The BIG problem with the US dollar is not only the data but it is also the staggering
amounts of printing, printing, printing and QE4ever that totally destroy the purchasing power
of the US Dollar. Only GOLD and SILVER are the real 'store of value'.
Let's take a look at the US Dollar chart:
US DOLLAR Index -- TF = 4H -- ROUNDED TOP suggesting much lower levels ahead -- US DOLLAR
STRONG SELL -- https://invst.ly/pj042
Like how in the 80's everybody assumed flying cars were "near future", people who think
the dollar will lose (or already lost) reserve status are delusional.
It will take a long long time to ween the world off of the entire banking complex,
literally made by and through the dollar.
Multiple reasons, primarily:
1) US gov still a strong presence around the world militarily and financially
2) US dollar still the #1 currency used in transactions between major firms
3) US banking system has, in its pockets, about 80% of the worlds billionaire class, which
conversely, makes most of the major decisions around the world
4) SWIFT system and World Bank both huge institutions that literally hold most 3rd world
countries economics (see Venezuela for examples of a 3rd world country trying to NOT do what
the US wants)
In a static geopolitical environment, your points are valid. After all, it's been this way
for a very long time. You would - and perhaps will be however, amazed at just how fast the
dynamics of your 4 points can change when two near equally (and in some cases superior)
military and economic world powers are geopolitically pushed to a limit they will no longer
accept. And guess what? That's coming a whole lot sooner than most think.
EVERY ******* in Washington needs to go and be replace with people who have an interest in
the well being of the country rather than their personal power plays. The world HATES the
Washington assholes almost as much as the US citizens hate the bastards.
Sanctions are used to force another nation into compliance.
Bombs are used to force another nation into compliance.
Anyone still think the treasury and Fed aren't the biggest warmongers around? They have to
be, otherwise the US dollar would be toast, as there is nothing but a military holding it up.
A nation with 5% of the global population, full of fat walmart shoppers, does not have the
productive means to force their will without the war machine. Ironically, that same war
machine is fully funded by the foreigners the bankers bomb, as using the USD means you must
hold dollar reserves. It is a grand racket.
The Russia and Ukraine scandals leading to impeachment are nonsense but Trump should be
impeached for hastening the demise of our reserve currency. Weaponizing the dollar was the
dumbest strategy he ever came up with. Russia and China are gaining friends and influence
every day while the U.S. is becoming an outcast. They are using the Carrot while all Trump
knows is the Stick.
The US UK Israel petrodollar system collapsed overnight with the US military having no
credible response to having its base bombed. A credible response is for the US to have dealt
death from the skies, destroying and severely deteriorating Iran's ballistic launch
capabilities or at the least a strike on its major oil refineries. That did not happen.
Why?
The US & UK airforce are outdated....in fact any conventional air force that relies on
drones or stealth jets to deliver bomb payloads are outdated!
The purpose of an air-force is to bomb targets from the sky. Iranians have shown you can
do it with ultra-cheap short medium range ballistic missiles which are nothing more than crap
aluminum tubes filled with propellant, a low cost cell phone GPS guidance system and a big
payload. You can make millions for the cost of one stealth jet!
IRAN has all US, Israel and Saudi targets mapped and gave a demo of what they can do. By
the time the shitty F35s start their engines on a runway of a worthless aircraft carrier,
thousands of these missiles will be launched by Iran destroying all targets within minutes of
declaration of TOTAL WAR!
THE PURPOSE OF STEALTH has been defeated. There is no deterrence against ballistic
missiles which are faster then aircraft! So by the time the first wave of stupid burger
planes reach IRAN, all BURGER bases in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel and aircraft carriers will
have been destroyed! So the USA cant protect anything without losing everything!
TOTAL WAR even with a weak power like Iran means TOTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE WAR in which case
everybody's base gets destroyed and who ever pushes the button fastest gets to destroy the
targets fastest and everything is over in less than an hour! Since burgers dont have magic
hollywood space lasers, just piece of **** F35s and outdated carriers....burgers cant defend
anything! Burgers have no deterrence for TOTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE WARFARE. There is no time to
start your engines and take off on a runway, the missiles are already on their way and will
hit bases and aircraft carriers within 10 to 20 minutes of declaration of TOTAL WAR.
Trump killed a rook (solemani) in the game of geopolitical chess (which the Persians
invented) and the mullahs in Tehran checkmated the USA and Israel by making redundant the
view that only very very expensive stealth jets can accurately deliver bombs with precision!
No brainer right there...a plane requires life support, complex systems just to support the
idiot who is flying it to the target...a missile requires no stealth technology, its fast,
accurate and deadly with no deterrent! In one stroke the mullahs revealed that the entire US
air-force is obsolete against TOTAL short/ medium range ballistic missile war!
We should have had ballistic missile carriers but we dont because greedy defense
contractor boomers think they are the smartest defense planners when in fact they just loved
to build planes instead of realizing short range ballistic GPS guided precision missiles can
do the same thing! But not much profit in that of course..
US air-force outdated = US ground troops outdated because they rely on US air-force for
back up. So you have to withdraw = NO PETRODOLLAR.
As of today the US cannot defend its bases in Iraq, Israel or Saudi Arabia....
US/UK/Israel/Saudis combined cannot protect anything without losing everything!
That is called check-mate my friends. The petrodollar age has ended and the AGE OF THE
PETROYUAN has begun. China copies everything the US does, they wanted their Saudi Arabia and
they got all of IRAN and IRAQ.
Now Trump has to sign trade deal after trade deal because the world holds a massive amount
of US securities and we have to supply real goods and services...opening up oil fields for
export, everything. Burgers have to become a land of farmers and oil workers to satisfy all
the US dollar holdings out there because TRUMP LOST THE PETRODOLLAR by DESTROYING US CREDIBLE
MILITARY DETERRENCE for the whole world to see...the ability to provide 'SEGURIDY' AS HENRY
KISSINGER would say.
Everybody now knows the US is just another power only burgers have their head up their
asses. A big crash is coming our way and this time we DO NOT HAVE THE PETRODOLLAR FOR
RECOVERY LIKE WE HAD IN 2008!
TRUMP LOST THE WESTERN PETRODOLLAR HEGEMON....HE LITERALLY LOST THE WEST!
THE PETRODOLLAR AGE OF PROSPERITY HAS ENDED! BECAUSE DRUMPF, KUSHNER AND NETANYAHU!
The EVANGELICAL BIBLICAL APOCALYPSE has come and gone! The GREAT SATAN as the mullahs
would call them have been revealed to have no power to price oil in the middle east anymore!
The military humiliation and withdrawal comes next...its a Greek tragedy in modern
times...
Paraphrasing Thucydides
"A society that divides its warriors and scholars will have its wars planned by cowards
and fought by fools"
Trump knocked out a rook and a couple bishops, and ignored opportunities on several pawns.
By not taking the bait, escalations fall onto Iran's shoulders and will be increasingly hard
to justify.
Eventually their retaliation actions blur into the smoke of their terrorist proxies. Then
they fulfill the role thst Trump claims they occupy. Then action on them will be easily
justified. Even now Iran is shredding the JCPOA, that document that they acted like was so
dear to them - thus giving the rest of the world the finger. Hey, you couldn't play their
part worse if you tried...
There is no deterrence against ballistic missiles which are faster then aircraft! So by
the time the first wave of stupid burger planes reach IRAN, all BURGER bases in Saudi
Arabia, Iraq, Israel and aircraft carriers will have been destroyed! So the USA cant
protect anything without losing everything!
That's what Hitler thought, Saddam tried it as well, the theory proved to be wrong.
The purpose of an air-force is to bomb targets from the sky. Iranians have shown you can
do it with ultra-cheap short medium range ballistic missiles which are nothing more than
crap aluminum tubes filled with propellant, a low cost cell phone GPS guidance system and a
big payload. You can make millions for the cost of one stealth jet!
This was particularly hilarious. If that were the case the USA and its allies would be
doing that. Do you not realize the US has had rocket artillery for the past 70 years? The
larger the rocket, and the longer its range, the larger and heavier the transport TEL vehicle
and support base and storage must be. The industrial and technical support base as well. And
the crews to man and employ them get larger as well, as does their training equipping and
paying of them.
That's in fact very expensive, and you run out of rockets real fast.
But stealth jets come back every day, for months, or years, and drop big-*** bombs on your
missile factories, and its industrial support base, it's electricity supply, its fuel supply,
its chemical factories, its bases, bunkers, sensors comms, personnel, ports and the entire
industrial economic infrastructure of the entire country.
then why didnt you boomer? Because Iran's missiles will hit your base anyway..stealth or
no stealth that is the point! The US was supposed to wage such a death match war against
China or Russia...not a 4th rate shithole like IRAN. You boomers literally have your head up
your asses. The 90s is over boomers! The boomer run US armed forces is totally obsolete
because we have been humiliated and the boomers are so shameless they are behaving like
'colored peoples of poor upbringing'.
Hold me back or ill......hold me back or ill.... you will do what? Nothing! No one held
burger boy trump back. Burger boy held himself back because he and his son in law and the
prime brains behind losing the petrodollar, Netanyahu would lose Israel also along with Saudi
Arabia and all burger bases!
oh so I must be a muslim if I said Israel lost the petrodollar because the joke is on you
clowns. Lose the petrodollar boomers lose their 401k and Israel has to negotiate with Iran to
exist...win win if you ask me...cant wait to watch you flip burgers in your 80s.
The fact that you want us to use WWII Japan as comparison completely nullifies your rant.
Furthermore, revisionism and hyped up ability does no good in the real world. We don't need
to ask Hitler or Saddam. Had Saddam moved in on Saudi Arabia rather than allowing forces to
amass it's been a different story. Regarding Hitler, you cinta had little to no hand in the
matter. Case in point.
Rick Wiles (TruNews) goes full red pill on Zionist Israel. The U.S. is conquered territory. You will be placed in a digital
ghetto if you discuss Israel's crimes, or complain about the Jewish mafia takeover in America. Rabbi Trumpenstein will look the
other way to appease his Jewish handlers. These outrageous Jewish actions are becoming more and more outrageous under the Agent
Orange administration. Meanwhile, we are distracted by what is going on in the M.E.
Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad operative who was tasked with blackmailing influential politicians and persons of interest in
the West, but in America in particular.
TruNews got dropped by PayPal after this report. The video is an hour long, but the best bit is the opening monologue, which
is shorter. Here is the summary.
The founder of TruNews accused PayPal of conducting a "financial pogrom" hours after the Florida-based Christian broadcaster
published a hard-hitting news report that linked the Jeffrey Epstein child sex scandal to Israel's Mossad spy agency.
PayPal abruptly terminated the account of TruNews without warning or explanation. The conservative Christian news program
has received donations in its PayPal account for more than 16 years without any problems. TruNews is funded by donations from
viewers. The weekday Christian news and commentary program started in 1999.
TruNews' founder and host Rick Wiles accused PayPal CEO Daniel Schulman, a progressive leftwing Jewish business executive,
of punishing the Christian broadcaster for its hard-hitting reports on Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell:
"PayPal abruptly closed our account on the morning of January 3, 2020. TruNews' report on January 2 was titled 'Ghislaine
Maxwell: Which spy agency is hiding her?' Our newscast focused on her father's longtime service to Israel's intelligence
agencies, how she was Jeffrey Epstein's handler for Mossad, and how Epstein's team video-recorded influential American men
having sex with underage girls who had been recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell."
Wiles said the swiftness of PayPal's action hours after the release of TruNews' report on the Epstein-Maxwell-Mossad
child sex blackmail operation was not a coincidence:
"Any American citizen or entity that questions Israeli actions and its influence in America are now marked targets. Israel's
blackmail operation in America for over 30 years was so successful that it is now dangerous for any law-abiding American
citizen to demand a real investigation into the biggest scandal in American history which resulted in much of America's
ruling class being caught in a child-sex blackmail trap."
Damn. When you're right, you're right, Rick.
Rick Wiles even saw through the whole fake "teen sex" angle that the media was pushing and promoting. The real story
wasn't some 16-year-old girls, but the children that the Jews were using for blackmail purposes. This is the real
kompromat that the Jews have on our politicians.
Wiles accused PayPal of conducting a financial pogrom against opponents of Israeli Zionism.
"TruNews is a victim of a PayPal pogrom. PayPal and the other Techno-Nazis like YouTube and Facebook are pushing American
patriots into digital ghettos if they dare to act like free men and women."
Wiles said he is driven by his commitment to justice:
"TruNews is demanding justice for thousands of American girls who were raped in Epstein's fake mansions, and we're demanding
a legitimate investigation into Israel's blackmailing of influential American men."
Wiles admitted he has little hope of seeing a real investigation because the FBI and Department of Justice have been
corrupted too.
When you understand the Jewish Question, you can just cut through the ******** like a laser. The JQ like nothing else sharpens
the minds and hones you in on the truth.
PayPal also abruptly closed on the same day the account of Bless an Orphan; a nonprofit Christian ministry founded by
Wiles' daughter Karissa Washburn. The Florida-based organization rescues children in South America who were kidnapped or
sold into sex trafficking. Wiles blasted PayPal for punishing his daughter:
"PayPal's action against Bless an Orphan was cruel and vindictive. Daniel Schulman punished my daughter who is saving
the
lives of little girls who were sold to sex traffickers. PayPal closed Bless an Orphan's account for one reason. They
wanted to intimidate me by targeting my daughter. PayPal is also making me aware that they know what my daughter is doing
in South America to rescue children."
TruNews has relentlessly pursued the Jeffrey Epstein child sex scandal. The Christian news organization believes that
Ghislaine Maxwell was Epstein's Mossad handler, not his lover. Maxwell is the daughter of the late Robert Maxwell who
mysteriously drowned in 1991. Maxwell, whose real name was Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch, was a Jewish billionaire who
was suspected of being a Mossad agent. He was given a state funeral in Israel and buried on the Mount of Olives.
TruNews also believes that Epstein was not a billionaire, but an imposter recruited by Mossad to act like a billionaire:
"You cannot convince me that Jeffrey Epstein was a self-made billionaire with only one client who owned mansions throughout
America and London and Paris. His mansions were owned by wealthy Jews through trusts."
Absolutely correct.
The outspoken TruNews founder also wants to know who received the video feeds from Epstein's mansions:
"According to anonymous former employees and women who were in those homes as teenagers, we know that cameras were
in all bedrooms and bathrooms that fed video to secret media rooms that were staffed with people capturing the child
sex acts on video. Who received the video? I believe it was sent to Tel Aviv for blackmail purposes."
I can't quite understand how gratuitous US piracy and adventurism in places on the globe
beyond the knowledge and reach of most Americans could possibly be compared to Iranian
actions securing their immediate regional borders and interests. You can at least understand
(even if you critique) a US preoccupation with Cuba over the years, or drug cartels in
central America, or economic refugees in Mexico because they are close by and have a more
less direct effect on the stability of the US. But they have no authority beyond that other
than the ability to project violence and force. That's just simple imperialism. But now the
US have whacked a made guy without any real reason (i.e. looking at you the wrong way is not
a reason). Any mafia hood knows that, especially a New Yorker like Trump. So the climax of
The Godfather comes to mind. It is staggeringly naive and frankly moronic to think
that this is about good and evil. I bet Soleimani was no angel, but he wasn't whacked because
he was a bad guy, but because he was extraordinarily effective military organizer. Star Wars
has a lot to answer for in stunting the historical sensibilities of entire generations, but
its underlying narrative is the only MSM playbook now. Even more staggering is the stupendous
arrogance of the US belief in its 'rights' (based on thuggery and avarice), as though it were
the only power in the world capable of establishing a moral order. The lesson in humility to
come will be both long-awaited and go unheeded. Even the mob understand there has to be
rules.
After reading Crooke and Federicci's articles, there is only one way to stop this madness
blowing into a global conflict. Russia and China need to get involved whether they like it or
not. Diplomacy and sideline analysis has run its course. This is their time to stamp their
influence in the region and finish off the empire once and for all. Maybe that way, The
Europeans will grow some minerals and become sovereign again.
Otherwise, China can kiss its Belt and Road goodbye and go into a recession with the loss
of their investments up to this point and become slaves to the Americans again.
And Russia, the enemy du jour of Europe and US will be next and be crushed under economic
sanctions and isolation.
This is the moment that stars are aligned . Russia and China should park their battle
carriers off the Gulf and gives direct warning to Israel and US that any nuclear threat ,
tactical or otherwise, against anyone in the region is a non-starter.
I read so much about these two countries and that they will get involved. I have recited
those lines myself. But after these events and how things are escalating, I cannot see how
they cannot be involved. US is its most vulnerable and weakest with respect to economic,
diplomatic and military conditions.
The time of condemnations, letters of objection to the UN and veto votes in UNSC is over.
There is only one way to deal with a rogue nation and that is by force.
"We have learned today from #Iraq Prime Minister AdilAbdl Mahdi how @realDonaldTrump uses
diplomacy:
#US asked #Iraq to mediate with #Iran. Iraq PM asks #QassemSoleimani to come and talk to him
and give him the answer of his mediation, Trump &co assassinate an envoy at the airport."
Whether he is eating ice cream or not, Trump appears to be on a rampage to recreate the
end of The Godfather.
Less than 24 hours after a US drone shockingly killed the top Iranian military leader,
Qasem Soleimani, resulting in equity markets groaning around the globe in fear over Iranian
reprisals (and potentially, World War III), the US has gone for round two with Reuters and
various other social media sources reporting that US air strikes targeting Iraq's Popular
Mobilization Units umbrella grouping of Iran-backed Shi'ite militias near camp Taji north
of Baghdad, have killed six people and critically wounded three, an Iraqi army source said
late on Friday.
Now would be the perfect time for the Mossad to do its false flag shtick. They wouldn't even
have to try very hard to pin it on Iran. I'll bet that when the news came out that the
Iranian guy had been killed, every neocon on the planet popped a boner that will last for
days. Michael Ledeen is probably mazel tov-ing his ass off.
I don't care about the dead Muslim who got killed, since that's the only kind of "good
Muslim" you're ever going to find, but I would still prefer for the U.S. to get out of the
Middle East altogether. Let those two warring anti-Christ peoples kill each other to their
hearts' content.
"The attempt to isolate the China-Russia-Iran bloc has no way of succeeding and is clearly
based on short term profits for the corporations pushing American policy, rather than the
health of the economic system as a whole. This is clearly seen in how America is targeting
Europe with sanctions over the Nordstream gas pipeline project from Russia to Germany. If you
think this is just about the Trump administration you would be wrong, this has bi-partisan
support in America and is clearly being pushed by the big banks and corporations with the
politicians in both parties being pushed into doing their bidding. This is a huge mistake and
like the economic meltdown of 2008 caused by the short-term profiteering of Wall Street greed,
we are seeing a far greater mistake being made by the attempt to enforce submission on so many
major economic powers. Their obvious reaction is to isolate themselves from American economic
reach which means they WILL join the Russia-China-Iran bloc.
Brzezinski's 2016 advice to bring Russia-China-Iran in from out of the cold was the smart
path to follow. It still is. It is THE ONLY way to save the world economy from splitting more
and more in ways that adversely affects America more and more and by extension the rest of the
world whose economies are tied to America.
The current leaders of both establishment cliques need to accept that their continuance of
the Grand Chessboard strategy is outdated and self-defeating -- and dangerous. It threatens the
lives of so many on a daily basis around the world, including Americans. The rise of China and
Russia has made a unipolar world impossible unless the Chinese all of a sudden decide to submit
to the LIEO. And that is what the American establishment seems to think they can force on them.
They hope to wait out Putin to change Russia when he is gone. While that may be possible, what
they hope with China is extremely unlikely. China is aggressively courting other nations for
partnerships while America is losing more and more respect among the people and leaders of the
world."
Europe is willing to defy the U.S. on Nordstream to the point of forcing the U.S. to openly and nakedly destroy its reputation
with European contractors and governments to stop one pipeline in a place where multiple gas pipelines will be needed for future
growth.
This is the diplomatic equivalent of the nuclear option. And the neocons in the Senate just pushed the button. Europe understands
what this is really about, the U.S. retaining its imperial position as the policy setter for all the world. If it can set energy
policy for Europe then it can set everything else.
And it's clear that the leadership in Europe is done with that status quo. The Trump administration from the beginning has used
NATO as an excuse to mask its real intentions towards Europe, which is continued domination of its policies. Trump complains that
the U.S. pays into NATO to protect Europe from Russia but then Europe buys its energy from Russia. That's unfair, Donald complains,
like a little bitch, frankly, even though he right on the surface. But if the recent NATO summit is any indication, Europe is no
longer interested in NATO performing that function. French President Emmanuel Macron wants NATO re-purposed to fight global terror,
a terrible idea. NATO should just be ended.
But you'll notice how Trump doesn't talk about that anymore. He wants more billions pumped into NATO while the U.S. still sets
its policies. This is not a boondoggle for the MIC as much as it's a Sword of Damocles to hold over Europe's head. The U.S.'s involvement
in should be ended immediately, the troops brought home and the billions of dollars spent here as opposed to occupying most of Europe
to point missiles at a Russia wholly uninterested in imperial ambitions no less harboring any of them.
And Trump also knows this but thinks stopping Nordstream 2 is the price Europe has to pay him for this privilege. It's insane.
The time has come for Europe to act independently from the U.S. As much as I despise the EU, to untangle it from the U.S. on energy
policy is the means by which for it to then deal with its problems internally. It can't do that while the U.S. is threatening it.
Circling the wagons against the immediate threat, as it were.
And that means protecting its companies and citizens from the economic depredations of power-mad neoconservatives in the U.S.
Senate like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham.
Allseas, the Swiss company laying the pipe for Nordstream 2,
has halted construction for now
, awaiting instructions from the U.S. Gazprom will likely step in to finish the job and Germany will green light any of the necessary
permits to get the pipeline done. Those people will be put out of work just in time for Christmas, turning thousands of people against
the U.S. Commerce drives people together, politics drives them apart.
But, at the same time, the urgency to finish Nordstream 2 on time is wholly irrelevant now because Ukraine and Russia came to
terms on a new five-year gas transit contract. This ensures Gazprom can meet its contractual deliveries to Europe that no one thought
could be done on time. But when the Nazi threat to Zelensky meeting with Merkel, Macron and Putin in Paris failed to materialize,
a gas deal was on the horizon.
And, guess what? U.S. LNG will still not have the marginal lever over Europe's energy policy because of that. Putin and Zelensky
outmaneuvered Cruz, Graham and Trump on this. Because that's what this boils down to. By keeping Russian gas out of Europe, it was
supposed to constrain not only Russia's growth but also Europe's. Because then the U.S. government can control who and how much energy
can make it into European markets at critical junctures politically.
That was the Bolton Doctrine to National Security. And that doctrine brought nothing but misery to millions.
And if you look back over the past five years of U.S./EU relations you will see this gambit clearly for what it was, a way to
continue European vassalage at the hands of the U.S. by forcing market share of U.S. providers into European markets.
Again, it gets back to Trump's ideas about Emergy Dominance
and becoming the supplier of the marginal erg of energy to important economies around the world.
The smart play for the EU now that the gas transit deal is in place is to threaten counter-sanctions against the U.S. and bar
all LNG shipments into Europe. Gas prices are at historic lows, gas supplies are overflowing thanks to fears of a deal not being
in place.
So, a three to six month embargo of U.S. LNG into Europe to bleed off excess supply while Nordstream 2 is completed would be the
right play politically.
But, in reality, they won't need to, because the U.S. won't be able to import much into Europe under current prices and market
conditions. And once Nordstream 2 is complete, LNG sales to Europe should crater.
In the end, I guess it's too bad for Ted Cruz that economics and basic human ingenuity are more powerful than legislatures. Because
Nordstream 2 will be completed. Turkstream's other trains into Europe will be built. Venezuela will continue rebuilding its energy
sector with Russian and Chinese help.
There is no place for U.S. LNG in Europe outside of the Poles literally burning money virtue signaling their Russophobia. Nordstream 2 was a response to the revolt in Ukraine, to replace any potential losses in market share to Europe. Now Russia will
have what it had before passing through Ukraine along with Nordstream 2. By 2024 there will be at least two trains from Turkstream
coming into Europe.
Iran will keep expanding exports, settling its oil and gas trade through Russian banks. And the U.S. will continue to fulminate
and make itself even more irrelevant over time. What men like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump refuse to understand is that when you go nuclear you can't ever go back. If you threaten
the nuclear option, there's no fall back position.
And when those that you threaten with annihilation survive they are made all the stronger for passing through the eye of the needle. Looking at Gazprom's balance sheet right now, that's my take.
This goes so much deeper, as Whitney Webb points out below, there are much broader
implications beyond the depraved pedophile aspect.
Epstein's links to intelligence have since been confirmed. The CIA-Mossad links to
Epstein were detailed in a recent MintPress investigative series and several mainstream media
reports have corroborated Epstein's time as a self-described "financial bounty hunter" who
hunted down embezzled funds and also hid stolen money for powerful people and
governments.
references allude to Epstein's shady business activities in the New York and Palm Beach
real estate markets from the mid-1980s to the late-1990s that were used to launder massive
amounts of money for organized crime and intelligence. It is likely for this reason that
Epstein's real estate activities during this period have been so deliberately ignored by the
U.S. press, even though other aspects of his financial activities were heavily scrutinized in
recent months.
Indeed, in examining Epstein's involvement in real estate markets, particularly in New
York, it becomes clear that those activities have no shortage of controversial tie-ins to the
current U.S. presidential administration as well as major New York power players involved in
suspect financial activity immediately prior to the September 11 attacks as well as the 2008
financial crisis.
I would be vastly surprised if Epstein's ties to the NY real estate markets doesn't
include most of the major players not just the Trump organization. The outlier real estate
moguls would be those without ties to controversial partners and organized crime.
With regard to ""There will come a day where we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most
prolific pedophile this country has ever known.":
The focus is on Epstein, but it doesn't belong there. What about the adolescent females
who have been victimized? Does anyone here have a clue or give a damn about what it means
psychologically for the rest of their lives? And what about the hundreds or thousands of
politicians, judges, media people, cultural leaders, et al who have been intimidated,
blackmailed, compromised? What does that mean for politics, the economy, justice, etc.?
" this is how these games are played. If you look carefully, you will see them widely.
Inform, enlighten, while throwing in doubletalk and untruths. The small number of people who
read such books and articles will come away knowing some history that has no current
relevance and being misinformed on other history that does. They will then be in the know,
ready to pass their "wisdom" on to those who care to listen. They will not think they are
average.
But they will be mind controlled, and the killer cat will roam freely without a bell,
ready to devour the unsuspecting mice."
"... Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli spy and alleged "handler" of Robert Maxwell, told the authors of a new book, Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales , that Epstein ran a "complex intelligence operation" at the behest of Mossad. ..."
"... Believing that Epstein planned to marry his daughter, Maxwell introduced him and Ghislaine Maxwell to Ben-Menashe's Mossad circle. ..."
"... "See, fucking around is not a crime. It could be embarrassing, but it's not a crime. But fucking a fourteen-year-old girl is a crime. And he was taking photos of politicians fucking fourteen-year-old girls -- if you want to get it straight. They would just blackmail people, they would just blackmail people like that." ..."
Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad asset who was used by Israeli intelligence to blackmail
American politicians, according to a former Israeli spy.
Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli spy and alleged "handler" of Robert Maxwell, told the
authors of a new book, Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales , that Epstein ran a "complex
intelligence operation" at the behest of Mossad.
Believing that Epstein planned to marry his daughter, Maxwell introduced him and Ghislaine
Maxwell to Ben-Menashe's Mossad circle.
"Maxwell sort of started liking him, and my theory is that Maxwell felt that this guy is
going for his daughter," Ben-Menashe said.
"He felt that he could bless him with some work and help him out in like a paternal
[way]."
Israeli intelligence bosses gave the green light and Epstein then became a Mossad asset.
"They were agents of the Israeli Intelligence Services," said Ben-Menashe.
When it became clear that Epstein wasn't very competent at doing much else, his primary role
became "blackmailing American and other political figures."
"Mr. Epstein was the simple idiot who was going around providing girls to all kinds of
politicians in the United States," said Ben-Menashe.
"See, fucking around is not a crime. It could be embarrassing, but it's not a crime. But
fucking a fourteen-year-old girl is a crime. And he was taking photos of politicians fucking
fourteen-year-old girls -- if you want to get it straight. They would just blackmail people,
they would just blackmail people like that."
There's also a Mossad connection to a different kind of sex offender; Harvey Weinstein.
Weinstein
reportedly hired ex-Mossad agents to suppress allegations against him. Working for an
Israeli firm called Black Cube, these agents pressured witnesses and tried to intimidate
journalist Ronan Farrow in order to "bury the truth" about Weinstein's activity.
Jeffrey Epstein worked for Mossad, which is blackmailing every politician around the world
that it can, but most especially those in the United States of America and Britain.
Trump Was 'Only One' To Help Prosecutor In 2009 Epstein Case
And while Democrats have suggested that
the new evidence may implicate President Trump - who once called Epstein a "Terrific guy" who
"likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side" (yet
reportedly kicked the billionaire pedophile out of his Mar-a-Lago club for trying to recruit
an underage girl) others are focusing on the Clintons.
A the
NY Post detailed in 2016, Epstein and the Clintons are close .
Epstein has spent the bulk of his adult life cultivating relationships with the worlds
most powerful men. Flight logs show that from 2001 to 2003, Bill Clinton flew on Epsteins
private plane, dubbed The Lolita Express by the press, 26 times . After Epsteins arrest in
July 2006, federal tax records show Epstein donated $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation that
year.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Superdelegate daughter Christine quipped on Twitter "It is
quite likely that some of our faves are implicated but we must follow the facts and let the
chips fall where they may."...
...
And what about Trump?
Following a 2018 financial settlement between Florida attorney Bradley Edwards - who
represented one of Epstein's accusers, only to be later sued by Epstein, Edwards claimed that
Donald Trump was the 'only person' who provided assistance when Edwards served subpoenas and
notices to high-profile individuals connected to Epstein.
Edwards: The only thing that I can say about President Trump is that he is the only
person who, in 2009 when I served a lot of subpoenas on a lot of people, or at least gave
notice to some pretty connected people, that I want to talk to them, is the only person who
picked up the phone and said, let's just talk. I'll give you as much time as you want. I'll
tell you what you need to know, and was very helpful , in the information that he gave, and
gave no indication whatsoever that he was involved in anything untoward whatsoever, but had
good information. That checked out and that helped us and we didn't have to take a
deposition of him in 2009...
...In January 2016, Vice.com ran
Silverstein's story on Trump's ties to Epstein, which framed them as more social - including
dinner parties, two plane trips, and Epstein hanging out at Trump's Mar-a-lago resort in Palm
Beach, Florida. As
Radar reported last April, "According to an investigation by Radar, Trump was among
dozens of renowned New Yorkers who knew Epstein socially but ostracized him after Palm Beach
police uncovered the financiers sleazy double life, " adding that Trump "once barred child
molester Jeffrey Epstein from his famed Mar-a-lago club after the presidential candidate
caught him hitting on a young girl."
Russia, Israel and Saudi Arabia: Jeffrey Epstein 'Found a Niche -- Blackmailing American
and Other Political Figures' For Foreign Powers, According to His Ex-Spy Handler
By Dylan Howard
December 5, 2019
Shameless pedophile Jeffrey Epstein inherited his espionage business from ex-girlfriend
Ghislaine Maxwell, whose father British media magnate Robert Maxwell, was a super spy for
Israel's Mossad. Here, in another excerpt from the newly released book "Epstein: Dead Men
Tell No Tales," former Israeli spy Ari Ben-Menashe tells how Epstein ran a complex
intelligence operation.
Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli spy and alleged "handler" of Robert Maxwell said of
Epstein: "Maxwell introduced him to us, and he wanted us to accept him as part of our
group.
Ben-Menashe claimed that Epstein and
Ghislaine were already dating in the late 1980s, and that Maxwell Senior grew fond of
the young upstart.
"Epstein was hanging around with Robert Maxwell and the daughter was hanging around
there too, and that's how they met," he told author James Robertson in an interview from
Montreal. "Just two young souls, they met."
"Maxwell sort of started liking him, and my theory is that Maxwell felt that this guy
is going for his daughter," Ben-Menashe said. "He felt that he could bless him with some
work and help him out in like a paternal [way]."
According to the former spy, the ultimate order to embrace Epstein and involve him in
the ongoing arms deals came from "the bosses" at Israeli intelligence headquarters.
"They were agents of the Israeli Intelligence Services," he told James
Robertson.
"Later on [Ghislaine] got involved with Israeli intelligence together with him. But
not in this arms deal with Iran business," Ben-Menashe also told Zev
Shalev , former CBS News executive producer and investigative journalist for the
website Narativ.
"These guys were seen as agents. They weren't really competent to do very much. And
so they found a niche for themselves -- blackmailing American and other political
figures."
He told Robertson, "Mr. Epstein was the simple idiot who was going around providing
girls to all kinds of politicians in the United States. See, ******* around is not a crime.
It could be embarrassing, but it's not a crime. But ******* a fourteen-year-old girl is a
crime. And he was taking photos of politicians ******* fourteen-year-old girls -- if you
want to get it straight. They would just blackmail people, they would just blackmail people
like that."
Ben-Menashe is a mysterious Iranian-born Israeli businessman who claims to have worked for
Mossad from 1977 to 1987,
The Sun reported this week. He was arrested in 1989 in the US on arms dealing charges but
was acquitted in 1990 after a jury accepted he was acting on behalf of Israel. Israel tried
to distance themselves from him, with government sources saying he never had anything to do
with intelligence services, although other news reports -- in both the US and Israel --
confirmed he did. He later wrote a book called Profits of War: Inside the US-Israeli Arms
Network and in the early 1990s claimed that Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine's dad, worked for
Mossad.
But there remains more questions than answers about how Epstein came to be one of the most
horrifying villains the modern world has ever known -- a shameless pedophile who built a
network of child sex abuse around the globe. But in this case, the rot of evil goes even
deeper than that.
How did Epstein pull off his sex trafficking scheme?
Who was a participant, and who might have helped him?
These questions -- and more -- linger still, even after inmate 76318–054 was found
dead at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City...
The Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad
Timeline shows in detail how Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were working for the
Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad.
Link to Unz.com article
The timeline generated many comments at Unz.com but surprisingly most of them dealt whether
Epstein was a pedophile or not. This despite the overwhelming evidence of pedophilia.
Many have also totally missed – or are afraid to notice – the big picture:
Israeli intelligence agencies and especially Mossad seem to be running pedophile rings that
blackmail Western political, business and scientific leaders.
Furthermore, it seems that Ghislaine Maxwell was and still is the master mind behind many of
these pedophile rings.
One of the reasons Epstein and Ghislaine were able to continue sex trafficking with impunity
for so long was the appearance that Epstein was a victim of jealous people and overzealous
police. Many people thought that Epstein had only had sex with a 17-year old girl who had lied
about her age.
This excuse worked well because in Florida the age of consent is 18 while in most other
American states it is 16.
Link to Wikipedia
Epstein was able to play the martyr by not only claiming that unscrupulous girls had lied
their age but also by implying that the age of consent is too high anyway in Florida.
This was also one reason why in New Mexico where Epstein had his Zorro Ranch the officials
refused to register him as a sex offender. In New Mexico the age of consent was 16 until in
2018 it was raised to 18.
Furthermore, unlike in many other states, in New Mexico the courts recognize a mistake of
age defense.
New Mexico courts recognize a mistake of
age defense . The mistake of age defense is basically "I thought she was 17." However,
this is no guarantee that this defense will work in court. Moreover, the mistake of age is
the creation of judges in the absence of a direct statute addressing the defense. State
lawmakers may pass a law overriding the courts on this issue at any time. ( LegalMatch
)
In reality the Epstein-Ghislaine case is not whether it is wrong for an adult to have sex
with a 17 year old. Instead it is about many other things such as prostitution, grooming,
pedophilia and the exploitation of children.
This all is connected to global politics involving sex trafficking, drug and arms trade,
money laundering, Ponzi schemes, spy networks and blackmailing for Mossad.
Epstein's victims were caught in a web of international spy network that used them as pawns
for blackmail operations. The younger the girls were, the more leverage Israel would have over
politicians, billionaires and scientists. Thus Epstein and Ghislaine tried to also recruit
girls who were well under the age of 16.
What is more, they personally enjoyed having sex with these very young girls. Both Epstein
and Ghislaine seem to have been pedophiles who were attracted to prepubescent girls and boys,
i.e. small children.
Note that in order to be a pedophile it is enough to have merely occasional sexual
attraction to prepubescent, i.e. sexually immature children who have not yet developed
secondary
sex characteristics, such as breasts.
Julie Brown from Miami Herald notes that Courtney Wild was only 14 when she was
recruited into Epstein's sex ring.
Wild still had braces on her teeth when she was introduced to him in 2002 at the age of
14.
She was fair, petite and slender, blonde and blue-eyed. (emphasis added. Miami Herald
)
Link to Miami Herald
Julie Brown also notes that Epstein preferred girls who were not only white [and non-Jewish]
but also appeared prepubescent.
Wild, who later helped recruit other girls, said Epstein preferred girls who were
white, appeared prepubescent and those who were easy to manipulate into going further each
time. (Emphasis added. Miami Herald )
For Epstein and Ghislaine it was important that the girls at the very least looked like
small children. This is obviously why they preferred girls who were under 16.
Courtney Wild told the police that she brought Epstein over 70 girls and they were all under
16.
By the time I was 16, I had probably brought him 70 to 80 girls who were all 14 and 15
years old (Emphasis added. Miami Herald )
Some girls were even younger. According to the police many were 13 year old.
The girls -- mostly 13 to 16 -- were lured to his pink waterfront mansion by Wild and
other girls, who went to malls, house parties and other places where girls congregated, and
told recruits that they could earn $200 to $300 to give a man -- Epstein -- a massage,
according to an unredacted copy of the Palm Beach police investigation obtained by the
Herald. (Emphasis added. Miami Herald )
It is also important to note that even 13 was not the minimum age for Epstein and Ghislaine.
In fact, there was no limit to how young the girls could be. Both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell
emphasized that the younger the better.
Eventually, she said Maxwell trained her to recruit new girls for Epstein.
"Jeffrey was very particular in the kind of girls he wanted. First off, the younger the
better ."
Epstein said that to her, Giuffre claimed, and " Maxwell said that too . During the
training and telling me how to do it, she said 'You always have to go for the
youngest-looking ones .'" (Emphasis added.
The Daily Beast )
Link to The Daily Beast
It seems the primary purpose was not even blackmail since especially Epstein was having sex
with these young girls all the time. On some days Epstein was having sex several times a
day.
Sex games were more important for Epstein than work. Obviously, he was extremely attracted
to these young girls.
In six months, I never saw him do a day's work," Ransome told The Telegraph. "I never
saw him work. He was literally sexually abusing us all day long . (Emphasis added.
Business Insider )
Link to Business Insider
Ghislaine also seemed to be obsessed with sex. Just like her father, Robert Maxwell she was
rumored to be interested in unconventional sex which includes also sex with young children.
As she [Ghislaine] posed for the pics, which ran in a publication meant to promote
Sotheby's vintage fashion collection, she allegedly let slip comments that hinted at a
twisted double life.
"She didn't talk about Epstein, but during the shoot she did tell a story about how she
just hosted a dinner party for a number of young girls, and she put dildos at each place
setting," the source said. "Ghislaine then described how during the dinner two guests, who
were a couple, began demonstrating how to do the perfect fellatio on a man for all at the
table. She was laughing about it."
"A friend of mine has a whole theory about her, that Epstein was like her father Robert
Maxwell, who himself is believed to have had some strange sexual practices." (
Page Six )
Link to PageSix
The Epstein Mossad-Timeline shows how Ghislaine was most probably trained by Mossad to use
sex to gather information. That training would not have been too difficult for her since she
was hypersexual. Many even considered her a nymphomaniac.
In fact, even many Israeli Jews – who usually have much fewer sexual taboos than
puritan English and Americans – were shocked by her raunchy sexuality.
Flirtatious indeed: I understand from a mutual friend that after school she travelled
to Israel and visited a kibbutz; she was immediately ostracised by the other girls for making
a rather-too-obvious beeline for the Adonis-like lifeguard at the kibbutz pool. Very quickly
she got her way, as she would with much in her life. ( Tatler . Emphasis
added.)
Even Ghislaine's friend were sometimes shocked by her open sexuality that so often
contrasted with her otherwise lady-like behavior and position in high society.
Ghislaine was, added Mason, 'fantastically entertaining' and 'saucy' – the paper
said that she talked openly about sex .
In fact, said another acquaintance who saw her often at parties, she was 'obsessed by
sex . She's Sphinx-like, mysterious. The last time I saw her, five, 10 years ago, I said what
are you up to? And she said "I'm selling this product – stainless-steel mini dumb-bells
– that you put up your fanny. For exercising your vaginal muscles, exercise your pelvic
floor, learn the Singapore Grip. I'm giving seminars in LA and they all turn up and I tell
them, this is how you keep your man."' ( Tatler . Emphasis
added.)
Epstein and Ghislaine were both hypersexual. All kind of sex interested them. Little girls
were just part of the menu. Or more specifically, the best – and most profitable –
part.
Epstein and Ghislaine were so attracted to young girls that nothing seemed to satisfy them.
Perhaps this is why Epstein and Ghislaine created the highly risky sexual pyramid scheme. The
girls were offered two alternatives: Either satisfy Epstein and Ghislaine sexually or get more
girls to satisfy them.
In this way Epstein and Ghislaine were able to recruit literally hundreds of young girls.
However, some of these girls went to the police and the sexual pyramid scheme collapsed.
When Epstein got out of jail in 2009 he had half-learned his lesson: American girls are too
risky.
Now Epstein and Ghislaine would only concentrate on East European girls with the help of
their Jewish-Ukrainian friend Peter Listerman.
One of the lesser-known shadowy figures linked to Jeffrey Epstein and his sex ring of
teenage girls and young women is Ukrainian-born Peter Listerman, who has worked as a
businessman and television presenter but is most known for his "match-making"
abilities.
What match-making really means is that Listerman procures women, often underage, for
the jet-set society to use for sexual purposes. His "clients" include Russian oligarchs and
American businessmen and seems to have also
included Jeffrey Epstein. ( Citizen
Truth )
Link to the Citizen Truth.org
Listerman has such a bad reputation that he is shunned even in Ukraine!
Tatiana Savchenko, who founded the first modeling school in Odessa, Ukraine
explained to the Daily Beast the lengths she had to go to keep Listerman from getting his
hands on young women and trafficking them for sex work.
She claimed that he would frequently approach her students and attempt to lure them
with promises of a luxurious lifestyle, and that "It took a lot of work to keep him from
tricking our teen models in his traps." ( Citizen
Truth )
Peter Listerman is the usual suspect. Link to Fishki.net Do you think I am
kidding? I am Peter Listerman! Link to Fishki.net
Both Epstein and Listerman were attracted to very young girls. Neither even tried to hide it
much. In fact, Epstein was quite open about his attraction to tweens.
Just three months ago, as federal prosecutors were closing in with new charges, Mr.
Epstein had a conversation with R. Couri Hay, a publicist, about continuing to improve his
reputation. Mr. Epstein asserted that what he was convicted of did not constitute pedophilia,
said Mr. Hay, who declined to represent him.
The girls he had sex with were "tweens and teens," Mr. Epstein told him. ( The New
York Times )
But what is a tween?
Preadolescent is generally defined as those ranging from age 10 to 13 years.
[4][6] While known
as preadolescent in psychology, the terms preteen, preteenager or tween are common in
everyday use. ( Wikipedia
)
Epstein was right, of course. What he was convicted of in 2007 did not constitute
pedophilia. However, that is precisely one reason why people are so outraged!
Epstein and Ghislaine did not see any problem of recruiting, grooming and having sex also
with tweens. And apparently neither did the Justice Department and the FBI led by
Robert Mueller !
But it gets even worse. As pointed out in the Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad Timeline ,
it seems that Epstein and Ghislaine were after even younger girls.
In 2003 Epstein financed Jean-Luc Brunell's(?) and Jeff Fuller's(J) new modelling agency
MC2 that seemed to have worked with Peter Listerman.
MC2 obviously refers to the famous Einstein equation E = MC2 , the energy-mass
equivalence. Equally obviously, E equals Epstein, the energy, whereas the girls equal MC2, the
mass energized by Epstein.
Despite all this – or for the very reason – Epstein invested in MC2 and became
particularly
close to its founders Brunel and Fuller.
The agency operates in New York, Miami and Tel Aviv. It's in practice half-Israeli.
Many call Israel the capital of human trafficking and organ
harvesting .
Link to
Ynet.com
MC2 concentrates on importing East European girls to Israel and America. The younger the
better.
Marina Lynchuk of MC2 Lolita Lvola from MC2 Linta Lapinda from MC2
Brunel seems to have given 12-year old triplets to Epstein as a birthday present.
'Jeffrey bragged after he met them that they were 12-year-olds and flown over from
France because they're really poor over there, and their parents needed the money or whatever
the case is and they were absolutely free to stay and flew out,' Giuffre said.
She said she saw the three girls with her own eyes and that Epstein had repeatedly
described to her how the girls had massaged him and performed oral sex on him. They were
flown back to France the next day.
Link to Daily Mail
It seems that even tweens were not young enough for Epstein.
According to court papers in 2005 Brunel called Epstein and left a message that "he is
sending him a 16-year-old Russian girl for purposes of sex". However, the written message says
something even worse.
The message, filed as an exhibit in the case, was written on an office message pad,
partly in code, and read: "He [Brunel] has a teacher for you to teach you how to speak
Russian. She is 2×8 years old not blonde. Lessons are free and you can have your 1st
today if you call." ( New
York Post )
Does it mean that two eight year olds are involved? Or does 2 x 8 mean to sex 8 year old?
(2=to, x=sex)
Why would the lessons be free and why is it relevant that the "teacher" is not a blond?
There is no denying that Epstein and Ghislaine sexualised even small children. This became
clear in 2005 when police raided Epstein's Palm Peach mansion.
In one photo that was hanging on the wall a small six or seven year old girl was bending
over in a tiny dress. Police blurred out the photo in the video taken during the raid.
NEW YORK CITY, NY – MARCH 13: Atmosphere at
Hamish Bowles, Ghislaine Maxwell and Lillian von Stauffenberg dinner for ALLEGRA HICKS at Home
of Ghislaine Maxwell on March 13, 2007 in New York City. (Photo by Patrick McMullan/Patrick
McMullan via Getty Images). Link to Getty Images.
The so called artwork seems to be full of pedophile symbols.
Link to Wikileaks.org
The quality of the photos taken at Ghislaine's home are so good that even more symbols have
been found in her artwork.
For some reason the mainstream media has not picked up on this pedophilia angle. No
mainstream media journalist has even tried to ask why would Ghislaine have such art and symbols
on her home wall.
This despite the fact that Ghislaine is most probably an Israeli superspy just like was her
father, Robert Maxwell. She probably has been trained to use sex – including pedophilia
– as a tool for blackmail and manipulation.
At the time in Israel females molesting little boys was not even considered rape.
Link to
Haaretz.com
Nor have mainstream journalists asked where was Ghislaine when Madeline McCann was
abducted.
That would not be an unreasonable question since one of the E-Fit images looks a lot like
Ghislaine.
Link to Enchanted Life Path.com
Furthermore, two of the E-Fit images (1A, 1B) look like the Podesta brothers. John Podesta was White House
Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton and the Chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential
campaign.
Ghislaine and Epstein were close to the Clintons and the Podesta brothers have been directly
linked also to Pizzagate.
Was Ghislaine helping to run also Pizzagate and other pedophile rings for Mossad?
At least she seems to be perfectly trained to do just that. First, her own hypersexuality,
family background and possible training by Mossad made it easy for her to master mind the
pedophilia ring she run with Epstein.
Second, Ghislaine and Epstein had all the apparel to help run also other pedophile rings:
Lolita express airplanes and helicopters, Zorro Ranch in New Mexico and luxury mansions in New
York, Palm Peach and Paris.
Even more importantly they had their own island in the Virgin Islands.
In the 90s Epstein bought Little St.
James island from the Virgin islands. It had a mansion which Epstein expanded.
Soon locals started to call it the Pedophile Island.
Little St. James island. Link to
Wall Street Journal article
The island seems to have tunnels with several underground entrances.
Ghislaine has a Helicopter Pilot License and often transported quests to the island.
On the weekends in the 1990s, Maxwell would have her Rollerblades FedExed to Epstein's
island in the Caribbean, and said she got her helicopter's license so she could transport
anyone she liked without pilots knowing who they were .
Maxwell also said the island had been completely wired for video; the friend thought
that she and Epstein were videotaping everyone on the island as an insurance policy, as
blackmail.
A source close to Maxwell says she spoke glibly and confidently about getting girls to
sexually service Epstein, saying this was simply what he wanted, and describing the way she'd
drive around to spas and trailer parks in Florida to recruit them. She would claim she had a
phone job for them, "and you'll make lots of money, meet everyone, and I'll change your
life."
Maxwell had one other thing to tell this woman: "When I asked what she thought of the
underage girls, she looked at me and said, 'they're nothing, these girls. They are trash .'"
(Emphasis added. Vanity
Fair )
Ghislaine was naturally using Epstein's helicopters. Some of them shared their FAA tail
number with a US contractor, Dyncorp . That would have helped Ghislaine and
Epstein to fly drugs and children.
FAA records and Epstein's pilot's flight manifest indicate that Epstein's Bell
helicopter used the same tail number of N474AW . This was the same tail number used until
2006 by State Department contractor Dyncorp for counter-insurgency operations in Latin
America.
The congruence of Epstein's Bell N474AW and Dincorp's Bronco N474AW is noteworthy. In
2002, the year Epstein's aircraft fleet stands accused of flying underage teen girls, some
between the ages of 12 and 15 , coincided with Dyncorp's trafficking in underage females
between the ages of 12 and 15 from Kosovo and Bosnia in the Balkans.
One Dyncorp whistleblower reported to The Washington Times's Insight magazine's Kelly
O'Meara in 2002 the following on one Dyncorp employee in Bosnia:
[he] owned a girl who couldn't have been more than 14 years old. It's a sick sight
anyway to see any grown man [having sex] with a child, but to see some 45-year-old man who
weights 400 pounds with a little girl, it just makes you sick."
Tail number N474AW has been shared between Epstein's Bell helicopter like the one in
this photo. (Emphasis added.
Political Bull Pen )
DynCorp's pedophilia ring became internationally infamous with the release of the movie
Whistleblower.
Link to Wikipedia
Helicopters can always be seen. However, Ghislaine also has a license to operate
submarines!
In 2012 – three years after Epstein got out of jail – Maxwell founded The
TerraMar Project ,
[51] a nonprofit
organization that advocated protecting ocean waters.
She gave a lecture for TerraMar at the University of Texas at Dallas and a TED talk, at
TEDx Charlottesville in 2014. [52] Maxwell
accompanied Stuart
Beck (J), a 2013 TerraMar board member, to two United Nations meetings to discuss the
project. [17] ( Wikipedia )
In 2014, a
United Nations event featured Maxwell as a speaker. According to her bio in the program,
Maxwell's "web-based non-profit" aimed "to protect the Oceans by empowering a global
community of ocean citizens ." It further described Maxwell as "a private helicopter pilot
and an Emergency Medical Technician and a qualified ROV and Deepworker submarine pilot
."
A former Coast Guard officer, Borgerson was also a fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations , which featured Borgerson and Maxwell as speakers during one 2014 talk
titled "Governing the Ocean Commons: Growing Challenges, New Approaches." Friends of Maxwell,
according to The
New York Times , said Borgerson became her boyfriend. Maxwell had allegedly described
Borgerson as a " Navy SEAL " to her pals.
Maxwell's dubious charity also roped in the Clinton Global Initiative , the now-defunct
networking platform for the Clinton Foundation. In the fall of 2013, CGI named TerraMar as
one of the "commitments to action" at their annual meeting. (Emphasis added.
Daily Beast )
Did the Pedophile Island have an underground submarine base? Was it a part of global
pedophile network?
And was the Ocean Citizens project an attempt to escape national jurisdictions and thus gain
at least a partial immunity from police investigations and prosecutions?
Link to TerraMar
Project
Interestingly, as late as 2016 Epstein bought also the nearby Great St. James Island. He
started to build on the island without permits.
There were rumors that he was building underground. For some reason the mainstream media has
had no interest in this second island.
Why is the mainstream media not interested in Ghislaine's many links to pedophilia?
Perhaps because Ghislaine has so many powerful friends. The photo of the pedophile artwork
on Ghislaine's wall was taken 13 March 2007 during a party at Ghislaine's New York townhouse.
The guest list included a curious combination of elite Jews, aristocratic Brits and American
WASPs.
The party was in Ghislaine's huge 7000-square-foot townhouse. It is located in the most
opulent and prestigious neighborhood of America, the Upper East Side , New York on East 65th
Street just off Park Avenue. Epstein's townhouse was only 10 blocks away.
Ghislaine's five
story townhouse. Link to Street Easy Ghislaine's townhouse floor plan. Link to Street Easy
Ghislaine's townhouse 2nd floor gallery. Link to Street Easy
There are reports from reliable sources that the townhouse was sold in 2000 to Ghislaine by
Lynn
Forester de Rothschild . The very same woman who had introduced Epstein and Ghislaine to
Alan Dershowits and the Clintons in the 90s.
The Manhattan property, which is close to Epstein's mansion, is owned by Lynn Forester
de Rothschild, wife of British financier Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. (See
The Times and the original article .)
According to Business Insider Forester sold the townhouse to Ghislaine for less than half the
price.
Forester sold the mansion for about $8.5 million less than its assessed market value,
which was more than $13.4 million.
Was this a pay-off to Ghislaine from the King of Jews, the Rothschilds for services
rendered?
Hillary Clinton, Evelyn de Rothschild, Bill Clinton and Lynn Forester de
Rothschild. Link to Mint Press
It probably is also relevant that at the time of the sale of the townhouse the Prime
Minister of Israel was Ehud
Barak. In the 80s he had been the head of Aman, the Israeli Military Intelligence Agency.
As the Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad Timeline revealed, both Epstein and Ghislaine worked
for the Israeli intelligence agencies already in the 80s during the Iran-Contra operation.
Note that it was around year 2000 that Epstein and Ghislaine started the pedophile operation
in earnest. In the 80s and 90s blackmail operations were a side show but now it became the main
show involving hundreds of young girls.
Sexual blackmail – especially involving little children – can be an extremely
efficient way to influence key politicians and even military officials. A successful blackmail
operation can achieve more than several army divisions. No wonder Barak was so close to Epstein
and Ghislaine.
Furthermore, in 2000 the president of Israel was Moshe Katsev who was sexually harassing and
even raping his female subordinates. Later Katsev would be convicted of rape.
It was also in 2000 when the Israeli Vice-Consul of Rio de Janeiro, Arie Scher and Hebrew
language Professor George Schteinberg were running a pedophile ring for Israeli tourists. When
the Brasilian police started to investigate the Israeli consulate Scher managed to flee back to
Israel.
Link to Rodoh.info
In Israel Scher was not prosecuted. Instead in 2005 he was promoted to Consul of Canberra,
the capital of Australia. A spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, Mark Regev
explained:
He [Arie Scher] was a young and single man at the time [in Brazil]. Now he is married
and he's six years older and there is no reason why he shouldn't make an excellent diplomatic
appointment in Australia.
Australia refused to let Scher enter the country.
Link to William Bowles Info
The most shocking part of the Arie/Aryeh Scher story is that the mainstream media was not
interested. Either the stories have been scrubbed from the internet or no stories were ever
written by mainstream journalists except one short story by BBC in 2000 and one even smaller
story
by The Sydney Morning Herald in 2005. Even more surprisingly Youtube does not seem to
have any videos about the Scher case.
No wonder Barak was absolutely convinced that the Western mainstream media would never dare
to criticize Israel and its intelligence agencies. Not even when Mossad was running pedophile
rings.
It was probably the Israeli leaders Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and Moshe Katsev together with
the ultra-Zionist
Mega Group who made sure Epstein and especially the Maxwell family had not only immunity
from prosecution but also all the blackmail apparel necessary including luxury townhouses,
airplanes, yachts, submarines, ranch and a private island. All, of course, bugged to the
hilt.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak (R) talks to Shimon Peres, Minister of Regional
Planning, after Barak's speech at the opening session of parliament in Jerusalem 30 October
2000. AFP PHOTO / SVEN NACKSTRAND (Photo credit should read SVEN NACKSTRAND/AFP/Getty Images)
Link to Getty Images
Here the pedophile artwork at Ghislaine's New York townhouse can be seen behind Lillian von
Staufenberg who in March 2007 together with Ghislaine and Hamish Bowles organized a dinner
party in honor of Allegra Hicks. This at a time when Epstein had already been charged with
abusing young girls.
Why would Ghislaine have such a suspicious artwork on her wall knowing that it would
probably be photographed during the parties?
Why would Ghislaine and her quests take such a huge risk? Or was it a sign meant to be seen?
Was Ghislaine flaunting her power?
Ghislaine and her quests seemed to be absolutely sure that the mainstream media would not
dare to ask embarrassing questions.
They were right, of course. The mainstream media knows its place.
However, occasionally some courageous mainstream journalist or editor does try to give
hints. Some have even reported on Ghislaine's hyper-sexual reputation and her orgies. It is
just that the stories have mostly been scrubbed from the internet.
Fortunately, Whitney Webb from Mintpress has
found many of the scrubbed stories. Some of them mention the Mossad connection and others
note the orgies. For example, in 2003 a British newspaper, The Evening Standardreported
a revealing rumor.
Salacious reports have crossed the Atlantic about Ghislaine hosting bizarre parties at
her house to which she invites a dozen or so young girls, then brandishes a whip and teaches
them how to improve their sexual techniques.
It seems that Ghislaine was not only a madame to Epstein but also to the ruling elite. This
would both explain her popularity and the fact that the media – and especially the
American media – dares not to criticize her too much. Not even after her boyfriend
Epstein was charged with sex trafficking minors!
Ghislaine's friends are just too powerful. After the March 2007 party the British Daily
Mail newspaper was amazed how Ghislaine could still have attracted such creme de la
creme of the highest elite. Even more amazingly, the elite was practically swooning over
her.
The night before the party, the hostess [Ghislaine] had been inundated with calls from
disgruntled socialites, irked that they hadn't received an invitation.
The hostess greeted their objections with her customary charm, but remained unmoved. As
always, her list had been carefully edited, and she intended it to stay that way.
Among the select few were Hollywood star Matthew Modine, Kennedy family member Mrs
Anthony Radziwill, Peggy Siegel, PR consultant to the stars, and Julie Janklow, heir to a
literary dynasty.
There was a Rockefeller on the list, as well as the inevitable countesses, billionaires
and New York luminaries.
Link to Daily Mail
The guests at the party included also Renee Rockefeller who is married to Mark Rockefeller , the son of ex-Vice
President Nelson Rockefeller and nephew of David Rockefeller.
David Rockefeller lived at 146 East on the same 65th Street in the Upper East Side as
Ghislaine. They were practically neighbors. Ghislaine would have to walk only two minutes to
visit David.
David liked to pose for photos in his Beetle Room next to his favorite Picasso painting
depicting a nude child "prostitute".
David Rockefeller. Link to Jeffrey Harris Desing.com
David was often visited by his close friend Jacob Rothschild, the patriarch of the
Rothschild family.
The very same family that got Ghislaine her luxury townhouse next door.
The patriarchs,
Jacob Rothschild and David Rockefeller. Link to Jeffrey Harris Design.com
As shown by the Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad Timeline both Epstein and Ghislaine
continued to move in the highest circles long after Epstein got out of jail. In fact, only last
year Ghislaine was invited to a secret writers' retreat hosted by the richest man in the world,
Jeff Bezos.
Link to The Daily Mail
Not only billionaires but also royalty kept in close contact with Ghislaine.
Prince Andrew was recently interviewed by the BBC about his relationship with Epstein,
Ghislaine and their sex slave Virginia Roberts.
Amazingly, Andrew claimed she has no recollection of Epstein's and Ghislaine's sex slave,
Virginia Roberts. This despite the fact that they were photographed together!
Prince Andrew,
Virginia Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell. Link to Daily Mail Link to The Sun.com
Hardly anybody believes Andrew. The queen had no choice but to sack his own son.
Link to
Daily Mail
Andrew got sacked because he was caught in a lie.
Andrew claimed he could not have had sex with the 17-year old Virginia in 2001 because he
had stayed with the British consul general.
The problem is the consul general does not recall Andrew staying with him.
Link to Daily
Mail
Curiously, most of the mainstream media has forgotten that it was Ghislaine who recruited
and manipulated Virginia Roberts to become a sex slave.
Even the BBC forgot this crucial fact despite Andrew mentioning Ghislaine many times during
the interview.
Time and again, the Prince invoked his friendship with Maxwell, 57, daughter of
disgraced media tycoon Robert Maxwell, as the reason he came into paedophile Epstein's
orbit.
Asked when he last saw Maxwell, Andrew said his last contact was 'earlier this year,
funnily enough', when she 'was here doing some rally'. (
Daily Mail )
Andrew claimed to have met Ghislaine last spring. In fact, they met in June just after US
prosecutors reopened the case against Epstein.
The Duke of York held a meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell in London two weeks after US
prosecutors announced they wanted to reopen their investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.
The meeting took place on or about June 5, the day before Ms Maxwell took part in a
four-day charity motoring rally from London to Monte Carlo.
Did Ghislaine demand that Andrew help make sure that the her own parallel case would not be
reopened?
After meeting Andrew she literally disappeared from the face of the earth.
The ex-socialite has not been seen since although rumours have placed her in Brazil,
France, the American mid-West and even the UK.
'No one knows where she is,' a lawyer for one of Epstein's victims said last night.
'She's done the greatest disappearing act known to man – or woman.' (
Daily Mail )
Link to Daily Mail
Shockingly, during the BBC interview Prince Andrew mentioned Ghislaine many times and seemed
to be proud of their friendship. Despite this the interviewer did not dare to ask questions
about their relationship.
Was this a message to all: Leave Ghislaine alone.
Ghislaine is obviously protected not only by the royal family but also by the whole ruling
elite. No wonder that she has the
Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card .
Ghislaine also tries to protect other Epstein associates.
Link to Daily Mail
Prince Andrew is now afraid to go to the US.
Five women who accuse Jeffrey Epstein of abusing them say Prince Andrew witnessed how
people were given massages at the sex offender's homes.
The lawyer for the women has told BBC
Panorama he plans to serve subpoenas to force the Duke of York to testify as a witness in
all five cases.
He says the prince could have important information about sex trafficking. ( BBC )
Link to BBC story and video
The BBC has now finally zoomed in on Ghislaine.
Another Epstein victim, Sarah Ransome told Panorama Ghislaine Maxwell, one of Prince
Andrew's oldest friends, worked hand in hand with Epstein.
"Ghislaine controlled the girls. She was like the Madam," she said.
"She was like the nuts and bolts of the sex trafficking operation and she would always
visit Jeffrey on the island to make sure the girls were doing what they were supposed to be
doing.
"She knew what Jeffrey liked. She worked and helped maintain Jeffrey's standard by
intimidation, by intimidating the girls, so this was very much a joint effort."
Ms Maxwell could not be reached for comment but has previously denied any involvement
in or knowledge of Epstein's abuse. ( BBC )
But the American media is still not interested in Ghislaine.
What the American mainstream media always willfully forgets is that Ghislaine Maxwell is the
key person and mastermind behind the whole pedo sex trafficking operation.
The key role of Ghislaine is not surprising. After all, her father was an Israeli super spy,
Robert Maxwell.
But perhaps this is the very reason why the American media is not interested.
For years Ghislaine has been at the center of a vast pedophile sex trafficking network. But
still to this day the American police has never dared to even interview her.
I think the answer to the question in the title of this article is pretty damn obvious to
anyone and everyone outside of the controlled media. smdh. Call me crazy, but I wouldn't be
shocked to learn that pervert Jeffrey Epstein is still alive somewhere, not only do I not buy
the "suicide story," but I am not buying he was murdered either. Ghislane described the girls
involved in this pedophile ring/honey pot as "trash." If these girls are or were "trash" than
what in the hell does that this demonic witch named Ghislane Maxwell?
How World Bank arbitrators mugged Pakistan
By Jeffrey D. Sachs
Wall Street hedge funds and lawyers have turned an arcane procedure of international
treaties into a money machine, at the cost of the world's poorest people. The latest
shakedown is a 5.9-billion-U.S.-dollars award against Pakistan's government in favor of two
global mining companies – Antofagasta PLC of Chile and Barrick Gold Corporation of
Canada – for a project that was never approved by Pakistan and never carried out.
Here are the facts.
In 1993, a U.S.-incorporated mining company, BHP, entered into a joint venture (JV) with
the Balochistan Development Authority (BDA), a public corporation in Pakistan's impoverished
Balochistan province. The JV was set up to prospect for gold and copper, and in the event of
favorable discoveries, to seek a mining license.
BHP was not optimistic about the project's profitability and dragged its feet on
exploration. In the early 2000s, it assigned the prospecting rights to an Australian company,
which created Tethyan Copper Company (TCC) for the project.
In 2006, Antofagasta acquired TCC for 167 million U.S. dollars, and sold half to Barrick
Gold. Soon after the purchase, however, the original JV agreement with BHP was challenged in
Pakistan's courts.
In 2013, the Pakistan Supreme Court found that the JV's terms violated Pakistan's mining
and contract laws in several ways and declared the agreement – and thus the rights
claimed by TCC – to be null and void.
Specifically, the Court ruled that the BDA did not have authority to bind Balochistan to
the terms of the JV agreement; that it awarded the contract without competition or
transparency; and that it had greatly exceeded its authority and violated the law by
promising extensive deviations from the rules normally applicable to mining projects.
Moreover, the JV failed to obtain, and even to pursue, many mandatory approvals from the
state and federal governments, and BHP failed to undertake prospecting in a timely manner
required under the mining law.
The Supreme Court's decision came after years of public-interest litigation challenging
the deal for violations of domestic law and the rights of the public. In the meantime, the
BDA's chairman was found to have conflicts of interest and to be living beyond the means
afforded by his official salary, which in the Court's words was tantamount to corruption.
In a normal world, the Court's judgment would be respected absent proven evidence of
corruption or other wrongdoing against the justices. But in the world we actually inhabit,
the so-called international rule of law enables rich companies to exploit poor countries with
impunity and disregard their laws and courts.
When TCC lost its case in Pakistan's Supreme Court, it simply turned to the World Bank's
International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), in complete disregard
of Pakistan's laws and institutions.
A panel of three arbitrators with no expertise in or respect for Pakistan's legal
system ruled that TCC deserved compensation for all future profits that it allegedly would
have earned if the non-existent project, based on a voided agreement, had gone
forward!
Because there was no actual project, and no agreement for one, the arbitrators had no
basis to say what terms – royalties, corporate taxes, environmental standards, land
area, and other basic provisions – the governments of Balochistan and Pakistan would
have set. In fact, disagreement on many of those terms had stalled negotiations for
years.
Nonetheless, the ICSID panel arbitrarily decided that TCC would have had the right to mine
1,000 square kilometers, though the mining law forbade licensing such a vast area. The
arbitrators ruled that TCC would have received a tax holiday for 15 years, even though there
is no evidence that such a tax holiday was in the offing – or even legal. The
arbitrators decided that TCC would have benefited from a royalty rate several percentage
points below the mandatory statutory rate, though there is no reason why Pakistan would have
set such a low rate.
The arbitrators also ruled that TCC would have met all environmental standards, or that
the government would have exempted TCC from relevant requirements, though the mining area is
in a desert region subject to extreme water stress, and the mining project would have
demanded vast amounts of water. And the arbitrators ruled that to obtain the land needed for
TCC's pipeline, the government would have taken it from its owners and inhabitants.
The arbitration ruling is utterly capricious. An illegal project, declared null and
void by Pakistan's Supreme Court and never pursued, was found by the World Bank's arbitration
panel to be worth more than four billion U.S. dollars to TCC's owners, who had paid 167
million U.S. dollars for it in 2006.
Moreover, the tribunal declared that Pakistan must compensate TCC in full, with back
interest, and cover its legal fees, raising the bill to 5.9 billion U.S. dollars, or roughly
two percent of Pakistan's GDP. It is more than twice Pakistan's entire public spending on
health care for 200 million people, in a country where seven percent of children die before
their fifth birthday. For many Pakistanis, the World Bank's arbitration ruling is a death
sentence.
The ICSID is not an honest broker. One of the tribunal members in the TCC case is using
the same expert put forward by TCC for another case in which the arbitrator is acting as
counsel! When challenged about this obvious conflict of interest, the arbitrator refused to
step down and the ICSID proceeded as if all were normal.
Thanks to the World Bank's arbitrators, the rich are making a fortune at the expense of
poor countries. Multinational companies are feasting on unapproved, non-existent
projects.
Fixing the broken arbitration system should start with a reversal of the outrageous ruling
against Pakistan and a thorough investigation of the flawed and corrupt process that made it
possible.
Jeffrey D. Sachs, professor of sustainable development and professor of health policy
and management at Columbia University, is director of Columbia's Center for Sustainable
Development.
Antifragile states
Explains how globalisation has allowed small states to become major players and big cities to
outgrow their nation-states.
By Branko Milanovic
In a series of books, and especially in Antifragile, Nassim Taleb has introduced an
important concept -- that of being antifragile, referring to 'things that gain from
disorder'. 'Fragile' is, of course, the opposite: it connotes something that thrives under
stable conditions but, being brittle, loses, and at times loses big, amid volatility. In the
middle, 'robust' indicates resilience against uncertainty and turmoil, without the capacity
to profit from it.
The contrast between antifragile and the two other categories relates to that between
centralised, top-down formations (such as unitary states) and decentralised, bottom-up and
more flexible, federal structures. As an example of the latter Taleb takes Switzerland, with
its decentralised cantonal system and grassroots democracy.
But Switzerland is also antifragile in another sense. It has historically been a country
that benefited from turmoil and disorder outside its borders -- from wars, nationalisations,
uncertain property rights and outright plunder. In all these cases, whether Jews were trying
to save their property from 'Aryanisation', Chinese millionaires feared a revolution or
African potentates needed a haven in which to park their loot, Switzerland offered the
comfort of safety. It was (and is) the ultimate antifragile state: it thrives on
disorder.
Dubious legality
While Switzerland became emblematic of such a safe haven, it is hardly unique nowadays in
benefiting from it. Globalisation and worldwide turmoil, combined with openness of capital
accounts, have allowed many small economies to specialise in functions which run from asset
safety and money-laundering to tax avoidance and evasion. In most cases, the legality of such
transactions is dubious; many belong to the grey zone where neither full legality nor full
illegality can be attributed.
In western Europe, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Ireland have engaged in stimulating tax
evasion, including from neighbouring countries. In his Hidden Wealth of Nations: The Scourge
of Tax Havens, Gabriel Zucman documents the large outflows from Switzerland and inflows into
Luxembourg's banking system which followed the (forced) decision by the Swiss authorities to
impose withholding tax on accounts held by foreigners.
Ireland's provision of safe haven from taxes to various large multinational corporations
received quite a lot of attention when the European Commission obliged the county to assess
these rates, particularly for Apple, at other than zero. In what may well be a singular
historical case, the Irish government complained about having to receive billions more
taxes!
Elsewhere, as in the Caribbean, small nation-states have specialised in providing the
legal framework for shell companies. In Capital Without Borders: Wealth Managers and the One
Percent, Brooke Harrington describes a single building in the Cayman Islands which houses
headquarters for several hundred companies. Shell companies have played an enormous role in
the money-laundering which followed privatisations in many east-European countries after
1989, as well as in providing cover for many illegal activities -- from drug and arms sales
to people-trafficking.
Cyprus benefited enormously from the Lebanese and Yugoslav civil wars, as well as from the
confusion over property rights in Russia and Ukraine. Montenegro, the smallest of the
ex-Yugoslav republics, had economically the most successful transition, not least thanks to
massive cigarette-smuggling.
Globalisation effect
All such states are antifragile in the sense that Taleb gives to the term. But their
success provides us also with a lesson in the effects of globalisation. It shows that the old
notion of state 'viability' -- based on a supposed threshold of size -- is now plain
wrong.
Under globalisation, the specialisation of small states into niche activities enables them
to prosper: they do not need to produce cars or mobile phones to become rich. They do not
need even to have a domestic market. It suffices to find an activity which relatively few
other countries offer and for which there is an increasing global demand, as the world
becomes more volatile, or lawless or corrupt. They become antifragile.
The success of such states is replicated at subnational level. Big cities such as London,
New York, Miami and Barcelona offer many of the services and amenities we find in small
nation-states (asset protection, expert money-laundering) but in addition provide
agglomeration externalities (increasing returns to scale thanks to the physical presence in
the same place of many companies) and thriving housing markets. They too are antifragile.
This has implications for the political life of the nation-states where such cities are
located. Global cities are increasingly linked to other global cities and other countries,
less and less to their own hinterland. They are what Fernand Braudel called villes-monde.
They remind us of medieval cities, which were often more powerful than much larger states.
The power of cities such as Venice and Genoa ended with the advent of the nation-states which
became political, economic and military behemoths, absorbing city-states or relegating them
to oblivion.
Voting differently
Globalisation is bringing them back, however. While nation-states politically and
economically fragment, and in some cases (as with climate change) show themselves to be not
the right loci to address a problem, the villes-monde thrive. Many already vote very
differently from the surrounding areas: London had a solid anti-Brexit majority (60 per
cent), Budapest, Istanbul and Moscow voted against their countries' authoritarian leaders and
New York is leading the 'rebellion' against its own citizen who is currently the president of
the United States.
The important political question in the 21st century will be how a modus vivendi between
the globalised large cities, and the elites living there, and the rest of their nations can
be achieved. Will there be a redistribution of political power within countries, endless
friction between the 'globalists' and 'nativists' or, in extremis, secession by the
antifragile villes-monde?
Branko Milanovic is visiting presidential professor at the Graduate Center of City University
of New York (CUNY).
"... The list of those who might have some knowledge of Epstein's criminal enterprise includes a sitting president, ex-presidents, ex-prime ministers, Justice Department officials, State Department officials, FBI agents, employees of domestic and international intelligence agencies, state prosecutors, local law enforcement, politicians, ex-politicians, lobbyists, titans of industry and finance, CEOs, attorneys, accountants, banks and bankers, celebrities, academics, scientists, political operatives and executives within the Fourth Estate. ..."
"... For example, how is it possible that Ghislaine Maxwell - the "Bonnie" to Epstein's "Clyde" - has yet to be charged with any crimes? Or, as far as the public knows, even been questioned by authorities. ..."
"... Public skepticism about the "investigation" spiked when, five weeks after his arrest, the FBI finally raided Epstein's "Lolita" Island. Epstein's "ranch" in New Mexico has still not been searched. ..."
"... Every person named in court documents or press reports as allegedly or possibly having sex with an underaged girl or young woman at Epstein's bequest has denied the allegations. Which begs the question: Who's telling the truth and who's lying? ..."
"... True or not, many Americans believe the Department of "Justice" will not prosecute (perhaps even question) scores of individuals who may have broken U.S. laws and who may have been victims of a disturbing blackmail operation. ..."
"... At its core, the Epstein case will reveal whether government prosecutors and investigators possess the courage and integrity to expose sordid truths about some of the wealthiest, most-connected, powerful people in the world, and perhaps reveal embarrassing truths about our government. ..."
"... Bill Rice, Jr. is a freelance writer in Troy, Alabama. He can be reached by email at [email protected] ..."
More than four months after Jeffrey Epstein's arrest - and three months after his alleged suicide - it requires no opinion poll
to know that few Americans believe the story of the international sex trafficking ring orchestrated by Epstein and his alleged "co-accomplices"
will ever be fully told.
More specifically, many Americans believe that most (if not all) of the key questions regarding the case will remain unanswered.
For example
How many Epstein "associates" actually received sexual "services" from underage girls? Will all ( or even any
) of these people be identified, exposed and perhaps prosecuted? Were any of these individuals blackmailed, extorted or in any
way compromised?
Did employees within agencies of the U.S. government turn a blind eye to Epstein's activities? Was Epstein, in fact, "intelligence"
and, if so, on whose orders was Alex Acosta allegedly told to
leave Epstein
alone ?
Did Epstein continue his sex-trafficking operation even after being released from jail in 2009? If so, how was this possible?
Where did Epstein receive the money to fund his operation , including the acquisition of the largest private residence in
Manhattan, two secluded private islands in the Virgin Islands, a secluded "ranch" in New Mexico, two large jets and a helicopter?
Why, for years, did the "watchdog" press display no interest in a scandal that, if fully told, could qualify as the "story
of the century," a story that might implicate many more powerful people and government agencies than Watergate?
Pertinent facts surrounding Epstein's death, ruled a
suicide , have also yet to be
disclosed. One unanswered question: How was it possible an inmate who may have possessed "dirt" on the most powerful people in
the world could be left alone in his cell?
In short, at least in the opinion of many, the public will never learn how massively corrupt our system of justice may be, and
if a privileged class is in fact held to a different standard of justice, and/or is protected by the powers that be. Nor will the
public learn how prurient, immoral and brazen a cross-section of the world's elite may be.
Of course, authorities may, in fact, do their jobs and ultimately disclose the entire scale of Epstein's operation. Prosecutions
and plea deals to come could include a "Who's Who" of the world, and expose any government agencies that may have "looked the other
way."
At least theoretically, our government could expose a decades-long criminal operation, a revelation that very possibly would change
the way millions of people view the U.S. government; not to mention how the public views many powerful VIPs who navigate in the orbit
of politicians and policy-makers.
Once upon a time, the number Americans who believed justice would ultimately prevail in a case like Epstein's would probably have
filled a good-sized nation. Today, the number who posses this conviction might fill a medium-sized city.
Citizens who doubt the full story of the Epstein saga will ever be revealed have little trouble citing stories that explain their
metastasizing skepticism.
For example, plenty of people did notice when Saudi Arabia and its Crown Prince Prince Mohammed bin Salman suffered
no
adverse consequences following the gruesome murder of columnist Jamal Khashoggi , a murder many people believe the prince ordered.
Others remain befuddled as UK authorities continue to insist that the government of Russia commissioned a hit team that used nerve
agents in the assassination attempt of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, this despite the copious
number of holes that pockmark the "official" story.
Similarly, the narrative that Syria President Bashar al - Assad "gassed his own people" - a highly
questionable proposition to many - has nonetheless been widely accepted as truth, at least by intelligence agencies and a press
corps that increasingly accepts official pronouncements as incontrovertible.
[ editor's note: see
Caitlin Johnstone's latest on two OPCW whistleblowers whose claims effectively dubunk the narrative]
The
aggressive prosecution (persecution) of Julian Assange is another story that disturbs at least some citizens. The fact so few
members of the mainstream press have rallied to Assange's defense has only deepened the depression of one-time idealists.
And these examples do not include the most dubious government narrative of them all, the assertion Saddam Hussein possessed weapons
of mass destruction , a false predicate that ultimately caused the death and suffering of millions of people.
Cynics could also point to an investigation that, unlike several of the above examples, did receive incessant press coverage -
the story that Russia somehow "rigged" or "hacked" a U.S. presidential election, a conclusion accepted as gospel by most in the mainstream
press, but viewed as preposterous by millions of Americans.
In these and other cases, a growing number of citizens have come to believe that official "investigations" and "official findings"
are either a sham or intentionally omit details which do not support the desired meme.
It's within this context that millions of Americans have latched onto the Epstein story and the growing conviction that our government
(and press corp ) have become more interested in concealing
truths than exposing them.
The Epstein story is not just the latest scandal of the week. The number of individuals who could have been involved,
or who might have worked to cover-up its existence, almost certainly dwarfs the number implicated in Watergate.
The list of those who might have some knowledge of Epstein's criminal enterprise includes a sitting president, ex-presidents,
ex-prime ministers, Justice Department officials, State Department officials, FBI agents, employees of domestic and international
intelligence agencies, state prosecutors, local law enforcement, politicians, ex-politicians, lobbyists, titans of industry and finance,
CEOs, attorneys, accountants, banks and bankers, celebrities, academics, scientists, political operatives and executives within the
Fourth Estate.
Almost five months after Epstein's arrest, one is struck by curious events that have already occurred and by developments yet
to occur.
For example, how is it possible that Ghislaine Maxwell - the "Bonnie" to Epstein's "Clyde" - has yet to be charged with any crimes?
Or, as far as the public knows, even been questioned by authorities.
Public skepticism about the "investigation" spiked when, five weeks after his arrest, the FBI finally raided Epstein's "Lolita"
Island. Epstein's "ranch" in New Mexico has still not been searched.
The public has also received no indication that authorities are, in fact, questioning any of Epstein's many "associates," especially
those who may have had sexual contact with girls recruited and groomed by Epstein and Maxwell.
Every person named in court documents or press reports as allegedly or possibly having sex with an underaged girl or young woman
at Epstein's bequest has denied the allegations. Which begs the question: Who's telling the truth and who's lying? To form an opinion
on this central question, authorities would presumably need to interview anyone with possible knowledge of alleged sexual or criminal
acts. Investigators could then seek information that either corroborates or impeaches each person's account. However, evidence is
growing that the protocol in a typical "he-said, she-said" investigation is
not being followed in the Epstein case. Instead, authorities may have simply accepted as truth the
statements of denial issued by powerful
public figures .
True or not, many Americans believe the Department of "Justice" will not prosecute (perhaps even question) scores of
individuals who may have broken U.S. laws and who may have been victims of a disturbing blackmail operation.
Perhaps authorities have
concluded it's better
to not know . Perhaps they realize if they interview one suspected "John," they'll have to interview every potential
"John." if this number ends up being massive, and includes a Who's Who of our society, important illusions about society's leaders
and our system of justice could be shattered.
At its core, the Epstein case will reveal whether government prosecutors and investigators possess the courage and integrity
to expose sordid truths about some of the wealthiest, most-connected, powerful people in the world, and perhaps reveal embarrassing
truths about our government.
Americans might soon learn what objective is more important to Justice Department officials:
Protecting the
rich and powerful from the consequences of their behavior, or confirming that a system of justice grounded in trust can still
be trusted.
Sadly, many Americans are convinced authorities will not do the right thing.
However, in proving skeptics wrong, authorities would accomplish at least four objectives, all noble. They would punish the guilty.
They would provide justice to victims too long ignored. They would deter future Epsteins and future "Johns," especially those unaccustomed
to being held accountable for their actions. And, perhaps most importantly, they would allow a ray of sunshine to pierce the shadow
of cynicism that's spread across our country.
While such a development might not restore all trust in government, it would be an eye-opening start. For those who believe the
moral character of a nation is important, it would send a message that all hope is not lost .
****
Bill Rice, Jr. is a freelance writer in Troy, Alabama. He can be reached by email at
[email protected]
Read "A Short Course in Secret War"... Epstein was definitely an intelligence asset.
Ghislaine Maxwell was obviously his handler. The only question really is whether he was CIA
asset doubling for Mossad, or the other way around.
Apologies if someone already posted this but on Nov 16 Joe Rogan and Matt Taibbi discussed
the current state of the MSM in a wide-ranging conversation that I think most Barflies will
find very interesting:
“When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right
boot is of no consequence.” - Gary Lloyd. We Americans are willingly blind to truth.
It'll be the death of us.
Matt Taibbi: "they’re trying to sound like legitimate news, but they’re also
completely selling out at the same time " perfectly sums up news outlets today, on both
sides.
When I was a kid, i heard, on live radio broadcast, Oswald shot to death in Dallas Police
Station - still think that's a more blatant murder of Witness.
"We don't have any institutional respect anymore".. When even the broadsheets knowingly
sow falsehoods or subtly mislead the public on a regular basis, you'd better be prepared for
the harvest. You never win back respect from someone who's sussed out your con.
"Epstein's blackmailing operation needed very young women. He wouldn't have used any one of
them for more than a few years.!!" Jackrabbit@88
Young nubile women. Which means that to call him a pedophile or a person involved in a
pedophile ring is simply demagogy. A lie told to attract attention. If the charges made
against Epstein were true he will have been guilty of many things but there is no more
evidence of pedophilia on his part than there is of cannibalism.
Please stop the quibbling over Epstein being a literal paedophile or not. You are making
yourself look obtuse over the fact that he and his assistants and friends were running a
virtual prostitution and sex trafficking operation that sucked in huge numbers of teenaged
girls at varying stages of development. No-one here takes you seriously on this issue and you
only make yourself look more seedy the more you concentrate on the ages of the victims and
trying to prove Epstein is not a paedophile. If you have no compassion for the victims who
were lured into his web with false offers of money, work or other financial support, then
leave the subject of Epstein alone.
You are arguing in favour of lynch mob demagogy, Jen. And there is nothing seedier than that.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the victims in question. I also have some sympathy for
Epstein who seems to have been murdered while society looked the other way saying "served him
right, he was a pedophile."
And he wasn't, so far as we know. He was simply a rich man abusing his power over
vulnerable people- needy girls and frustrated guilt ridden old men. A very nasty business
indeed, to which we can add his apologies for the terrorist zionist state and his support for
the US Empire.
But once it becomes accepted that a man called a pedophile can be killed or tortured with
impunity we are half way down the road that led to Auschwitz and leads to Gaza. And we can be
assured that it will become a regular smear against dissidents-as it was against Assange-
that their sexual habits, tastes or behaviour put them beyond the pale.
Most of your comments are sensible and indicative of decency and thoughtfulness on your
part, which is why I urge you to be very careful on this and other matters not to follow the
bourgeois herd- Bill Clinton, for example is a war criminal and deserving of punishment. But
the only fault the bourgeoisie can find with him is that he is sexually promiscuous.
As to the specific charges made against Epstein, they will never be proved, which is
probably why he was killed, which was made very much easier when he had been labelled a
'pedophile' and driven out of 'decent society.' Which is itself, if you think about it, a
place so sordid-if you want to talk about trafficking look at a fashion house's sweatshops in
Bangladesh- that Epstein fitted right in.
@ bevin | Nov 23 2019 21:43 utc | 95
_________________________________
Thanks for this. I share your perspective.
It seems that "celebrity-class" reprehensible creeps are on the ascendancy-- or that may
be a perception induced by sensational, febrile Western mass-media coverage of all things
reprehensible and creepy. Unfortunately, so is binary thinking.
As it happens, I just watched a recent Rolling Stone "Useful Idiots" video; I'm ambivalent
towards hosts Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper, but sympathized with Halper's outburst to the
effect that she's getting sick and tired of having to bend over backwards to defensively
point out that she's not "for" Trump, not a Trump fan, etc. every time she expresses
any point that is arguably in Trump's favor.
I can relate. Epstein induces a similar reaction: even attempts to simply be clear or
factual in matters relating to such social monsters provokes (self) righteous outrage.
BTW, I'm also ambivalent towards your comments because they reduce me to the status of
virtual "dittohead". ;)
Now you're really sinking into a pile of shit of your own making.
I am referring to the way you quibble over the definition of paedophilia, trying to narrow
it down to a purely biologically based definition in comments on previous MoA comments
forums, and now you accuse me of lynch mob demagoguery and trying to encourage others to do
the same.
If you had only said that you had sympathy for the victims, then we might agree to
disagree and let the issue go.
I am not happy that Epstein is dead: he is a victim of his own greed and desire to be
someone influential, and he ultimately was a plaything of others for whom he was running his
blackmailing scheme and the associated sex trafficking.
You continue to damn yourself by suggesting that "frustrated guilt ridden old men" were
also vulnerable and as much victims as the teenage girls were. Did any of these "old" men
(Prince Andrew in his 40s at the time, old? - maybe in the head but not chronologically) in
their frustration realise they were being manipulated by Epstein and contact the authorities,
even though they would have risked their careers and reputations? They had a choice in the
way that the teenage girls did not have a choice: they could have chosen not to participate
in the activities at Epstein's mansions or in Little St James and walked away.
I do not accuse you or other MoA barflies of such attitudes in the way you accuse me @ 96.
This is really low behaviour and you ought to be ashamed of that.
The Jeffrey Epstein scandal – Tara Brown reports how a New York billionaire
masterminded an international sex trafficking ring of young women, and why wealthy and powerful
men, including HRH Prince Andrew, are now implicated in the saga. Subscribe here:
http://9Soci.al/chmP50wA97J Full Episodes here
http://9Soci.al/sImy50wNiXL
"... "the Met Police has refused to answer detailed questions about the allegations and whether they ever spoke to Epstein, his friend Ghislaine Maxwell, Prince Andrew or anyone from the royal household". ..."
"... The duke's decision to step down from public duties last week came after a raft of companies and charities sought to distance themselves from him following his disastrous interview. It is thought that both the Queen and Prince Charles were instrumental in forcing the duke to stand down. Prince Charles is reportedly returning to the UK on Monday after a royal tour, when he is expected to hold crisis talks with his brother. ..."
Victims' tsar to query Force's decision not to act over Prince Andrew claims
The Met has said that its investigators reviewed all 'available evidence' in relation to disputed claims that
a 17-year-old was 'forced to have sex with Prince Andrew'. Photograph: Kirsty O'Connor/PA
The Victims' Commissioner is demanding that the Metropolitan Police explain its decision not to pursue a full
investigation into claims a teenager was trafficked to the UK to have sex with
Prince Andrew
.
The
Observer
understands that Dame Vera Baird QC, a former solicitor general and
chair of the Board of the Association of
Police
and Crime Commissioners, has taken a close interest in the allegations, first examined by Scotland Yard
in 2015.
Baird, who has focused on protecting victims of sexual and domestic abuse throughout her career, is currently
observing election purdah and cannot speak to the media.
However, prior to the election she made her views known to a
victims' rights campaigner
, telling him that she would be requesting a meeting with the Met once purdah was
over.
"Before the election was called I spoke at length with the Victims' Commissioner and we both find it
extraordinary that this matter was not proceeded with," Harry Fletcher said.
The Met has said that its investigators reviewed all "available evidence" after receiving a complaint relating
to claims that were made in court documents. It was alleged that in 2001 a 17-year-old, now known to be Virginia
Roberts, was "forced to have sex with Prince Andrew", purportedly at the London home of socialite Ghislaine
Maxwell, the one-time girlfriend of the late disgraced financier
Jeffrey Epstein
. His victims are now bringing claims for damages against his estate.
It is understood that lawyers for Roberts also independently contacted the force in 2016. But the Met chose not
to pursue a full investigation.
Channel 4 News
reported in August
that "the Met Police has refused to answer detailed questions about the allegations and
whether they ever spoke to Epstein, his friend Ghislaine Maxwell, Prince Andrew or anyone from the royal
household".
How seriously the Met took the claims is expected to form a key part of a
BBC
Panorama
investigation
into the Epstein scandal which will include an interview with Roberts and
is due to be broadcast in December.
The Duke of York denies having sex with Roberts. In his
Newsnight
television interview he said he did
not recall having ever met her.
But a photo of him with his arm around Roberts's waist has been widely circulated. There are claims the photo
is fake. The duke says he cannot remember a picture being taken when he was in Maxwell's house.
It is believed that lawyers for Virginia Roberts Giuffre, above, contacted the Metropolitan police in 2016.
"You would expect the
Crown Prosecution Service
to have provided pre-investigative advice in this matter," said Fletcher, an adviser
to Plaid Cymru and several victims' charities. "It needs to be confirmed whether this happened."
A spokeswoman for the CPS said its lawyers have "confirmed that we cannot comment on any input into
investigations where persons have not been charged".
In a statement the Met confirmed that it had received an allegation of "non-recent" trafficking for sexual
exploitation. "Having closely examined the available evidence, the decision was made that this would not progress
to a full investigation," the Met said. Given the heightened interest in the case, the Met confirmed it had
revisited the decision and concluded that it was the correct one. "Therefore no further action is being taken," it
said.
But speculation about what went on at Maxwell's home is unlikely to die down. Lawyers bringing civil claims
against the Epstein estate are looking to subpoena the duke, obliging him to provide testimony under oath as a
witness. The duke has confirmed that he would be prepared to help law enforcement agencies but has given no
commitment to cooperate with any civil actions.
The duke's decision to step down from public duties last week came after a raft of companies and charities
sought to distance themselves from him following his disastrous interview. It is thought that both the Queen and
Prince Charles were instrumental in forcing the duke to stand down. Prince Charles is reportedly returning to the
UK on Monday after a royal tour, when he is expected to hold crisis talks with his brother.
"The Syrian president said he saw links between the death of Le Mesurier and the deaths of
US financier Jeffry Epstein, Al Qaeda chieftain Osama bin Laden and Islamic State (outlawed
in Russia) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. 'American billionaire Jeffrey Epstein was killed
several weeks ago, they said he had committed suicide in jail. However, he was killed because
he knew a lot of vital secrets connected with very important people in the British and
American regimes, and possibly in other countries as well,' Assad pointed out....
"'Both of us know that they [representatives of the White Helmets] are naturally part of
Al Qaeda. I believe that these people, as well as the previously liquidated bin Laden and
al-Baghdadi had been killed chiefly because they knew major secrets. They turned into a
burden once they had played out their roles. A dire need to do away with them surfaced after
they had fulfilled their roles,' Assad explained.
"According to him, the death of Le Mesurier is the work of the CIA that got rid of the
founder of the White Helmets independently or through the intelligence services of other
countries. 'Of course, this is the work of the secret services. But which secret service?
When we talk about Western secret services in general, about Turkish and some other ones in
our region, these are not the secret services of sovereign states, rather these are
departments of the main intelligence agency - the CIA,' he stressed."
Many will nod their heads in agreement with Assad's hypothesis. Indeed, one of the more
amazing happenings related to taking terrorists prisoners is the resulting lack of
information related to the NATO-Terrorist bond we know exists but rarely sees the light of
day in the form of documents, radio intercept logs and other items, although we're constantly
treated to a massive parade of captured arms and munitions including chemical weapon
precursors stamped with their NATO country of origin.
"... They also failed to note the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID corresponding to the law offices of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly appear to be peddlers of conspiracy theory. ..."
The defense counsel also took issue with Jared Beck for what they termed as: " Repeatedly promoted patently false and deeply offensive
conspiracy theories about the deaths of a former DNC staffer and Plaintiffs' process server in an attempt to bolster attention for
this lawsuit." This author was shocked to find that despite the characterization of the Becks as peddlers of conspiracy theory, the
defense counsel failed to mention the motion for protection filed by the Becks earlier in the litigation process.
They also failed to note the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID
corresponding to the law offices of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly
appear to be peddlers of conspiracy theory.
The DNC defense lawyers then argued:
" There is no legitimate basis for this litigation, which is, at its most basic, an improper attempt to forge the federal courts
into a political weapon to be used by individuals who are unhappy with how a political party selected its candidate in a presidential
campaign ."
The brief continued:
" To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege based on their animating theory would run directly contrary
to long-standing Supreme Court precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by political parties,
especially when it comes to selecting the party's nominee for public office."
It appears that the defendants in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit are attempting to argue that cheating a candidate in the primary process
is protected under the first amendment. If all that weren't enough, DNC representatives argued that the Democratic National Committee
had no established fiduciary duty "to the Plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent." It seems
here that the DNC is arguing for its right to appoint candidates at its own discretion while simultaneously denying any "fiduciary
duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the belief that the DNC would act impartially towards the
candidates involved.
Adding to the latest news regarding the DNC Fraud Lawsuit was the recent
finding by the UK Supreme
Court, which stated that Wikileaks Cables were admissible as evidence in legal proceedings.
If Wikileaks' publication of DNC emails are found to be similarly admissible in a United States court of law, then the contents
of the leaked emails could be used to argue that, contrary to the defendant's latest brief, the DNC did in favor the campaign of
Hillary Clinton over Senator Sanders and that they acted to sabotage Sanders' campaign.
The outcome of the appeal of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit remains to be seen.
Elizabeth Vos is the Co-Founder and Editor in Chief at
Disobedient Media .
Leaked footage released by conservative web site Project Veritas of U.S. ABC journalist Amy
Robach's off-air rant has led to allegations that the Royals pressured the television network
to drop a story regarding Jeffrey Epstein. Subscribe:
https://bit.ly/2noaGhv Get more breaking news at:
https://bit.ly/2nobVgF
It seems to me an important tenet of the neoliberal ideology is the arbiter (or
auctioneer) role it gives the state and other political institutions with respect to markets.
Markets are the locus of justice and efficiency, but political institutions have the
essential task of organizing them and the competitions that takes place within them,
supposedly at least.
In practice, this translated in a central role of political power not only in privatizing
and breaking state monopolies, but also in the creation, sometimes ex nihilo, of markets
supervised by state or quasi-state agencies (shielded of electoral choices by regulatory or
ideally constitutional provisions) whose role was to organize concurrence in domains
classical liberal economic theory would consider natural monopolies or natural public
properties (education, health service, energy distribution, infrastructure of transportation,
telecommunication, postal and banking service etc.)
What an excellent and deep observation ! Thank you ! This is the essence of the compromises
with financial oligarchy made by failing social democratic parties. Neoliberalism is kind of
Trotskyism for the rich in which the political power is used to shape the society "from above".
As Hayek remarked on his visit to Pinochet's Chile – "my personal preference leans toward
a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism".
George Monblot observed that "Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket [of
the financial oligarchy], but it rapidly became one." ( The Guardian, Apr 15, 2016):
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It
redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and
selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the
market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation
should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and
collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the
formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a
reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts
to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market
ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
The free (as in absence of regulation for FIRE) market produces a tiny cadre of winners and
an enormous army of losers (10% vs 90%) – and the losers, looking for revenge, have
turned to Trump. Now entrenched centers of "resistance" (and first of all CIA, the Justice
Department, The Department of State and a part of Pentagon) are trying to reverse the
situation. Failing to understand that they created Trump and each time will reproduce it in
more and more dangerous variant.
Trumpism is the inevitable result of the gap between the utopian ideal of the free (for the
FIRE sector only ) market and the dystopian reality for the majority of the population
("without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape" Pope Francis, "Evangelii
Gaudium")
The situation in which the financial sector generates just 4% of employment, but accounts
for more than 25% of corporate profits is unsustainable. It should be reversed and it will be
reversed.
JQ wrote: 'The EU is inherently social democratic in its structure It is true that the
European social democracies have given some ground, notably with respect to privatisation,
but no genuinely neoliberal party has arisen or seems likely to.'
Back in the real world, here's a study from the LANCET, the medical journal --
To precis it very roughly, 50,000 or so Greeks died because of the EU's imposition of
its austerity policies on Greece. In other words, they died because Merkel in Germany and
Hollande in France were unwilling to tell their electorates they were bailing out German
and French banks, and so the bailout to those banks was carried out through the backdoor of
Greece with 92-93 percent of those funds going straight to commercial financial
institutions in Northern Europe and never touching the Greek economy.
Moreover, this was done at the same time that Mario Draghi at the ECB was initiating his
policy of doing "whatever it takes" in terms of quantitative easing. The entire Greek debt
would turn out to be less than a couple months of ECB money printing.
With blazing clarity, then, Greece tells us just what the EU is when the chips aren't
even down. Thereby, we come to the question at hand: What is neoliberalism?
The core of the neoliberal program is _not_ simply to "remove the state altogether from
'non-core' functions such as the provision of infrastructure services' and 'minimise the
state role in core functions (health, education, income security) through contracting out,
voucher schemes and so on'.
Rather, neoliberalism aims to promote the capability of capital to range globally and
make a profit anywhere it can without such impediments as might be erected by national
politicians and populations -- impediments like policies of redistribution or the
(re)nationalization of basic infrastructure. To this end, neoliberalism embeds and
neutralizes the governments of nation-states within supranational institutions like the
WTO, the IMF, GATT -- and the EU.
_That_ is the core of the neoliberal program. And, again, its very clear that from its
beginnings as the European Coal and Steel Community and the EEC, the EU was carefully
designed by its founders to be a neoliberal organization -- or an ordoliberal one, if we
wish to split hairs, given that many of those responsible subscribed to the German flavor
of neoliberalism.
'Ordoliberalism is the German variant of social liberalism that emphasizes the need for
the state to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical
potential. Ordoliberal ideals became the foundation of the creation of the post-World War
II German social market economy and its attendant Wirtschaftswunder' .
To conclude: the European Union is arguably _the_ most quintessentially neoliberal
organization in the world today. Wolfgang Streek and Quinn Slobodian, among others, give
authoritative accounts of all this and how it's played out.
For those of us who can actually remember political arguments made by Democrats in the
80's and 90's, it's ridiculous to say that neoliberalism in the US never existed except as
a term of abuse.
People bragged about being a new type of sophisticated market loving Democrat in sharp
contrast to old liberal dinosaurs like Tip O'Neill. Cranky Observer mentioned Charles
Peters and the Washington Monthly.
There was also The New Republic -- remember the joke " even the liberal New Republic"
supports conservative policy X? The point was they took pleasure in being Third Way style
neoliberals who were often hawkish on foreign policy and eager to question liberal
Democratic pieties, to the point it became a cliche that Republicans would cite them.
The New Republic and The Washington Monthly were neoliberal the way Commentary was
neoconservative. ( There was also a period where you weren't supposed to believe there were
such people as neocons. It was supposed to be an antisemitic code word.)
I think the idea that neoliberalism never existed in the US except as a term of abuse
from leftists first popped up in the 2016 Democratic primaries. I don't have a cite -- it's
just my recollection.
Last year there was a curious attendee at Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' annual writer's retreat; Jeffrey
Epstein's alleged 'madam,'
Ghislaine Maxwell
.
The daughter of an
accused Mossad agent
who died under mysterious circumstances, Maxwell was accused of
participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual grooming and abuse of underage girls. She was confirmed
to have attended at least one (and possibly three) of the secretive Bezos get-togethers, according
to
VICE
.
Two Campfire 2018 attendees independently confirmed to Motherboard that Maxwell attended the
exclusive retreat that year.
One of the sources maintained that Maxwell had attended
three Campfires including 2018
, but that Maxwell was not an attendee at Campfire 2019
held in early October. Campfire 2018 took place shortly before
a Miami
Herald investigation
resurfaced Epstein's crimes and Maxwell's alleged links to them, which
eventually led to new charges against Epstein. -
VICE
Maxwell was accompanied to Campfire by tech CEO and
Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR) member Scott Borgerson -
who denied in August
that he and Maxwell are romantically linked, or that she was hiding out at
his "secluded oceanfront property" in New England - as reported by the
Daily Mail
.
What is Campfire?
According to the report, it's an "
all-expenses-paid
retreat
courtesy of Bezos and Amazon that is completely off the record for attendees, who often
bring their spouses and partners on the free trip." It was started in 2009.
The secretive conclaves have had virtually no press coverage (aside from a 2014
New York Times
article), and has "largely remained under the radar
,"
reports
VICE
- which notes that Maxwell's attendance "further illustrates the connections that Epstein
and Maxwell maintained to the wealthy elite."
Tech moguls
,
presidents
,
well-known actors, and Prince Andrew
all came into their orbit even after Epstein's misdeeds
and Maxwell's alleged role first came to light. In fact,
a secretive
2011 dinner
in Long Beach, California
attended by Bezos and other tech CEOs was also
attended by Epstein
, less than two years after he served time for underage sex
crimes.
Maxwell, who has never been charged or arrested and has only faced allegations in
civil lawsuits
, has always denied any wrongdoing or involvement with Epstein's crimes and
has made few public appearances since they first surfaced in media reports. -
VICE
Maxwell is currently missing. Aside from a strange and
allegedly photoshopped photo-shoot
of her having a burger and milkshake at a California
"In-N-Out" (while reading a book about the CIA), her whereabouts are unknown.
Look at her familial background. Her sister, and her career. Her
father. Deeply inside CFR territory, as deeply as it gets. Her
sister Christine's company (after she'd created and sold Magellan)
was Chiliad. You've heard of it? Real time surveillance at epic
levels, purchased by governments and Intelligence agencies around
the planet and iirc she sold it recently, too. Chiliad was there
before most others and this family could swing a deep escape for
Everyone. Lol from Eps to Ghislane or anyone.
Inside. Big time inside.
Bezos typifies an individual who on their own are weak and usually
not very successful in relationships. As a youth was viewed as
geeky, strange not fitting in well with other students. We find
Bezos who uses his money to become more than life-like with the
extreme training and steroids.
He's power hungry and a ruthless
doggedness in business that built Amazon. Despite his wealth, his
wife couldn't remain in the marriage for reasons undisclosed.
My intuition is that while Bezos may have been weird as a youth
and not very popular, his power and wealth gained in later life
made the world of global trafficking, illicit drugs and pedophilia
a favorite pastime. Just my intuition, but he certainly fits the
picture of those elite who have reached the level through their
wealth of no rules..
NO rules. There's no surprise for me that Bezos chummed around
with Epstein and Maxwell.
"... Correction | An earlier version of this report incorrectly stated the name of the artist that accompanied Prince Andrew to Los Angeles in 2000 as Bruce, as opposed to Brett, Livingstone Strong. ..."
Several now-censored reports from the 1990s and early 2000s reveal that Prince Andrew’s involvement with the minors exploited
by Jeffrey Epstein is greater than previously believed.
While the Jeffrey Epstein scandal has largely faded from media coverage in the United States, it has continued to attract attention
abroad, particularly in the United Kingdom in connection with Epstein’s long-standing association with Prince Andrew, the Duke of
York and the Queen’s son.
The Epstein-Prince Andrew relationship has long been a fascination of the U.K. press, with numerous articles dating back to the
early 2000s detailing the most outrageous aspects of their relationship. Prior to that, Epstein had also garnered attention from
U.K. newspapers regarding his association with Ghislaine Maxwell, whose reputation in the U.K. is rather notorious, as was that of
her father, Robert Maxwell.
Yet, since Epstein’s arrest in July, many of these older articles on Epstein and Maxwell, as well as those focusing on the Epstein-Prince
Andrew relationship, have disappeared from the archives of several prominent U.K. media outlets that reported on these relationships
years ago.
Several of these articles, though largely scrubbed from the internet, were recently obtained by MintPress and a review
of their contents makes the likely motive behind their disappearance clear: several articles not only reference Epstein’s connection
to both U.S. and Israeli intelligence years before the first investigation into Epstein’s exploitation of minors had even begun,
but also reveal surprising aspects of Prince Andrew’s involvement with Epstein that strongly suggest that the Prince partook in illicit
sexual activities with minors to a much greater extent than has previously been reported.
Since Epstein was arrested the first time in 2006 and even more so after he was arrested again this past July, those named in
press reports as his associates have made every effort to distance themselves from the accused pedophile and sex trafficker. For
this reason, press reports that discuss Epstein long before there was any hint of the larger scandal are particularly important for
understanding the true nature of Epstein’s past associations with the rich and powerful.
In light of what is now known about Epstein’s sexual blackmail operation and sex trafficking activities, several reports from
the late 1990s and early 2000s contain details long since forgotten regarding Epstein’s relationship with Prince Andrew.
One particularly censored article that appeared in London’s Evening Standard in January 2001, for instance, gives several
indications regarding the apparent entrapment of Prince Andrew as part of Epstein’s sexual blackmail operation, which is now known
to have been connected to intelligence — specifically Israeli military intelligence, according to
recent revelations in the case.
The article, written by Evening Standard journalist Nigel Rosser, quotes a personal friend of both Ghislaine Maxwell and
Epstein as saying the following about their friendship with Prince Andrew:
The article further describes Epstein and Prince Andrew as having a “curious symbiotic relationship,” adding that “wherever Ghislaine
is seen with Prince Andrew, Epstein isn’t far behind.”
These quotes are particularly telling now that it is a
matter of record that Epstein was seeking out rich and powerful individuals and entrapping them with minors for the purpose of
blackmail. The fact that personal friends of Epstein and Maxwell at the time openly stated that their “manipulative” relationship
with Prince Andrew was “very premeditated” and “probably being done for Epstein” strongly suggests that not only was the Prince entrapped,
but that this type of entrapment activity was known to occur among those who were close to Epstein and Maxwell at the time.
Prince Andrew — as a member of the Royal Family, which is very protective of its social reputation, as well as the U.K. envoy
for investment and trade — certainly fits into the category of people that Epstein entrapped on behalf of intelligence: rich, politically
powerful, wary of damaging their social reputation, and thus susceptible to blackmail.
Notably, the year this article was published (2001), is the same year that Epstein’s most well-known accuser and victim, Virginia
Giuffre (then Virginia Roberts), claims that she was introduced to Prince Andrew by Maxwell and Epstein and forced to have sex with
the Prince on
at least three occasions. She has also claimed that Epstein would subsequently instruct her to describe the encounters in order
to learn compromising information about the Prince’s sexual habits and preferences. Her claims regarding Epstein’s trafficking of
her, specifically to Prince Andrew, have since been
largely corroborated by photographic evidence, flight logs, and public records.
This undated photo released by Virginia Giuffre shows Prince Andrew posing with a young Giuffre, Ghislaine Maxwell is shown standing
in the background
While it appears that Prince Andrew was deliberately entrapped as part of Epstein’s intelligence-linked sexual blackmail operation,
the article further suggests that Andrew’s involvement with the minors exploited by Epstein went far beyond his alleged three encounters
with Giuffre.
Rosser quotes a friend of Prince Andrew’s ex-wife Sara Ferguson as saying that Andrew “used to be smart when he came back from
abroad…He’s started having a girl massage him…He even travels abroad with his own massage mattress.”
During this same time period, Epstein and Maxwell also introduced Prince Andrew to “sex aid entrepreneur” Christine Drangsholt
during a trip to Mar-a-Lago and describes Andrew traveling to Los Angeles, where he was seen “flirting…with a group of young girls,”
and to Phuket, Thailand where he “wandered around the sex bars in the area’s red light district.” The Los Angeles trip saw Andrew
accompanied by artist and close friend of Michael Jackson, Brett Livingstone Strong, and Ghislaine Maxwell accompanied Andrew to
Thailand.
The mentions of massages from a “girl” and Andrew traveling around with Maxwell and Epstein while bringing along “his own massage
mattress,” are particularly striking given what is now known about Epstein’s sex trafficking and sexual blackmail operation. Court
documents, police reports, and other evidence have since made it clear that “massage” was
the code word Epstein and his co-conspirators used for sex with the minors he exploited and massage tables and sex toys were
frequently present together in the rooms of his various residences where he forced underage girls to engage in sexual acts with
him and others.
Most notable of all is the fact that claims of Prince Andrew receiving “massages” from girls during his trips with Epstein and
Maxwell were published in January 2001, at least two months before Virginia Giuffre states that she was first introduced to and forced
to have sex with the Prince in
March of 2001. This means that the claims of Epstein- and Maxwell-brokered “massages” refer to at least one other girl,
strongly suggesting that Andrew’s involvement with minors exploited by Epstein is greater than has been recently acknowledged.
Other recently reported information has added to the likelihood that Prince Andrew engaged in illicit activities with more minors
than Virginia Giuffre. For instance, the FBI
recently expanded its probe into Epstein’s sex trafficking network to include a specific focus on the Prince’s role. The FBI
has claimed that they are reviewing claims regarding Prince Andrew made by other Epstein victims aside from Giuffre, but did not
specify the nature of those claims.
Media
reports cite Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell as having developed a close relationship at least by February 2000, when Andrew
had spent a week at Epstein’s controversial New York penthouse at 9 East 71st Street. One
report published in 2000 by London’s Sunday Times claimed that the two were introduced by Andrew’s ex-wife Sarah Ferguson,
often referred to as “Fergie” in the press, and further claims that this introduction had taken place several years prior. Epstein
is alleged to have
first been introduced to Andrew via Maxwell in 1999.
Years after this introduction was made, Jeffrey Epstein would provide financial assistance to Ferguson at Prince Andrew’s behest
by paying Ferguson’s former personal assistant £15,000, allegedly in order to allow for “a wider restructuring of Sarah’s £5 million
debts to take place,”
according to The Telegraph.
Oddly, by April of that year, Maxwell and Prince Andrew were spotted by their fellow diners at a posh New York restaurant holding
hands, prompting both the Prince and Maxwell to claim that their relationship was merely “platonic.” However, a
separate report from 2007 in the Evening Standard refers to Maxwell as one of Prince Andrew’s former girlfriends.
Within a year of their close relationship having become public, Andrew and Ghislaine
were reported to have gone on eight different vacations together, of which Epstein accompanied them for five. Andrew also brought
Maxwell and Epstein to celebrate the Queen’s birthday in 2000 as his personal guests.
Several reports from this period also provide interesting insight into Maxwell’s business activities and private life. One article
from 2000, published in London’s Sunday Times, states that “for all her high-profile appearances on Manhattan’s A-List merry-go-round,
she [Maxwell] is secretive to the point of paranoia and her business affairs are deeply mysterious.” It goes on to say that Maxwell
“has been building a business empire as opaque as father’s” — referencing Robert Maxwell’s business empire, which included multiple
front companies for Israeli intelligence — and adds that “her office in Manhattan refuses to confirm even the nature or the name
of her business.”
On her relationship with Epstein, it states that “he’s always kept her secrets, no one knows what their relationship is really
about.” An
article from 2001 claims that Maxwell’s Manhattan lifestyle, her New York residence and her vehicles were all purchased by Epstein
and that she was employed as his “consultant” while also acting as his social organizer and interior designer.
One
report on Maxwell — which was published by the Evening Standard in 2003, years before Epstein was first publicly revealed
to be exploiting minors — contains very telling information about Maxwell’s work for Epstein. It states “Ghislaine has risen, largely
thanks to property developer Epstein bankrolling her, to become queen of the billionaires’ social circuit,” adding that “Jeffrey
only likes billionaires or very young women and uses Ghislaine as his social pimp.” It then discusses “rumors” that
Maxwell was hosting “bizarre parties at her house to which she invites a dozen or so young girls, then brandishes a whip and teaches
them how to improve their sexual techniques.”
Given what is now known about Maxwell’s role as Epstein’s procurer of underage girls and her role in “training” them in sexual
techniques, this passage — again from 2003 — reveals that Epstein’s and Maxwell’s dark acts were pretty much an open secret for years
prior to Epstein’s first arrest in 2007.
One recurring theme in many of these older reports from the U.K. is their mention of Epstein’s alleged ties to both U.S. and Israeli
intelligence. For instance, Nigel Rosser’s 2001 article contains the following passage:
Another articl e, published in 1992 in the U.K.’s Mail on Sunday, describes “rumors” that linked Epstein to the CIA and
the Mossad and claimed that he had worked as “a corporate spy hired by big businesses to uncover money that had been embezzled.”
In addition, an article
published in 2000 in London’s Sunday Times also states of Epstein that “nobody knows whether he’s a concert pianist, property
developer, CIA agent, a math teacher or a member of Mossad.”
Notably, these rumors of Epstein’s links to intelligence have since been confirmed. The CIA-Mossad links to Epstein were detailed
in
a recent MintPress investigative series and several mainstream
media reports have corroborated Epstein’s time as a self-described “financial bounty hunter” who hunted down embezzled funds
and also hid stolen money for powerful people and governments.
Another odd commonality among these now-scrubbed articles on Epstein from the 1990s and early 2000s is that the majority of them
refer to Epstein not as a “financier” or “hedge fund manager,” as has become common in more recent reports, but as a “New York property
developer” and even as a “property mogul.”
For instance, the 2001
Evening Standard article introduces Epstein as an “immensely powerful New York property developer and financier” with
an “intensively secret business life” who “owns properties all over the country [the U.S.].” It also states that Epstein had made
millions from “his business links with the likes of Bill Gates, Donald Trump and Ohio billionaire Leslie Wexner” during the 1990s
and beyond.
Wexner, in addition to his other close financial ties to Epstein,
was involved in several Manhattan real estate deals with Epstein and Epstein’s brother Mark while Donald Trump was then best
known for his career as a New York property developer and real estate mogul. Trump is also cited in a
separate article from January 2001 as being good friends with both Prince Andrew and his ex-wife. In addition, this article’s
claim regarding Epstein’s most notable “business links” in 2001 contradicts Bill Gates’
recent assertions that he never had any business relationship with Epstein and did not meet with him until 2013. Notably, Gates’
former chief scientific adviser was
recently named as an alternate executor for Epstein’s will and Gates appears on the flight logs of Epstein’s now-infamous private
plane. Gates, one of the world’s richest men, has since claimed that he only had met with Epstein in order to meet other wealthy
people and to discuss “philanthropy.”
Another article in the Evening Standard refers to Epstein as a “property mogul.” Several other articles — such as a
2000 article from Australia’s Sunday Mail, a 1995 article from Australia’s Sun Herald, and a 1995 article from the
U.K.’s Mail on Sunday — also refer to Epstein as chiefly a “property developer.” Interestingly, references to Epstein as
a property developer continued to occur (though less frequently) after his first arrest in 2007 and then again after his recent
arrest this past July, yet oddly only in non-U.S. newspapers.
Another article states that Ghislaine Maxwell had sold property on Epstein’s behalf and was also involved in the New York
real estate market.
While several articles in the early 2000s describe Epstein as both “property developer” and “financier,” even earlier articles
about Epstein refer to him exclusively as a “property developer.” For instance,
the 1992 article in the Mail on Sunday cited above referred to Epstein as “a shadowy, almost maverick New York property
developer” and noted that, even then, Epstein appeared “to have an inexhaustible supply of money and yet no one seems able to answer
the question of precisely what the source.”
As will be revealed in an upcoming MintPress investigative series, these references allude to Epstein’s shady business
activities in the New York and Palm Beach real estate markets from the mid-1980s to the late-1990s that were used to launder massive
amounts of money for organized crime and intelligence. It is likely for this reason that Epstein’s real estate activities during
this period have been so deliberately ignored by the U.S. press, even though other aspects of his financial activities were heavily
scrutinized in recent months.
Indeed, in examining Epstein’s involvement in real estate markets, particularly in New York, it becomes clear that those activities
have no shortage of controversial tie-ins to the current U.S. presidential administration as well as major New York power players
involved in suspect financial activity immediately prior to the September 11 attacks as well as the 2008 financial crisis. All of
those connections and more will be explored in MintPress’ upcoming investigative series on the financial crimes of Jeffrey
Epstein and their broader implications.
Correction | An earlier version of this report incorrectly stated the name of the artist that accompanied Prince Andrew to
Los Angeles in 2000 as Bruce, as opposed to Brett, Livingstone Strong.
(Republished from
Mint Press News by permission of author or representative)
Given that the thoroughly despicable Alan Dershowitz, who was also accused by Giuffre, had his lawyers combing through emails
between Roberts/Giuffre, and found emails in which she stated she didn't know who Dershowitz was, this appears to be little more
than another shakedown.
Until someone comes up with a photo of Andrew boinking Roberts, there is no reason to believe her.
This long winded column is not about "reports" its about newspaper article speculation.
Call me naive, but it seems to me that with Andrew's connections, this bimbo would have met with an accident by the time she
started in on Maxwell being a procurer.
I've had my picture take with famous people, it doesn't mean any sexual relations occurred.
I've been around, travelled a bit and lived on the streets for a few years many
years back and even I had met someone who was a victim of Epstein as a young girl.
I did not realise it was him she was talking about until recently but it all falls into place now.
Andrew's association with Epstein in itself and the proven lies being told about it are enough to show his guilt.
You believe whatever makes you feel good but not only was Epstein a pedo blackmailer and well known as such for many years
you can use your own eyes to see the body on the Gurney is not Epstein by a wide margin.
Not surprisingly he has been spotted back on his island actually since his alleged suicide.
He is too valuable to the intel agencies which use him to be allowed to die or get locked up.
For instance, the FBI recently expanded its probe into Epstein's sex trafficking network to include a specific focus on
the Prince's role.
The FBI has claimed that they are reviewing claims regarding Prince Andrew made by other Epstein victims aside from Giuffre,
but did not specify the nature of those claims.
Yes, I'm sure the FBI, the same utterly compromised organization that was so complicit in the Trump/Russia coup/hoax, is working
very hard to investigate the Epstein case.
@Curmudgeon If the email report is true, it's more likely she didn't know who Dershowitz was at the time she was forced to
have sex with him than her making it up.
As one of Epstein's chief advisors going back 25 years, one would assume Dershowitz
was intimately aware of if not guiding Epstein's espionage on behalf of Mossad.
Moreover, Fox News continues to rely on Dershowitz for spin and so much so as to presumptively implicate Fox News as a limited
hangout for Mega and Israeli intelligence in the ongoing cover up.
@Curmudgeon Giuffre, said she had sex with Andrew in Britain, but Andy could have easily and perfectly legally had sex with
younger (and much better looking) girls than the at least 17 year old Giuffre in Britain.
Andrew does not particularly like young girls, when he was young himself he went for much older women.
His wife Sarah Ferguson and American girlfriend Koo Stark were both older.
Andrew has been tabloid fodder, but he is not and never was a person of influence even by the standards of the almost entirely
ceremonial royal family.
I think he was good PR for Epstein.
Andrew being seen with Epstein after his conviction is difficult to explain if Andy was some kind of agent of influence asset
for Epstein's putative organisation.
Andy has been discredited by not immediately dropping him.
@Sick of Orcs Where were the underage girl's parents? Do you think Prince Andrew's daughter could be flown off from her high
school to some Caribbean Island to be passed around? Or Epstein?
Why is it that these white girls are in a position where they can be exploited like this?
How can some old pervert show up at a public high school and start recruiting white girls for his sexual pyramid/bribery scam?
Why are underage white girls so sexually sophisticated at age 16?
@Rabbitnexus Have you been reading Stephen Fry's memoirs? At the kind of small schools the Royals went to there was none of
that going on for anyone,certainly not them.
Andy was rumoured in upper class circles to have went gay for a while after his
divorce though.
BTW the photo of Andy with Guiffre and Ghislaine Maxwell also in the shot was taken at Maxwell's central London house.
Guiffre was 17 years at least as she now admits, so there was no crime in (16 year old is the age of consent) Britain even
if he had been fucking her brains out.
So even if he had film, where was the blackmail?
For people who speak French, it is very interesting to read Gerard Fauré book and liste to his interviews :
He's father was a physician and sub-direction of WHealthOrg and he describes paedophilia, prostitution, drug and trafficking
with political and media elites.
@nietzsche1510 When you consider Chabad's overt hostility toward non-Jews, to the extent non-Jews are dogmatically said to
have no souls and should be exterminated, save only so many as are needed to serve the Jew, it follows their presence within the
CIA, FBI, State Dept, etc is presumptively as dangerous a security breach as having Capone's men in the Chicago police or serving
as judges.
Any sane investigative heuristic would assume their guilt within the relevant reference class of Israeli espionage
and Jewish criminality.
As a member of the Royal family he should have known that he had wealth, power
and privilege but not nearly enough not to exercise great care in picking his friends.
They're the royal family, for God's sake.
They're expected to be predictable, traditional and stodgy.
@Gordo No, I am questioning the entire framework around them.
Parents.
Society. Economics.
Cultural mores.
Why is it so easy for some old pervert to pass the word that he is willing to pay a few lousy bucks (Like $300 even though
he is a billionaire) and half a high school's tenth grade girls will rush over to his house for a huge orgy session.
Why are they prepared to do these things?
And why do they appear to working class white girls? Not Jews.
Not Asian girls.
Not Muslim girls.
Nope, it was white Gentile girls.
And how are they so sexually sophisticated at the age of 15 or 16?
Is it biological? Are white girls simply more inclined to do sexual acts for money at an early age?
BTW the photo of Andy with Guiffre and Ghislaine Maxwell also in the shot was taken at Maxwell's central London house.
Guiffre was 17 years at least as she now admits, so there was no crime in (16 year old is the age of consent) Britain even
if he had been fucking her brains out.
Randy Andy denied there was any sex, so your legal strategery is not available to him.
Besides, the optics of that photo are disastrous, and well-deserved.
Jeff Stryker makes an incredibly good and valid point that needs addressing.
If anything, the Epstein case, not only promotes Jewish predation upon the non Jews, but the moral and ethical decline of the
west.
The 60's saw that begin.
Young women, even from poor working class families were still taught to have manners and be chaste.
Fathers were incredibly protective over them.
That all changed and we can certainly blame cultural Marxism which obliterated our cultures.
And we can also blame the rise of power within woman and ultimately the rise of single mothers, who see their daughter as 'best
girl friends'.
They go out, together, on the hunt for men, mother in her mid thirties, dressed the same as her daughter and the daughter 17/18
trying to solicit sex.
I was out on the weekend, with friends, after a party, in a nightclub, being approached by a 20 year old.
Her mother was there and then they both had an argument with one another, because the mother also showed interest.
I quickly left as I had no interest from the start.
The west is in a moral and ethical, rapid state of decline.
@Sean Your comment is rather absurd -- "Andy" -- what, are you on a first name basis with the useless mother fucker? -- almost
from the moment I saw the foto reproduced here, I felt "Prince Andrew" was a lying weasel -- here is the only thing I could possibly
say/ask that is even slightly in his favor: is he really so fucking stupid that he would allow such a foto to be taken? -- but
the answer to that question is probably 'yes'.
If it's a spy operation then what sort of info could he provide? For blackmail what sort
of policies could he affect? Perhaps Epstein liked hobnobbing with a 'prince'.
In this case this person is hardly different from the thousands of sex-tourists going to places like Thailand looking to obtain
cheap and often underage sex.
He's just got a title, that's all.
The entire British royal family are just a clown show anyway.
The enduring mystery of Epstein's life is how anybody managed to call him a "hedge fund manager" with a straight face.
He was
so blatantly full of shit.
Actual investment professionals were left speechless by his make-believe bafflegab strategies.
Hedge.
He couldn't tell you what Black-Scholes is if his 3:15 dick massage depended on it.
He wouldn't know a Gaussian copula if it copulated with him.
The suggestion that an autodidact's knack for Algebra II & Trig and maybe AP Calculus prepared him for securities analysis
only goes to show how stupid CIA thinks you are.
@HarbingerJeff Stryker makes an incredibly good and valid point that needs addressing.
And your comment is incredibly dumb, because in this context his "point" is irrelevant -- Epstein was accused of statutory
sexual crimes -- in the case of statutory crimes, there is no such thing as "consent" on the part of the victim --
it's simply against the law (for good reason) to engage in such acts with females who are underage -- everything else, eg whether
'the west is in a moral and ethical, rapid state of decline' or not, is a matter for another discussion.
@Jeff Stryker Young white girls are addicted to snapchat, instagram, and pornography . Snapchat and Instagram are softcore
porn sites that enable these girls to get attention from strangers, and attention to a woman –particularly a young woman– trumps
everything.
You ask how in the world young white girls could be groomed by disgusting Muslims (and they ARE disgusting), well,
they're given attention by these swarthy orcs.
And attention is everything to a young white woman.
Excitement is everything to a young white woman.
In fact I don't even think Epstein needed to pay these girls, though of course a couple hundred was nothing to him.
Young white women don't care about their heritage, their family, or their honor.
They only care about their depraved appetites being satisfied, by who or what, it doesn't matter.
They simply want attention.
True it is the fathers of these whores that are -- in the end– to blame, and I freely admit, the young white men of the West
are similarly depraved, but I don't think my description of these women is off
@Chet Roman Guiffre was working in a Trump resort and her father, who was a manager there, ran her to the interview for the
job she was offered by Epstein.
Guiffre is now being represented by the top lawyers in the country, Jewish of course and bitter
rivals of Dershowitz.
As in so many cases this boils down to arguments between Jews.
@Wizard of Oz I don't think "forced sex" was the issue but the fact that under age sex is illegal, and I don't really think
that you would have read any headlines that the queen's boy is a sex offender, which is something that has always been prevalent
in the so called British royalty.!!!!
@giddyup At 45 years old I am no longer a young man or up on youth.
I am a middle-class white, by the way.
Most 15 year old girls when I was 15 in 1989 were virgins.
A few slags, yes, but the idea of an ENTIRE HIGH SCHOOL OF GIRLS selling their bodies would have been ridiculous. Ridiculous.
Back in 1989 porn was around, but girls had no interest in watching it or women.
Even most grown men in 1989 did not watch porn habitually.
It was mostly teen boys, frat guys and a few dirty old men who watched porn.
The idea in 1989 of a female porn addict, much less a 15 year old girl, would have been impossible.
Nobody would have believed it.
Girls in 1989 cared more for their reputation than attention.
Rumors used to fly back in 1989 when some 15 year old girl had sex with a boy her own age that was relatively uncommon for
middle-class or even working-class whites.
I have not been in the tenth grade in thirty years.
Heck, I have not lived in the US in 20 years.
But it is astounding the degree to which sexual morality has changed among young white girls.
Even working class ones.
As for the British preteen girls, I suspect this is proximity.
These are poor whites who just did not sell their house in time before their community became a Caliphate/ghetto of Pakistanis.
@eah How many times can we state that Epstein and his slut B J queen wife/madam/whatever Maxwell was were amoral human pieces
of shit before we start to examine the underlying cause?
Epstein was no Charles Manson with hypnotic Rasputin charm.
And Maxwell was not kidnapping girls at gunpoint and forcing them over to the mansion.
Which leads me to ask:
What kind of idiot parent lets their 15 year old daughter fly off to an island in the Caribbean alone with some creepy Jews?
I mean it is one thing to lie to your Mom and sneak off to a slumber party or something but where were Mom and Dad when some 10th
grade girl is being flown by two Pedos off to the Virgin Islands!
How is it that half of a 10th grade of girls from a single high school are such hardened hookers at age 15 that they will rush
over to trade their bodies for cash like hardened call girls?
We know about child prostitution in desperately poor countries like Brazil or Cambodia but this kind of poverty exists in Southern
Florida among white people!
Where is Dad? Dad just doesn't care that little Suzie in the ninth grade is off to some ungodly EYES WIDE SHUT orgy with a
sinister cabal of rich people on some island in the Caribbean for the weekend .Back when I was in 10th grade girls had to lie
to go to a slumber party.
$300 is really that much to young girls in this day and age that they trade in their virginity to some creepy old pervert?
Forget Epstein and what he did.
He did it because he could.
There will always be guys that do that.
Amorality is as cheap as table sugar.
But what is does it say about white girls in society today?
I never understand those who think the royals are a supreme elite in Britain.
Rupert Murdoch and his family now that is real
wealth, power and privilege.
Anyone else who did what Murdoch and his son did with bugging people's phones would accessing the police computer and paying
them for information ect ect would get a term in prison.
Vermin.
But the establishment let them get a stranglehold over the media, so they are untouchable.
@Jeff Stryker White women in both countries, as a matter of fact, are so utterly brainwashed they mistake giving the edge
in elections to their families' executioners as proof of their empowerment.
I'm not sold on this man's sophistication or the purported CIA web of blackmailing syndicates he supposedly he had behind
him.
If this were the case, why hang around a local high school?
What sophistication? He ran a blackmailing op for an intelligence service most likely. He was crude and clumsy because he didn't
have to be subtle and deft.
Clumsy ole him didn't get caught for a long time (how did that happen?), and, when he did get caught, he got let go (how did
that happen?).
@bluedog 1) Guiffre was 17 at least, she originally claimed to be 15 but employment records in the defamation case led her
to admit she was a full 2 year older when she started working for Epstein.
While she was working for him she had a boyfriend
who was Epstein's bodyguard.
She finished at 19.
2) The photo was taken in Britain where Giuffre says she had sex with Andrew.
3) The age of consent in Britain then as now was 16.
Andrew committed no crime having sex with her in Britain and possibly not in America either .
4) If Giuffre was, as she claims, a trafficked sex slave for a honeytrap blackmailer pimp, how could she possibly have come
into possession of a photograph that was Epstein's bread and butter?
How many times can we state that Epstein and his slut B J queen wife/madam/whatever Maxwell was were amoral human pieces
of shit before we start to examine the underlying cause?
You aren't interested in the underlying cause, though.
You're interested in thinking and talking, a lot, about slutty tenth-grade white girls and the slutty, sexy, oh so interesting
things you think they're up to.
Parents should not be putting their children in modelling agencies PERIOD! They do so for their own greed, having failed in
their lives and use their children as commodities to financially gain from.
It's immoral.
Let us also understand as well that paedophilia is having sexual intercourse with pre-pubescent children.
A girl who is menstruatng and boy who is having wet dreams, producing sperm are now women and men.
They are, by nature's decree, adults and ready to procreate.
Does this mean that I have sex with children who are menstruating and producing sperm? Good God no, but I am merely explaining
that nature is above man, not the other way around and society is wrong on the definition of adult and child.
That stated, yes, sexual predators DO groom the young.
I won't deny that.
And this is PRECISELY WHY I am an anarchist and promote anarchy.
Were there no police to PROTECT these sexual predators, society would deal with them incredibly fast – noose around the neck,
hoisted over a tree bough, strung up and their bellies opened up.
Nobody really cares about 17 year old courtesans who "know" old men for money unless they can watch it on the internet.
The
oldest profession is so common around the world it is telling that the American propaganda system with its police state played
up the salacious aspects of sensationalized sex to hide, obscure and protect the real crimes of the elite – and then not say another
word about it while leaving the surveillance and opinion forming to the less than main stream media outlets.
Hedge fund manager Epstein's real troubles were probably too complicated for most of the zombies to understand because they
don't really understand finance, Only massive international debt keeps the dollar afloat, and the military.
The elites have counted on widespread ignorance in the sheep like public – the criminal law really only applies to the poor.
Lots of Americans would have gladly bedded old men for thousands of dollars when they were teenagers too knowing what they
know now but didn't know then
1) Guiffre was 17 at least
2) The photo was taken in Britain where Giuffre says she had sex with Andrew.
People should note: the info commenter Sean gives here essentially matches what Giuffre/Roberts says about "Prince Andrew",
eg in her affidavits -- but the fact that it was not statutory rape does not make it any less tawdry, and therefore something
he would naturally want to strongly deny -- what her interest might be in lying about him in particular is far less clear
-- I personally still think he is lying .
What's not known is what other girls/young women, perhaps some underage, he may have had sex with thru Epstein -- because Epstein
was murdered (duh), the investigation was severely blunted.
@Harbinger A hot 34 year old mom and hot 16 year old daughter together in a bar on the prowl for a 3 some.
Standard porn
movie plot.
Watch your porn movies if you like.
Why repeat the plots here? Are the plumbers and pizza delivery porn actors girls and the housewives men porn actors now? Pool
girl and house husband must be the new genre in porn.
And if those bars you frequent are so tawdry and immoral, why do you keep going to them?
You're behind the times.
Those hook up bars and all bars are having problems surviving, especially the gay bars.
Gays use Grindr heterosexuals use Tinder.
Cheaper no buying drinks or driving to the bar, wasting hours chatting being rejected, finally finding someone then driving
to his or her place for sex, then driving home.
@Alden I didn't read that many of Epstein's victims were Hispanic.
From what I can read the victims were white and from chaotic backgrounds.
Maybe it was a poor high school! Must have been poor for 50 students to rush out and trade their bodies for cash to some leathery
old Jewish man.
The idea that some girl could show up at homeroom and say "pssttt, there is the old creepy couple who are offering $300 if
you'll go to their house and prostitute yourself."
Epstein was accused of statutory sexual crimes -- in the case of statutory crimes, there is no such thing as "consent"
on the part of the victim
Not true because lack of consent would mean a far more serious charge .
Consent is not a defence to under age sex, but refusing to recognise there was consent by a 17 year old girl (Giuffre started
with Epstein when she was 17) is a mere legal fiction.
While she worked for Epstein, Guiffre had a boyfriend.
And when you first appeared on this site you claimed that most of the White girls in your high school were drug addicted tattooed
teen mother prostitutes.
And yes, prostitutes do recruit other prostitutes as you well know.
You've made a living in the sex and porn industry your entire life.
How do I know this? I read your posts bragging about it.
And sneering at the White American men who stayed here and managed to make a good living at normal jobs.
On the main subject of gossip I would say that the pictire of Andrew and Giufre/Roberts would be enough for a jury to disbelieve
any allegation of forced sex.
I am pretty sure that nobody thinks that Prince Andrew violently raped underage girls.
But soliciting prostitutes is illegal in many places, soliciting underage prostitutes is illegal everywhere, trafficking prostitutes
over state borders is illegal, manipulating minors to have sex is illegal in most places, knowingly using prostitutes that have
been trafficked/manipulated/forced to do what they do is illegal etc.
etc.
And not reporting it is also crime.
As is knowingly using the results of crime of someone else to your personal gain.
Andrew should convince the jury that he did not know how and why Virginia Roberts happened to be in Epstein company and why
she was so eager to have sex with him.
And court system being as corrupt as it is, he probably will succeed.
@Chet Roman When did Ghislaine Maxwell convert to Judaism?
This about her mother from Wikipedia:
"She was born Elisabeth Jenny Jeanne Meynard in La Grive, near Saint-Alban-de-Roche, France, to Louis "Paul" Meynard and Colombe
(née Petel) Meynard.
Paul Meynard was a Protestant descendant of the Huguenot aristocracy and Colombe Meynard was a Roman Catholic (whose marriage
to a Protestant resulted in her excommunication).
Her father Paul owned a silk-weaving factory and was the mayor of the village.
Elisabeth had one sibling, an older sister, Yvonne.
Her parents sent her to England at age nine to attend the convent of Our Lady of Compassion at Acocks Green in Birmingham.
In 1932, she returned to France.
Elisabeth Meynard studied law at the Sorbonne"
There is nothing about her converting to Judaism before Ghislaine's birth or at all.
You have probably not worked in social services or law enforcement.
Part of it is probably to do with getting older men to provide them with drugs and alcohol.
Obviously not all working class white girls get into this scene, but some of the more delinquently inclined ones do, especially
when they come from homes where there is drink, drugs, and crime.
One of the most stunning statistics I have ever heard, which has been verified, is that 33% of the men born in Britain in 1953
have at least one criminal conviction.
These will be nearly all white men, born before there was any kind of drug problem in England, whose parents were veterans
of World War II.
I was born two years earlier, but if I had been asked to guess the number of that cohort who had criminal convictions, I would
have guessed around 5%.
Nope! Not even close.
In fact 9% of the women born the same year had criminal convictions too.
Having lived in Florida for many years, it would not surprise me in the least if an equal number or greater of the men of the
same age as Ms Giuffre/Roberts' father's generation living in Florida have similar records.
Certainly, in various areas of social services, it is quite difficult to find male employees as a large proportion of potential
applicants are ruled out for criminal records.
So there are a lot of delinquent families living in a trailer park near you, and when relatively large amounts of money, like
$300 are being handed out in no questions cash, money talks and there are plenty of people ready to lend an ear.
@lauris71 You are getting confused with th Florida schoolgirls under age sex and soliciting conviction of Epstein.
Epstein
never faced any charges at all in relation to Virginia Roberts/Giuffre, and she was not used as a witness by prosecutors either.
They obviously did not think her stories were credible.
Rich men bang the help, and I can believe Epstein did her.
Her assertion to have been sleeping with presidents and prime ministers on Epstein's orders makes is highly dubious though.
Giuffre being employed by Epstein as a masseuse is hardly evidence of her being any kind of prostitute or victim that Andrew
had a duty to inform the authorities about.
Andrew denies having any sexual contact with her.
There simply is no possible case against Andrew. The royals are used to these kind of baseless allegations.
I would like someone to tell me why she was in possession of that photograph if Epstein was the blackmailer .
@Harbinger The people who made these laws were just trying to set some guidelines to protect young girls and boys from predators.
A civilized society is a society of laws which may not seem logical, especially over the passage of time, but nevertheless were
intended to protect the young.
Our society has changed dramatically and young people have more knowledge about sex than old people did 100 years ago.
The one thing that hasn't changed is that while nature might make young girls of 12 able to get pregnant, it doesn't mean that
their maturity is capable of fully appreciating the gravity of the situation.
The laws are still valid because a certain segment of older men need to be kept in their place and give the state the means
to prosecute those that violate the law.
Most men who might approach a 12 year old girl for sex if it was totally legal don't because there are severe penalties for
doing so.
The men who aren't controlled by the threat of punishment for any wrongdoing fill our prisons.
Just because the system is flawed doesn't mean that these child protection laws should be thrown out.
Look at countries that have little or no protection for minors, are they better than what we have? If you don't like it here
you can always move to Thailand, India or the Philippines that have little or no protection for children. Oh, I just heard, they've
started deporting people who are caught violating young children back to the US or Europe.
Thanks for the article and the organization of its contents..
they help.
But I think it might be more productive to focus on how to frame a set of null hypotheses in complete enough fashion to allow
proactive involvement of every person interested in getting to the truth of this question Does external foreign or criminal influence
control or influence the behaviors of persons, agencies or elected officials in the USA? if so what agency, person or contractor
has not been compromised ?
I think a great deal of investigative journalism should be framed in hypothesis to be tested formats..
Then, for each hypothesis discuss the matters related, present the then known facts and prove or disprove or leave open for
want of evidence to prove the null the hypothesis..
By using the hypothesis frame work, the journalist commits the audience to the investigation..
Articles such as this one come and go..
people forget the names, points made and miss or ignore items missing from the article..and cannot later retrieve the article
itself.
But the hypothesis that still stand keep getting closer and closer to the failure of evidence to prove the null.
By employing a method of research as a journalist endeavor (say by creating and numbering a set of hypothesis) and then by
setting out to prove the null for each of the hypothesis ( may serve to keep the salient facts in everyone's mind and help to
discover and properly state updated and related hypothesis to be tested.
The collective works remained connected, and can lead to a final statement for which no nullifying evidence exist.
Hypothesis: At least one of Epstein's behavior was directed by a Mossad agency.
<= what evidence proves this statement wrong?
Hypothesis; Epstein modified at least one of his behaviors to suit or accommodate a Mossad Agency.
Hypothesis: X was (is) directed by a Mossad agency.
<= what evidence proves this s statement wrong?
Hypothesis: The FBI is directed by a Mossad agency < what evidence proves this statement wrong?
Hypothesis: At least one behavior of highly placed persons in the FBI was influenced by a Mossad Agency <what evidence proves
this statement wrong? and if slightly wrong, how should the hypothesis be amended to accommodate in the hypothesis the new or
better understood information.
Hypothesis: At least one of Trump's behaviors was (is) directed by a Mossad agency < what evidence proves this statement wrong?
Hypothesis: Epstein was a CIA agent?
Hypothesis: At least one of Epstein's behaviors was directed by a CIA agency.
Hypothesis: Members of the CIA are directed by one or more foreign agencies.
Hypothesis: Epstein, et.
al was a CIA Agency
Hypothesis: Epstein was directed by an agency of Saudi Arabia..
Hypothesis: The political party (D or R) candidates for elected office in the USA are denied access to party backed candidacy
until and unless the hopeful person candidate has been compromised by a Mossad Agency?
To prove the null (that this statement is wrong) it is only necessary to show that at least one of the elected persons h/n/b compromised
by a Mossad Agency?
Until such proof is presented the hypothesis and statement stand.
What is needed is an ever narrowing set of continuously undated and restated and improve hypothesis or set of hypothesis which
stand as true until evidence sufficient to prove their positive statement ( the null ) wrong.
If the journalist involves everyone's help it might not be long until a lot of questions appear that need evidence to deny
them.
Active searches for the answers and evidence by the audience could result in proving nulls and finally shed a lot of light
on this problem the journalist is investigating.
Also such a method makes it possible to advance ideas that might be impossible using narrative methods only
IMO.
What's so damning about everyone smiling and so happy .
As if people never fake-smiled for cameras?
Once Randy Andy denied there was any sex, the 'UK's age of consent' argument no longer mattered.
Virginia Roberts Giuffre's criminal complaint is the encounter was non-consensual, she was ordered or otherwise coerced to
perform a sexual act with someone she never would have of her own choosing.
JFK did similar, using his authority to coerce frightened intern and then virgin Mimi Alford, whom he later allegedly passed
around to others epstein-style.
@Sean Look, I find you tiresome, in some ways obtuse, and would normally just ignore you -- but:
Not true because lack of consent would mean a far more serious charge.
I thought what I said was pretty clear: when one party is underage, consent plays no role in whether a criminal act occurred
: it's a crime, period -- consent/no consent -- you may be right: if the sex was forced, perhaps there are normally additional
charges -- I don't know (and don't really care, as it is not relevant here).
I do not give a damn if Giuffre/Roberts consented or not -- in fact, I have always assumed the act itself was not forced, in
the sense that "Prince Andrew" did not force himself on her -- nonetheless, a case could be made that her entire association
with Epstein was a form a coercion , and the sex acts with "Prince Andrew" happened within this context -- also, how old
was she initially when this (ostensibly) coercive relationship with Epstein began?
Finally, read my comments about "Prince Andrew": the only thing I said about him was I think he's lying -- I think he
is lying about having sex with her.
@byrresheim Alden is a woman and one who, as a former parole officer (I believe) knows a little about the law.
I am not
sure whether she sees the point of arguing whether Epstein was or was not a pederast.
I believe there is a definite point because neither Mossad nor the CIA would want to be tainted with pederasty for which there
is general disgust, way exceeding statutory rape.
BTW her "pled" is quite eccentric.
Said to be a one to twenty minoroty usage for "pleaded".
@Commentator Mike I believe many American states have the 3 year thing .
18 and 15 is ok.
In actual fact, young boyfriends don't get in trouble.
In the good old days outraged parents might want to charge them.
But realistically, those police reports went nowhere. Investigation goes nowhere when the " victim" of the crime tells the
investigator it never happened.
But over all, there are too many comments ignorant of the fact that the charges were procuring for prostitution, not statutory
rape or molestation of minors.
Until I began reading UNZ, I didn't realize there were so many middle aged fathers of 1 or 2 children so interested in the
fertility of teen girls.
I don't mean just Harbinger. It's been about 6 years I think and I noticed it from the start.
If these fertility fanatics want women to have large families they should do what my husband did.
Have a large family, instead of blathering about it on UNZ.
I can see being militantly for or against abortion.
But men obsessing about the fertility of total stranger women just strikes me as totally absolutely weird.
Think Whites should more children? Then do your part.
And Harbinger really needs to buy some medical school pediatric textbooks which have several chapters on human development
including puberty, an obstetrics text book, a standard baby and child care book, and read about the history of marriage and family
for the last 1400 years.
His claims that girls menstruated and had babies at 12 1,000 years ago is contrary to all historical fact and 1400 years of
Christian church marriage and birth records.
Men think differently than woman I know.
But I still think Harbinger's focus on pregnant 11 and 12 year olds is just weird and unseemly.
And he was the only commenter to bring up menstruation.
He was totally wrong.
Girls didn't start to menstruate at 10,11, 12 till the 20th century because of better nutrition and kerosene and electric light.
Maybe it was the only job he could get, but bouncers in gay clubs shouldn't preach about morality to others.
If they had something on Andrew (and the fact he visited Epstein after his conviction suggests Andrew was after what Epstein provided),
the problem for us Brits becomes any British government will do whatever it takes to keep the royal family from seedy exposure
which could even bring the monarchy down.
We'd become extremely vulnerable to doing things that are clearly not in our interest,
such as getting involved in Middle East wars.
@Alden Pled for the past of plead is correct english.
Still I have no use for her abominable behaviour.
The lady doth protest too much.
Perversion hides behind zealotry.
The most disgusting case of pederasty I know of – and they are all digusting – happened in Germany, Worms.
Look up Spatzennest.
The director of a foster home accused several parents of sexually abusing their children – what is called statutory rape in
certain countries.
The medical exams of several girls taken away from their parents showed no anomalies before these girls were entrusted
to his care.
They did show anomalies several months later, if you get the gist.
He ended up in prison, sadly a few years too late for those poor girls and their parents whose life he ruined.
Look it up, perhaps you come to the same conclusion I do: people who play fast and loose with that sort of slander have weighty
but ugly reasons to do so.
"Jeffrey Epstein Was Strangulated", Famous Forensic Expert Says
by
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/30/2019 - 09:35
0
SHARES
This morning on
Fox
and Friends, Dr. Michael Baden
, a famous forensic expert and former New York City medical
examiner said that at the end of the investigation he did on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein's brother,
its findings are
more consistent with homicidal strangulation than suicidal hanging
.
Dr. Michael Baden, who was hired by Epstein's brother and observed the autopsy,
told
Fox News
that the 66-year-old Epstein had two fractures on the left and right sides of his
larynx, specifically the thyroid cartilage or Adam's apple, as well as one fracture on the left
hyoid bone above the Adam's apple, Baden told Fox News.
"Those three fractures are extremely unusual in suicidal hangings and could occur
much more commonly in homicidal strangulation,"
said Baden.
"The prominent hemorrhage in the soft tissues of the neck next to the fractures is evidence
of a fresh neck compression that could have caused the death."
"I've not seen in 50 years where that occurred in a suicidal hanging case,"
the 85-year-old medical legend told Fox News.
This disagrees with New York City Medical Examiner Barbara Sampson's rulling that Epstein's
cause of death was suicide by hanging.
"It appears that this could have been a mistake,"
Baden said.
"There's evidence here of homicide that should be investigated, to see if it is or
isn't homicide."
Isn't there anyone trying to get to the bottom of this story? It
is the most brazen cover-up ever. The official explanation of
suicide is a joke and simply unbelievable given the reported
conditions in Epstein's cell (ceiling height, etc.) and hurried
autopsy (already being challenged by experts who are concluding
murder was much more likely). Dozens of among the most powerful
people in the world had a very clear motive to get rid of him.
Wray has been examining the "malfunctioning cameras" in the labs
at Quantico for more than 2 months now and not a word. Barr, the
master of over-ups, was/is in charge of the investigation. He
promised Epstein's co-conspirators would be brought to justice but
we are to believe that not even Ghislaine Maxwell has been
located. Prison guards, including those "asleep" at the time of
his obvious murder, were supposedly being interviewed. Was there
any follow-up? There are hundreds of leads out there. Isn't
anyone following them? Unless the truth comes out, America
is lost. Justice, apparently, is not blind.
I do not think that this pedo is dead at all. He was (still is I
think) working for powerful organization/s (Mossad, CIA, Israeli
government, etc) that among other things controls the US rulers
no question about it. I do not think for a second that this
organizations let him down.
Trump and "lock her up" Hillary probably worked together on this
'suicide.'
Win-win for both, Trump can swipe his inconveniently
yet "he's a terrific guy" friend under the rug who
inconveniently hung out with Trump, and Hillary can erase Pedo-Bill's
inconveniently trips to Pedo-Island.
Trump and Hillary are same ****, different name, and that's the
reason why Killary is not locked up. 🙄
Well, TrumpO is on the record as kicking him out of his club
for unsavory behavior, and Hillary's Bill is on record making
many flights on Teenager-Trafficking Air.
So not quite the
same. No one is happier about the "suicide" than William
Jefferson.
The Clintons will never be charged, and it's not just about
Trump. (Remember, Hillary had all the dossiers on political
figures. She turned back the ones on Republicans, but kept the
ones on her own party.)
If Epstein really is dead (he's more likely to be kiddie-fiddling
down Brazil's Eastern seaboard between Fortaleza and Rio), then it
was homicide. Suicide just doesn't fit what we know about this
guy's character.
The scumbag Epstein is either as many think - alive; or, he's been
cremated. I seriously doubt reviewing some forensic notes is going
to do much besides sell air-time on some 'diddle-your-niddle'
"news" show.
Of course Epstein was murdered, the dumbest guy with Downs
syndrome has figured that out months ago. The real mystery is why
this has surfaced NOW?
I venture a guess that it will die down
and be forgotten in a week. Man, they keep baiting us with actual
justice once in a while but we know the drill, nobody with real
power will ever get caught.
My thought about Barr holding fire on Epstein is that he may have known that was a red
herring, false flag, or whatever you want to call it. That whole Epstein affair sounded like
a juicy distraction to me, in the manner of "if it bleeds it leads". When someone actually
dies who is the center of contraversial activity, you may be sure, unfortunately, that
someone, he or another, is getting close to truths that ought not see the light of day.
Somewhat in the nature of the baiting of Putin as Ukraine was beginning its time of troubles.
The old revolutionary dictum "Hold your fire until you see the whites of their eyes" may have
been in Barr's mind at the time of Epstein's demise.
Certainly such investigations as the one he is involved in take much time to sort out the
who-what-where in terms sufficiently damaging to become a credible enterprise. We have seen
such attempts fail in the past. I hope he takes his time and gets all his ducks in a row
before the hammer falls as fall it must. It is so vital to this country that this attempt
succeed; for if it fails only the shambles of Kiev style fisticuffs in Congress can be the
result. Not pretty.
In b's post we are reminded of the power of the press to misinform. I would suggest we
badly need divestiture of our media from the huge corporations now more wealthy than some
countries. The latter are too powerful in this country now, and they do need to be whittled
down to size. We not only need fact finders, we need eloquent voices to present those facts
to the public. We need free speech!
He is a deep state creature...his father Donald Barr was an OSS guy and original CIA
[which morphed from the wartime OSS]...
Barr senior was also Epstein's mentor and got him his start at the deeply establishment
Dalton School [and probably Epstein's handler as an asset or 'agent' as they are
called]...
So things go a bit deeper than the surface when it comes to Barr junior...and what he is
doing here...
There is a probably valid school of thought that the deep establishment has a faction that
is pro-Trump and behind the general idea of disengaging from wasteful overseas adventures,
since it is becoming clear that this is a ruinous path that the US cannot really afford
anymore...
I would also agree with the theory that says that these two 'deep' factions ['nationalist'
vs 'globalist'] are at war...with the 'DNC-Hillary-MSM-interventionist faction' possibly on
the decline, but still powerful enough to blow up a lot of the plans that Trump and his deep
backers would like to get done...
Epstein is a whole 'nuther can of worms here and I would not be surprised if he was not
actually dead...Trump himself is deeply entangled with many of the prime players in the
Epstein web...it all depends if he is more useful alive than dead...
Btw...pulling off a deception like a fake death is kindergarten level for these kinds of
operators and the unlimited resources they possess to shape so-called 'reality' as brought to
us on our little screens...
So really I find it kind of silly that the right wingers are looking at Barr as some kind
of White Knight...there really are none of those in these circles...as much as the sheeple
would like to believe that...
re: source of "God has an infinite sense of humor"...
Was told that in 1994[?] conversation w Jerry, a fellow worker, abt the baffling condition
of Mankind. Never heard it before or since. At the time it was one of most incisive and
impinging viewpoints; it still is.
It was said to me dryly, not coy and no smile, almost plaintively as tho it would be
ignored and pass thru unrecognized. I never met a more rational or sharper mind.
Once, I remarked I was looking for an obscure book that was mentioned in another book, as
"1 of the 3 best autobios ever written in English" by someone I never heard of. J:"Who and
what?" Me:"Kropotkin and Revolutionist".
J:"Oh, sure! I think my wife still has a copy" and he brought it in next day.[An awesome
read, too!]
Thanks for your reply! I was also thinking that perhaps it was a cynical observation made
by a stoic son of a Baptist or Methodist Minister, like the retort in M*A*S*H about
how someone like that (Hawkeye, IIRC) got into the Army--"He got drafted," which caused the
audience to erupt in laughter (definitely a context-dependent joke).
flankerbandit 111
"There is a probably valid school of thought that the deep establishment has a faction that
is pro-Trump and behind the general idea of disengaging from wasteful overseas adventures,
since it is becoming clear that this is a ruinous path that the US cannot really afford
anymore..."
I think this what is occuring. And when Trump says swamp, I think it is the section of the
swamp that this faction believe set the US on a ruinous path.
Good post my friend, no wonder the demoncrazies went berserk over Trump dipping in to
their honeypot. I could never definitively find a reason for those spectacular ammunition
storage bonfires in Ukraine. I figured it was either to disable their sale or cover up
theft.
W. Gruff, thanks for the process insight.
I was long-aware the removal of the Smith-Mundt Act was loaded into the 2012 NDAA. No attempt
on Trump's watch has been made to bring a needed, modern form of it back. I didn't vote for
Trump, and until the damn looney media is reeled back into factual, in-context reporting, it
will remain obvious Trump is only expanding a variety of nefarious things on the absence of
legislation such as the S-M Act.
The globalist criminal elites will not be held responsible for any of these crimes. They're
bound together by ties of blackmail forged by guys like Epstein, mutually assured
incrimination in serial swindles which cross Left and Right political boundaries and literal
murder in the case of guys like Seth Rich.
The cozy proximity of recently-murdered Epstein himself to crypto-converso AG Barr's
family only makes me more certain that they will get away with this heist like they've done
with dozens of other billion-dollar swindles.
If they were only stealing money it would be bad enough, but the fact that these same
grifters are our "diplomats" and warmakers is positively Orwellian. Watching these petty
hoodlums play nuclear chicken with Russia so they can squeeze more shekels from the supine
Ukraine would be laughable if I could get the first-strike nightmares of my Cold War
childhood out of my head long enough to laugh.
If we assume that most politicians are latent psychopaths, they need to be more tightly controlled by the people. which means no
re-election of Senators after two terms.
Notable quotes:
"... " Politicians are more likely than people in the general population to be sociopaths . I think you would find no expert in the field of sociopathy/psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder who would dispute this... That a small minority of human beings literally have no conscience was and is a bitter pill for our society to swallow -- but it does explain a great many things, shamelessly deceitful political behavior being one." ..."
" Politicians
are more likely than people in the general population to be sociopaths . I think you would find no expert in the field of
sociopathy/psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder who would dispute this... That a small minority of human beings literally
have no conscience was and is a bitter pill for our society to swallow -- but it does explain a great many things, shamelessly
deceitful political behavior being one."
- Dr. Martha Stout, clinical psychologist and former instructor at Harvard Medical School
The answer, then and now, remains the same:
None . There is
no difference between psychopaths and politicians. Nor is there much of a difference between the havoc wreaked on innocent lives by uncaring, unfeeling, selfish, irresponsible,
parasitic criminals and
elected officials who lie to their constituents , trade political favors for campaign contributions, turn a blind eye to the
wishes of the electorate, cheat taxpayers out of hard-earned dollars, favor the corporate elite, entrench the military industrial
complex, and spare little thought for the impact their thoughtless actions and hastily passed legislation might have on defenseless
citizens.
Charismatic politicians, like criminal psychopaths,
exhibit a failure to accept responsibility for their actions , have a high sense of self-worth, are chronically unstable, have
socially deviant lifestyles, need constant stimulation, have parasitic lifestyles and possess unrealistic goals.
It doesn't matter whether you're talking about Democrats or Republicans.
Political psychopaths are all largely cut from the same pathological cloth, brimming with
seemingly easy charm and boasting calculating minds
. Such leaders eventually create pathocracies: totalitarian societies bent on power, control, and destruction of both freedom in
general and those who exercise their freedoms.
Once psychopaths gain power, the result is usually some form of totalitarian government or a pathocracy. "At that point, the
government operates against the interests
of its own people except for favoring certain groups," author James G. Long notes. "We are currently witnessing deliberate polarizations
of American citizens, illegal actions, and massive and needless acquisition of debt. This is
typical of psychopathic systems
, and very similar things happened in the Soviet Union as it overextended and collapsed."
In other words, electing a psychopath to public office is tantamount to national hara-kiri, the ritualized act of self-annihilation,
self-destruction and suicide. It signals the demise of democratic government and lays the groundwork for a totalitarian regime that
is legalistic, militaristic, inflexible, intolerant and inhuman.
Incredibly, despite clear evidence of the damage that has already been inflicted on our nation and its citizens by a psychopathic
government, voters continue to elect psychopaths to positions of power and influence.
According to investigative journalist
Zack Beauchamp , "In 2012, a group of psychologists evaluated every President from Washington to Bush II
using 'psychopathy trait estimates derived from personality
data completed by historical experts on each president.' They found that presidents tended to have the psychopath's characteristic
fearlessness and low anxiety levels -- traits that appear to help Presidents, but also
might
cause them to make reckless decisions that hurt other people's lives."
The willingness to prioritize power above all else, including the welfare of their fellow human beings, ruthlessness, callousness
and an utter lack of conscience
are among the defining traits of the sociopath.
When our own government no longer sees us as human beings with dignity and worth but as things to be manipulated, maneuvered,
mined for data, manhandled by police, conned into believing it has our best interests at heart, mistreated, jailed if we dare step
out of line, and then punished unjustly without remorse -- all the while refusing to own up to its failings -- we are no longer operating
under a constitutional republic.
Worse, psychopathology is not confined to those in high positions of government. It can
spread like a virus among the populace.
As an academic study into pathocracy
concluded , "[T]yranny does not flourish because perpetuators are helpless and ignorant of their actions. It flourishes because
they actively identify with those who promote vicious acts as virtuous."
People don't simply line up and salute. It is through one's own personal identification with a given leader, party or social order
that they become agents of good or evil.
Much depends on how leaders "
cultivate a sense of identification with their followers ," says Professor Alex Haslam. "I mean one pretty obvious thing is that
leaders talk about 'we' rather than 'I,' and actually what leadership is about is cultivating this sense of shared identity about
'we-ness' and then getting people to want to act in terms of that 'we-ness,' to promote our collective interests. . . . [We] is the
single word that has increased in the inaugural addresses over the last century . . . and the other one is 'America.'"
The goal of the modern corporate state is obvious: to promote, cultivate, and embed a sense of shared identification among its
citizens. To this end, "we the people" have become "we the police state."
We are fast becoming slaves in thrall to a faceless, nameless, bureaucratic totalitarian government machine that relentlessly
erodes our freedoms through countless laws, statutes, and prohibitions.
Any resistance to such regimes depends on the strength of opinions in the minds of those who choose to fight back. What this means
is that we the citizenry must be very careful that we are not manipulated into marching in lockstep with an oppressive regime.
But what does this really mean in practical terms?
It means holding politicians accountable for their actions and the actions of their staff using every available means at our disposal:
through investigative journalism (what used to be referred to as the Fourth Estate) that enlightens and informs, through whistleblower
complaints that expose corruption, through lawsuits that challenge misconduct, and through protests and mass political action that
remind the powers-that-be that "we the people" are the ones that call the shots.
Remember, education precedes action. Citizens need to the do the hard work of educating themselves about what the government is
doing and how to hold it accountable. Don't allow yourselves to exist exclusively in an echo chamber that is restricted to views
with which you agree. Expose yourself to multiple media sources, independent and mainstream, and think for yourself.
For that matter, no matter what your political leanings might be, don't allow your partisan bias to trump the principles that
serve as the basis for our constitutional republic. As Beauchamp notes, "A system that actually holds people accountable to the broader
conscience of society may be one of the best ways to keep conscienceless people in check."
That said, if we allow the ballot box to become our only means of pushing back against the police state, the battle is already
lost.
Resistance will require a citizenry willing to be active at the local level.
Yet as I point out in my book
Battlefield America: The War
on the American People , if you wait to act until the SWAT team is crashing through your door, until your name is placed on a
terror watch list, until you are reported for such outlawed activities as collecting rainwater or letting your children play outside
unsupervised, then it will be too late.
This much I know: we are not faceless numbers. We are not cogs in the machine. We are not slaves.
We are human beings, and for the moment, we have the opportunity to remain free -- that is, if we tirelessly advocate for our
rights and resist at every turn attempts by the government to place us in chains.
The Founders understood that our freedoms do not flow from the government. They were not given to us only to be taken away by
the will of the State. They are inherently ours. In the same way, the government's appointed purpose is not to threaten or undermine
our freedoms, but to safeguard them.
Until we can get back to this way of thinking, until we can remind our fellow Americans what it really means to be free , and
until we can stand firm in the face of threats to our freedoms, we will continue to be treated like slaves in thrall to a bureaucratic
police state run by political psychopaths.
The solution, dear Zerohedge, is to pass a law demanding any official's psychological profile for public scrutiny. (By humans
and by our superiors, Artificial Intelligence.)
Bravo! The inner workings of psychopathy. All is justified. Included the Joker cults 911 mass murder with dancing after the
fact. I want to see real dancing Israelis now. Dancing like hell to try to save their own murderous lives now. That's what we
do with murderers out here in the west. We line them up and watch them DANCE for their lives.
What I find hilarious is the psychopathic politicians/bureaucrats/cia-fbi types/all matter of deep staters getting upset at
Trumps words/tweets/style.
Pilfering the country for profit perfectly ok. Unseemly (by their standards) speech or tweets are not.
See, while they are pilfering Uncle Sam, ie you, they do it with charm (one of the strongest signs of a psychopath) and manners.
What a narcissist/psychopath fears most is being outed as a fraud. And unfortunately, as long as Washington DC plays nice, throws
in some lines about American values, helping the less fortunate, helping the kids, the majority fall in line with their pilfering,
and whatever they want goes.
What they fear most about Trump is he hurts their Big Government brand. Either by his rhetoric, his logic, his investigative
actions, or his brassness. This also includes Republicans, who only fell in line when the base forced them to fall in line.
Jeffrey Epstein accuser Jennifer Araroz filed an amended complaint Tuesday which names
two accomplices
in the convicted pedophile's alleged sex-trafficking operation
along with more than 20
corporate entities, according to
CNN
.
While Epstein's alleged 'madam' Ghislaine Maxwell has been accused of actively participating
in Epstein's sex crimes, the new complaint asserts that "secretary" Lesley Groff and former executive
assistant Cimberly Espinosa "participated with and assisted Epstein in
maintaining and
protecting his sex trafficking ring,
ensuring that approximately
three girls a day
were made available to him for his sexual pleasure
."
"The co-conspirators provided organizational support to Epstein's sex trafficking ring,
identifying and hiring the recruiters of underage girls
for Epstein's sexual pleasure,
scheduling appointments with these underage girls for Epstein's sexual pleasure
,
intimidating potential witnesses to Epstein's sex trafficking operation, and generally providing
administrative oversight of his sex trafficking operation
and ensuring it remained secret
,"
the complaint continues.
"He raped me, forcefully raped me"
Araoz told
NBC News
in July.
The 32-year-old Epstein accuser says she was 14-years-old when the abuse began. "
I was
terrified, and I was telling him to stop. 'Please stop,'
" Araoz continud.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/CYNnkAJHk_w
Groff's attorney, Michael Bachner, told CNN "As an executive assistant to Epstein, Lesley worked as
part of a professional staff that included in-house attorneys, accountants, an office manager and
other office staff."
"Lesley's job included making appointments for Mr. Epstein as directed by him, taking his messages,
and setting up high-level meetings with CEOs, business executives, scientists, politicians and
celebrities," the statement continues - adding "
At no time during Lesley's employment with
Epstein did she ever engage in any misconduct.
"
Also included in the complaint are the executors of Epstein's estate (one of whom was reportedly
seen
removing a bag of items
the day after Epstein's death).
In August, Araoz
told reporters
that her abuse at the hands of Epstein and his enablers "robbed me of my youth, my
identity, my innocence, my self-worth."
Brunel ready to talk
On Monday, an attorney for Epstein's former confidant, business partner, and model scout
Jean-Luc-Brenel says he's ready to talk to authorities, according to the
Telegraph
.
The Paris prosecutor's office opened a preliminary investigation in August into any possible
Epstein victims in its territory, and Mr Brunel is of potential interest to investigators.
Last month police searched Karin Models, which Mr Brunel founded.
In court filings, Virginia Guiffre, a long-time accuser of Epstein, claimed teenage girls
were brought to the US by Brunel and were "farmed out" by him to have sex with Epstein
.
Ms Guiffre also claims she was forced to have sex with Brunel several times. Brunel denies both
allegations.
His lawyer Corinne Dreyfus-Schmidt said Mr Brunel "firmly contests accusations in the press" and
"will reserve his statements for justice officials."
On Monday Ms Dreyfus-Schmidt, said that her client has notified the Paris prosecutor's office
that
he is at the disposition of judicial officials.
-
Telegraph
According to Epstein accuser Virgina Giuffre Roberts, Brunel "would bring young girls (ranging to
ages as young as twelve) to the United States for sexual purposes and farm them out to his friends,
especially Epstein."
"Brunel would offer the girls "modeling" jobs. Many of the girls came from poor countries or
impoverished backgrounds, and he lured them in with a promise of making good money."
In the 1980s Brunel was featured in a 60 Minutes expose after having gained a reputation for
sleeping with many of his underage models. His name was prominently featured in a series of phone
messages recovered from trash pulls of Epstein's mansion.
A recent interview given by a former high-ranking official in Israeli military
intelligence has claimed that Jeffrey Epstein's sexual blackmail enterprise was an Israel
intelligence operation run for the purpose of entrapping powerful individuals and politicians
in the United States and abroad.
Since the apparent death by suicide of Jeffrey Epstein in a Manhattan prison, much has come
to light about his depraved activities and methods used to sexually abuse underage girls and
entrap the rich and powerful for the purposes of blackmail. Epstein's ties to intelligence,
described in-depth in a recent MintPress investigative
series , have continued to receive minimal mainstream media coverage, which has essentially
moved on from the Epstein scandal despite the fact that his many co-conspirators remain on the
loose.
For those who have examined Epstein's ties to intelligence, there are clear links to both
U.S. intelligence and Israeli intelligence, leaving it somewhat open to debate as to which
country's intelligence apparatus was closest to Epstein and most involved in his
blackmail/sex-trafficking activities. A recent interview given by a former high-ranking
official in Israeli military intelligence has claimed that Epstein's sexual blackmail
enterprise was an Israel intelligence operation run for the purpose of entrapping powerful
individuals and politicians in the United States and abroad.
In an
interview with Zev Shalev, former CBS News executive producer and award-winning
investigative journalist for Narativ , the former senior executive for Israel's
Directorate of Military Intelligence, Ari Ben-Menashe, claimed not only to have met Jeffrey
Epstein and his alleged madam, Ghislaine Maxwell, back in the 1980s, but that both Epstein and
Maxwell were already working with Israeli intelligence during that time period.
"They found a niche"
In an
interview last week with the independent outlet Narativ , Ben-Menashe, who himself
was involved in Iran-Contra arms deals, told his interviewer Zev Shalev that he had been
introduced to Jeffrey Epstein by Robert Maxwell in the mid-1980s while Maxwell's and
Ben-Menashe's involvement with Iran-Contra was ongoing. Ben-Menashe did not specify the year he
met Epstein.
Ben-Menashe told Shalev that "he [Maxwell] wanted us to accept him [Epstein] as part of our
group . I'm not denying that we were at the time a group that it was Nick Davies [Foreign
Editor of the Maxwell-Owned Daily Mirror ], it was Maxwell, it was myself and our team
from Israel, we were doing what we were doing." Past reporting by Seymour Hersh and others
revealed
that Maxwell, Davies and Ben-Menashe were involved in the transfer and sale of military
equipment and weapons from Israel to Iran on behalf of Israeli intelligence during this time
period.
He then added that Maxwell had stated during the introduction that "your Israeli bosses have
already approved" of Epstein. Shalev later noted that Maxwell "had an extensive network in
Israel at the time, which included the then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, according to
Ben-Menashe."
Ben-Menashe went on to say that he had "met him [Epstein] a few times in Maxwell's office,
that was it." He also said he was not aware of Epstein being involved in arms deals for anyone
else he knew at the time, but that Maxwell wanted to involve Epstein in the arms transfer in
which he, Davies and Ben-Menashe were engaged on Israel's behalf.
However, as MintPress reported in Part
IV of the investigative series " Inside the Jeffrey Epstein
Scandal: Too Big to Fail ," Epstein was involved with several arms dealers during this
period of time, some of whom were directly involved in Iran-Contra arms deals between Israel
and Iran. For instance, after leaving Bear Stearns in 1981, Epstein began
working in the realms of shadow finance as a self-described "financial bounty hunter,"
where he would both hunt down and hide money for powerful people. One of these powerful
individuals was Adnan Khashoggi, a Saudi arms dealer with close ties to both Israeli and U.S.
intelligence and one of the main brokers of Iran-Contra arms deals between Israel and Iran.
Epstein would later forge a business relationship with a CIA front company involved in another
aspect of Iran-Contra, the airline Southern Air Transport, on behalf of Leslie Wexner's
company, The Limited.
The day Jeffrey Epstein turned up dead in a New York jail cell, I decided I needed to write
something about Eyes Wide Shut (1999), Stanley Kubrick's last and weakest movie.
Epstein has quickly faded from the headlines, so let me remind
you briefly of who he was. Epstein was an American Jew who enjoyed immense wealth from
unknown sources, hob-knobbed with the global elite, including Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew,
and was a pervert with a taste for underage girls, meaning that he was a serial rapist. He is
also accused of sharing these women with his wealthy and powerful friends, which would have
implicated them in marital infidelity and statutory rape, making them subject to blackmail.
In 2006, the FBI began investigating Epstein, tracking down over 100 women. In 2007, he was
indicted by the federal government on multiple counts of sex trafficking and conspiracy to
traffic minors for sex. If convicted, he and his co-conspirators could have spent the rest of
their lives in prison. But US Attorney Alex Acosta was told to go easy on Epstein, because "he
belonged to intelligence." Epstein received a sweetheart deal. He pled guilty to two state
prostitution charges and spent 13 months at a Florida county jail with generous work release.
Epstein's co-conspirators were not prosecuted at all. The records were sealed, and would have
remained so, were it not for the efforts of reporter Julie Brown , whose stories
led to the unsealing of Epstein's records, followed by his arrest and death in custody.
The most plausible explanation for Epstein's mysterious life and death is that he was a pimp
who implicated rich and powerful men and then blackmailed them, financially and politically. If
he enjoyed the patronage of "intelligence," it was most likely Israeli. When he was first
arrested, he called in favors from his patrons (and probably from his victims as well), to
avoid federal prosecution, which could have embarrassed many powerful people. When Epstein was
re-arrested, there was no way he could escape prosecution, so he was murdered to protect the
secrets of any (or all) of his patrons and victims.
... ... ...
The higher one climbs in the social hierarchy, the closer one approaches the inner party,
the greater the degeneracy and the more ferocious the assault on marital fidelity.
... ... ...
So why would the power-elites of a society engage in group perversion? The richer a person
is, the more opportunities there are for self-indulgence. After a while, though, such people
get jaded and hunger for exotic pleasures, including ones that violate the rules of morality
and the laws of society. It takes a highly developed sense of honor not to abuse the freedom
granted by great wealth. Even when such an aristocratic ethos was cultivated, there were many
spectacular failures. Moreover, today's oligarchy has dispensed with the pretenses of honor
entirely.
...Beyond routine degeneracy, elites also use sexual perversion as a tool of control. Just
as street gangs require prospective members to sully themselves with crimes to join, elites
have similar rituals, the more morally repulsive the better.
The prospects are eager to incriminate themselves because joining the gang will bring them
power. But self-incrimination also gives the gang power over its members, who must obey lest
they be exposed and humiliated. And of course worse sanctions are waiting in the wings, as
Jeffrey Epstein reminds us.
... ... ...
But for all its faults, Eyes Wide Shut has two important messages to which today's
Dissident Rightists are particularly receptive. It dramatizes important truths about man-woman
relationships and displays how sexual perversion is a tool of elite control. If you already
know the score on these matters, however, you might not want to suffer through two hours and
forty minutes of Cruise and Kidman.
"The US served as a benevolent hegemon,
administering the occasional rap on the knuckles
to those acting in bad faith"
". Meanwhile, the system's multilateral institutions,
especially the International Monetary Fund,
helped countries in dire need of funds,
provided they followed the rules."
Behind the escalating global conflict over trade and technology is a larger breakdown of the
postwar rules-based order, which was based on a belief that any country's growth benefits
all. Now that China is threatening to compete directly with the United States, support for
the system that made that possible has disappeared.
By RAGHURAM G. RAJAN
CHICAGO – Another day, another attack on trade. Why is it that every dispute –
whether over intellectual property (IP), immigration, environmental damage, or war
reparations – now produces new threats to trade?
For much of the last century, the United States managed and protected the rules-based
trading system it created at the end of World War II. That system required a fundamental
break from the pre-war environment of mutual suspicion between competing powers. The US urged
everyone to see that growth and development for one country could benefit all countries
through increased trade and investment.
Under the new dispensation, rules were enacted to constrain selfish behavior and coercive
threats by the economically powerful. The US served as a benevolent hegemon, administering
the occasional rap on the knuckles to those acting in bad faith. Meanwhile, the system's
multilateral institutions, especially the International Monetary Fund, helped countries in
dire need of funds, provided they followed the rules....
"The US served as a benevolent hegemon, administering the occasional rap on the knuckles to
those acting in bad faith"
USA foreign policy since 70th was controlled by neocons who as a typical Trotskyites
(neoliberalism is actually Trotskyism for the rich) were/are hell-bent of world domination
and practice gangster capitalism in foreign policy. Bolton attitude to UN is very symptomatic
for the neocons as a whole.
Madeline "not so bright" Allbright was the first swan. As well as Clinton attempts to
bankrupt and subdue Russia and criminal (in a sense of no permission from the UN) attack on
Yugoslavia. Both backfired: Russia became permanently hostile. The fact he and his coterie
were not yet tried by something like Nuremberg tribunal is only due to the USA dominance at
this stage of history.
The truth is that the dissolution of the USSR the USA foreign policy became completely
unhinged. And inside the country the elite became cannibalistic, as there was no external
threat to its dominance in the form of the USSR.
The USA stated to behave like a typical Imperial state (New Rome, or, more correctly,
London) accepting no rules/laws that are not written by themselves (and when it is convenient
to obey them) with the only difference from the classic imperial states that the hegemony it
not based on the military presence/occupation ( like was the case with British empire)
Although this is not completely true as there are 761 US Military Bases across the planet
and only 46 Countries with no US military presence. Of them, seven countries with 13 New
Military Bases were added since 09/11/2001. In 2001 the US had a quarter million troops
posted abroad.
Still as an imperial state that is the center of neoliberal empire the USA relies more on
financial instruments and neoliberal comprador elite inside the country.
With the collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008 the USA centered neoliberal empire
experiences first cracks. Brexit and election of Trump widened the cracks in a sense of
further legitimizing the ruling neoliberal elite (big middle finger for Hillary was addressed
to the elite as whole)
If oil price exceed $100 per barrel there will yet another crack or even repetition of the
2008 Great Recession on a new level (although we may argue that the Great Recession never
ended and just entered in Summers terms "permanent stagnation" phase)
Although currently with unhinged Trump at the helm the USA empire still going strong in
forcing vassals and competitors to reconsider their desire to challenge the USA. Trump
currently is trying to neutralize the treat from China by rejecting classic neoliberal
globalization mechanism as well as signed treaties like WTO. He might be successful in the
short run.
In the long run the future does not look too bright as crimes committed by the USA during
triumphal period of neoliberalism hangs like albatross around the USA neck.
EU now definitely wants to play its own game as Macron recently stated and which Merkel
tacitly supports. If EU allies with Russia it will became No.1 force in the world with the
USA No. 2. With severe consequences for the USA.
If Russia allied with China the USA No.1 position will hinge of keeping EU vassals in
check and NATO in place. Without them it will became No.2 with fatal consequences for the
dollar as world reserve currency and sudden change of the USA financial position due to the
level of external debt and required devaluation of the dollar.
Looks like 75 year after WWII the world started to self-organize a countervailing force
trying to tame the USA with some interest expressed by such players as EU, Russia, China,
India, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia. As well as ( in the past; and possibly
in the future as neoliberal counterrevolutions in both countries probably will end badly) by
Brazil and Argentina.
Only Canada, Australia and probably UK can be counted as the reliable parts of the USA
empire. That's not much.
"If Russia allied with China the USA No.1 position "........
Think Italy moving into the Axis in 1937? Or the Soviet German Non Aggression Pact.
Nuclear weapons removes the incentive for large "rearmaments" or not?
Would the Britain to France 1938 relationship describe the US to EU? Thinking in 1939
(1914?) terms Europe is less stitched together than in 1936.
According to the Washington Post, Epstein's legal team is claiming that Sigal Mandelker is
one of the people at the DOJ who signed off on the lenient plea deal. This is eye popping,
because Donald Trump ended up appointing Mandelker as Under Secretary of the Treasury. Epstein
is also claiming that Alice Fisher signed off on the deal, which is also eye popping when you
consider that according to Politico, Donald Trump interviewed
Fisher to be FBI Director. Again, this is on top of Trump having appointed Alexander Acosta as
his Secretary of Labor.
Fisher is telling the Washington Post that she did not approve the Epstein deal. There's
obviously a paper trail for this kind of plea deal showing who was and was not involved, and
it'll surface. If Epstein is falsely accusing these people, it'll only make his legal troubles
even worse. What stands out is that Epstein and Trump clearly have conflicting goals
here
Jeffrey Epstein is trying to prove that some of the people currently running the federal
government are the same people who already gave him a plea deal, and thus they shouldn't get to
bring new charges against him for the same crimes. That's a feeble argument that's unlikely to
go anywhere, but it's all that Epstein has left. It just so happens that in the process,
Epstein is pointing to additional Trump people who were (allegedly) in on the original plot to
let Epstein off the hook. This whole thing is getting uglier by the minute.
The question why the USA intelligence agencies were "unaware" about Epstein activities is an interesting one. Similar question can
be asked about Hillary "activities" related to "Clinton cash".
Actually the way the USA elite deal with scandals is to ostracize any whistleblower and silence any media that tryt to dig the story.
Open repression including physical elimination is seldom used those days as indirect methods are quite effective.
Notable quotes:
"... Either we root out every last source of rot by investigating, indicting and jailing every wrong-doer and everyone who conspired to protect the guilty in the Epstein case, or America will have sealed its final fall. ..."
"... If you doubt this, then please explain how 1) the NSA, CIA and FBI didn't know what Jeffrey Epstein was up to, and with whom; 2) Epstein was free to pursue his sexual exploitation of minors for years prior to his wrist-slap conviction and for years afterward; 3) Epstein, the highest profile and most at-risk prisoner in the nation, was left alone and the security cameras recording his cell and surroundings were "broken." ..."
"... America's ruling class has crucified whistleblowers , especially those uncovering fraud in the defense (military-industrial-security) and financial (tax evasion) sectors and blatant violations of public trust, civil liberties and privacy. ..."
"... Needless to say, a factual accounting of corruption, cronyism, incompetence, self-serving exploitation of the many by the few, etc. is not welcome in America. Look at the dearth of investigative resources America's corporate media is devoting to digging down to the deepest levels of rot in the Epstein case. ..."
Either we root out every last source of rot by investigating, indicting and jailing every wrong-doer and everyone who conspired
to protect the guilty in the Epstein case, or America will have sealed its final fall.
When you discover rot in an apparently sound structure, the first question is: how far has the rot penetrated? If the rot
has reached the foundation and turned it to mush, the structure is one wind-storm from collapse.
How deep has the rot of corruption, fraud, abuse of power, betrayal of the public trust, blatant criminality and insiders protecting
the guilty penetrated America's key public and private institutions? It's difficult to tell, as the law-enforcement and security
agencies are themselves hopelessly compromised.
If you doubt this, then please explain how 1) the NSA, CIA and FBI didn't know what Jeffrey Epstein was up to, and with whom;
2) Epstein was free to pursue his sexual exploitation of minors for years prior to his wrist-slap conviction and for years afterward;
3) Epstein, the highest profile and most at-risk prisoner in the nation, was left alone and the security cameras recording his cell
and surroundings were "broken."
If this all strikes you as evidence that America's security and law-enforcement institutions are functioning at a level that's
above reproach, then 1) you're a well-paid shill who's protecting the guilty lest your own misdeeds come to light or 2) your
consumption of mind-bending meds is off the charts.
How deep has the rot gone in America's ruling elite? One way to measure the depth of the rot is to ask how whistleblowers
who've exposed the ugly realities of insider dealing, malfeasance, tax evasion, cover-ups, etc. have fared.
America's ruling class has crucified whistleblowers , especially those uncovering fraud in the defense (military-industrial-security)
and financial (tax evasion) sectors and blatant violations of public trust, civil liberties and privacy.
Needless to say, a factual accounting of corruption, cronyism, incompetence, self-serving exploitation of the many by the
few, etc. is not welcome in America. Look at the dearth of investigative resources America's corporate media is devoting to digging
down to the deepest levels of rot in the Epstein case.
The closer wrong-doing and wrong-doers are to protected power-elites, the less attention the mass media devotes to them.
... ... ...
Here are America's media, law enforcement/security agencies and "leadership" class: they speak no evil, see no evil and
hear no evil, in the misguided belief that their misdirection, self-service and protection of the guilty will make us buy the narrative
that America's ruling elite and all the core institutions they manage aren't rotten to the foundations.
Either we root out every last source of rot by investigating, indicting and jailing every wrong-doer and everyone who conspired
to protect the guilty in the Epstein case, or America will have sealed its final fall.
While details on Epstein death are not interesting (he ended like a regular pimp) the corruption of high level officials his case
revealed in more troubling.
Notable quotes:
"... Epstein was released, and various lawsuits were filed against him and settled out of court, presumably in exchange for silence. The media was quiet or complimentary as Epstein worked his way back into high society. ..."
"... What would I do if I were Epstein? I'd try to get the President, the Attorney-General, or the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to shut down the investigation before it went public. I'd have all my friends and all my money try to pressure them. If it failed and I were arrested, it would be time for the backup plan -- the Deal. I'd try to minimize my prison time, and, just as important, to be put in one of the nicer federal prisons where I could associate with financial wizards and drug lords instead of serial killers, black nationalists, and people with bad breath. ..."
"... What about the powerful people Epstein would turn in to get his deal? They aren't as smart as Epstein, but they would know the Deal was coming -- that Epstein would be quite happy to sacrifice them in exchange for a prison with a slightly better golf course. What could they do? There's only one good option -- to kill Epstein, and do it quickly, before he could start giving information samples to the U. S. Attorney. ..."
"... Trying to kill informers is absolutely routine in the mafia, or indeed, for gangs of any kind. ..."
"... Famous politicians, unlike gangsters, don't have full-time professional hit men on their staffs, but that's just common sense -- politicians rarely need hit men, so it makes more sense to hire them on a piecework basis than as full-time employees. How would they find hit men? You or I wouldn't know how to start, but it would be easy for them. Rich powerful people have bodyguards. Bodyguards are for defense, but the guys who do defense know guys who do offense. And Epstein's friends are professional networkers. One reporter said of Ghislaine Maxwell, "Her Rolodex would blow away almost anyone else's I can think of -- probably even Rupert Murdoch's." They know people who know people. Maybe I'm six degrees of separation from a mafia hit man, but not Ghislaine Maxwell. I bet she knows at least one mafioso personally who knows more than one hit man. ..."
"... Or, if you can hire a New York Times reporter for $30,000 ( as Epstein famously did a couple of years ago), you can spend $200,000 on a competent hit man to make double sure. Government incompetence does not lend support to the suicide theory; quite the opposite. ..."
"... Statutory rape is not a federal crime ..."
"... At any time from 2008 to the present, Florida and New York prosecutors could have gone after Epstein and easily convicted him. The federal nonprosecution agreement did not bind them. And, of course, it is not just Epstein who should have been prosecuted. Other culprits such as Prince Andrew are still at large. ..."
"... Why isn't anybody but Ann Coulter talking about Barry Krischer and Ric Bradshaw, the Florida state prosecutor and sheriff who went easy on Epstein, or the New York City police who let him violate the sex offender regulations? ..."
"... Krischer refused to use the evidence the Palm Beach police gave him except to file a no-jail-time prostitution charge (they eventually went to Acosta, the federal prosecutor, instead, who got a guilty plea with an 18-month sentence). Bradshaw let him spend his days at home instead of at jail. ..."
"... In New York State, the county prosecutor, Cyrus Vance, fought to prevent Epstein from being classified as a Level III sex offender. Once he was, the police didn't enforce the rule that required him to check in every 90 days. ..."
"... Trafficking is a federal offense, so it would have to involve commerce across state lines. It also must involve sale and profit, not just personal pleasure. ..."
"... Here, the publicity and investigative lead is what is most important, because these are reputable and rich offenders for whom publicity is a bigger threat than losing in court. They have very good lawyers, and probably aren't guilty of federal crimes anyway, just state crimes, in corrupt states where they can use clout more effectively. Thus, killing potential informants before they tell the public is more important than killing informants to prevent their testimony at trial, a much more leisurely task. ..."
"... Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is the only government official who is clearly trustworthy, because he could have stopped the 2019 Epstein indictment and he didn't. I don't think Attorney-General Barr could have blocked it, and I don't think President Trump could have except by firing Berman. ..."
"... "It was that heart-wrenching series that caught the attention of Congress. Ben Sasse, the Republican senator from Nebraska, joined with his Democratic colleagues and demanded to know how justice had been so miscarried. ..."
"... President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein. He is too canny to have gotten involved with him, and the press has been eagerly at work to find the slightest connection between him and Epstein and have come up dry as far as anything but acquaintanceship. But we must worry about a cover-up anyway, because rich and important people would be willing to pay Trump a lot in money or, more likely, in political support, if he does a cover-up. ..."
"... he sealing was completely illegal, as the appeals court politely but devastatingly noted in 2019, and the documents were released a day or two before Epstein died. Someone should check into Judge Sweet's finance and death. He was an ultra-Establishment figure -- a Yale man, alas, like me, and Taft School -- so he might just have been protecting what he considered good people, but his decision to seal the court records was grossly improper. ..."
"... Did Epstein have any dealings in sex, favors, or investments with any Republican except Wexner? ..."
"... Dershowitz, Mitchell, Clinton, Richardson, Dubin, George Stephanopolous, Lawrence Krauss, Katie Couric, Mortimer Zuckerman, Chelsea Handler, Cyrus Vance, and Woody Allen, are all Democrats. Did Epstein ever make use of Republicans? Don't count Trump, who has not been implicated despite the media's best efforts and was probably not even a Republican back in the 90's. Don't count Ken Starr– he's just one of Epstein's lawyers. Don't count scientists who just took money gifts from him. (By the way, Epstein made very little in the way of political contributions , though that little went mostly to Democrats ( $139,000 vs. $18,000 . I bet he extracted more from politicians than he gave to them. ..."
"... What role did Israeli politician Ehud Barak play in all this? ..."
"... Remember Marc Rich? He was a billionaire who fled the country to avoid a possible 300 years prison term, and was pardoned by Bill Clinton in 2001. Ehud Barak, one of Epstein's friends, was one of the people who asked for Rich to be pardoned . Epstein, his killers, and other rich people know that as a last resort they can flee the country and wait for someone like Clinton to come to office and pardon them. ..."
"... "intelligence" is also the kind of excuse people make up so they don't have to say "political pressure." ..."
"... James Patterson and John Connolly published Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him , and All the Justice that Money Can Buy: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein . Conchita Sarnoff published TrafficKing: The Jeffrey Epstein Case. I never heard of these before 2019. Did the media bury them? ..."
"... There seems to have been an orchestrated attempt to divert attention to the issue of suicides in prison. Subtle differences in phrasing might help reveal who's been paid off. National Review had an article, "The Conspiracy Theories about Jeffrey Epstein's Death Don't Make Much Sense." The article contains no evidence or argument to support the headline's assertion, just bluster about "madness" and "conspiracy theories". Who else publishes stuff like this? ..."
"... The New York Times was, to its credit, willing to embarrass other publications by 2019. But the Times itself had been part of the cover-up in previous years . Who else was? ..."
"... Not one question involving Maurene Comey, then? She was one of the SDNY prosecutors assigned to this case, and her name has been significantly played down (if at all visible) in the reportage before or after Epstein's death. That she just "happened" to be on this case at all is quite an eyebrow raiser especially with her father under the ongoing "Spygate" investigation ..."
"... As important as it is to go on asking questions about the life and death of Jeffrey Epstein, I have to admit that personally I'm just not interested. I've always found people of his social class to be vaguely repulsive even without the sordid sex allegations. Just their demanding personalities, just the thought of them hanging around in their terrycloth jogging suits, sneering at the world with their irrefrangible arrogance, is enough to make me shudder. I want nothing of their nightmare world; and when they die, I couldn't care less. ..."
"... We are supposed to have faith in this rubbish? The cameras malfunctioned. He didn't have a cellmate. The guards were tired and forced to work overtime. ..."
"... One tiny mention of Jewish magnate Les Wexner but no mention how he & the Bronfmans founded the 'Mega Group' of ultra-Zionist billionaires regularly meeting as to how they could prop up the Jewish state by any & all means, Wexner being the source of many Epstein millions, the original buyer of the NYC mansion he transferred to Epstein etc the excellent Epstein series by Whitney Webb on Mint Press covering all this https://www.mintpressnews.com/author/whitney-webb/ ..."
"... ex-OSS father Donald Barr had written a 'fantasy novel' on sex slavery with scenes of rape of underage teens, 'Space Relations', written whilst Don Barr was headmaster of the Dalton school, which gave Epstein his first job, teaching teens ..."
The Jeffrey Epstein case is notable for the ups and downs in media coverage it's gotten over the years. Everybody, it seems, in
New York society knew by 2000 that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were corrupting teenage girls, but the press wouldn't cover
it. Articles by New York in 2002 and
Vanity Fair in 2003 alluded to it gently,
while probing Epstein's finances more closely. In 2005, the Palm Beach police investigated. The county prosecutor, Democrat Barry
Krischer, wouldn't prosecute for more than prostitution, so they went to the federal prosecutor, Republican Alexander Acosta, and
got the FBI involved. Acosta's office prepared an indictment, but before it was filed, he made a deal: Epstein agreed to plead guilty
to a state law felony and receive a prison term of 18 months. In exchange, the federal interstate sex trafficking charges would not
be prosecuted by Acosta's office. Epstein was officially at the county jail for 13 months, where the county officials under Democratic
Sheriff Ric Bradshaw gave him scandalously
easy treatment , letting him spend his days outside, and letting him serve a year of probation in place of the last 5 months
of his sentence. Acosta's office complained, but it was a county jail, not a federal jail, so he was powerless.
Epstein was released, and various lawsuits were filed against him and settled out of court, presumably in exchange for silence.
The media was quiet or complimentary as Epstein worked his way back into high society. Two books were written about the affair, and
fell flat. The FBI became interested again around 2011 (
a little known fact
) and maybe things were happening behind the scenes, but the next big event was in 2018 when the Miami Herald published a
series of investigative articles rehashing what had happened.
In 2019 federal prosecutors indicted Epstein, he was put in jail, and
he mysteriously died. Now, after much complaining in the press about how awful jails are and how many people commit suicide, things
are quiet again, at least until the Justice Department and
the State of Florida finish their
investigation a few years from now. (For details and more links, see " Investigation: Jeffrey Epstein
"at Medium.com and " Jeffrey Epstein " at Wikipedia
.)
I'm an expert in the field of "game theory", strategic thinking. What would I do if I were Epstein? I'd try to get the President,
the Attorney-General, or the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to shut down the investigation before it went public.
I'd have all my friends and all my money try to pressure them. If it failed and I were arrested, it would be time for the backup
plan -- the Deal. I'd try to minimize my prison time, and, just as important, to be put in one of the nicer federal prisons where
I could associate with financial wizards and drug lords instead of serial killers, black nationalists, and people with bad breath.
That's what Epstein would do. What about the powerful people Epstein would turn in to get his deal? They aren't as smart as Epstein,
but they would know the Deal was coming -- that Epstein would be quite happy to sacrifice them in exchange for a prison with a slightly
better golf course. What could they do? There's only one good option -- to kill Epstein, and do it quickly, before he could start
giving information samples to the U. S. Attorney.
Trying to kill informers is absolutely routine in the mafia, or indeed, for gangs of any kind. The reason people call such talk
"conspiracy theories" when it comes to Epstein is that his friends are WASPs and Jews, not Italians and Mexicans. But WASPs and Jews
are human too. They want to protect themselves. Famous politicians, unlike gangsters, don't have full-time professional hit men on
their staffs, but that's just common sense -- politicians rarely need hit men, so it makes more sense to hire them on a piecework
basis than as full-time employees. How would they find hit men? You or I wouldn't know how to start, but it would be easy for them.
Rich powerful people have bodyguards. Bodyguards are for defense, but the guys who do defense know guys who do offense. And Epstein's
friends are professional networkers.
One reporter said
of Ghislaine Maxwell, "Her Rolodex would blow away almost anyone else's I can think of -- probably even Rupert Murdoch's." They know
people who know people. Maybe I'm six degrees of separation from a mafia hit man, but not Ghislaine Maxwell. I bet she knows at least
one mafioso personally who knows more than one hit man.
In light of this, it would be very surprising if someone with a spare $50 million to spend to solve the Epstein problem didn't
give it a try. A lot of people can be bribed for $50 million. Thus, we should have expected to see bribery attempts. If none were
detected, it must have been because prison workers are not reporting they'd been approached.
Some
people say that government incompetence is always a better explanation than government malfeasance. That's obviously wrong --
when an undeserving business gets a contract, it's not always because the government official in charge was just not paying attention.
I can well believe that prisons often take prisoners off of suicide watch too soon, have guards who go to sleep and falsify records,
remove cellmates from prisoners at risk of suicide or murder, let the TV cameras watching their most important prisoners go on the
blink, and so forth. But that cuts both ways.
Remember, in the case of Epstein, we'd expect a murder attempt whether the warden of
the most important federal jail in the country is competent or not. If the warden is incompetent, we should expect that murder attempt
to succeed. Murder becomes all the more more plausible. Instead of spending $50 million to bribe 20 guards and the warden, you just
pay some thug $30,000 to walk in past the snoring guards, open the cell door, and strangle the sleeping prisoner, no fancy James
Bond necessary. Or, if you can hire a New York Times reporter for $30,000 (
as Epstein famously did a couple of years ago), you can spend $200,000 on a competent hit man to make double sure. Government
incompetence does not lend support to the suicide theory; quite the opposite.
Now to my questions.
Why is nobody blaming the Florida and New York state prosecutors for not prosecuting Epstein and others for statutory rape?
Statutory rape is not a federal crime, so it is not something the Justice Dept. is supposed to investigate or prosecute. They
are going after things like interstate sex trafficking. Interstate sex trafficking is generally much harder to prove than statutory
rape, which is very easy if the victims will testify.
At any time from 2008 to the present, Florida and New York prosecutors could have gone after Epstein and easily convicted him.
The federal nonprosecution agreement did not bind them. And, of course, it is not just Epstein who should have been prosecuted. Other
culprits such as Prince Andrew are still at large.
Note that if even if the evidence is just the girl's word against Ghislaine Maxwell's or Prince Andrew's, it's still quite possible
to get a jury to convict. After all, who would you believe, in a choice between Maxwell, Andrew, and Anyone Else in the World? For
an example of what can be done if the government is eager to convict, instead of eager to protect important people, see
the 2019 Cardinal
Pell case in Australia. He was convicted by the secret testimony of a former choirboy, the only complainant, who claimed Pell
had committed indecent acts during a chance encounter after Mass before Pell had even unrobed. Naturally, the only cardinal to be
convicted of anything in the Catholic Church scandals is also the one who's done the most to fight corruption. Where there's a will,
there's a way to prosecute. It's even easier to convict someone if he's actually guilty.
Why isn't anybody but Ann Coulter talking about Barry Krischer and Ric Bradshaw, the Florida state prosecutor and sheriff who went
easy on Epstein, or the New York City police who let him violate the sex offender regulations?
Krischer refused to use the evidence the Palm Beach police gave him except to file a no-jail-time prostitution charge (they eventually
went to Acosta, the federal prosecutor, instead, who got a guilty plea with an 18-month sentence). Bradshaw let him spend his days
at home instead of at jail.
In New York State, the county prosecutor, Cyrus Vance, fought to prevent Epstein from being classified
as a Level III sex offender. Once he was, the
police didn't enforce the
rule that required him to check in every 90 days.
How easy would it have been to prove in 2016 or 2019 that Epstein and his people were guilty of federal sex trafficking?
Not easy, I should think. It wouldn't be enough to prove that Epstein debauched teenagers. Trafficking is a federal offense, so
it would have to involve commerce across state lines. It also must involve sale and profit, not just personal pleasure.
The 2019 indictment
is weak on this. The "interstate commerce" looks like it's limited to Epstein making phone calls between Florida and New York. This
is why I am not completely skeptical when former U.S. Attorney Acosta says that the 2008 nonprosecution deal was reasonable. He had
strong evidence the Epstein violated Florida state law -- but that wasn't relevant. He had to prove violations of federal law.
Why didn't Epstein ask the Court, or the Justice Dept., for permission to have an unarmed guard share his cell with him?
Epstein had no chance at bail without bribing the judge, but this request would have been reasonable. That he didn't request a
guard is, I think, the strongest evidence that he wanted to die. If he didn't commit suicide himself, he was sure making it easy
for someone else to kill him.
Could Epstein have used the safeguard of leaving a trove of photos with a friend or lawyer to be published if he died an unnatural
death?
Well, think about it -- Epstein's lawyer was Alan Dershowitz. If he left photos with someone like Dershowitz, that someone could
earn a lot more by using the photos for blackmail himself than by dutifully carrying out his perverted customer's instructions. The
evidence is just too valuable, and Epstein was someone whose friends weren't the kind of people he could trust. Probably not even
his brother.
Who is in danger of dying next?
Prison workers from guard to warden should be told that if they took bribes, their lives are now in danger. Prison guards may
not be bright enough to realize this. Anybody who knows anything important about Epstein should be advised to publicize their information
immediately. That is the best way to stay alive.
This is not like a typical case where witnesses get killed so they won't testify.
It's not like with gangsters. Here, the publicity and investigative lead is what is most important, because these are reputable and
rich offenders for whom publicity is a bigger threat than losing in court. They have very good lawyers, and probably aren't guilty
of federal crimes anyway, just state crimes, in corrupt states where they can use clout more effectively. Thus, killing potential
informants before they tell the public is more important than killing informants to prevent their testimony at trial, a much more
leisurely task.
What happened to Epstein's body?
The Justice Dept. had better not have let Epstein's body be cremated. And they'd better give us convincing evidence that it's
his body. If I had $100 million to get out of jail with, acquiring a corpse and bribing a few people to switch fingerprints and DNA
wouldn't be hard. I find it worrying that the government has not released proof that Epstein is dead or a copy of the autopsy.
"Beyond its isolation, the wing is infested with rodents and cockroaches, and inmates often have to navigate standing water
-- as well as urine and fecal matter -- that spills from faulty plumbing, accounts from former inmates and lawyers said. One lawyer
said mice often eat his clients' papers."
" Often have to navigate standing water"? "Mice often eat his clients' papers?" Really? I'm skeptical. What do the
vermin eat -- do inmates leave Snickers bars open in their cells? Has anyone checked on what the prison conditions really like?
Is it just a coincidence that Epstein made a new will two days before he died?
I can answer this one. Yes, it is coincidence, though it's not a coincidence that he rewrote the will shortly after being denied
bail. The will leaves everything to a trust, and it is the trust document (which is confidential), not the will (which is public),
that determines who gets the money. Probably the only thing that Epstein changed in his will was the listing of assets, and he probably
changed that because he'd just updated his list of assets for the bail hearing anyway, so it was a convenient time to update the
will.
Did Epstein's veiled threat against DOJ officials in his bail filing backfire?
Epstein's lawyers wrote in his bail request,
"If the government is correct that the NPA does not, and never did, preclude a prosecution in this district, then the government
will likely have to explain why it purposefully delayed a prosecution of someone like Mr. Epstein, who registered as a sex offender
10 years ago and was certainly no stranger to law enforcement. There is no legitimate explanation for the delay."
I see this as a veiled threat. The threat is that Epstein would subpoena people and documents from the Justice Department relevant
to the question of why there was a ten-year delay before prosecution, to expose the illegitimate explanation for the delay. Somebody
is to blame for that delay, and court-ordered disclosure is a bigger threat than an internal federal investigation.
Who can we trust?
Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is the only government official who is clearly trustworthy,
because he could have stopped the 2019 Epstein indictment and he didn't. I don't think Attorney-General Barr could have blocked it,
and I don't think President Trump could have except by firing Berman. I do trust Attorney-General Barr, however, from what I've
heard of him and because he instantly and publicly said he would have not just the FBI but the Justice Dept. Inspector-General investigate
Epstein's death, and he quickly fired the federal prison head honcho. The FBI is untrustworthy, but Inspector-Generals are often
honorable.
Someone else who may be a hero in this is Senator Ben Sasse.
Vicki Ward
writes in the Daily Beast :
"It was that heart-wrenching series that caught the attention of Congress. Ben Sasse, the Republican senator from Nebraska,
joined with his Democratic colleagues and demanded to know how justice had been so miscarried.
Given the political sentiment, it's unsurprising that the FBI should feel newly emboldened to investigate Epstein -- basing
some of their work on Brown's excellent reporting."
Will President Trump Cover Up Epstein's Death in Exchange for Political Leverage?
President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein. He is too canny to have gotten involved with him, and the
press has been eagerly at work to find the slightest connection between him and Epstein and have come up dry as far as anything but
acquaintanceship. But we must worry about a cover-up anyway, because rich and important people would be willing to pay Trump a lot
in money or, more likely, in political support, if he does a cover-up.
Why did Judge Sweet order Epstein documents sealed in 2017. Did he die naturally in 2019?
Judge Robert Sweet in 2017 ordered all documents in an Epstein-related case sealed. He died in May 2019 at age 96, at home in
Idaho. The sealing was completely illegal, as the appeals court politely but devastatingly noted in 2019, and the documents were
released a day or two before Epstein died. Someone should check into Judge Sweet's finance and death. He was an ultra-Establishment
figure -- a Yale man, alas, like me, and Taft School -- so he might just have been protecting what he considered good people, but
his decision to seal the court records was grossly improper.
Did Epstein have any dealings in sex, favors, or investments with any Republican except Wexner?
Dershowitz, Mitchell, Clinton, Richardson, Dubin, George Stephanopolous, Lawrence Krauss, Katie Couric, Mortimer Zuckerman,
Chelsea Handler, Cyrus Vance, and Woody Allen, are all Democrats. Did Epstein ever make use of Republicans? Don't count Trump, who
has not been implicated despite the media's best efforts and was probably not even a Republican back in the 90's. Don't count Ken
Starr– he's just one of Epstein's lawyers. Don't count scientists who just took money gifts from him. (By the way, Epstein made very
little in the way of
political contributions
, though that little went mostly to Democrats (
$139,000 vs. $18,000
. I bet he extracted more from politicians than he gave to them.
What role did Israeli politician Ehud Barak play in all this?
Remember Marc Rich? He was a billionaire who fled the country to avoid a possible 300 years prison term, and was pardoned
by Bill Clinton in 2001. Ehud Barak, one of Epstein's friends, was one of the people
who asked for Rich to be pardoned
. Epstein, his killers, and other rich people know that as a last resort they can flee the country and wait for someone like Clinton
to come to office and pardon them.
Acosta said that Washington Bush Administration people told him to go easy on Epstein because he was an intelligence source. That
is plausible. Epstein had info and blackmailing ability with people like Ehud Barak, leader of Israel's Labor Party. But "intelligence"
is also the kind of excuse people make up so they don't have to say "political pressure."
Why did nobody pay attention to the two 2016 books on Epstein?
James Patterson and John Connolly published Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him ,
and All the Justice that Money Can Buy: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein . Conchita Sarnoff published TrafficKing:
The Jeffrey Epstein Case. I never heard of these before 2019. Did the media bury them?
Which newspapers reported Epstein's death as "suicide" and which as "apparent suicide"?
More generally, which media outlets seem to be trying to brush Epstein's death under the rug? There seems to have been an
orchestrated attempt to divert attention to the issue of suicides in prison. Subtle differences in phrasing might help reveal who's
been paid off. National Review had an article,
"The Conspiracy
Theories about Jeffrey Epstein's Death Don't Make Much Sense." The article contains no evidence or argument to support the headline's
assertion, just bluster about "madness" and "conspiracy theories". Who else publishes stuff like this?
How much did Epstein corrupt the media from 2008 to 2019?
Even outlets that generally publish good articles must be suspected of corruption. Epstein made an effort to get good publicity.
The New York Times
wrote,
"The effort led to the publication of articles describing him as a selfless and forward-thinking philanthropist with an interest
in science on websites like Forbes, National Review and HuffPost .
All three articles have been removed from their sites in recent days, after inquiries from TheNew York Times .
The National Review piece, from the same year, called him "a smart businessman" with a "passion for cutting-edge science."
Ms. Galbraith was also a publicist for Mr. Epstein, according to several news releases promoting Mr. Epstein's foundations In
the article that appeared on the National Review site, she described him as having "given thoughtfully to countless organizations
that help educate underprivileged children."
"We took down the piece, and regret publishing it," Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review since 1997, said in an email.
He added that the publication had "had a process in place for a while now to weed out such commercially self-interested pieces from
lobbyists and PR flacks.""
Eric Rasmusen is an economist who has held an endowed chair at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business and visiting
positions at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, the Harvard Economics Department, Chicago's Booth School of Business, Nuffield
College/Oxford, and the University of Tokyo Economics Department. He is best known for his book Games and Information. He has published
extensively in law and economics, including recent articles on the burakumin outcastes in Japan, the use of game theory in jurisprudence,
and quasi-concave functions. The views expressed here are his personal views and are not intended to represent the views of the Kelley
School of Business or Indiana University. His vitae is at http://www.rasmusen.org/vita.htm
.
Not one question involving Maurene Comey, then? She was one of the SDNY prosecutors assigned to this case, and her name has
been significantly played down (if at all visible) in the reportage before or after Epstein's death. That she just "happened"
to be on this case at all is quite an eyebrow raiser especially with her father under the ongoing "Spygate" investigation
Apparently, there will always be many players on the field, and many ways to do damage control.
So the problem was finding a motivated prosecutor in case of Jewish predator with very likely links to intelligence services
of several countries. The motivation was obviously lacking.
Your "expertise" in game theory would be greatly improved if you let yourself consider the Jewish factor.
As important as it is to go on asking questions about the life and death of Jeffrey Epstein, I have to admit that personally
I'm just not interested. I've always found people of his social class to be vaguely repulsive even without the sordid sex allegations.
Just their demanding personalities, just the thought of them hanging around in their terrycloth jogging suits, sneering at the
world with their irrefrangible arrogance, is enough to make me shudder. I want nothing of their nightmare world; and when they
die, I couldn't care less.
More generally, which media outlets seem to be trying to brush Epstein's death under the rug?
Not the National Enquirer:
Jeffrey Epstein Murder Cover-up Exposed!
Death Scene Staged to Look Like Suicide
Billionaire's Screams Ignored by Guards!
Fatal Attack Caught on Jail Cameras!
Autopsy is Hiding the Truth!
I don't hold AG Barr in the high regard this piece does. While I'm not suggesting he had anything to do with Epstein's
death I do think he's corrupt. I doubt he will do anything that leads to the truth. As for him relieving the warden of
his duties, I would hope that was to be expected, wasn't it? I mean he only had two attempts on Epstein's life with the second
being a success. Apparently the first didn't jolt the warden into some kind of action as it appears he was guilty of a number
of sins including 'Sloth.'
As for the publications that don't like conspiracy theories –like the National Review
-- they are a hoot. We are supposed to have faith in this rubbish? The cameras malfunctioned. He didn't have a cellmate. The
guards were tired and forced to work overtime. There was no camera specifically in the cell with Epstein.
In the end I think Epstein probably was allowed to kill himself but I'm not confident in that scenario at all. And yes the media
should pressure Barr to hav e a look in the cell and see exactly how a suicide attempt might have succeeded or if it was a long-shot
at best, given the materiel and conditions.
19. Why is the non-prosecution agreement ambiguous ("globally" binding), when it was written by the best lawyers in the country
for a very wealthy client? Was the ambiguity bargained-for? If so, what are the implications?
20. With "globally" still being unresolved (to the bail judge's first-paragraph astonishment), why commit suicide now?
21. The "it was malfeasance" components are specified. For mere malfeasance to have been the cause, all of the components would
have to be true; it would be a multiplicative function of the several components. Is no one sufficiently quantitative to estimate
the magnitude?
22. What is the best single takeaway phrase that emerges from all of this? My nomination is: "In your face." The brazen, shameless,
unprecedented, turning-point, in-your-faceness of it.
ER the answer is easy to you list of questions .. there is no law in the world when violations are not prosecuted and fair open
for all to see trials are not held and judges do not deliver the appropriate penalties upon convictions. .. in cases involving
the CIA prosecution it is unheard of that a open for all to see trial takes place.
This is why we the governed masses need a parallel government..
such an oversight government would allow to pick out the negligent or wilful misconduct of persons in functional government
and prosecute such persons in the independent people's court.. Without a second government to oversee the first government there
is no democracy; democracy cannot stand and the governed masses will never see the light of a fair day .. unless the masses have
oversight authority on what is to be made into law, and are given without prejudice to their standing in America the right to
charge those associated to government with negligent or wilful misconduct.
There are big questions this article is not asking either
The words 'Mossad' seems not to appear above, and just a brief mention of 'Israel' with Ehud Barak
One tiny mention of Jewish magnate Les Wexner but no mention how he & the Bronfmans founded the 'Mega Group' of ultra-Zionist
billionaires regularly meeting as to how they could prop up the Jewish state by any & all means, Wexner being the source of many
Epstein millions, the original buyer of the NYC mansion he transferred to Epstein etc the excellent Epstein series by Whitney
Webb on Mint Press covering all this https://www.mintpressnews.com/author/whitney-webb/
Was escape to freedom & Israe,l the ultimate payoff for Epstein's decades of work for Mossad, grooming and abusing young teens,
filmed in flagrante delicto with prominent people for political blackmail?
Is it not likely this was a Mossad jailbreak covered by fake 'suicide', with Epstein alive now, with US gov now also in possession
of the assumed Epstein sexual blackmail video tapes?
We have the Epstein 'death in jail' under the US Attorney General Bill Barr, a former CIA officer 1973-77, the CIA supporting
him thru night law school, Bill Barr's later law firm Kirkland Ellis representing Epstein
Whose Jewish-born ex-OSS father Donald Barr had written a 'fantasy novel' on sex slavery with scenes of rape of underage
teens, 'Space Relations', written whilst Don Barr was headmaster of the Dalton school, which gave Epstein his first job, teaching
teens
So would a crypto-Jewish 'former' CIA officer who is now USA Attorney General, possibly help a Mossad political blackmailer
escape to Israel after a fake 'jail suicide'?
An intriguing 4chan post a few hours after Epstein's 'body was discovered', says Epstein was put in a wheelchair and driven
out of the jail in a van, accompanied by a man in a green military uniform – timestamp is USA Pacific on the screencap apparently,
so about 10:44 NYC time Sat.10 Aug
FWIW, drone video of Epstein's Little St James island from Friday 30 August, shows a man who could be Epstein himself, on the
left by one vehicle, talking to a black man sitting on a quad all-terrain unit
Close up of Epstein-like man between vehicles, from video note 'pale finger' match-up to archive photo Epstein
The thing that sticks out for me is that Epstein was caught, charged, and went to jail previously, but he didn't die .
The second time, it appears he was murdered. I strongly suspect that the person who murdered Epstein was someone who only met
Epstein after 2008, or was someone Epstein only procured for after 2008. Otherwise, this person would have killed Epstein
back when Epstein was charged by the cops the first time.
Either that, or the killer is someone who is an opponent of Trump, and this person was genuinely terrified that Trump would
pressure the Feds to avoid any deals and to squeeze all the important names out of Epstein and prosecute them, too.
The author professes himself "expert in the field of "game theory", strategic thinking," but he doesn't say how his 18 questions
were arrived at to the exclusion of hundreds of others. Instead, the column includes several casual assumptions and speculation.
For example:
"Probably the only thing that Epstein changed in his will was the listing of assets, and he probably changed that because
he'd just updated his list of assets for the bail hearing anyway, so it was a convenient time to update the will."
"President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein."
"I do trust Attorney-General Barr, however, from what I've heard of him and because he instantly and publicly said he would
have not just the FBI but the Justice Dept. Inspector-General investigate Epstein's death, and he quickly fired the federal
prison head honcho. The FBI is untrustworthy, but Inspector-Generals are often honorable."
As to this last, isn't "quickly [firing] the federal prison head honcho" consistent with a failure-to-prevent-suicide deflection
strategy? And has Mr. Rasmusen not "heard" of the hiring of Mr. Epstein by Mr. Barr's father? Or of the father's own Establishment
background?
I hope to be wrong, but my own hunch is that these investigations, like the parallel investigations of the RussiaGate hoax,
will leave the elite unscathed. I also hope that in the meantime we see more rigorous columns here than this one.
...Also, subsequently, it should have been a top priority to arrest Ghislaine Maxwell but the government, justice and media
lack interest . Apparently, they don't know where she is, and they're not making any special efforts to find out.
Netanyahu: "Listen, I've got a bit of bad news. A tape recording has recently
surfaced of you and Monica having phone sex. The good news is that one of my most trusted
lieutenants has tracked it down. He assures me that he has the original tape and that there
are no known copies. No one else knows about the tape but my lieutenant and me. Of course, I
ordered him to destroy the tape and to never speak of it again. It will be like it never even
happened. All that remains is our friendship."
Clinton: "Thank you, Bibi. Your friendship means the world to me."
Netanyahu: "I know, Bill. I feel the same way about you."
> Maxwell was reading a book called "The Book of Honor: The Secret Lives and Deaths of
CIA Operatives"
You can't make this up. It's like they are doing everything possible to give conspiracy
theorists maximum ammo. All we need now is to find out that Maxwell's Twitter handle is
'#M0554d4g3nt4L1f3'
“Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s one-time girlfriend and alleged
co-conspirator, was spotted Monday at an In-N-Out Burger in Universal City, California, of
all places.”
I pass this place nearly every day…
Need me to grab her?
"... This is doomed to dissolve. To a greater and significant degree, the public is finding true justice wanting, and thus holds no trust in Government, at All levels. ..."
Then you get a tame judge assigned (and that's nothing new, even Johnny Carson used to
joke "do you know how bad the economy is these days?" [sidekick] "no, Johnny, just how bad is
the economy?" "it's so bad, organised crime has had to lay off 5 judges this week ") to let
Epstein off with a slap on the wrist, a year at the Four Seasons low security penitentiary
and early release through time served.
Much simpler than any of the other notions and achieves exactly the same result (Epstein
is subject to "the full force of the law" but stays happily alive to tell the tale and keep
his finger off the Dead Mans Switch).
If you were in charge of all this, which solution would you try first? If you've ever
worked in a big, but incompetent, organisation (and if they're big, they're almost certainly
going to be incompetence personified), you wouldn't even need to ask yourself that
question.
This is doomed to dissolve. To a greater and significant degree, the public is finding
true justice wanting, and thus holds no trust in Government, at All levels.
But hey that's just conspiracy theory talk .. right ?
I don't know Duch, but in Miro23 #200 comment I thought I heard the banker Ronald Bernard
(video) saying that after the Epstein episode, in the new batch of dollars printed the All
Seen Eye was shown in a new mode. In Murder We Trust and sometimes Suicide.
"How many other millionaires and billionaires were part of the illegal activities that he
was engaged in?" he asked. Even the BBC website has as its heading of a news story today "Jeffrey Epstein: Questions raised over financier's death."
"... A black man's body is found wrapped in chains at the bottom of the Detroit River. The police were saying it was an accidental death caused by him stealing more chains than he could swim with. ..."
The likelihood of Epstein committing suicide reminds me of two other "suicide" stories.
... ... ...
Finally, there is a greatly modified joke from my long ago misspent youth. A black man's
body is found wrapped in chains at the bottom of the Detroit River. The police were saying it
was an accidental death caused by him stealing more chains than he could swim with.
Epstein may have been lured back to the US with some cover story of a get-out-of-jail fake death -- only the powers that be had
decided to terminate his contract.
Images removed. For full text the original source... test
Notable quotes:
"... Maxwell, who was a business partner of Mega Group co-founder Charles Bronfman, aided the successful Mossad plot to plant a trapdoor in U.S.-created software that was then sold to governments and companies throughout the world. That plot’s success was largely due to the role of a close associate of then-President Ronald Reagan and an American politician close to Maxwell, who later helped aid Reagan in the cover-up of the Iran Contra scandal. ..."
"... Years later, Maxwell’s daughter — Ghislaine Maxwell — would join Jeffrey Epstein’s “inner circle” at the same time Epstein was bankrolling a similar software program now being marketed for critical electronic infrastructure in the U.S. and abroad ..."
"... Epstein appears to have ties to Israeli intelligence and has well-documented ties to influential Israeli politicians and the Mega Group. Yet, those entities are not isolated in and of themselves, as many also connect to the organized crime network and powerful alleged pedophiles discussed in previous installments of this series. ..."
"... Associated Press ..."
"... Lauder, then-ambassador to Austria for the Reagan administration, would have been well-positioned to acquire such a passport, particularly for the reason cited by Epstein’s attorneys that Jewish-Americans could be targeted during travel, and in light of Lauder’s very public concerns over threats Jews face from certain terror groups. Furthermore, the passport had been issued in 1987, when Lauder was still serving as an ambassador. ..."
"... Though Epstein’s defense attorney declined to reveal the identity of the “friend” who provided him with the fake Austrian passport, Lauder was both well-positioned to acquire it in Austria and also deeply connected to the Mega Group, which was co-founded by Epstein’s patron Leslie Wexner and to which Epstein has many connections. These connections to both the Austrian government and to Epstein’s mentor make Lauder the most likely person to have acquired the document on Epstein’s behalf. ..."
"... Furthermore, Lauder co-founded the Eastern European broadcasting network CETV with Mark Palmer, a former U.S. diplomat, Kissinger aide and Reagan speechwriter. Palmer is better known for co-founding the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an organization often described as an accessory to U.S. intelligence, and one whose first president confessed to the Washington Post that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” A 2001 report in the Evening Standard noted that Epstein once claimed that during the 1980s he worked for the CIA, but Epstein later backed away from that assertion. ..."
"... The Mega Group — a secretive group of billionaires to which Lauder belongs — was formed in 1991 by Charles Bronfman and Leslie Wexner, the latter of whom has received considerable media scrutiny following the July arrest of his former protege Jeffrey Epstein. Media profiles of the group paint it as “a loosely organized club of 20 of the nation’s wealthiest and most influential Jewish businessmen” focused on “philanthropy and Jewishness,” with membership dues upwards of $30,000 per year. Yet several of its most prominent members have ties to organized crime. ..."
"... When Edgar Bronfman died in 2013, long-time ADL Director Abe Foxman said , “Edgar was for many years Chair of our Liquor Industry Division, Chair of our New York Appeal, and one of our most significant benefactors.” Other Mega Group members that are donors and major supporters of the ADL include Ronald Lauder , Michael Steinhardt and the late Max Fisher . As previously mentioned, Roy Cohn’s father was a long-time leader of B’nai B’rith’s influential New England-New York chapter and Cohn was later a celebrated member of its banking and finance lodge. ..."
"... In addition, Mega Group members have also been key players in the pro-Israel lobby in the United States. For instance, Max Fisher of the Mega Group founded the National Jewish Coalition, now known as the Republican Jewish Coalition — the main pro-Israel neoconservative political lobbying group , known for its support of hawkish policies, and whose current chief patrons, Sheldon Adelson and Bernard Marcus, are among Donald Trump’s top donors. ..."
"... Sam Bronfman, as was detailed in Part I of this series, had long-standing deep ties to organized crime, specifically Meyer Lanksy’s organized crime syndicate. Yet, Bronfman’s private ambition, according to those close to him, was to become a respected member of high society. As a consequence, Bronfman worked hard to remove the stain that his mob associations had left on his public reputation in Canada and abroad. He accomplished this by becoming a leader in Canada’s Zionist movement and, by the end of the 1930s, he was head of the Canadian Jewish Congress and had begun to make a name for himself as a philanthropist for Jewish causes. ..."
"... Yet even some of Bronfman’s activism and philanthropy had hints of the mobster-like reputation he tried so hard to shake. For instance, Bronfman was actively involved in the illegal shipping of arms to Zionist paramilitaries in Palestine prior to 1948, specifically as a co-founder of the National Conference for Israeli and Jewish Rehabilitation that smuggled weapons to the paramilitary group Haganah. ..."
"... However, Edgar and Charles Bronfman were hardly the only members of the Mega Group with deep and long-standing ties to the Lansky-led National Crime Syndicate. Indeed, one of the group’s prominent members, hedge fund manager Michael Steinhardt, opened up about his own family ties to Lansky in his autobiography No Bull: My Life in and out the Markets , where he noted that his father, Sol “Red McGee” Steinhardt, was Lansky’s jewel fence of choice and a major player in New York’s criminal underworld. Sol Steinhardt was also his son’s first client on Wall Street and helped him jumpstart his career in finance. ..."
"... One surprise connection to Cohn involves Mega Group member, and former president of U.S. weapons firm General Dynamics, Lester Crown, whose brother-in-law is David Schine, Cohn’s confidant and alleged lover during the McCarthy hearings, whose relationship with Cohn helped bring about the downfall of McCarthyism. ..."
"... Leslie “Les” Wexner, the other Mega Group co-founder, also has ties to organized crime. Wexner’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein have come under scrutiny following the latter’s recent arrest, as Wexner was the only publicly acknowledged client of Epstein’s suspicious hedge fund, the source of much of this wealth, and the previous owner of Epstein’s $56 million Manhattan townhouse, which Wexner transferred to an Epstein-controlled entity for free. ..."
"... The 1996 Times article also noted that, after Wexner bought the residence for $13.2 million in 1989, he spent millions more decorating and furnishing the home, including the addition of the electronic equipment in the “James Bond” bathroom, only to apparently never live in it. ..."
"... Farmer’s account strongly suggests that, given the behavior of his personal security staff at his mansion following Epstein’s alleged assault on Farmer, Wexner was well aware of Epstein’s predatory behavior towards young women. This is compounded by claims made by Alan Dershowitz — a former lawyer for and friend of Epstein’s, who has also been accused of raping underage girls — that Wexner has also been accused of raping underage girls exploited by Epstein on at least seven occasions. ..."
"... The report, titled “ Shapiro Homicide Investigation: Analysis and Hypothesis ,” names Leslie Wexner as linked “with associates reputed to be organized crime figures” and also lists the names of businessman Jack Kessler, former Columbus City Council President and Wexner associate Jerry Hammond, and former Columbus City Council member Les Wright as also being involved in Shapiro’s murder. ..."
"... As to Wexner’s alleged links to organized crime, the report focuses on the close business relationship between Wexner’s The Limited and Francis Walsh, whose trucking company “[had] done an excess of 90 percent of the Limited’s trucking business around the time of Shapiro’s murder,” according to the report. Walsh was named in a 1988 indictment as a “co-conspirator” of Genovese crime family boss Anthony “Fat Tony” Salerno, whose long-time lawyer was Roy Cohn; and the Shapiro murder report stated that Walsh was “still considered associates of the Genovese/LaRocca crime family, and Walsh was still providing truck transportation for The Limited.” ..."
"... According to a source who viewed a copy of the NSA transcript of the conversation, the intelligence officer, speaking in Hebrew, said, ‘The ambassador wants me to go to Mega to get a copy of this letter.’ The source said the supervisor in Tel Aviv rejected the request, saying, ‘This is not something we use Mega for.’” ..."
"... Almost one year to the day after the “Mega” spy scandal broke, the Wall Street Journal was the first outlet to report on the existence of a little-known organization of billionaires that was “informally” called the Mega Group and had been founded years prior in 1991. The report made no mention of the spy scandal that had spread concerns of Israeli espionage in the U.S. only a year prior. However, the group’s distinctive “informal” name and the connections of its members to the Mossad and to high-ranking Israeli politicians, including prime ministers, raise the possibility that “Mega” was not an individual, as the FBI and NSA had believed, but a group. ..."
"... Netanyahu was close enough to Lauder that he personally enlisted Lauder and George Nader to serve as his peace envoys to Syria. ..."
"... Nader, who was connected to the Trump 2016 campaign and Trump ally and Blackwater founder Erik Prince, was recently hit with federal child sex trafficking charges last month, soon after Jeffrey Epstein had been arrested on similar charges. At the time Nader was picked to work with Lauder on Netanyahu’s behalf, he had already been caught possessing large amounts of child pornography on two separate occasions, first in 1984 and later in 1990. ..."
"... Maxwell was also a close associate and friend of Israeli “superspy” Rafi Eitan, who, as previously mentioned, was Jonathan Pollard’s handler and who had previously worked directly with Meyer Lansky. ..."
"... With Inslaw out of the way, Brian sold the software all over the world. Eitan later recruited Robert Maxwell to become another Promis salesman, which he did remarkably well, even succeeding in selling the software to Soviet intelligence and conspiring with Republican Texas Senator John Tower to have the software adopted by the U.S. government laboratory at Los Alamos. Dozens of countries used the software on their most carefully guarded computer systems, unaware that Mossad now had access to everything Promis touched. ..."
"... According to journalist Robert Fisk , Maxwell was also involved in the Mossad abduction of Israeli nuclear weapons whistleblower Vanunu Mordechai. Mordechai had attempted to provide the media with information on the extent of Israel’s nuclear weapons program, which was eventually published by the Sunday Times of London . Yet, Mordechai had also contacted the Daily Mirror with the information, the Mirror being an outlet that was owned by Maxwell and whose foreign editor was a close Maxwell associate and alleged Mossad asset, Nicholas Davies. Journalist Seymour Hersh alleged that Davies had also been involved in Israeli arms deals. ..."
"... Per Fisk, it was Maxwell who contacted the Israeli Embassy in London and told them of Mordechai’s activities. This led to Mordechai’s entrapment by a female Mossad agent who seduced him as part of a “honey trap” operation that led to his kidnapping and later imprisonment in Israel. Mordechai served an 18-year sentence, 12 years of which were in solitary confinement. ..."
"... According to authors Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon, Maxwell had sealed his own fate when he attempted to threaten top Mossad officials with the exposure of certain operations if they did not help him rescue his media empire from crippling debt and financial difficulties. Many of Maxwell’s creditors , who had grown increasingly displeased with the media mogul, were Israeli and several of them were alleged to be Mossad-connected themselves. ..."
"... Another attendee of the Maxwell yacht party was former Secretary of the Navy and former Henry Kissinger staffer Jon Lehman, who would go on to associate with the controversial neoconservative think tank, Project for a New American Century. Prior to being secretary of the Navy, Lehman had been president of the Abington Corporation, which hired arch-neocon Richard Perle to manage the portfolio of Israeli arms dealers Shlomo Zabludowicz and his son Chaim, who paid Ablington $10,000 month. A scandal arose when those payments continued after both Lehman and Perle joined the Reagan Department of Defense and while Perle was working to persuade the Pentagon to buy arms from companies linked to Zabludowicz. Perle had been part of the Reagan transition team along with Roy Cohn’s long-time friend and law partner Tom Bolan (another Maxwell yacht guest). ..."
"... Even though Jeffrey Epstein appears to have had ties to the Mossad, this series has revealed that the networks to which Epstein was connected were not Mossad-exclusive, as many of the individuals close to Epstein — Lesie Wexner, for instance — were part of a mob-connected class of oligarchs with deep ties to both the U.S. and Israel. ..."
"... Ultimately, the picture painted by the evidence is not a direct tie to a single intelligence agency but a web linking key members of the Mega Group, politicians, and officials in both the U.S. and Israel, and an organized-crime network with deep business and intelligence ties in both nations. ..."
A
s billionaire pedophile and alleged sex-trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein sits in prison, reports
have continued to surface about his reported links to intelligence, his financial ties to
several companies and “charitable” foundations, and his friendships with the rich
and powerful as well as top politicians.
While Part
I and Part
II of this series, “The Jeffrey Epstein Scandal: Too Big to Fail,” have focused
on the widespread nature of sexual blackmail operations in recent American history and their
ties to the heights of American political power and the U.S. intelligence community, one key
aspect of Epstein’s own sex-trafficking and blackmail operation that warrants examination
is Epstein’s ties to Israeli intelligence and his ties to the “informal”
pro-Israel philanthropist faction known as “the Mega Group.”
The Mega Group’s role in the Epstein case has garnered some attention, as
Epstein’s main financial patron for decades, billionaire Leslie Wexner, was a co-founder
of the group that unites several well-known businessmen with a penchant for pro-Israel and
ethno-philanthropy (i.e., philanthropy benefiting a single ethnic or ethno-religious group).
However, as this report will show, another uniting factor among Mega Group members is deep ties
to organized crime, specifically the organized crime network discussed in Part
I of this series, which was largely led by notorious American mobster Meyer Lansky.
By virtue of the role of many Mega Group members as major political donors in both the U.S.
and Israel, several of its most notable members have close ties to the governments of both
countries as well as their intelligence communities. As this report and a subsequent report
will show, the Mega Group also had close ties to two businessmen who worked for Israel’s
Mossad — Robert Maxwell and Marc Rich — as well as to top Israeli politicians,
including past and present prime ministers with deep ties to Israel’s intelligence
community.
One of those businessmen working for the Mossad, Robert Maxwell, will be discussed at length
in this report. Maxwell, who was a business partner of Mega Group co-founder Charles Bronfman,
aided the successful Mossad plot to plant a trapdoor in U.S.-created software that was then
sold to governments and companies throughout the world. That plot’s success was largely
due to the role of a close associate of then-President Ronald Reagan and an American politician
close to Maxwell, who later helped aid Reagan in the cover-up of the Iran Contra scandal.
Years later, Maxwell’s daughter — Ghislaine Maxwell — would join Jeffrey
Epstein’s “inner circle” at the same time Epstein was bankrolling a similar
software program now being marketed for critical electronic infrastructure in the U.S. and
abroad. That company has deep and troubling connections to Israeli military intelligence,
associates of the Trump administration, and the Mega Group.
Epstein appears to have ties to Israeli intelligence and has well-documented ties to
influential Israeli politicians and the Mega Group. Yet, those entities are not isolated in and
of themselves, as many also connect to the organized crime network and powerful alleged
pedophiles discussed in previous installments of this series.
Perhaps the best illustration of how the connections between many of these players often
meld together can be seen in Ronald Lauder: a Mega Group member, former member of the Reagan
administration, long-time donor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s
Likud Party, as well as a long-time friend of Donald Trump and Roy Cohn.
From cosmetics
heir to political player
One often overlooked yet famous client and friend of Roy Cohn is the billionaire heir to the
Estee Lauder cosmetics fortune, Ronald Lauder. Lauder is often described in the press as a
“leading Jewish philanthropist” and is the president of the World Jewish Congress,
yet his many media profiles tend to leave out his highly political past.
In a
statement given by Lauder to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman in 2018, the
cosmetics heir noted that he has known Trump for over 50 years, going back at least to the
early 1970s. According to Lauder, his relationship with Trump began when Trump was a student at
the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, which Lauder also
attended.
Image deleted: President-elect Trump walks with Ronald Lauder after meeting at Mar-a-Lago, Dec. 28, 2016,
in Palm Beach, Fla. Evan Vucci | AP
Though the exact nature of their early friendship is unclear, it is evident that they shared
many of the same connections, including to the man who would later count them both as his
clients, Roy Cohn. While much has been said of the ties between Cohn and Trump, Cohn was
particularly close to Lauder’s mother, Estee Lauder (born Josephine Mentzer). Estee was
even counted among Cohn’s most high-profile friends in
his New York Times obituary .
A small window into the Lauder-Cohn relationship surfaced briefly in a
2016 article in Politico about a 1981 dinner party held at Cohn’s weekend home
in Greenwich, Connecticut. The party was attended by Ronald Lauder’s parents, Estee and
Joe, as well as Trump and his then-wife Ivana, who had
a weekend home just two miles away. That party was held soon after Cohn had helped Reagan
secure the presidency and had reached the height of his political influence. At the party, Cohn
offered toasts to Reagan and to then-Senator for New York Alfonse D’Amato, who
would later urge Ronald Lauder to run for political office.
Two years later, in 1983, Ronald Lauder — whose only professional experience at that
point was working for his parent’s cosmetics company — was appointed to serve as United
States Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Affairs. Soon after his
appointment, he served on the
Dinner Tribute Committee for a dinner hosted by the Jewish fraternal and strongly pro-Israel
organization B’nai B’rith, the parent organization of the controversial
Anti-Defamation League (ADL), in Roy Cohn’s honor. Cohn’s influential father,
Albert Cohn, was the long-time
president of B’nai B’rith’s powerful New England-New York chapter and Roy
Cohn himself was a member of B’nai B’rith’s Banking and Finance Lodge.
The dinner specifically sought
to honor Cohn for his pro-Israel advocacy and his efforts to “fortify”
Israel’s economy, and its honorary chairmen included media mogul Rupert Murdoch, Donald
Trump and then-head of Bear Stearns Alan Greenberg, all of whom are
connected to Jeffrey Epstein.
During his time as deputy assistant secretary of defense, Lauder was also very active in
Israeli politics and had already become an ally of the then-Israeli representative to the
United Nations and future prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. Lauder would go on to
be one of the most important individuals in Netanyahu’s rise to power, particularly
during his upset victory in 1996, and a major financier of
Israel’s right-wing Likud Party.
In 1986, the year that Roy Cohn died, Lauder left his post at the Pentagon and became the
U.S. ambassador to Austria, where his tenure was shaped by
his confrontations with the then-Austrian president and former Nazi collaborator, Kurt
Waldheim. Lauder’s interest in Austrian politics has continued well into recent years,
culminating in accusations that he sought
to manipulate Austrian elections in 2012.
After leaving his ambassadorship, Lauder
founded the Ronald S. Lauder Foundation in 1987 and later went on to run for Mayor of New
York against Rudy Giuliani in 1989. Lauder
was encouraged to run by then-Senator Alfonse D’Amato, who had close ties to Roy Cohn
and his long-time law partner Tom Bolan, who was
D’Amato’s adviser . At the aforementioned 1983 B’nai B’rith dinner
honoring Cohn, D’Amato was the featured speaker.
The likely reason was that Giuliani, though once an ally of the “Roy Cohn
machine,” was at the time
deeply disliked by the late Cohn’s associates for prosecuting Cohn’s former law
partner, Stanley Friedman, for racketeering, conspiracy and other charges. Giuliani also had a
history of bitter disagreements with D’Amato. Lauder’s primary campaign, though
unsuccessful, was noted for its viciousness and its cost, as it
burned through more than $13 million.
A few years later, in the early 1990s, Lauder would join a newly formed group that has long
evaded scrutiny from the media but has recently become of interest in connection with the
Jeffrey Epstein scandal: the Mega Group.
Lauder, Epstein and the mysterious Austrian
passport
Before getting to the Mega Group, it is worth noting one particular act apparently
undertaken by Lauder while he was U.S. ambassador to Austria that has recently come to light in
relation to the arrest in early July of Jeffrey Epstein, a finding first reported by journalist
Edward Szall. When police recently discovered an Austrian passport with Epstein’s picture
and a fake name after raiding his Manhattan residence, the source and purpose of the passport
came under media scrutiny.
According to the Associated Press ,
Epstein’s defense lawyers specifically argued that “a friend gave it to him
[Epstein] in the 1980s after some Jewish-Americans were informally advised to carry
identification bearing a non-Jewish name when traveling internationally during a period when
hijackings were more common.” This claim appears to be related to concerns that followed
the hijacking
of Air France Flight 139 in 1976 when Israeli and Jewish hostages were separated from other
hostages based largely on the passports in their possession.
Given that Epstein was unable to meet the conventional qualifications for an Austrian
passport — including long-term residency in Austria (the passport lists him as a resident
of Saudi Arabia) and fluency in German — it appears that the only way to have acquired an
Austrian passport was by unconventional means, meaning assistance from a well-connected
Austrian official or foreign diplomat with clout in Austria.
Image deleted: Ronald Lauder, right, and Austrian Chancellor Viktor Klima pose with students from the
Lauder Chabad School in Vienna, Austria in 1999. Martin Gnedt | AP
Lauder, then-ambassador to Austria for the Reagan administration, would have been
well-positioned to acquire such a passport, particularly for the reason cited by
Epstein’s attorneys that Jewish-Americans could be targeted during travel, and in light
of Lauder’s very public concerns over threats Jews face from certain terror groups.
Furthermore, the passport had been issued in 1987, when Lauder was still serving as an
ambassador.
In addition, Lauder
was well-connected to Epstein’s former patron — former head of Bear Stearns
Alan Greenberg, who had hired Epstein in the late 1970s immediately after the latter was fired
from the Dalton School — and Donald Trump,
another friend of Lauder and Greenberg who began his friendship with Epstein in 1987, the
same year the fake Austrian passport was issued. In 1987, Epstein also began his relationship
with his principal financier, Leslie Wexner, who is also closely associated with Lauder (though
some sources claim that Epstein and Wexner first met in 1985 but that their strong business
relationship was not established until 1987).
Though Epstein’s defense attorney declined to reveal the identity of the
“friend” who provided him with the fake Austrian passport, Lauder was both
well-positioned to acquire it in Austria and also deeply connected to the Mega Group, which was
co-founded by Epstein’s patron Leslie Wexner and to which Epstein has many connections.
These connections to both the Austrian government and to Epstein’s mentor make Lauder the
most likely person to have acquired the document on Epstein’s behalf.
Furthermore, Epstein and the Mega Group’s ties to the Israeli intelligence agency,
Mossad, also suggest Lauder was involved in procuring the passport, in light of his close ties
to the Israeli government and the fact that Mossad
has a history of using ambassadors abroad to procure false, foreign passports for its
operatives.
Lauder himself has been alleged to have ties to Mossad, as he is a long-time funder of IDC
Herzliya, an Israeli university
closely associated with Mossad and their recruiters as well as Israeli military
intelligence. Lauder even founded IDC Herzliya’s
Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy.
Furthermore, Lauder co-founded the Eastern European broadcasting network CETV with Mark
Palmer, a former U.S. diplomat, Kissinger aide and Reagan speechwriter. Palmer is better known
for co-founding the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an organization often described as
an accessory to U.S. intelligence, and one whose first president confessed to
the Washington Post that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years
ago by the CIA.” A 2001 report in the Evening Standard noted that Epstein
once
claimed that during the 1980s he worked for the CIA, but Epstein later backed away from
that assertion.
The origins of the Mega Group Mafia
The Mega Group — a secretive group of billionaires to which Lauder belongs — was
formed in 1991 by Charles Bronfman and Leslie Wexner, the latter of whom has received
considerable media scrutiny following the July arrest of his former protege Jeffrey Epstein.
Media profiles
of the group paint it as “a loosely organized club of 20 of the nation’s wealthiest
and most influential Jewish businessmen” focused on “philanthropy and
Jewishness,” with membership dues upwards of $30,000 per year. Yet several of its most
prominent members have ties to organized crime.
Mega Group members founded and/or are closely associated with some of the most well-known
pro-Israel organizations. For instance, members Charles Bronfman and Michael Steinhardt
formed
Birthright Taglit with the backing of then- and current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Steinhardt, an atheist, has stated that his motivation in helping to found the group was to
advance his own belief that devotion
to and faith in the state of Israel should serve as “a substitute for [Jewish]
theology.”
Other well-known groups associated with the Mega Group include the World Jewish Congress
— whose past president, Edgar Bronfman, and current president, Ronald Lauder, are both
Mega Group members — and B’nai B’rith, particularly its spin-off known as the
Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The Bronfman brothers were major donors to the ADL, with Edgar
Bronfman serving as the
ADL’s honorary national vice-chair for several years.
Image deleted: Former Israeli president Shimon Peres, second from left, listens to Edgar Bronfman during a
1995 lunch thrown in Peres’ honor. From left are: Laurence Tisch, Chairman, President and
Chief executive officer of CBS; Israeli Ambassador to the United States. Itamar Rabinowitz and
Bronfman. David Karp | AP
When Edgar Bronfman died in 2013, long-time ADL Director Abe Foxman said ,
“Edgar was for many years Chair of our Liquor Industry Division, Chair of our New York
Appeal, and one of our most significant benefactors.” Other Mega Group members that are
donors and major supporters of the ADL include
Ronald Lauder ,
Michael Steinhardt and the late Max
Fisher . As previously mentioned, Roy Cohn’s father was a long-time leader of
B’nai B’rith’s influential New England-New York chapter and Cohn was later a
celebrated member of its banking and finance lodge.
In addition, Mega Group members have also been key players in the pro-Israel lobby in the
United States. For instance, Max Fisher of the Mega Group
founded the National Jewish Coalition, now
known as the Republican Jewish Coalition — the main pro-Israel
neoconservative political lobbying group , known for its support of hawkish policies, and
whose current chief patrons, Sheldon Adelson and Bernard Marcus, are among Donald Trump’s
top donors.
Though the Mega Group has officially existed only since 1991, the use of
“philanthropy” to provide cover for more unscrupulous lobbying or business
activities was pioneered decades earlier by Sam Bronfman, the father of Mega Group members
Edgar and Charles Bronfman. While other North American elites like J.D. Rockefeller had
previously used philanthropic giving as a means of laundering their reputations,
Bronfman’s approach to philanthropy was unique because it was focused on giving
specifically to other members of his own ethno-religious background.
Sam Bronfman, as was detailed in Part
I of this series, had long-standing deep ties to organized crime, specifically Meyer
Lanksy’s organized crime syndicate. Yet, Bronfman’s private ambition, according to
those close to him, was to become a respected member of high society. As a consequence,
Bronfman worked hard to remove the stain that his mob associations had left on his public
reputation in Canada and abroad. He accomplished this by becoming a leader in Canada’s
Zionist movement and, by the end of the 1930s, he
was head of the Canadian Jewish Congress and had begun to make a name for himself as a
philanthropist for Jewish causes.
Yet even some of Bronfman’s activism and philanthropy had hints of the mobster-like
reputation he tried so hard to shake. For instance, Bronfman was actively involved in the
illegal shipping of arms to Zionist paramilitaries in Palestine prior to 1948, specifically as
a co-founder of the National Conference for Israeli and Jewish Rehabilitation that
smuggled weapons to the paramilitary group Haganah.
At the same time Bronfman was abetting the illegal smuggling of weapons to the Haganah, his
associates in the criminal underworld were doing the same. After World War II, close aides of
David Ben-Gurion, who would later become the first prime minister of Israel and was
instrumental in the founding of Mossad, forged tight-knit
relationships with Meyer Lansky, Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel, Mickey Cohen and
other Jewish gangsters of the period. They used their clandestine networks to establish a vast
arms smuggling network between the United States and Zionist settlements in Palestine, arming
both the Haganah and the Irgun paramilitary groups. As noted in Part I of this report, at the
same time these gangsters were aiding the illegal arming of ZIonsit paramilitaries, they were
strengthening their ties to U.S. intelligence that had first been formally (though covertly)
established in World War II.
After Israel was founded, Sam Bronfman worked with future Israeli Prime Minister
Shimon Peres to negotiate the sale of Canadian armaments at half-price to Israel and the
bargain weapons purchase was paid for entirely by a fundraising dinner hosted by Bronfman and
his wife. Many years later, Peres would go on
to introduce another future prime minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, to Jeffrey Epstein.
The rest of the Bronfman family’s march on “the road to respectability”
was undertaken by Bronfman’s children, who married into aristocratic families such as
the
European Rothschilds and the Wall Street “royalty” of
the Lehmans and the Loebs .
The Bronfmans’ newfound respectability did not mean that their association with the
Lansky-led criminal empire had dissolved. Indeed, prominent members of the Seagrams dynasty
came under fire in the 1960s and 1970s for their
close association with Willie “Obie” Obront, a major figure in Canadian
organized crime, whom Canadian professor Stephen Schneider has referred to as the Meyer Lansky
of Canada.
However, Edgar and Charles Bronfman were hardly the only members of the Mega Group with deep
and long-standing ties to the Lansky-led National Crime Syndicate. Indeed, one of the
group’s prominent members, hedge fund manager Michael Steinhardt, opened up about his own
family ties to Lansky in his autobiography No Bull: My Life in and out the Markets ,
where he noted that his father, Sol “Red McGee” Steinhardt, was Lansky’s jewel
fence of choice and
a major player in New York’s criminal underworld. Sol Steinhardt was also his
son’s first client on Wall Street and helped him jumpstart his career in finance.
The ties between the Mega Group and the National Crime Syndicate don’t stop there.
Another prominent member of the Mega Group with ties to this same criminal network is Max
Fisher, who has been described as Wexner’s mentor and is also alleged
to have worked with Detroit’s “Purple Gang” during Prohibition and
beyond. The Purple Gang were part of the network that smuggled Bronfman liquor from Canada into
the United State during Prohibition, and one of its founders, Abe Bernstein, was
a close associate of both Meyer Lansky and Moe Dalitz. Fisher was a
key adviser to several U.S. presidents, beginning with Dwight D. Eisenhower, as well as to
Henry Kissinger.
Image removed: Max Fisher, center, and Henry Kissinger, right, meet with leaders of Jewish organizations
prior to Kissinger’s 1975 Middle East trip. Henry Burroughs | AP
In addition to Fisher, Mega Group member Ronald Lauder was connected to Roy Cohn and Tom
Bolan, both of whom were closely associated with this same Lansky-led crime network (see
Part
I and
Part
II ) and who regularly represented top Mafia figures in court. Furthermore, another member
of the Mega Group, director Steven Spielberg, is
a
well-known protege of Lew Wasserman, the mob-connected media mogul and long-time backer of
Ronald Reagan’s film and later political career, discussed in
Part
II of this series.
One surprise connection to Cohn involves Mega Group member, and former president of U.S.
weapons firm General Dynamics, Lester Crown, whose brother-in-law is David Schine, Cohn’s
confidant and alleged lover during the McCarthy hearings, whose
relationship with Cohn helped bring about the downfall of McCarthyism.
Another member of the Mega Group worth noting is Laurence Tisch, who owned CBS News
for several years and founded Loews Corporation. Tisch is notable for his work
for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the precursor to the CIA, where Donald Barr,
who hired Epstein at the Dalton School, also served and which forged ties with Lansky’s
criminal empire during World War II.
Wexner’s mansions and the Shapiro murder
Leslie “Les” Wexner, the other Mega Group co-founder, also has ties to organized
crime. Wexner’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein have come under scrutiny following the
latter’s recent arrest, as Wexner was the only publicly acknowledged client of
Epstein’s suspicious hedge fund, the source of much of this wealth, and the previous
owner of Epstein’s $56 million Manhattan townhouse, which Wexner transferred to an
Epstein-controlled entity for free.
Before Epstein received the townhouse, Wexner appears to have used the residence for some
unconventional purposes, noted in a 1996 New York
Times article on the then-Wexner-owned residence, which included “a bathroom
reminiscent of James Bond movies: hidden beneath a stairway, lined with lead to provide shelter
from attack and supplied with closed-circuit television screens and a telephone, both concealed
in a cabinet beneath the sink.” The Times article does not speculate as to the
purpose of this equipment, though the allusion to famous fictional superspy James Bond suggests
that it may have been used to snoop on guests or conduct electronic surveillance.
The 1996 Times article also noted that, after Wexner bought the residence for $13.2
million in 1989, he spent millions more decorating and furnishing the home, including the
addition of the electronic equipment in the “James Bond” bathroom, only to
apparently never live in it. The Times , which interviewed Epstein for the piece, quoted
him as saying that “Les never spent more than two months there.” Epstein told the
Times , which identified Epstein as Wexner’s “protege and one of his
financial advisers,” that the house, by that time, already belonged to him.
That same year, Epstein was commissioning artwork for Wexner’s Ohio mansion. A
recent
article from the Times noted that:
In the summer of 1996, Maria Farmer was working on an art project for Mr. Epstein in
Mr. Wexner’s Ohio mansion. While she was there, Mr. Epstein sexually assaulted her,
according to an affidavit Ms. Farmer filed earlier this year in federal court in Manhattan.
She said that she fled the room and called the police, but that Mr. Wexner’s security
staff refused to let her leave for 12 hours.”
Farmer’s account strongly suggests that, given the behavior of his personal security
staff at his mansion following Epstein’s alleged assault on Farmer, Wexner was well
aware of Epstein’s predatory behavior towards young women. This is compounded by claims
made by Alan Dershowitz — a former lawyer for and friend of Epstein’s, who has
also been accused of raping underage girls — that Wexner has also been accused of raping underage
girls exploited by Epstein on at least seven occasions.
The presence of the electronic equipment in his home’s bathroom, other oddities
related to the townhouse, and aspects of the links between Epstein and Wexner suggest there is
more to Wexner, who has rather successfully developed a public image of a respectable
businessman and philanthropist, much like other prominent members of the Mega
Group.
Image removed: Leslie Wexner and his wife Abigail tour the “Transfigurations” exhibit at the
Wexner Center for the Arts. Jay LaPrete | AP
However, bits and pieces of Wexner’s private secrets have occasionally bubbled up,
only to be subjected to rapid cover-ups amidst concerns of “libeling” the powerful
and well-connected billionaire “philanthropist.”
In 1985, Columbus (Ohio) lawyer Arthur Shapiro was murdered in broad daylight
at point-blank range in what was largely referred to as a “mob style murder.” The
homicide still remains unsolved, likely due to the fact that then-Columbus Police Chief James
Jackson ordered the destruction of key documents of his department’s investigation into
the murder.
Jackson’s ordering of the documents’ destruction came to light years later in
1996, when he was under investigation for corruption. According to the Columbus Dispatch ,
Jackson justified the destruction of one “ viable and valuable ” report
because he felt that it “was so filled with wild speculation about prominent business
leaders that it was potentially libelous.” The nature of this “wild
speculation” was that “millionaire businessmen in Columbus and Youngstown were
linked to the ‘mob-style murder.’”
Though Jackson’s efforts were meant to keep this “libelous” report far
from public view, it was eventually obtained by Bob Fitrakis —
attorney, journalist, and executive director of the Columbus Institute for Contemporary
Journalism — after he was “accidentally” sent a copy of the report in 1998 as
part of a public records request.
The report, titled “ Shapiro Homicide Investigation: Analysis and
Hypothesis ,” names Leslie Wexner as linked “with associates reputed to be
organized crime figures” and also lists the names of businessman Jack Kessler, former
Columbus City Council President and Wexner associate Jerry Hammond, and former Columbus City
Council member Les Wright as also being involved in Shapiro’s murder.
The report also noted that Arthur Shapiro’s law firm — Schwartz, Shapiro, Kelm
& Warren — represented Wexner’s company, The Limited, and states that
“prior to his death, Arthur Shapiro managed this account [The Limited] for the law
firm.” It also noted that, at the time of his death, Shapiro “was the subject of an
investigation by the Internal Revenue Service because he had failed to file income tax returns
for some seven years prior to his death, and he had invested in some questionable tax
shelters.” It also stated that his death prevented Shapiro from his planned testimony at
a grand jury hearing about these “questionable tax shelters.”
As to Wexner’s alleged links to organized crime, the report focuses on the close
business relationship between Wexner’s The Limited and Francis Walsh, whose trucking
company “[had] done an excess of 90 percent of the Limited’s trucking business
around the time of Shapiro’s murder,” according to the report. Walsh was named in
a 1988 indictment as a “co-conspirator” of Genovese crime family boss Anthony
“Fat Tony” Salerno, whose long-time lawyer was Roy Cohn; and the Shapiro murder
report stated that Walsh was “still considered associates of the Genovese/LaRocca crime
family, and Walsh was still providing truck transportation for The Limited.”
Notably, the Genovese crime family has long formed a key part of the National Crime
Syndicate, as its former head, Charles “Lucky” Luciano, co-created the criminal organization
with his close friend Meyer Lansky. Upon Luciano’s imprisonment and subsequent
deportation from the United States, Lansky took over the syndicate’s U.S. operations and
his association with Luciano’s successors continued until Lansky’s death in
1983.
The “Mega” Mystery and the Mossad
In May 1997, the Washington Post broke
an explosive story — long since forgotten — based on an intercepted phone call
made between a Mossad official in the U.S. and his superior in Tel Aviv that discussed the
Mossad’s efforts to obtain a secret U.S. government document. According to the
Post, the Mossad official stated during the phone call that “Israeli Ambassador
Eliahu Ben Elissar had asked him whether he could obtain a copy of the letter given to
[Palestinian leader Yasser] Arafat by [then-Secretary of State Warren] Christopher on Jan. 16,
the day after the Hebron accord was signed by Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu.”
The Post article continued:
According to a source who viewed a copy of the NSA transcript of the conversation, the
intelligence officer, speaking in Hebrew, said, ‘The ambassador wants me to go to Mega
to get a copy of this letter.’ The source said the supervisor in Tel Aviv rejected the
request, saying, ‘This is not something we use Mega for.’”
The leaked communication led to an investigation that sought to identify an individual
code-named “Mega” that the Post said “may be someone in the U.S.
government who has provided information to the Israelis in the past,” a concern that
subsequently spawned a fruitless FBI investigation. The Mossad later claimed that
“Mega” was merely a codeword for the U.S.’ CIA, but the FBI and NSA were
unconvinced by that claim and
believed that it was a senior U.S. government official that had potentially once been
involved in working with Jonathan Pollard, the former U.S. naval intelligence analyst later
convicted of spying for the Mossad.
Almost one year to the day after the “Mega” spy scandal broke, the Wall
Street Journal was the first outlet to report on the
existence of a little-known organization of billionaires that was “informally”
called the Mega Group and had been founded years prior in 1991. The report made no mention of
the spy scandal that had spread concerns of Israeli espionage in the U.S. only a year prior.
However, the group’s distinctive “informal” name and the connections of its
members to the Mossad and to high-ranking Israeli politicians, including prime ministers, raise
the possibility that “Mega” was not an individual, as the FBI and NSA had believed,
but a group.
In 1997, when the “Mega” spy scandal broke, Netanyahu had recently become prime
minister of Israel after an upset victory, a victory that was
largely credited to one well-connected Netanyahu backer in particular, Ronald Lauder.
Beyond being a major donor, Lauder had brought Arthur Finklestein on to work for
Netanyahu’s 1996 campaign, whose strategies were credited for Netanyahu’s surprise
win. Netanyahu was close enough to Lauder that he personally enlisted Lauder and George Nader
to serve as his peace envoys to Syria.
Image removed: Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara with Ronald Lauder in 1997. Photo | Reuters
Nader, who was connected to the Trump 2016 campaign and Trump ally and Blackwater
founder Erik Prince, was
recently hit with federal child sex trafficking charges last month, soon after Jeffrey
Epstein had been arrested on similar charges. At the time Nader was picked to work with Lauder
on Netanyahu’s behalf, he had
already been caught possessing large amounts of child pornography on two separate
occasions, first in 1984 and later in 1990.
This strong connection between Netanyahu and Lauder during the time of the 1997
“Mega” spy scandal is important considering Mossad answers directly to
Israel’s prime minister.
Another possible connection between the Mega Group and the Mossad owes to the Mega
Group’s ties to Meyer Lansky’s criminal network. As was detailed in Part I, Lansky
had established deep ties to U.S. intelligence after World War II and was also connected to the
Mossad through Mossad official Tibor Rosenbaum, whose bank was frequently used by Lansky to
launder money. In addition, Lansky collaborated on at least one occasion with notorious Mossad
“superspy” Rafi Eitan, who he
helped acquire sensitive electronic equipment possessed only by the CIA but coveted by
Israeli intelligence. Eitan is best known in the U.S. for being the Mossad handler of Jonathan
Pollard.
Notably, Eitan was the main source of
claims that the code-word “Mega” used by the Mossad officials in 1997 referred to
the CIA and not to a potential source in the U.S. government once linked to Pollard’s
spying activities, making his claims as to the true meaning of the term somewhat dubious.
Given that the organized crime network tied to the Mega Group had ties to both U.S. and
Israeli intelligence, the “Mega” codeword could plausibly have referred to this
secretive group of billionaires. More supporting evidence for this theory comes from the fact
that prominent members of the Mega Group were business partners of Mossad agents, including
media mogul Robert Maxwell and commodities trader Marc Rich.
The mysterious Maxwells
The Maxwell family has become a source of renewed media interest following Jeffrey
Epstein’s arrest, as Ghislaine Maxwell, long described in the media as a British
“socialite,” was publicly cited as Epstein’s long-time “on and
off” girlfriend, and Epstein’s victims, as well as former wives of Epstein’s
friends, have claimed that she was Epstein’s “pimp” and procured underage
girls for his sexual blackmail operation. Ghislaine Maxwell is also alleged to have
engaged in the rape of the girls she procured for Epstein and to have used them to produce
child pornography.
Ghislaine was the favorite and youngest daughter of media mogul Robert Maxwell. Maxwell,
born Jan Ludvick Hoch, had joined the British Army in World War II. Afterwards, according to
authors John
Loftus and Mark Aarons , he greatly influenced the Czechoslovakian government’s
decision to arm Zionist paramilitaries during the 1948 war that resulted in Israel’s
creation as a state, and Maxwell himself was also involved in the smuggling of aircraft parts
to Israel.
Around this time, Maxwell was approached by British intelligence outfit MI6 and offered a
position that Maxwell ultimately declined. MI6 then classified
him as “Zionist — loyal only to Israel” and made him a person of interest. He
later became an agent of the Mossad, according to several books including Seymour Hersh’s
The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, and
Robert Maxwell: Israel’s Superspy by Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon.
Mossad was financing many of its operations in Europe from money stolen from
Maxwell’s newspaper pension fund. They got their hands on the funds almost as soon as
Maxwell made the purchase of the Mirror Newspaper Group with money lent to him by
Mossad.”
In exchange for his services, the Mossad helped Maxwell satisfy his sexual appetite during
his visits to Israel,
providing him with prostitutes, “the service maintained for blackmail
purposes.” It was later revealed that the hotel in which he stayed in Israel was bugged
with cameras, allowing the Mossad to acquire “a small library of video footage of Maxwell
in sexually compromising positions.” As with the CIA, the Mossad’s use of blackmail
against both friend and foe is well-documented
and known to be
extensive .
Maxwell was also a close associate and friend of Israeli “superspy” Rafi Eitan,
who, as previously mentioned, was Jonathan Pollard’s handler and who had previously
worked directly with Meyer Lansky. Eitan
had learned of a revolutionary new software being used by the U.S. government known as
“Promis” from Earl Brian, a long-time associate and aide to Ronald Reagan. Promis
is often considered the forerunner to the “Prism” software used by spy agencies
today and was developed by William Hamilton, who leased the software to the U.S. government
through his company, Inslaw, in 1982.
Image removed: Ariel Sharon (right)meets with Robert Maxwell in Jerusalem on Feb. 20, 1990. Photo | AP
According to author and former BBC investigative journalist Gordon Thomas, Brian
was angry that the U.S. Department of Justice was successfully using Promis to go after
organized crime and money-laundering activities and Eitan felt that the program could aid
Israel. At the time, Eitan was the director of the now defunct Israeli military intelligence
agency Lekem, which gathered scientific and technical intelligence abroad from both public and
covert sources, especially in relation to Israel’s nuclear weapons program.
A plan was hatched to
install a “trapdoor” into the software and then market Promis throughout the
world, providing the Mossad with invaluable intelligence on the operations of its enemies and
allies while also providing Eitan and Brian with copious amounts of cash. According to the
testimony of ex-Mossad official Ari Ben-Menashe, Brian
provided a copy of Promis to Israel’s military intelligence, which contacted an
Israeli American programmer living in California who then planted the “trapdoor” in
the software. The CIA was later said to have installed its own trapdoor in the software
but it is unknown if they did so with a version of the already bugged software and how widely
it was adopted relative to the version bugged by Israeli intelligence.
After the trapdoor was inserted, the problem became selling the bugged version of the
software to governments as well as private companies around the world, particularly in areas of
interest. Brian first attempted to buy out Inslaw and Promis and then use that same company to
sell the bugged version.
Unsuccessful, Brian turned to his close friend, then-Attorney General Ed Meese whose Justice
Department then abruptly refused to
make the payments to Inslaw that were stipulated by the contract, essentially using the
software for free, which Inslaw claimed to be theft. Some have speculated that Meese’s
role in that decision was shaped, not only by his friendship with Brian, but the fact that his
wife was a major investor in
Brian’s business ventures. Meese would later become an adviser to Donald Trump when he
was president-elect.
Inslaw was forced to declare bankruptcy as a result of Meese’s actions and sued the
Justice Department. The court later found that
the Meese-led department “took, converted, stole” the software through
“trickery, fraud and deceit.”
With Inslaw out of the way, Brian sold the software all over the world. Eitan later
recruited Robert Maxwell to become another Promis salesman, which he did remarkably well, even
succeeding in selling the software to Soviet intelligence and conspiring
with Republican Texas Senator John Tower to have the software adopted by the U.S.
government laboratory at Los Alamos. Dozens of countries used the software on their most
carefully guarded computer systems, unaware that Mossad now had access to everything Promis
touched.
Whereas the Mossad’s past reliance on gathering intelligence had relied on the same
tactics used by its equivalents in the U.S. and elsewhere, the widespread adoption of the
Promis software, largely through the actions of Earl Brian and Robert Maxwell, gave the Mossad
a way to gather not just troves of counterintelligence data, but also blackmail on other
intelligence agencies and powerful figures.
Indeed, Promis’ backdoor and adoption by intelligence agencies all over the world
essentially provided the Mossad with access to troves of blackmail that the CIA and FBI had
acquired on their friends and foes for over half a century. Strangely, in recent years, the FBI
has sought to
hide information related to Robert Maxwell’s connection to the Promis scandal.
According to journalist Robert
Fisk , Maxwell was also involved in the Mossad abduction of Israeli nuclear weapons
whistleblower Vanunu Mordechai. Mordechai had attempted to provide the media with information
on the extent of Israel’s nuclear weapons program, which was eventually published by the
Sunday Times of London . Yet, Mordechai had also contacted the Daily Mirror with
the information, the Mirror being an outlet that was owned by Maxwell and whose foreign
editor was a close Maxwell associate and alleged Mossad asset, Nicholas Davies. Journalist
Seymour Hersh alleged that Davies had also been involved in Israeli arms deals.
Per Fisk, it was Maxwell who contacted the Israeli Embassy in London and told them of
Mordechai’s activities. This led to Mordechai’s entrapment by a female Mossad agent
who seduced him as part of a “honey trap” operation that led to his kidnapping and
later imprisonment in Israel. Mordechai served an 18-year sentence, 12 years of which were in
solitary confinement.
Then, there is the issue of Maxwell’s death, widely cited by mainstream and
independent media alike as suspicious
and a potential homicide . According to authors Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon, Maxwell
had sealed his own fate when he attempted to threaten top Mossad officials with the exposure of
certain operations if they did not help him rescue his media empire from crippling debt and
financial difficulties. Many of Maxwell’s
creditors , who had grown increasingly displeased with the media mogul, were Israeli and
several of them were alleged to be Mossad-connected themselves.
Thomas and Dillon argue in their
biography of Maxwell’s life that the Mossad felt that Maxwell had become more of a
liability than an asset and killed him on his yacht three months after he demanded the bailout.
On the other extreme are theories that suggest Maxwell committed suicide because of the
financial difficulties his empire faced.
Image removed: Ghislaine Maxwell, far right, Robert Maxwell’s daughter, looks on his casket is
unloaded from a plane in Jerusalem, Nov. 8, 1991. Heribert Proepper | AP
Some have taken Maxwell’s funeral held in Israel as the country’s
“official” confirmation of Maxwell’s service to the Mossad, as it was likened
to a state funeral and attended
by no less than six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence. During his funeral
service in Jerusalem, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogized him and
stated : “He has done more for Israel than can today be said.” Other
eulogies were given by future Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert (then Health Minister) and Shimon
Peres, with the latter also praising
Maxwell’s “services” on behalf of Israel.
Swimming in the same
swamp
As he built his business empire — and even became a member of Parliament, Maxwell was
also doing work for Israeli intelligence, as several of the Israeli companies in which he
invested became fronts for the Mossad. In addition, as he became a media mogul, he developed a
bitter rivalry with Rupert Murdoch, a close friend of Roy Cohn and an influential figure in
American and British media.
Maxwell also partnered with the Bronfman brothers, Edgar and Charles — key figures in
the Mega Group. In 1989 Maxwell and Charles Bronfman
partnered up to bid on the Jerusalem Post newspaper and the Post described
the two men as “two of the world’s leading Jewish financiers” and their
interest in the venture as “developing The Jerusalem Post and expanding its
influence among world Jewry.” A year prior, Maxwell and Bronfman
had become top shareholders in the Israeli pharmaceutical company Teva.
Maxwell also worked with Charles Bronfman’s brother Edgar in the late 1980s to
convince the Soviet Union to allow Soviet Jews to immigrate to Israel. Edgar’s efforts in
this regard
have received more attention , as it was a defining moment of his decades-long presidency
of the World Jewish Congress, of which Ronald Lauder is currently president. Yet, Maxwell had
also made considerable
use of his contacts in the Soviet government in this effort.
Maxwell also moved in the circles of the network previously described in Parts I and II in
this series. A key example of this is the May 1989
party Maxwell hosted on his yacht, the Lady Ghislaine — named for his youngest
daughter and Epstein’s future “girlfriend.” Attendees of the party included
Roy Cohn’s protege Donald Trump and his long-time law partner Tom Bolan. A close friend
of Nancy Reagan was also present, journalist Mike Wallace, as was literary agent Mort Janklow,
who represented Ronald Reagan and two of Cohn’s closest friends: journalists William
Safire and Barbara Walters.
The CEO of what would soon become Time Warner, Steve Ross, was also invited to the exclusive
event. Ross’ presence is notable, as he had built his business empire largely through
his association with New York crime lords Manny Kimmel and Abner “Longy”
Zwillman. Zwillman was a close friend of Meyer Lansky, Michael Steinhardt’s father, and
Sam Bronfman, father of Edgar and Charles Bronfman.
Another attendee of the Maxwell yacht party was former Secretary of the Navy and former
Henry Kissinger staffer Jon Lehman, who would go on to associate with the controversial
neoconservative think tank, Project for a New American Century. Prior to being secretary of the
Navy, Lehman had been president of the Abington Corporation, which hired arch-neocon Richard
Perle to manage
the portfolio of Israeli arms dealers Shlomo Zabludowicz and his son Chaim, who paid
Ablington $10,000 month. A scandal arose when those
payments continued after both Lehman and Perle joined the Reagan Department of Defense and
while Perle was working to persuade the Pentagon to buy arms from companies linked to
Zabludowicz. Perle had been part of the Reagan transition team along with Roy Cohn’s
long-time friend and law partner Tom Bolan (another Maxwell yacht guest).
In addition to Lehman, another former Kissinger staffer, Thomas Pickering was present at
Maxwell’s yacht part. Pickering played a minor role in the Iran-Contra affair and, at the
time of the Maxwell yacht party, he was U.S. ambassador to Israel. Senator John Tower (R-TX),
who allegedly conspired with Maxwell in the Mossad-bugged Promis software at the Los Alamos
laboratories, was also present. Tower died just months before Maxwell in
a suspicious plane crash .
Ghislaine Maxwell was also at this rather notable event. After her father’s mysterious
death and alleged murder on the same yacht that bears her name in 1991, she quickly packed her
bags and moved to New York City. There, she soon made the acquaintance of Jeffrey Epstein and,
a few years later, developed close ties to the Clinton family, which will be discussed in the
next installment of this series.
Jeffrey Epstein and the new “Promis”
After it was revealed that Epstein had evaded stricter sentencing in 2008 due to his links
to “intelligence,” it was the Mossad ties of Ghislaine Maxwell’s father that
have led many to speculate that Epstein’s sexual blackmail operation was sharing
incriminating information with the Mossad. Former CBS executive producer and current
journalist for the media outlet Narativ , Zev Shalev, has since claimed that he
independently confirmed that Epstein was tied directly to the Mossad.
Image removed: Donald and Melania Trump with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at the Mar-a-Lago club,
Palm Beach, Florida in 2000. Photo | Davidoff Studios
Epstein was a long-time friend of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who has
long-standing and deep ties to Israel’s intelligence community. Their decades-long
friendship has been the source of recent political attacks targeting Barak, who is running in
the Israeli elections against current Prime Minister Netanyahu later this year.
Barak is also close to Epstein’s chief patron and Mega Group member Leslie Wexner,
whose Wexner Foundation
gave Barak $2 million in 2004 for a still unspecified research program. According to Barak,
he was first introduced to Epstein by former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, who eulogized
Robert Maxwell at his funeral and had decades-long ties with the Bronfman family going back to
the early 1950s. Peres was also a
frequent participant in programs funded by
Leslie Wexner in Israel and
worked closely with the Mossad for decades.
In 2015, a few years after Epstein’s release from prison following his conviction for
soliciting sex from a minor in 2008, Barak formed a company with Epstein with the chief purpose
of investing in an Israeli start-up then known as Reporty. That company, now called Carbyne,
sells its signature software to 911 call centers and emergency service providers and is also
available to consumers as an app that provides emergency services with access to a
caller’s camera and location and also runs any caller’s identity through any linked
government database. It has specifically been marketed by the company itself and the Israeli
press as a
solution to mass shootings in the
United States and is already being used by at least two U.S. counties.
Israeli media reported that Epstein and Barak were among the company’s largest
investors. Barak poured millions into the company and it was recently revealed by Haaretz
that a significant amount of Barak’s total investments in Carbyne was funded by Epstein,
making him a “ de facto partner” in the company. Barak is now Carbyne’s chairman .
The company’s executive team are all former members of different branches of Israeli
intelligence, including the elite military intelligence unit, Unit 8200, that is often likened
to Israel’s equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Carbyne’s
current CEO, Amir Elichai, served in Unit 8200 and tapped
former Unit 8200 commander Pinchas Buchris to serve as the
company’s director and on its board. In addition to Elichai, another Carbyne co-founder,
Lital Leshem , also
served in Unit 8200 and later worked for Israeli private spy company Black Cube. Leshem now
works for a subsidiary of Erik Prince’s company Frontier Services Group, according to the
independent media outlet Narativ .
The company also includes several tie-ins to the Trump administration, including Palantir
founder and Trump ally Peter Thiel — an investor in Carbyne. In addition,
Carbyne’s board of advisers
includes former Palantir employee Trae Stephens, who was a member of the Trump transition team,
as well as former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.
Trump donor and New York real-estate developer Eliot Tawill is also on Carbyne’s board , alongside Ehud Barak and
Pinchas Buchris.
Narativ , which wrote the first expose on Carbyne after Epstein’s arrest, noted
that the Chinese government uses a smartphone app very similar to Carbyne as part of its mass
surveillance apparatus, even though the original purpose of the app was for improved emergency
reporting. According to Narativ , the Chinese Carbyne-equivalent “monitors every
aspect of a user’s life, including personal conversations, power usage, and tracks a
user’s movement.”
Given the history of Robert Maxwell — the father of Epstein’s long-time
“girlfriend” and young-girl-procuring madam, Ghislaine Maxwell — in promoting
the sale of Carbyne’s modified Promis software, which was also marketed as a tool to
improve government efficacy but was actually a tool of mass surveillance for the benefit of
Israeli intelligence, the overlap between Carbyne and Promis is troubling and warrants further
investigation.
It is also worth noting that Unit 8200-connected tech start-ups are being widely integrated
into U.S. companies and have developed close ties to the U.S. military-industrial complex, with
Carbyne being just one example of that trend.
As MintPress
previously reported , Unit 8200-linked outfits like Team8 have recently hired former
National Security Agency (NSA) Director Mike Rogers as a senior advisor and gained prominent
Silicon Valley figures, including former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, as key investors. Many
American technology companies, from Intel to Google to Microsoft,
have merged with several Unit 8200-connected start-ups in recent years and have been moving
many key jobs and operations to Israel with
backing from key Republican donors like Paul Singer . Many of those same companies,
particularly Google and Microsoft, are also major U.S. government contractors.
Who was
Epstein really working for?
Even though Jeffrey Epstein appears to have had ties to the Mossad, this series has revealed
that the networks to which Epstein was connected were not Mossad-exclusive, as many of the
individuals close to Epstein — Lesie Wexner, for instance — were part of a
mob-connected class of oligarchs with deep ties to both the U.S. and Israel. As was discussed
in Part I of this series, the sharing of “intelligence” (i.e., blackmail) between
intelligence agencies and the same organized crime network connected to the Mega Group goes
back decades. With Leslie Wexner of the Mega Group as Epstein’s chief patron, as opposed
to a financier with direct ties to the Mossad, a similar relationship is more than likely in
the case of the sexual blackmail operation that Epstein ran.
Given that intelligence agencies in both the U.S. and elsewhere often conduct covert
operations for the benefit of oligarchs and large corporations as opposed to “national
security interest,” Epstein’s ties to the Mega Group suggest that this group holds
a unique status and influence in both the governments of the U.S. and of Israel, as well as in
other countries (e.g., Russia) that were not explored in this report. This is by virtue of
their role as key political donors in both countries, as well as the fact that several of them
own powerful companies or financial institutions in both countries. Indeed, many members of the
Mega Group have deep ties to Israel’s political class, including to Netanyahu and Ehud
Barak as well as to now-deceased figures like Shimon Peres, and to members of the American
political class.
Ultimately, the picture painted by the evidence is not a direct tie to a single intelligence
agency but a web linking key members of the Mega Group, politicians, and officials in both the
U.S. and Israel, and an organized-crime network with deep business and intelligence ties in
both nations.
Though this series has so far focused on the ties of this network to main Republican Party
affiliates, the next and final installment will reveal the ties developed between this web and
the Clintons. As will be revealed, despite the Clintons’ willingness to embrace corrupt
dealings during the span of their political careers, their mostly friendly relationship with
this network still saw them use the power of sexual blackmail to obtain certain policy
decisions that were favorable to their personal and financial interests but not to the
Clintons’ political reputation or agendas.
Editor’s note | The original version of this article incorrectly stated that Rafi
Eitan was interested in repurposing the American-made Promise software to restore his standing
in Israel’s intelligence community caused by the fall-out from the Pollard Affair. The
Pollard Affair occurred three years after Eitan had succeeded in repurposing the software and
MintPress has removed that incorrect information from the article and regrets the
error.
This article also originally neglected to mention that Eitan, at the time of his
collaboration with Earl Brian to repurpose the Promis software, was the director of the
now-defunct Israeli military intelligence agency Lekem at the time of those events and that
information has been added to the story.
Feature photo | Graphic by Claudio Cabrera
Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to
several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute
and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and
is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in
Journalism.
Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.
"... That was while Robert Mueller ran the Bureau, which means everything about Epstein's blackmail and kompromat operation has been tucked safely away out of sight in FBI files for at least a decade. Much longer, new evidence shows. ..."
"... *CIA Acknowledged in 2003, It Knew that Ghislaine Maxwell's Late Father was a Major Foreign Intelligence Agent Operating Inside the U.S. ..."
"... That Robert Maxwell was a ruthless, corrupt, tax-dodging international businessman who served as an Israeli agent is highly probable. ..."
"... For the first time, Maxwell had failed to get his own way. He started to threaten and bluster. He then demanded that, for past services, he should receive immediately a quick fix of £400million to bale him out of his financial difficulties. ..."
"... Instead of providing the money, a small group of Mossad officers set about planning his murder. They feared that he was going to publicly expose all Mossad had done in the time he worked for them. They knew that he was gradually becoming mentally unstable and paranoid. He was taking a cocktail of drugs - Halcion and Zanax - which had serious side effects. ..."
"... Then Maxwell was contacted. He was told to fly to Gibraltar, go aboard the Lady Ghislaine and sail to the Canary Islands. There at sea he would receive his £400million quick fix in the form of a banker's draft. Maxwell did as he was told. ..."
"... As Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent told us: "On that cold night Mossad's problems with Robert Maxwell were over." ..."
"... The incontrovertible facts about his murder are contained in a previously-unseen autopsy report by Britain's then-leading forensic pathologist Dr Iain West and Israel State Pathologist Dr Yehuda Hiss. Of all the documents in our possession, these reports confirm the truth about Maxwell's death. ..."
"... Boy that Mueller has had a busy career hasn't he? Didn't he start out in Chicago where he gave Whitey Bulgar cover for being a mob boss? Then there's his cover up before and after 9/11. The weapons of mass destruction that he said Saddam had. The anthrax prosecution, Epstein's pedophilia cover up, HSBC and now he is trying to cover Hillary's buttocks. And maybe Obama's? I'm sure I've missed a few things that he did or didn't do. ..."
"... Acosta was told to stand down by someone at the top of the food chain. Mueller. Ugh what a slimy piece of work he is. But not to the Russia Gaters. Oh no. "He is a highly decorated marine who takes no guff from anyone. ..."
"... In that time, he had free access to Margaret Thatcher's Downing Street, to Ronald Reagan's White House, to the Kremlin and to the corridors of power throughout Europe. ..."
"... Inquiring minds want to know did Maxwell have access to Margaret and Ron because they liked him or because he had something on them? ..."
"... Epstein is the destruction of the Deep State. ..."
"... That pedophelia and politics scandal, better known as the Franklin Coverup, made the papers for a few months, too, before it was made to go away. Similarly, a couple of the operators served some time on reduced charges after that one. ..."
"... The two main suspects in the Bush, Sr. White House child ring were Craig Spence and Lawrence E. King Jr. King sang the National anthem at two GOP national conventions. He served time in jail for bank fraud. Spence was a Republican lobbyist before he committed suicide. Several of his partners went to jail for being involved in the adult part of the homosexual prostitution ring. ..."
"... Mueller's scrupulous avoidance of the CIA link in his prosecution of Manuel Noriega and his diversion of the PanAm 103 bombing and framing of two Libyans. Bobby Mueller has been a real go to guy when the security establishment needs a phony investigation. ..."
"... Bobby Mueller has been a real go to guy when the security establishment needs a phony investigation. ..."
"... The anthrax investigation is the most serious of his crimes. Mueller is being sued by his lead investigator in that case. ..."
"... Every now and then, here and there the curtain lifts for a moment and the political elite of a country, the business elite, the spy services, the military, and organized crime are revealed to be all working together, indeed practically joined at the hip ..."
"... partnership started during the early Cold War with US intelligence officers facilitating the drug trade out of Turkey and Burma through Europe. That soon spread to the Americas and globally. Covert operations such as Gladio, Condor, and the Safari Club, and associated banks (Franklin National Bank, BCCI, Riggs Bank, HSBC, etc.) produced massive human rights violations, transnational terrorism and governmental corruption. The CIA's secret wars provided funds and official cover for private-public sector alliance of criminals, bankers and spooks around the world. ..."
"... The CIA, MI6 and Mossad ran overlapping coordinated operations using privateers, paramilitaries and organized crime networks that consumed vast amounts of cash generated by money laundering mechanisms. Enriched by the looting of the former Soviet Union, along with the infusion of Arab oil money (the Saudi Yamamah slush fund), the "Octopus" became the instrument of Oligarchs that have thoroughly corrupted western governments and secret services. ..."
"... The Snowden release included a number of documents that illustrate the on-line entrapment and political disruption activities run by the two main communications intelligence agencies. ..."
"... Epstein recruits young girls, throws parties where he invites potential hedge fund clients, lets nature take its course and films the proceedings, extracts blackmail in the form of investments to his (largely fake) hedge fund, which actually just buys an index fund (no actual fund management required). He takes a percentage from the coerced investments. Nobody talks because they have too much to lose. No suspicious payments to raise eyebrows at the IRS. ..."
"... Epstein brought in the clients. The CIA/MI-6/Mossad provided necessary cover from the FBI and local cops - then, three or four agencies shared the intelligence take, as they had for decades from Robert Maxwell's operations. ..."
"... For Ghislaine, it was simply carrying on the family business for fun and profit. For the spooks, it was business as usual going back to the Green House, the Berlin bordello founded in the the 1870s by Wilhelm Steiber, a Prussian Police section chief, to provide useful intelligence to Bismarck's Military Intelligence, which he reorganized. ..."
"... Epstein is also well acquainted with University President Lawrence H. Summers. The two serve together on the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, two elite international relations organizations. ..."
"... Epstein's relationships within the academy are remarkable since the tycoon, who has amassed his fortune by managing the wealth of billionaires from his private Caribbean island, does not hold a bachelor's degree. ..."
"... There's a rocky road ahead for Larry Summers. Summers introduces Epstein into the Harvard fold, but becomes reckless with his newly-refined Neoliberalism and his opinions concerning "lady scholars." ..."
That was while Robert Mueller ran the Bureau, which means everything about Epstein's blackmail and kompromat operation
has been tucked safely away out of sight in FBI files for at least a decade. Much longer, new evidence shows.
The real question is, why did the FBI wait for more than a decade to bust Epstein and Maxwell?
Epstein and Maxwell came to the attention of the FBI in 1996, when, curiously, the Bureau never acted on an accusation that
they had together sexually abused a 15 year old girl in a bedroom inside Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. Documents in a recent
law suit filed by an alleged victim, Maria Farmer, show that the FBI had been aware of Epstein and Maxwell's child abuse activities
in New York for at least a dozen years before Epstein was finally charged in 2008 with much-reduced Florida state offenses.
https://www.yourtango.com/2019323698/who-maria-farmer-latest-woman-accus...
Farmer claims she reported her sexual assault to New York police and the FBI in 1996. "To my knowledge, I was the first
person to report Maxwell and Epstein to the FBI," she wrote in her affidavit."
*CIA Acknowledged in 2003, It Knew that Ghislaine Maxwell's Late Father was a Major Foreign Intelligence Agent Operating
Inside the U.S.
Previously, Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine's father, had for many years been known to have been involved in high-level espionage
in the United States, as detailed in a 2003 publication of the CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence, The Intelligence Officer's
Bookshelf . Therein, the CIA reviewer of a biography by British author Gordon Thomas acknowledged about Maxwell:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-pub...
That Robert Maxwell was a ruthless, corrupt, tax-dodging international businessman who served as an Israeli agent is
highly probable.
For the deeper background to the Epstein-Maxwell multinational blackmail, coverup and kompromat operation, we have to
look at the events that led up to the 1991 death of Robert Maxwell. A summary of the Maxwell bio by its authors recounts:
British Publisher Robert Maxwell
Was Mossad Spy
By Gordon Thomas And Martin Dillon
The Mirror - UK
12-6-2002
[ . . .]
Eleven years after former Daily Mirror owner Robert Maxwell plunged from his luxury yacht to a watery grave, his death still
arouses intense interest.
Many different theories have circulated about what really happened on board the Lady Ghislaine that night in May 1991.
[ . . . ]
The Jewish millionaire and former Labour MP [born Ludvik Hoch
in Czechoslovakia] died the way he had lived - threatening.
He had threatened his wife. Threatened his children. Threatened the staff of this newspaper.
But finally he issued one threat too many - he threatened Mossad.
He told them that unless they gave him £400million to save his crumbling empire, he would expose all he had done for them.
In that time, he had free access to Margaret Thatcher's Downing Street, to Ronald Reagan's White House, to the Kremlin and
to the corridors of power throughout Europe.
On top of that he had built himself a position of power within the crime families of eastern Europe, teaching them how to
funnel their vast wealth from drugs, arms smuggling and prostitution to banks in safe havens around the globe.
Maxwell passed on all the secrets he learned to Mossad in Tel Aviv. In turn, they tolerated his excesses, vanities and insatiable
appetite for a luxurious lifestyle and women.
He told his controllers who they should target and how they should do it. He appointed himself as Israel's unofficial ambassador
to the Soviet Bloc. Mossad saw the advantage in that.
[ . . . ]
The more successful Maxwell became the more risks he took and the more dangerous he was to Mossad. At the same time, the
very public side of Maxwell, who then owned 400 companies, began to unwind.
He spent lavishly and lost money on deals. The more he lost, the more he tried to claw money from the banks. Then he saw
a way out of his problems.
He was approached by Vladimir Kryuchkov, head of the KGB. Spymaster and tycoon met in the utmost secrecy in the Kremlin.
Kryuchkov had an extraordinary proposal. He wanted Maxwell to help orchestrate the overthrow of Mikhail Gorbachev, the reformist
Soviet leader. That would bring to an end a fledgling democracy and a return to the Cold War days.
In return, Maxwell's massive debts would be wiped out by a grateful Kryuchkov, who planned to replace Gorbachev. The KGB
chief wanted Maxwell to use the Lady Ghislaine, named after Maxwell's daughter, as a meeting place between the Russian plotters,
Mossad chiefs and Israel's top politicians.
The plan was for the Israelis to go to Washington and say that democracy could not work in Russia and that it was better
to allow the country to return to a modified form of communism, which America could help to control. In return, Kryuchkov would
guarantee to free hundreds of thousands of Jews and dissidents in the Soviet republics.
Kryuchkov told Maxwell that he would be seen as a saviour of all those Jews. It was a proposal he could not refuse. But
when he put it to his Mossad controllers they were horrified. They said Israel would have no part in such a madcap plan.
For the first time, Maxwell had failed to get his own way. He started to threaten and bluster. He then demanded that,
for past services, he should receive immediately a quick fix of £400million to bale him out of his financial difficulties.
Instead of providing the money, a small group of Mossad officers set about planning his murder. They feared that he
was going to publicly expose all Mossad had done in the time he worked for them. They knew that he was gradually becoming mentally
unstable and paranoid. He was taking a cocktail of drugs - Halcion and Zanax - which had serious side effects.
The group of Mossad plotters sensed, like Solomon, he could bring their temple tumbling down and cause incalculable harm
to Israel. The plan to kill him was prepared in the utmost secrecy. A four-man squad was briefed.
Then Maxwell was contacted. He was told to fly to Gibraltar, go aboard the Lady Ghislaine and sail to the Canary Islands.
There at sea he would receive his £400million quick fix in the form of a banker's draft. Maxwell did as he was told.
On the night of November 4, 1991, the Lady Ghislaine, one of the world's biggest yachts, was at sea.
[ . . . ]
As Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent told us: "On that cold night Mossad's problems with Robert Maxwell were over."
The incontrovertible facts about his murder are contained in a previously-unseen autopsy report by Britain's then-leading
forensic pathologist Dr Iain West and Israel State Pathologist Dr Yehuda Hiss. Of all the documents in our possession, these
reports confirm the truth about Maxwell's death.
Gordon Thomas & Martin Dillon are authors of The Assassination of Robert Maxwell: Israel's Super Spy, published by Robson
Books.
The obvious question, why did the U.S. government let these intelligence crimes continue for decades, isn't being asked. The
answer is almost self-evident. Information and leverage obtained by Maxwell-Epstein and Co. was far too valuable to its several
operators to let it all end too soon.
leap out at me as suggesting how Epstein connects to much bigger subjects. First is the assertion that Maxwell was
... teaching them how to funnel their vast wealth from drugs, arms smuggling and prostitution to banks in safe havens around
the globe.
This area of trafficking and money laundering directly connects to Mueller and his essential exoneration of
HSBC .
The other quotation that suggests the importance of money laundering is here:
The plan was for the Israelis to go to Washington and say that democracy could not work in Russia and that it was better
to allow the country to return to a modified form of communism, which America could help to control.
The life's work of
Antony Sutton at Stanford's Hoover Institution shows that American industry was ALWAYS controlling communism as well as Soviet
industrial development, and that a trend toward social democracy, represented by Gorbachev, would have put an end to that control.
@Linda Wood his money laundering and blackmailing activities. While the review confirms that Robert Maxwell was for decades
a major Mossad agent actively setting up operations and cover in the United States and the UK, I can only surmise that the spreading
political influence of Eastern European organized crime networks and child honey traps are things that the Agency didn't want
to discuss publicly in 2003.
As for Mueller, let's not forget that he was FBI Director and before that the head of the Criminal Division at Main Justice
at the time that global "black finance" grew along with the catastrophic spread of multinational crime and terrorism. BCCI, Iran-Contra,
9/11, and the rise of transnational Oligarchs happened on his watch. As the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the United States
at the time, it is hard to imagine anyone more responsibility for the ultimate consequences than Robert Mueller. There is perhaps
someone who bears ultimate responsibility, the President who appointed Mueller: George Herbert Walker Bush and his lesser son,
Shrub, who promoted him.
... wouldn't you assume that this entire affair is an ongoing Mossad operation, which may or may not have concluded? The US
IC is just another operative inside the envelope, but Mossad owns the assets and the intellectual property. I think we could assume
that some of this is automated and Mossad has ongoing leverage still in play.
The obvious question, why did the U.S. government let these intelligence crimes continue for decades, isn't being asked.
The answer is almost self-evident. Information and leverage obtained by Maxwell-Epstein and Co. was far too valuable to its
several operators to let it all end too soon.
.
Mossad's legendary blackmail traps ensnared even high-level deep state authorities and made them pliable. The recent history
of United States foreign policy is an enigma that can only be solved when that assumption is inserted. Once the assumption is
in place, it opens like a Pandora's box. Don't you find that to be the case?
In a recent investigation I presented the case that British banking and financial giant HSBC conspired with banking institutions
with documented links to terrorist financing, including those responsible for helping bankroll the 9/11 attacks.
SUNDAY, JULY 29, 2012
Black Dossier: HSBC & Terrorist Finance
Moral equivalencies abound. After all, when American secret state agencies manage drug flows or direct terrorist proxies
to attack official enemies it's not quite the same as battling terror or crime.
Pounding home that point, a new report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations accused HSBC of exposing "the
U.S. financial system to a wide array of money laundering, drug trafficking, and terrorist financing risks due to poor anti-money
laundering (AML) controls."
That 335-page report, "U.S. Vulnerabilities to Money Laundering, Drugs, and Terrorist Financing: HSBC Case History," (large
pdf file available
here ) was issued after a year-long Senate investigation zeroed-in on the bank's U.S. affiliate, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., better
known as HBUS.
Drilling down, we learned that amongst the "services" offered by HSBC subsidiaries and correspondent banks were sweet deals
with financial entities with terrorist ties; the transportation of billions of dollars in cash by plane and armored car through
their London Banknotes division; the clearing of sequentially-numbered travelers checks through dodgy Cayman Islands accounts
for Mexican drug lords and Russian mafiosi.
From richly-appointed suites at Canary Wharf, London, the bank's "smartest guys in the room" handed some of the most violent
gangsters on earth the financial wherewithal to organize their respective industries: global crime.
A case in point. In 2008 alone the Senate revealed that the bank's Cayman Islands branch handled some 50,000 client accounts
(all without benefit of offices or staff on Grand Cayman, mind you), yet still managed to ship some $7 billion (£10.9bn) in
cash from Mexico into the U.S. Now that's creative accounting!...
@Linda Wood HSBC, huh--there must be some clever name for it, which deserves no research.
what an eloquent article you presented. Brief but right on target. It isn't just sex, drugs and rock and roll. Now it is drugs
- money -sexual perversion--and perhaps worse? Rumors are flying about what video on the Weiner laptop showed. It is strictly
heresay, but a core of folks seem to believe the suspicions are possible.
snoopydawg on Thu, 07/11/2019 - 8:48pm
Boy that Mueller has had a busy career
hasn't he? Didn't he start out in Chicago where he gave Whitey Bulgar cover for being a mob boss? Then there's his
cover up before and after 9/11. The weapons of mass destruction that he said Saddam had. The anthrax prosecution, Epstein's pedophilia
cover up, HSBC and now he is trying to cover Hillary's buttocks. And maybe Obama's? I'm sure I've missed a few things that he
did or didn't do.
Acosta is saying that if he hadn't made the plea deal then Epstein would never have served any time in
prison. Well he actually only slept there since he got to leave every day for work and then there's the massages he got after
his busy day at work. But there were more than 80 pages that the Feds wrote on his escapades so I think that story he told congress
is true. Acosta was told to stand down by someone at the top of the food chain. Mueller. Ugh what a slimy piece of work he
is. But not to the Russia Gaters. Oh no. "He is a highly decorated marine who takes no guff from anyone.
In that time, he had free access to Margaret Thatcher's Downing Street, to Ronald Reagan's White House, to the Kremlin
and to the corridors of power throughout Europe.
Inquiring minds want to know did Maxwell have access to Margaret and Ron because they liked him or because he had something
on them?
Great information! The more I learn the more I need a shower.
is how I've been feeling all week from reading about this, just more and more demoralized when I think about the depravation
of our so-called "leadership." What is it that we're supposed to think of as the new normal after this behavior?
That pedophelia and politics scandal, better known as the Franklin Coverup, made the papers for a few months, too, before
it was made to go away. Similarly, a couple of the operators served some time on reduced charges after that one.
The two main suspects in the Bush, Sr. White House child ring were Craig Spence and Lawrence E. King Jr. King sang the
National anthem at two GOP national conventions. He served time in jail for bank fraud. Spence was a Republican lobbyist before
he committed suicide. Several of his partners went to jail for being involved in the adult part of the homosexual prostitution
ring.
Mueller's scrupulous avoidance of the CIA link in his prosecution of Manuel Noriega and his diversion of the PanAm 103
bombing and framing of two Libyans. Bobby Mueller has been a real go to guy when the security establishment needs a phony investigation.
Bobby Mueller has been a real go to guy when the security establishment needs a phony investigation.
The anthrax investigation is the most serious of his crimes. Mueller is being
sued by his lead investigator in that case.
Because researchers in our biological weapons labs went public with what they were doing, and where such research was being
done in the U.S., we learned the CIA was one of several outfits doing biological weapons research.
But Mueller exonerated all of them, including the CIA, with no explanation and only focused on a lone vaccine researcher at
the Army lab when journalists began to ask why no one had been indicted after seven years of investigation, at which point the
FBI attempted to harass the suspect into committing suicide.
Every now and then, here and there the curtain lifts for a moment and the political elite of a country, the business elite,
the spy services, the military, and organized crime are revealed to be all working together, indeed practically joined at the
hip.
partnership started during the early Cold War with US intelligence officers facilitating the drug trade out of Turkey and
Burma through Europe. That soon spread to the Americas and globally. Covert operations such as Gladio, Condor, and the Safari
Club, and associated banks (Franklin National Bank, BCCI, Riggs Bank, HSBC, etc.) produced massive human rights violations, transnational
terrorism and governmental corruption. The CIA's secret wars provided funds and official cover for private-public sector alliance
of criminals, bankers and spooks around the world.
This "dark alliance" assumed a political and economic life of its own beyond its original intent to counter communist movements.
By the Vietnam War, Agency operators were running most of the heroin trade in the world through proprietary airlines, banks and
logistics companies. In the mid-1970s, CIA Director Bush expanded privatization with Saudi funding in his Safari Club deal that
eventually morphed into Al Qaeda and ISIS.
The CIA, MI6 and Mossad ran overlapping coordinated operations using privateers, paramilitaries and organized crime networks
that consumed vast amounts of cash generated by money laundering mechanisms. Enriched by the looting of the former Soviet Union,
along with the infusion of Arab oil money (the Saudi Yamamah slush fund), the "Octopus" became the instrument of Oligarchs
that have thoroughly corrupted western governments and secret services.
Multinational honey trap operations such as Maxwell-Epstein & Co. are an inevitable and continuing part of this privatization
and criminalization of intelligence that stretches back to the days of Tom Braden and Cord Meyer handing out stacks of greenbacks
to Mafiosi on the Corsican Docks.
The Snowden release included a number of documents that illustrate the on-line entrapment and political disruption activities
run by the two main communications intelligence agencies.
"Honey-trap; a great option. Very successful, when it works" (GCHQ, UK training program slide)
Without quoting the whole thing (which is worth a read):
Epstein recruits young girls, throws parties where he invites potential hedge fund clients, lets nature take its course
and films the proceedings, extracts blackmail in the form of investments to his (largely fake) hedge fund, which actually just
buys an index fund (no actual fund management required). He takes a percentage from the coerced investments. Nobody talks because
they have too much to lose. No suspicious payments to raise eyebrows at the IRS.
There's no need to invoke the Mafia/Russia/Mossad/CIA/etc, that's just needlessly overfitting.
Except such an operation would be quite attractive to intelligence services. Maybe they were in on the ground floor, maybe
they made Epstein an offer he couldn't refuse once they heard about it.
Epstein brought in the clients. The CIA/MI-6/Mossad provided necessary cover from the FBI and local cops - then,
three or four agencies shared the intelligence take, as they had for decades from Robert Maxwell's operations.
For Ghislaine, it was simply carrying on the family business for fun and profit. For the spooks, it was business as usual
going back to the Green House, the Berlin bordello founded in the the 1870s by Wilhelm Steiber, a Prussian Police section chief,
to provide useful intelligence to Bismarck's Military Intelligence, which he reorganized.
Steiber is considered the father of modern espionage. His methods were vastly influential, and he attracted students from London,
St. Petersburg to Tokyo. Each put their own national spin on the science of sexual blackmail. As for the Japanese, they are among
the most interesting and innovative in their use of a parallel network of privatized intelligence services incorporating underworld
Yakuzi groups alongside conventional military intelligence units. Using compromise, they gained and maintained control over Imperial
Japan and its Colonies: https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/03/15/eastern-peril/
To realize these divinely inspired ambitions, Japan needed a modern espionage system. Adopting the German model, Japanese
officials were sent to study under Wilhelm Stieber in the mid-1870s. Over the next decade Japan built up separate army and
naval intelligence services, each with an accompanying branch of secret military police (Kempeitai for the army and Tokeitai
for the navy). These latter organizations also provided an excellent counter-espionage service. However, where the Japanese
were unique was in the use of spies belonging to unofficial secret societies working alongside or independently of the official
intelligence agencies. These shadowy institutions were ultra-nationalist by nature, drawing their membership from a cross-section
of Japanese society, including the military, politics, industry and Yakuza underworld. Under ruthless leadership, their henchmen
would spy on, subvert and corrupt Japan's Far East neighbours.
For more on Steiber and his superior, von Hinckeldey, methods of international counter-insurgency, espionage, and political
policing included deception and a forerunner of today's internet surveillance:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2006/11/29/275653/-
While armies are essential to the maintenance of autocracy, the preservation of dynastic rule and the prevention of democracy
requires an effective secret police. The suppression of its middle-class constitutionalists [during the 1840s] was followed
by the expansion of the Prussian political police under Karl Ludwig Friedrich von Hinckeldey.
Appointed police president of Berlin in late 1848, Hinckeldey was an innovator of many of the features of modern systematic
political policing. Among the tactics that he introduced with his new police system in Berlin was the "Litfass columns". Named
for Ernst Litfass, Frederick William's court printer, he had dozens of these large poles erected in strategic spots around
Berlin. The public posting of political notices was then banned. By application to a state office for a waiver, however, the
columns could be used to display messages. The police dutifully recorded the names of all who had applied. A. Richie, Faust's
Metropolis: A History of Berlin, New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1998 at p.134.
LEGACY OF THE LITFASS COLUMNS: A similar ploy was later adopted by the People's Republic of China. In the mid-1980s, the
Communist authorities at first appear to tolerate the operation of a so-called Democracy Wall, where "dissidents" in Beijing
could post political writings, initially, without being arrested. Similar walls then sprung up under the noses of the authorities
in other Chinese cities. For this apparent opening to democracy, the Deng regime much applauded, particularly by some in the
Reagan-Bush Administration, eager to legitimize the regime and its growing commercial ties with U.S. corporations. Eventually,
many of those who had availed themselves of the wall to post political messages were, of course, arrested in the roundup of
hundreds of thousands of democracy supporters that followed the Tienamen Square massacre. The impression of anonymity and "freedom"
conveyed by the Internet, of course, presents a similar opportunity for police to cast a wide net for identifying persons and
organizations who may not hold favor for the regime in power, or may not in the future.
Hinckeldey also founded the Police Union, the first recorded international network of counterrevolutionary police spies
in modern times. Primarily made up of police officers from Prussia and the German states, the Union operated throughout Europe,
Britain and in the United States. The Union was run by his deputy, the notorious police provocateur, Wilhelm Steiber, who would
later reorganize the Okhrana along similar lines. Internationally active from 1851-1866, the Police Union, according to Mathieu
Deflem, was "one of the first formal initiatives in industrial society to establish an organized police system across national
borders."13
I disagree with the Alternet view on this. See, this is the norm. A purely private sexual blackmail ring of any scale would
be the historical exception. It certainly wouldn't survive very long.
...authorities at first appear to tolerate the operation of a so-called Democracy Wall, where "dissidents" in Beijing could
post political writings.... Similar walls then sprung up under the noses of the authorities in other Chinese cities. Eventually,
many of those who had availed themselves of the wall to post political messages were, of course, arrested in the roundup of
hundreds of thousands of democracy supporters....
The impression of anonymity and "freedom" conveyed by the Internet, of course, presents a similar opportunity for police
to cast a wide net for identifying persons and organizations who may not hold favor for the regime in power, or may not in
the future.
But why should one avoid the thought? If the situation looks like the people are going to lose the war for their minds, and
are unwilling to back a publisher like Assange who has given his all to try to empower them, why should anyone put themselves
at risk by expressing their opinions? It's a honeypot of our own making, just as Facebook is where people go to write their own
dossiers for the Authorities.
@Pluto's Republic an enemy of the status quo, you raise the calculated costs of the eventual crackdown, pushing back the
day of reckoning. Keep it up! Visible rebellion is the only defense of the people.
...from which to leverage access to the elite, Harvard University would be a top choice.
Jeffery Epstein actually entered the social salons of the elite through many doors. He was, of course, a member of the Council
on Foreign Relations. One would have to be to rub shoulders with the political elite. From there he matriculated to the Trilateral
Commission becoming friendly with Harvard President, Larry Summers. **
Becoming a surprise mystery philanthropist at Harvard, with Summers help, was a booster rocket for Epstein. In the Havard Crimson , in
June 2003, Epstein's involvement with Harvard was celebrated.
People in the News: Jeffrey E. Epstein
Elusive financier Jeffrey E. Epstein donated $30 million this year to Harvard for the founding of a mathematical biology
and evolutionary dynamics program.
While the mathematics teacher turned magnate remained unknown to most people until he flew President Clinton, Kevin
Spacey and Chris Tucker to Africa to explore the problems of AIDS and economic development facing the region, Epstein
has been a familiar face to many at Harvard for years.
Networking with the University's leading intellectuals, Epstein has spurred research through both discussions with and dollars
contributed to various faculty members.
Lindsley Professor of Psychology Stephen M. Kosslyn, former Dean of the Faculty Henry A. Rosovsky and Frankfurter Professor
of Law Alan M. Dershowitz are among Epstein's bevy of eminent friends that includes princes, presidents and Nobel
Prize winners.
Epstein is also well acquainted with University President Lawrence H. Summers. The two serve together on the Trilateral
Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, two elite international relations organizations.
Epstein's collection of high-profile friends also includes newly-recruited professor Martin A. Nowak, who will run Harvard's
mathematical biology and evolutionary dynamics program.
Like Kosslyn, Rosovsky and Dershowitz, Nowak praises Epstein's numerous relationships within the scientific community.
"I am amazed by the connections he has in the scientific world," Nowak says. "He knows an amazing number of scientists.
He knows everyone you can imagine."
Epstein's relationships within the academy are remarkable since the tycoon, who has amassed his fortune by managing
the wealth of billionaires from his private Caribbean island, does not hold a bachelor's degree.
Yet, friends and beneficiaries say they do not see Epstein merely as a man with deep pockets, but as an intellectual equal.
Dershowitz says Epstein is "brilliant" and Kosslyn calls Epstein "one of the brightest people I've ever known."
Epstein's beneficiaries say they are particularly appreciative of the no-strings-attached approach Epstein takes with his
donations.
"He is one of the most pleasant philanthropists," Nowak says. "Unlike many people who support science, he supports science
without any conditions. There are not any disadvantages to associating with him."
Friends and associates say Harvard stands to benefit from its evolving relationship with Epstein.
"I hope that he will, over time, become one of the leading supporters of science at Harvard," Rosovsky writes in an e-mail.
__________________________________________
** A footnote on Larry Summers seems important here:
Harvard-trained economists have been running the US economy for a very long time, and continue to do so. Summers began his ascent
as a professor of economics at Harvard University, leaving shortly before Bill Clinton won the Presidency. He was clearly the
Neoliberal seed planted for the New American Century.
In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury
under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political
mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury.
While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic
crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the Harvard
Institute for International Development and American-advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and
in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
At This Point the Ball is Passed to the Bush Team Republicans, while the Democrats Sit Back and Wait for 2008.
There's now a Treasury surplus to transfer to the wealthy, and the necessary deregulation for Wall Street empowerment is in
place. The Soviet era had ended and Russia is ended forever. The world is finally primed to be seized by the One Exceptional Power.
It's 2001, and we are standing on the threshold of the New American Century . Time to throw a flash-bang of chaos onto the world
stage and trigger the booming War Economy that will carry us directly to global control.
There's a rocky road ahead for Larry Summers. Summers introduces Epstein into the Harvard fold, but becomes reckless with
his newly-refined Neoliberalism and his opinions concerning "lady scholars."
Following the end of Clinton's term, Summers served as the 27th President of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006.
Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty, which resulted in large part
from Summers's conflict with Cornel West, financial conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with Andrei Shleifer,
and a 2005 speech in which he suggested that the under-representation of women in science and engineering could be due to a
"different availability of aptitude at the high end", and less to patterns of discrimination and socialization. Remarking upon
political correctness in institutions of higher education, Summers said in 2016:
Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty, which resulted in large
part from Summers's conflict with Cornel West, financial conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with
Andrei Shleifer, and a 2005 speech in which he suggested that the under-representation of women in science and engineering
There is a great deal of absurd political correctness. Now, I'm somebody who believes very strongly in diversity, who
resists racism in all of its many incarnations, who thinks that there is a great deal that's unjust in American society
that needs to be combated, but it seems to be that there is a kind of creeping totalitarianism in terms of what kind of
ideas are acceptable and are debatable on college campuses.
After his departure from Harvard, Summers cooled his jets on Wall Street, positioning himself to be called back into the game
when it was Team Democrat's turn in 2008.
Summers worked as a managing partner at the hedge fund D. E. Shaw & Co., and as a freelance speaker at other financial institutions,
including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers. Summers rejoined public service during
the Obama administration, serving as the Director of the White House United States National Economic Council for President
Barack Obama from January 2009 until November 2010, where he emerged as a key economic decision-maker in the Obama administration's
response to the Great Recession.
Jeffery Epstein continued to weave himself into the fabric of government like a good psychopath would. He was by no means the
only one.
I don't use Social Media myself, but near the end of the 2016 presidential campaign, I
gradually began seeing more and more Trump supporters referring to something called
"Pizzagate," a burgeoning sexual scandal that they claimed would bring down Hillary Clinton and
many of the top leaders of her party, with the chatter actually increasing after Trump was
elected. As near as I could tell, the whole bizarre theory had grown up on the far-right fringe
of the Internet, with the utterly fantastical plot having something to do with stolen secret
emails, DC pizza parlors, and a ring of pedophiles situated near the top of the Democratic
Party. But given all the other strange and unlikely things I'd gradually discovered about our
history, it didn't seem like something I could necessarily dismiss out of hand.
At the beginning of December, a right-wing blogger produced a lengthy exposition of the
Pizzagate charges, which finally gave me some understanding of what was actually under
discussion, and I soon made arrangements to republish his article. It quickly attracted a great
deal of interest, and some websites pointed to it as the best single introduction to the
scandal for a general audience.
Pizzagate Aedon
Cassiel • December 2, 2016 • 3,100 Words
A couple of weeks later, I republished an additional article by the same writer, describing
a long list of previous pedophilia scandals that had occurred in elite American and European
political circles. Although many of these seemed to be solidly documented, nearly all of them
had received minimal coverage by our mainstream media outlets. And if such political pedophile
rings had existed in the relatively recent past, was it so totally implausible that there might
be another one simmering beneath the surface of today's Washington DC?
Those interested in the details of the Pizzagate Hypothesis are advised to read these
articles, especially the first one, but I might as well provide a brief summary.
John Podesta had been a longtime fixture in DC political circles, becoming chief of staff
to President Bill Clinton in 1998, and afterward remaining one of the most powerful figures in
the Democratic Party establishment. While serving as as chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2016
presidential campaign, his apparent carelessness with the password security of his Gmail
account allowed it to easily be hacked, and tens of thousands of his personal emails were soon
published on WikiLeaks. A swarm of young anti-Clinton activists began scouring this
treasure-trove of semi-confidential information, seeking evidence of mundane bribery and
corruption, but instead they came across some quite odd exchanges, seemingly written in coded
language.
Now use of coded language in a supposedly secure private email account raises all sorts
of natural suspicions regarding what might have been under discussion, with the most likely
possibilities being illegal drugs or sex. But most of the references didn't seem to fit the
former category, and in our remarkably libertine era, in which political candidates compete for
the right to be Grand Marshal at an annual Gay Pride Parade, one of the few sexual activities
still discussed only in whispers would seem to be pedophilia, with some of the very strange
remarks possibly hinting at this.
The researchers also soon discovered that his brother Tony Podesta, one of the wealthiest
and most successful lobbyists in DC, had extremely odd taste in art. Major items of his very
extensive personal collection seemed to represent tortured or murdered bodies, and one of his
favorite artists was best known for paintings depicting young children being held captive,
lying dead, or suffering under severe distress. Such peculiar artwork obviously isn't
illegal, but it might naturally arouse some suspicions. And oddly enough, arch-Democrat Podesta
had long been a close personal friend of former Republican Speaker and convicted child-molester
Dennis Hastert, welcoming him back into DC society after his release from prison.
Furthermore, some of the rather suspiciously-worded Podesta emails referred to events
held at a local DC pizza parlor, greatly favored by the Democratic Party elite, whose owner was
the gay former boyfriend of David Brock, a leading Democratic activist. The public Instagram
account of that pizza-entrepreneur apparently contained numerous images of young children,
sometimes tied or bound, with those images frequently labeled by hashtags using the traditional
gay slang for underage sexual targets . Some photos showed the fellow wearing a tee-shirt
bearing the statement "I Love Children" in French, and by a very odd coincidence, his possibly
assumed name was phonetically identical to that very same French phrase, thus proclaiming to
the world that he was "a lover of children." Closely connected Instagram accounts also
included pictures of young children, sometimes shown amid piles of high-value currency, with
queries about how much those particular children might be worth. None of this seemed illegal,
but surely any reasonable person would regard the material as extremely suspicious.
DC is sometimes described as "Powertown," being the seat of the individuals who make
America's laws and govern our society, with local political journalists being closely attuned
to the relative status of such individuals. And oddly enough, GQ Magazine had ranked that
gay pizza parlor owner with a strange focus on young children as being one of the 50 most
powerful people in our national capital, placing him far ahead of many Cabinet members,
Senators, Congressional Chairmen, Supreme Court justices, and top lobbyists. Was his pizza
really that delicious?
These few paragraphs provide merely a sliver of the large quantity of highly-suspicious
material surrounding various powerful figures at the apex of the DC political world. A vast
cloud of billowing smoke is certainly no proof of any fire, but only a fool would completely
ignore it without attempting further investigation.
I usually regard videos as a poor means of imparting serious information, far less effective
and meaningful than the simple printed word. But the overwhelming bulk of the evidence
supporting the Pizzagate Hypothesis consists of visual images and screen shots, and these are
naturally suited to a video presentation.
Some of the best summaries of the Pizzagate case were produced by a young British
YouTuber named Tara McCarthy, whose work was published under the name of "Reality Calls," and
her videos were viewed hundreds of thousands of times. Although her channel was eventually
banned and her videos purged, copies were later reloaded to other accounts, both on YouTube and
BitChute. Some of the evidence she presents seemed rather innocuous or speculative to me and
other elements were probably based upon her unfamiliarity with American society and culture.
But a great deal of extremely suspicious material remains, and I would suggest that people
watch the videos and decide for themselves.
Around the same time that I first became familiar with the details of the Pizzagate
controversy, the topic also started reaching the pages of my morning newspapers, but in an
rather strange manner. Political stories began giving a sentence or two to the "Pizzagate
hoax," describing it as a ridiculous right-wing "conspiracy theory" but excluding all relevant
details. I had an eery feeling that some unseen hand had suddenly flipped a switch causing the
entire mainstream media to begin displaying identical signs declaring "Pizzagate Is False --
Nothing To See There!" in brightly flashing neon. I couldn't recall any previous example of
such a strange media reaction to some obscure Internet controversy.
Articles in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times also suddenly
appeared denouncing the entirety of the alternative media -- Left, Right, and Libertarian --
as
"fake news" websites promoting Russian propaganda , while urging that their content be
blocked by all patriotic Internet giants such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Prior to that
moment, I'd never even heard the term "fake news" but suddenly it was ubiquitous across the
media, once again almost as if some unseen hand had suddenly flipped a switch.
I naturally began to wonder whether the timing of these two strange developments was
entirely coincidental. Perhaps Pizzagate was indeed true and struck so deeply at the core of
our hugely corrupted political system that the media efforts to suppress it were approaching
the point of hysteria.
Not long afterward, Tara McCarthy's detailed Pizzagate videos were purged from YouTube. This
was among the very first instances of video content being banned despite fully conforming to
all existing YouTube guidelines, another deeply suspicious development.
I also noticed that mere mention of Pizzagate had become politically lethal. Donald Trump
had selected Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, as his
National Security Advisor, and Flynn's son served as the latter's chief of staff. The younger
Flynn happened to Tweet out a couple of links to Pizzagate stories, pointing out that the
accusations hadn't yet been actually investigated let alone disproven, and very soon afterward,
he was
purged from the Trump transition team, foreshadowing his father's fall a few weeks later.
It seemed astonishing to me that a few simple Tweets about an Internet controversy could have
such huge real-life impact near the top of our government.
The media continued its uniform drumbeat of "Pizzagate Has Been Disproven!" but we were
never told how or by whom, and I was not the only individual to notice the hollowness of such
denunciations. An award-winning investigative journalist named Ben Swann at a CBS station in
Atlanta broadcast a short television segment summarizing the Pizzagate controversy and noting
that contrary to widespread media claims, Pizzagate had neither been investigated nor debunked.
Swann was almost immediately purged by CBS but a copy of his television segment remains
available for viewing on the Internet.
There is an old wartime proverb that enemy flak is always heaviest over the most important
target, and the remarkably ferocious wave of attacks and censorship against anyone broaching
the subject of Pizzagate seems to raise obvious dark suspicions. Indeed, the simultaneous waves
of attacks against all alternative media outlets as "Russian propaganda outlets" laid the basis
for the continuing regime of Social Media censorship that has become a central aspect of
today's world.
Pizzagate may or may not turn out to be true, but the ongoing Internet crackdown has
similarly engulfed topics of a somewhat similar nature but with vastly stronger documentation.
Although I don't use Twitter myself, I encountered the obvious implications of this new
censorship policy following McCain's death last August. The senator had died on a Saturday
afternoon, and readership of Sydney Schanberg's long 2008 expose quickly exploded, with
numerous individuals Tweeting out the story and a large fraction of our incoming traffic
therefore coming from Twitter. This continued until the following morning, at which point the
huge flood of Tweets continued to grow, but all incoming Twitter traffic suddenly and
permanently vanished, presumably because "shadow banning" had rendered those Tweets invisible.
My own article on McCain's very doubtful war record simultaneously suffered the same fate, as
did numerous other articles of a controversial nature that we published later that same
week.
Perhaps that censorship decision was made by some ignorant young intern at Twitter, casually
choosing to ban as "hate speech" or "fake news" a massively-documented 8,400 word expose by one
of America's most distinguished journalists, a Pulitzer-prize winning former top editor at
The New York Times .
Or perhaps certain political-puppeteers who had spent decades controlling that late Arizona
senator sought to ensure that their political puppet-strings remained invisible even after his
death.
"Following a series of investigative reports by the Miami Herald
earlier this year, Deutsche Bank followed suit, severing ties with the wealthy financier.
Doing so proved difficult for the bank, as its antiquated systems. " On a number of
occasions, Deutsche Bank executives had thought they had shut down all of Mr. Epstein's
accounts , only to learn that there were others that they had not previously been aware of,"
according to the Times . By late spring, there were still transactions occurring in
Epstein's Deutsche Bank accounts, however company officials now believe they have closed them
all down."
They had no investigative people working for them, and somehow did not read newspapers
from Miami at the time. They also have, and always have had, antiquated systems even though
they are a large bank. Who does this make sense to?
"... When scanning the news most days, I see a constant amplification of wedge issues by mass media, blue-check pundits and even many in the so-called alternative media. I see people increasingly being encouraged to demonize and dehumanize their fellow citizens. Anyone who voted for Trump is automatically a Nazi, likewise, anyone who supports Sanders is an anti-American communist. The reality is neither of these things is even remotely true, so why are people so quick to say them? ..."
"... The Epstein case shines a gigantic spotlight on just how twisted and sociopathic the highest echelons of U.S. society have become. This is exactly what happens when you fail to put wealthy and powerful super predators behind bars. They get more brazen, they get more demented and, ultimately, they destroy the very fabric that holds society together. We are in fact ruled by monsters. ..."
Perhaps, at long last, a serial rapist and pedophile may be brought to justice , more than a dozen years after he was first
charged with crimes that have brutalized countless girls and women. But what won't change is this: the cesspool of elites, many
of them in New York, who allowed Jeffrey Epstein to flourish with impunity.
For decades, important, influential, "serious" people attended Epstein's dinner parties, rode his private jet, and furthered
the fiction that he was some kind of genius hedge-fund billionaire. How do we explain why they looked the other way, or flattered
Epstein, even as they must have noticed he was often in the company of a young harem? Easy: They got something in exchange from
him , whether it was a free ride on that airborne "Lolita Express," some other form of monetary largesse, entrée into the extravagant
celebrity soirées he hosted at his townhouse, or, possibly and harrowingly, a pound or two of female flesh.
An honest assessment of the current state of American politics and society in general leaves little room for optimism regarding
the public's ability to accurately diagnose, much less tackle, our fundamental issues at a root level. A primary reason for this
state of affairs boils down to the ease with which the American public is divided against itself and conquered.
Though there are certain issues pretty much everyone can agree on, we simply aren't focusing our collective energy on them or
creating the mass movements necessary to address them. Things such as systemic bipartisan corruption, the institutionalization of
a two-tier justice system in which the wealthy and powerful are above the law, a broken economy that requires both parents to work
and still barely make ends meet, and a military-industrial complex consumed with profits and imperial aggression not national defense.
These are just a few of the many issues that should easily unite us against an entrenched power structure, but it is not happening.
At least not yet.
We currently find ourselves at a unique inflection point in American history. Though I agree with Charles Hugh Smith's assessment
that " Our Ruling
Elites Have No Idea How Much We Want to See Them All in Prison Jumpsuits, " we have yet to reach the point where the general
public is prepared to do something about it. I think there are several reasons for this, but the primary obstacle relates to how
easily the citizenry is divided and conquered. The mass media, largely owned and controlled by billionaires and their corporations,
is highly incentivized to keep the public divided against itself on trivial issues, or at best, on real problems that are merely
symptoms of bipartisan elitist plunder.
The key thing, from a plutocrat's point of view, is to make sure the public never takes a step back and sees the root of society's
problems. It isn't Trump or Obama, and it isn't the Republican or Democratic parties either. These individuals and political gangs
are just useful vehicles for elitist plunder. They help herd the rabble into comfortable little tribal boxes that results in made
for tv squabbling, while the true forces of power carry on with the business of societal pillaging behind the scenes.
You're encouraged to attach your identity to team Republican or team Democrat, but never unite as one voice against a bipartisan
crew of depraved, corrupt and unaccountable power players molding society from the top. While the average person living paycheck
to paycheck fashions themselves part of some biblical fight of good vs. evil by supporting team red or blue, the manipulative and
powerful at the top remain beyond such plebeian theater (though they certainly encourage it). These folks know only one team -- team
green. And their team keeps winning, by the way.
When scanning the news most days, I see a constant amplification of wedge issues by mass media, blue-check pundits and even
many in the so-called alternative media. I see people increasingly being encouraged to demonize and dehumanize their fellow citizens.
Anyone who voted for Trump is automatically a Nazi, likewise, anyone who supports Sanders is an anti-American communist. The reality
is neither of these things is even remotely true, so why are people so quick to say them?
Why is most of the anger in this country being directed at fellow powerless Americans versus upward at the power structure which
nurtured and continues to defend the current depraved status quo? I don't see any upside to actively encouraging one side of the
political discussion to dehumanize the other side, and I suggest we consciously cease engaging in such behavior. Absolutely nothing
good can come from it.
Which is partly why I've been so consumed by the Jeffrey Epstein case. For once, it allows us to focus our energy on the depraved
nature of the so-called American "elite," rather than pick fights with each other. How many random Trump or Sanders supporters do
you know who systematically molest children and then pass them off to their wealthy and powerful friends for purposes of blackmail?
The Epstein case shines a gigantic spotlight on just how twisted and sociopathic the highest echelons of U.S. society have
become. This is exactly what happens when you fail to put wealthy and powerful super predators behind bars. They get more brazen,
they get more demented and, ultimately, they destroy the very fabric that holds society together. We are in fact ruled by monsters.
Unfortunately, by being short-sighted, by fighting amongst ourselves, and by taking the easy route of punching down versus punching
up, we allow such cretins to continue to rape and pillage what remains of our civilization.
If we can truly get to the bottom of exactly what Epstein was up to, I suspect it has the potential to focus the general public
(beyond a few seconds) on the true nature of what's really going on and what makes the world tick. Revelations of such a nature could
provide the proverbial tipping point that's so desperately needed, but this is also why the odds of us actually getting the whole
story is quite low. There's simply too much at stake for those calling the shots.
* * *
Side note: I've been consistently updating my
Epstein twitter thread as I learn new information.
I suggest checking back in from time to time.
Liberty Blitzkrieg is now 100% ad free. As such, there's no monetization for this site other than reader support. To make this
a successful, sustainable thing I ask you to consider the following options. You can become a
Patron . You can visit the
Support Page to donate via PayPal, Bitcoin
or send cash/check in the mail.
If we can truly get to the bottom of exactly what Epstein was up
1. We can't.
2. Epstein was in the business to set up people with kompromat material ...
3. ...and did it for someone else , it appears as he was protected from above for many years.
4. These " elses " won't allow that the support of the Americans to forever fight Israels wars gets shattered.
5. I expect operation diversion & coverup soon. My hunch is that they will pull a 9/11 hoax as a last resort if things get out
of hand fast.
6. They did it in the past, they will do it in the future.
7. Human lives don't matter to them.
Michael Krieger said: "It's sad and mind-boggling how easy it is to divide and conquer the American public. Manipulating the
masses in this country is trivial. The next few years will not be pretty".
Despite all the news of how the elites have manipulated the American public, it still goes on, unabated. Americans, for the
most part, are dumb and fat couch potatoes. They are not going to rise up against their elite masters, because they don't have
the wherewithal to do so. So, the show continues on, and the elites don't seem to have anything to worry about, and do as they
will.
If Americans were truly energetic about reigning in the abuses of the elites, they would have done so back in the 1870's, when
Mark Twain wrote about the Gilded Age Elites. Here it is, 149 years later, and nothing has changed in America today. The elites
still rule, and everyone else is an indentured servant. Of course, there are benefits for the elites to keep the American masses
dumbed down, and letting them lead couch potato life styles. Doing so, keeps them in power.
I suspect it was the CIA or FBI. But the goal was to keep Acosta from investigating Virginia Roberts' claims. If authorities
did this they would have had to investigate Prince Andrew.
If they found her to be truthful, they might even have to arrest Prince Andrew (can you imagine this happening?). Or at least
ask him to testify in a trial.
If the truth came out, this would humiliate the British nation, and Great Britain was (still is) one of America's most important
allies in the "war on terror" and all our other neocon initiatives.
Acosta was essentially told to "back off" Prince Andrew (not necessarily Epstein, who was best buddies with "Andy.")
This doesn't mean Israel intelligence was not involved in some way. It just means that American intelligence was involved,
or wanted to protect key people. Hell, they still do.
We can be almost certain that the exact same thing that happened with Acosta is happening right now. Some prosecutor is being
told to "back off. Don't go here. Focus only on Epstein and Epstein only."
This is why Ghislaine Maxwell has not been charged and will not be charged. This is why the FBI has not raided Pedo Island
or Pedo Ranch. This is why Epstein's four "co-accomplices" have not been charged.
Prosecutors have again been told that "intelligence" is saying that it's okay to do this (charge Epstein with sex crimes),
but NOT okay to do this (investigate and arrest any fellow predators).
It isn't just the elites and we need to stop pretending it is
"Child sex trafficking which is the buying and selling of women, young girls and boys for sex, some as young as 9 years old,
has become big business in America. It is the fastest growing business in organized crime and the second-most-lucrative commodity
traded illegally after drugs and guns.
Adults purchase children for sex at least 2.5 million times a year in the United States.
It's not just young girls who are vulnerable to these predators, either.
According to a 2016 investigative report, "boys make up about 36% of children caught up in the U.S. sex industry (about 60% are
female and less than 5% are transgender males and females)."
Who buys a child for sex?
Otherwise, ordinary men from all walks of life. "They could be your co-worker, doctor, pastor or spouse."
If Epstein was muslin would this be a crime? Of course not it would be part of Muslim Culture. Look into the Abuse done to
young girls in the Rotherham abuse case. BTW I am no sticking up for Epstein but the ruling elites and certain minorities are
treated different from Joe and Jane Public
"The Epstein Case Is A Rare Opportunity To Focus "On The Depraved Nature Of America's Elite"
This IS a "rare opportunity' for Americans to do just this (focus on how deprived our elite leaders really are).
If Americans really started to do this, for an extended period of time, and got, you know, kind of pissed off about this state
of affairs, we might even throw all the bums out. We might really "drain the swamp."
So this is a BIG story. Potentially.
Of course, the Powers that Be are going to do everything they can to make sure Americans do NOT focus on this story for too
long. Or that the "narrative" is controlled. (For example by focusing only on Epstein, not his hundreds of depraved buddies and
corrupt institutions).
I've been posting for 10 days that there are "too many" of these people. And they are too powerful.
Seems to me if authorities went after one of the "johns," they would have to go after ALL of the "Johns." And this includes
Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, former senators, governors, CEOs, secretaries of the treasury, bankers, etc.
It's the massive numbers of possible offenders that is probably keeping all of these people "safe."
And I still think Prince Andrew is the biggest fish the authorities don't want to humiliate/charge.
Even more so than Clinton. Half the country would throw a party if Clinton was charged. But in the UK, 90 percent of British
citizens would be mortified and greatly embarrassed if one of their Princes was proven to have done all the things that have been
alleged he did.
"... The **** smell of all of this is simply overwhelming. He is not just a pedophile. He was and probably still is a Mossad agent whose purpose it was to entrap mainly US politicians and power bookers with the extremely compromising film evidence he was later found to be obtaining from the various elite junkets to his little island. ..."
Just posting this for posterity, as I've seen this information before:
"Bill Clinton was one of the most famous and frequent passengers on Epstein's "Lolita Express" and a guest on his private island.
When Roberts asked Epstein about Clinton's presence on the island, he simply laughed it off, and said, "Well, he owes me a favour."[37]
Epstein also donated money to the Clinton Foundation even after his conviction. In early 2015, a photo emerged showing Ghislaine
Maxwell at the wedding of Chelsea Clinton to Jewish investment banker Marc Mezvinsky in July 2010.
An annotated copy of the address book turned up in court proceedings after Epstein's former house manager Alfredo Rodriguez
tried to sell it in 2009. Rodriguez characterized it as containing the "Holy Grail" or "Golden Nugget" to unraveling Epstein's
child-sex network."[38] The book, which was eventually obtained by the FBI, listed well-known political figures such as Prince
Bandar of Saudi Arabia, Tony Blair, Senator Edward Kennedy, and Henry Kissinger, Ehud Barak, John Kerry, David Rockefeller and
even Donald Trump."
So...Kraft goes down, and there are supposedly even more "interesting" names on the list of those who were serviced by those
toothless asian whores. Could this be part of some unreal blackmail scheme against Trump?? Or is this **** TRUE, and we have a
pedophile in our highest office??
I don't know what the truth is any more. Maybe someone smarter than me can make sense of this ****. I sure can't.
The **** smell of all of this is simply overwhelming. He is not just a pedophile. He was and probably still is a Mossad
agent whose purpose it was to entrap mainly US politicians and power bookers with the extremely compromising film evidence he
was later found to be obtaining from the various elite junkets to his little island.
He and his Israeli handlers simply have too much on too many people for Epstein to really pay for any of his crimes, which
crimes many spy agencies around the world engage in frequently. However, what should really piss Americans off is that Epstein
was doing his dirt mainly against Americans for Israel, and Israel was supposed to be a trusted friend and ally of the US, working
in close concert with US spy agencies and forces in destroying nations like Iraq and Syria and pulling off false flag operations
like 9/11.
Epstein issue and his connection to Clinton mafia was raised by press in 2016 but went nowhere.
The fact that Trump campaign targeted Clinton for his connection with Epstein means that Trump is probably was not involved as a client of
Epstein brothel with underage prostitutes for high ranking politicians .
Notable quotes:
"... Now Bill Clinton is back in the press and not for his controversial relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but rather his friendship with Epstein. In fact, flight records indicate that Bill would frequent the island paradise during the 2002 and 2005 era while Hillary, Bill's wife, was a Senator in New York. ..."
"... The woman went on to say how orgies were a regular occurrence and that she recalled two young girls from New York who were always seen around the five-house compound but their personal back-stories were never revealed. ..."
"... Moreover, Epstein was invited to Chelsea Clinton's wedding in 2010 amongst 400 other guests, demonstrating his close friendship with the Clinton family. ..."
"... To top it all off blue blood, "Prince Andrew was allegedly one of the house's visitors. On Friday, the Duke of York was named in a federal lawsuit filed against Epstein, whom the FBI once reportedly linked to 40 young women. Filed in 2008 in the Southern District of Florida, the $50 million lawsuit claimed Epstein had a "sexual preference and obsession for underage minor girls gained access to primarily economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home and sexually assaulted these girls,"reported the Washington Post. ..."
Back in 2005 police conducted an 11 month-long undercover investigation into Epstein and his estate after the mother of a 14-year-old
girl went to police after suspecting her daughter was paid $300 for at least one sexual act on the island in which she was ordered
to strip, leaving on just her panties, while giving Epstein a massage.
Although police found tons of photos of young women on the island and even interviewed eyewitnesses, Epstein was hit with a mere
slap on the wrist after "pleading to a single charge of prostitution". Epstein later served 13-months of his 18-month service in
jail.
In 2008, Epstein was hit again, this time with a $50 million civil suit after another victim filed in federal court claiming that
she was "recruited" by Epstein to give him a "massage" but was essentially forced into having sexual intercourse with him for $200
which was payable upon completion. The women were coming out of the woodwork.
Now Bill Clinton is back in the press and not for his controversial relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but rather his friendship
with Epstein. In fact, flight records indicate that Bill would frequent the island paradise during the 2002 and 2005 era while Hillary,
Bill's wife, was a Senator in New York.
'I remember asking Jeffrey what's Bill Clinton doing here kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said well he owes me a favor,'
one unidentified woman said in the lawsuit, which was filed in Palm Beach Circuit Court.
The woman went on to say how orgies were a regular occurrence and that she recalled two young girls from New York who were
always seen around the five-house compound but their personal back-stories were never revealed.
"At least one woman on the compound was there unwillingly," reported the Daily Mail in a recent article. The woman was allegedly
forced to have sex with "politicians, businessmen, royalty, academicians" at the retreat. Just one of "more than 40 women" that have
come forth with claims against Epstein, showing the vast scale of the man's dark operations, which aren't limited only to Little
St. James.
Moreover, Epstein was invited to Chelsea Clinton's wedding in 2010 amongst 400 other guests, demonstrating his close friendship
with the Clinton family.
To top it all off blue blood, "Prince Andrew was allegedly one of the house's visitors. On Friday, the Duke of York was named
in a federal lawsuit filed against Epstein, whom the FBI once reportedly linked to 40 young women. Filed in 2008 in the Southern
District of Florida, the $50 million lawsuit claimed Epstein had a "sexual preference and obsession for underage minor girls gained
access to primarily economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home and sexually assaulted these girls,"reported the Washington
Post.
By throwing millions of dollars at the legal system, Epstein successfully enlisted Alex
Acosta, a sitting U.S. Attorney who just resigned as Trump's Labor Secretary, to grant the
admitted sex offender a non-prosecution and an immunity agreement.
That deal, that a federal judge has since ruled illegal, helped conceal a vast child-sex
trafficking operation that targeted vulnerable minors by offering them $300 and then employed a
kind of pyramid scheme where victims were recruited to find new victims.
For decades now, as a general assignment reporter, I have had front row seats for a
procession of these kinds of defendants. I have seen the likes of Epstein before.
Over my life as a journalist, as the whirlwind of wealth concentration stripped so many
threadbare, these guys have prospered on an unprecedented scale. In our era of late-stage
vulture-capitalism, it is these most ruthless predators that are elevated before their fall by
our corporate media as living deities.
Rogues Rushmore
The elevation of Donald Trump to the Presidency marks the high-water mark for this
underworld crew who masterfully play the compliant corporate media that's transfixed by great
wealth and confer upon those that hold it all sorts of intellectual prowess so as to cultivate
proximity to them.
As we saw in the Federal prosecution and conviction of
Michael Cohen for his role in facilitating the payoff of Stormy Daniels, Trump knows
everybody has a price.
These great white men are their own law. They see themselves as the smartest guys in the
room. They have the cunning to know how to hollow out others so that they can own their souls.
With the precision of an acupuncturist, they pinpoint that pressure point that's the nexus of
desire, sexual pleasure or ambition.
These must be done with sleight of hand but even if you are caught red-handed, as long as
you have high priced representation on retainer, you can outmaneuver
prosecutors.
Weaponized Sex
Charles Kushner, the father of Jared Kushner, President Trump's senior advisor, is another
case in point.
Kushner, the real estate mogul and major Democratic campaign donor, was appointed by
Governor McGreevey to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 2002 and was nominated
by the Governor to be the chairman of the board of the sprawling bi-state multi-billion-dollar
enterprise in 2003.
McGreevey had to withdraw that nomination and
Kushner had to resign when allegations surfaced that the developer's massive donations to
his campaign might have run afoul of campaign finance and conflict of interest laws.
The year before Kushner's appointment, while on a trip to Israel, McGreevey crossed paths
with Golan Cipel, who was in his early 30s. Subsequent press reports boiled down the young
Israeli's bio to his being a former member of the Israeli Navy and a published poet.
In 2002, it was
Kushner who sponsored Cipel, for a hard to obtain work visa in the U.S. and gave him a
$30,000-a-year job in his northern New Jersey office after Cipel had worked on the McGreevey
campaign.
In the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, Cipel was nominated by McGreevey to a
$110,000 job to lead the state's freshly minted Homeland Security office. Cipel's status as an
Israeli citizen and his lack of executive-level counter-terrorism experience sent up multiple
flares which McGreevey ignored.
The young Governor doubled down, as he blew through his very limited 'honeymoon' political
capital trying to make the appointment stick. But the Governor's wild overstatement of Cipel's
work experience doomed the pick and Cipel handed in his resignation in March of 2002. Yet, he
was kept on at the same salary as a "policy counselor" a position he would resign from a few
months later.
In August of 2004
McGreevey resigned from office disclosing that he was "a gay American", explaining he was
compelled to make the bombshell disclosure because Cipel, with whom he had an affair, was
threatening to sue him unless he was paid $5 million (McGreevey reportedly called the U.S.
Attorney Chris Christie to report the alleged extortion).
But as Cipel tells it on his own website he was the victim of sexual harassment.
"All those things that I rationalized to myself seemed very logical at the time, but the sad
truth is that I was acting out of confusion and fear," Cipel writes. "Like many other victims
of sexual harassment, I chose to deny what had happened."
The Art of the Deal
In August of 2004 the elder Kushner, a towering figure in both American and Israeli politics
and philanthropy, pled guilty to a long list of corruption charges that could have sent him to
jail for many years if he had been your run of the mill federal defendant of color in a drug
conspiracy case.
Kushner admitted to hiring a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, who was working with
federal investigators against him, then videotaping that sexual rendezvous and sending it to
his brother-in-law's spouse, who was Kushner's sister.
But Kushner and his lawyers would ultimately outmaneuver U.S. Attorney
Chris Christie , whose major vulnerability was his own infinite ambition for power as we
saw with Bridgegate. The night before Kushner was supposed to be in court to plead guilty, the
U.S. Attorney leaked the still un-inked deal to reporters.
But as the media waited in Newark the next day for the official deal to be confirmed in the
federal courtroom, the appointed time came and went. Behind the scenes, Kushner's lawyers and
Christie's team were going back and forth over the terms and conditions of the deal.
By the end of the day, Kushner would enter a guilty plea as advertised, but he made no
commitment to cooperate with the government or to offer up any potential co-conspirators.
According to the Department of Justice's press release, Kushner pleaded guilty to 18 counts of
filing false tax returns, one count of retaliating against a cooperating witness and one count
of making false statements to the Federal Election Commission.
By the evening news cycle, the morning's news of a plea deal was finally true, and Christie
could bask in the glory. "This is a great victory for the people of New Jersey," said the
federal prosecutor who would soon run for governor. "No matter how rich and powerful any person
may be, they will be held accountable for criminal conduct by this office."
Each of Kushner's 18 tax counts carried a maximum penalty of three years in prison and a
fine of $100,000, according to the DOJ; the witness retaliation count carried a maximum penalty
of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000; and the
false statement charge provided for a maximum prison term of five years and a fine of
$250,000.
Scroll forward to March of 2005, though, and Kushner was sentenced to just two years --
which,
The New York Times reported at the time, was the most he "could have received under a plea
agreement reached last September," with Christie.
It was clear that Christie's office had been out-lawyered by the Kushner team. And the
Christie-approved leak -- before he had closed the deal -- definitely hadn't helped. Before
sentencing, the Department of Justice wrote a letter to the judge observing that, in the final
analysis, Kushner showed a "failure to
accept responsibility" for a long litany of criminal acts that could have landed him in
federal prison for decades."
Without a truly thorough prosecution, the House of Kushner would endure and prosper and
Kushner would see his son go on to greater things sitting in the star chamber of ultimate power
deciding who the U.S. should bomb or sell weapons to.
Equal Justice Not
Our collective attention span is so short and the non-contextual way the news is reported
assures we lose track of the narrative thread so when types like Epstein and Kushner cut their
deals we miss it.
Without the candle power of the Miami Herald 's probe
of the Epstein plea deal, we remain in the dark about how every day great wealth can insulate
the guilty, no matter heinous their crime, from really being held accountable.
Meanwhile, those without means, who are innocent, are chewed up and spit out by a criminal
justice system that is neither blind nor fair.
"We have a system of justice in this country that treats you much better if you're rich and
guilty than if you're poor and innocent," said civil rights attorney
Bryan Stevenson in his TED Talk. "Wealth, not culpability, shapes outcomes. And yet, we
seem to be very comfortable. The politics of fear and anger have made us believe that these are
problems that are not our problems."
"... The Epstein case has all the earmarks of CIA protection of an asset. ..."
"... Successful entry into politics requires candidates to first "tag themselves" with a "corrupted and venerable" "CAV" badge? ..."
"... Is the CAV Badge the weapon that has corrupted the intelligence services and stable of politicians in nearly every nation in the world? Did Colin Powell flash a CAV badge as he spoke to UN focus about the most likely presence of non existent WMDs that led to w__ in Iraq? ..."
Journalism. =>has disclosed the tunnel, and a few of its investigators are exploring
its contents, expecting to find at the end of this tunnel Successful entry into politics
requires candidates to first "tag themselves" with a "corrupted and venerable" "CAV"
badge?
Wonder if this has traction in the persons involved in Grace I, the failure of JCPOA.
Is the CAV badge the weapon that has corrupted nearly every nation state in the western
world?
Politicians make promises, and then within hours for unexplained reasons, reverse
them..Hmmm?
Is the CAV Badge the weapon that has corrupted the intelligence services and stable of
politicians in nearly every nation in the world? Did Colin Powell flash a CAV badge as he
spoke to UN focus about the most likely presence of non existent WMDs that led to w__ in
Iraq?
How can CAV badge victims be identified and isolated from politics?
The CAV badge could explain so many USA positive, American negative events?
Stiglitz does not explain us what forces can bring this so called "progressive capitalism". So far I not see social forces
that can enact it.
Why financial oligarchy that is the ruling class under the neoliberalism relinquish the power voluntarily, without a fight?
After all they control the state and counterattack any changes: look at color revolution (aka Russiagate) launched against Trump,
who represent adherents of a different flavor of neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism entered zombie stage as ideology was discredited in 2008, but there is not still a viable alternative to it. Trump
is promoting "national neoliberalism" -- neoliberalism without globalization and with trade wars between rival economic blocks.
It might be worse then classic neoliberalism for common people.
Notable quotes:
"... By contrast, the third camp advocates what I call progressive capitalism , which prescribes a radically different economic agenda, based on four priorities. The first is to restore the balance between markets, the state and civil society. Slow economic growth, rising inequality, financial instability and environmental degradation are problems born of the market, and thus cannot and will not be overcome by the market on its own. Governments have a duty to limit and shape markets through environmental, health, occupational safety and other types of regulation. It is also the government's job to do what the market cannot or will not do, such as actively investing in basic research, technology, education and the health of its constituents. ..."
"... The rise in corporate market power, combined with the decline in workers' bargaining power, goes a long way toward explaining why inequality is so high and growth so tepid. Unless government takes a more active role than neoliberalism prescribes, these problems will likely become much worse, owing to advances in robotisation and artificial intelligence. ..."
"... There is no magic bullet that can reverse the damage done by decades of neoliberalism. But a comprehensive agenda along the lines sketched above absolutely can. Much will depend on whether reformers are as resolute in combating problems like excessive market power and inequality as the private sector is in creating them. ..."
"... This agenda is eminently affordable; in fact, we cannot afford not to enact it. The alternatives offered by nationalists and neoliberals would guarantee more stagnation, inequality, environmental degradation and political acrimony, potentially leading to outcomes we do not even want to imagine. ..."
"... Progressive capitalism is not an oxymoron. Rather, it is the most viable and vibrant alternative to an ideology that has clearly failed. As such, it represents the best chance we have of escaping our current economic and political malaise. ..."
Bill Clinton and Tony Blair represented neoliberalism with a human face but remained beholden to an expired ideology. Photograph:
Mark Lennihan/AP W hat kind of economic system is most conducive to human wellbeing? That question has come to define the current
era, because, after 40 years of neoliberalism in the United States and other advanced economies, we know what doesn't work.
The neoliberal experiment – lower taxes on the rich, deregulation of labour and product markets, financialisation, and globalisation
– has been a spectacular failure. Growth is lower than it was in the quarter-century after the second world war, and most of it has
accrued to the very top of the income scale. After decades of
stagnant or even falling incomes for those below them, neoliberalism must be pronounced dead and buried.
Vying to succeed it are at least three major political alternatives: far-right nationalism, centre-left reformism and the progressive
left (with the centre-right representing the neoliberal failure). And yet, with the exception of the progressive left, these alternatives
remain beholden to some form of the ideology that has (or should have) expired.
The centre-left, for example, represents neoliberalism with a human face. Its goal is to bring the policies of former US president
Bill Clinton and former British prime minister Tony
Blair into the 21st century, making only slight revisions to the prevailing modes of financialisation and globalisation.
Meanwhile, the nationalist right disowns globalisation, blaming migrants and foreigners for all of today's problems. Yet as Donald
Trump's presidency has shown, it is no less committed – at least in its American variant – to tax cuts for the rich, deregulation
and shrinking or eliminating social programmes.
By contrast, the third camp advocates what I call
progressive
capitalism , which prescribes a radically different economic agenda, based on four priorities. The first is to restore the balance
between markets, the state and civil society. Slow economic growth, rising inequality, financial instability and environmental degradation
are problems born of the market, and thus cannot and will not be overcome by the market on its own. Governments have a duty to limit
and shape markets through environmental, health, occupational safety and other types of regulation. It is also the government's job
to do what the market cannot or will not do, such as actively investing in basic research, technology, education and the health of
its constituents.
The second priority is to recognise that the "wealth of nations" is the result of
scientific inquiry – learning about the world around us – and social organisation that allows large groups of people to work
together for the common good. Markets still have a crucial role to play in facilitating social cooperation, but they serve this purpose
only if they are governed by the rule of law and subject to democratic checks. Otherwise, individuals can get rich by exploiting
others, extracting wealth through rent-seeking rather than creating wealth through genuine ingenuity. Many of today's wealthy took
the exploitation route to get where they are. They have been well served by Trump's policies, which have encouraged rent-seeking
while destroying the underlying sources of wealth creation. Progressive capitalism seeks to do precisely the opposite.
There is no magic bullet that can reverse the damage done by decades of neoliberalism
This brings us to the third priority: addressing the growing problem of concentrated
market power . By exploiting information advantages, buying up potential competitors and creating entry barriers, dominant firms
are able to engage in large-scale rent-seeking to the detriment of everyone else. The rise in corporate market power, combined with
the decline in workers' bargaining power, goes a long way toward explaining why inequality is so high and growth so tepid. Unless
government takes a more active role than neoliberalism prescribes, these problems will likely become much worse, owing to advances
in robotisation and artificial intelligence.
The fourth key item on the progressive agenda is to sever the link between economic power and political influence. Economic power
and political influence are mutually reinforcing and self-perpetuating, especially where, as in the US, wealthy individuals and corporations
may spend without limit in elections. As the US moves ever closer to a fundamentally undemocratic system of "one dollar, one vote",
the system of checks and balances so necessary for democracy likely cannot hold: nothing will be able to constrain the power of the
wealthy. This is not just a moral and political problem: economies with less inequality actually
perform better .
Progressive-capitalist reforms thus have to begin by curtailing the influence of money in politics and reducing wealth inequality.
There is no magic bullet that can reverse the damage done by decades of neoliberalism. But a comprehensive agenda along the
lines sketched above absolutely can. Much will depend on whether reformers are as resolute in combating problems like excessive market
power and inequality as the private sector is in creating them.
A comprehensive agenda must focus on education, research and the other true sources of wealth. It must protect the environment
and fight climate change with the same vigilance as the Green New Dealers in the US and Extinction Rebellion in the United Kingdom.
And it must provide public programmes to ensure that no citizen is denied the basic requisites of a decent life. These include economic
security, access to work and a living wage, health care and adequate housing, a secure retirement, and a quality education for one's
children.
This agenda is eminently affordable; in fact, we cannot afford not to enact it. The alternatives offered by nationalists and neoliberals
would guarantee more stagnation, inequality, environmental degradation and political acrimony, potentially leading to outcomes we
do not even want to imagine.
Progressive capitalism is not an oxymoron. Rather, it is the most viable and vibrant alternative to an ideology that has clearly
failed. As such, it represents the best chance we have of escaping our current economic and political malaise.
Joseph E Stiglitz is a Nobel
laureate in economics, university professor at Columbia University and chief economist at the Roosevelt Institute.
Project Syndicate
That remind me how old Kushner tried to smear his relative...
Notable quotes:
"... They are told that the daughter of a Russian billionaire plans large investments in Austria. It was said that she would like to help his party. The alleged daughter of the Russian billionaire, who is actually also Austrian, and her "friend" serve an expensive dinner. Alcohol flows freely. The pair offers a large party donation but asks for returns in form of mark ups on public contracts. ..."
"... The "Russian" female is notably very attractive with a slender build. There is a honey-trap angle here as well. This would likely inspire the boasting (in order to impress her) on the part of the wingnut politician. ..."
"... The far-right is the Troy Horse of transnational corporations and capital and already discredited neoliberal stablishment which comes now disguised under the softening label of "populists". Beware, there seems to be a coordinated effort at several blogs in the ten previous days of the European elections to whitewash the far-right. ..."
"... So this very much hints something more. Right now there is a debate of cocain being visible on the table but this accusation points more towards schnickle with a babe imho. The babe to his right is not that ugly, admittely. ..."
"... As expected the hysteria of "russian" meddling have now publicized to weaken FPÖ in the EU election. Winners? NATO/US parties. ..."
"... Seems indeed to be a honeypot aspect to the entrapment, and it's quite possible Strache stepped down at once to avoid that part to come to light, so that the public revelations would be limited to the economic shenanigans and influence-peddling level. ..."
"... Also, this goes to show that the bulk of our Western politicians, across all the political spectrum, are a bunch of mediocre and quite corrupt fools. For him not to smell that this was a setup from the very first minute, it must be that such proposals are common place all across the board - which will only reinforce my suspicion that our societies, peoples and mankind as a whole would only benefit if we fully wiped out our economic, financial and political establishment and started from scratches. ..."
"... Blackmail, smear campaigns, various traps via honey or corruption, hookers and blow, gay sex, paedofilia, or what-have-you, - all or in combination. Politicians are "all" compromised in these ways. Buck the system or threaten the status quo - whereby it gets somebody's serious attention and the shite hits the fan. ..."
"... The savages in this neoliberal order use the secret services to subvert democracy. Deception and manipulation are the means used to corrupt the public domain. They would push the most pliable and ruthless leaders into office. Catastrophe and violence and disinformation are their most powerful weapons. But I still think that political processes and elections do matter; and what counts is a struggle to improve and reform the system of government. Doing our best to protect and maintain the integrity of electoral processes is something that requires both protests and political campaigns. ..."
"... The very strong implication certainly seems to be that there may be further video of Strache sleeping with the honey pot. He obviously knows what happened that night. If there were video cameras hidden everywhere, that was obviously one of the intentions behind the sting from the outset. ..."
"... B, please do an article on the Nazi penetration of the German security services, Interior Ministry, Army, CDU etc, and links to the NSU affair, shredding of millions of documents by the Interior Ministry when demanded by the courts as evidence, links with the Board members and advisory board members of German big business especially Siemens and Deutche Bank and Bayer, etc. ..."
"... It is a wonder Strache's remark "Journalists are the biggest whores on the planet" and how he says he can subvert an entire media outlet to his political agenda by even firing the few remaining fringe elements. ..."
"... I don't think Strache is as harmless as you portray him, B. You fall for his defence strategy if you attribute all his statements to the influence of alcohol. At that time, the man was very confident that he would soon be at the levers of power, which then materialized. It remains to be proven whether he did not put into practice anything of what he talked about at that house in Ibiza. After all, he was talking about the by far most influential newspaper in Austria. ..."
"... Of course it is true that it is the neoliberal globalisers who have brought us to where we stand today. But that doesn' make people like Strache and Salvini any less dangerous. If they rise to total power, the result will be a naked dictatorship. Strache was beaten with his own weapons, you don't have to be under any illusions. ..."
"... Who could have ordered such an elaborate sting operation? ..."
"... The sophisticated operation using actors and a villa prepared with hidden cameras and microphones shows that this is hardly a normal case of dirty campaigning by political opponents. Most likely, either it was an action by a secret service or someone with deep pockets hired former secret agents. ..."
"... If it was an action by secret services, the most plausible explanation seems to be that Western secret services targeted Strache because FPÖ is one of the parties who is in favor of restoring normal relations with Russia ..."
"... François Fillon comes to mind, a French conservative candidate who also had a quite a friendly attitude towards Russia - shortly before the elections, it was revealed (at least claimed) that Fillon had given his wife ficticious employment, and Fillon lost popularity, which helped Macron enormously. ..."
"... Probably, some of the things Strache said during this sting operation were inacceptable, and Fillon may also not be innocent, but if there is a systematic selective targeting of European politicians who want to normalize relations with Russia by secret services, that would be a huge problem for democracy. ..."
"... In 2016, Joseph Mifsud invited George Papadopoulos to Rome and introduced him to "Putin's niece" with the intent of smearing Trump as "Russian puppet" and destroying his election chances. In 2017, someone (who?) invited Heinz-Christian Strache to Ibiza and introduced him to "Russian billionaire's niece" with the intent of smearing Strache as "Russian puppet" and destroying his party's election chances. Notice a pattern? ..."
"... This is a clear case of Germany interfering in Austrian elections. Austria should deport 60 German diplomats, shut down German embassy in Vienna, and impose sanctions on Germany. Also put a German girl interested in Austrian politics in jail for 18 months. ..."
"... Thinking about it, after revealing e-mail of HRC, Podesta etc. were published, their core supporters were enraged about the dirty trick and did not pay attention to the disclosed content, while for the core opponents of HRC she was already sufficiently vilified so the net change in voting intentions that can be attributed to that incident was modest. ..."
"... Anyone who does not directly have his or her family's nose in the EU trough at this point knows that the policies espoused by transatlantic puppets like Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron push our countries and our continent towards self-destruction. Life in Europe, post-1968 and pre-2013, has been pretty damn good. There's absolutely no good reason for us to rip up our traditions or turn into a continent of immigrants and mobile job seekers. ..."
"... As Strache explains in the video, Austrian dirty tricks are done "via another country". ..."
"... To those who fill that politics of Strache are obnoxious and that justifies entrapment, remembers that methods of that type are not improvised, and that means that there is an apparatus that does it. We noted similarities with provocations against George Papadopoulos. In the latter case the target was cautious, after all, we had to be well aware of such methods. But anyone who is despised by NATO establishment are similar group can be on the receiving end, think about Assange. ..."
During the last days a right wing politician in Austria was taken down by using an elaborate
sting. Until Friday Heinz-Christian Strache was leader of the far right (but not fascist)
Freedom Party of Austria (FPOe) and the Vice Chancellor of the country. On Friday morning two
German papers, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung and Der Spiegel
published (German)
reports (English) about an old video that was made to take Strache down.
The FPOe has good connections with United Russia, the party of the Russian President Putin,
and to other right-wing parties in east Europe. It's pro-Russian position has led to verbal
attacks on and defamation of the party from NATO supporting and neoliberal circles.
In July 2017 Strache and his right hand man Johann Gudenus, who is also the big number in
the FPOe, get invited for dinner to a rented villa on Ibiza, the Spanish tourist island in the
Mediterranean. They are told that the daughter of a Russian billionaire plans large investments
in Austria. It was said that she would like to help his party. The alleged daughter of the
Russian billionaire, who is actually also Austrian, and her "friend" serve an expensive dinner.
Alcohol flows freely. The pair offers a large party donation but asks for returns in form of
mark ups on public contracts.
Unknown to Strache the villa is professionally bugged with many hidden cameras and
microphones.
A scene from the video. Source: Der Falter (vid, German)
During the six hour long party several schemes get proposed by the "Russian" and are
discussed. Strache rejects most of them. He insists several times that everything they plan or
do must be legal and conform to the law. He says that a large donation could probably be
funneled through an endowment that would then support his party. It is a gray area under
Austrian party financing laws. They also discuss if the "Russian" could buy the Kronen
Zeitung , Austria's powerful tabloid, and use it to prop up his party.
The evening goes on with several bottles of vodka on the table. Starche gets a bit drunk and
boosts in front of the "oligarch daughter" about all his connections to rich and powerful
people. He does not actually have these.
Strache says that, in exchange for help for his party, the "Russian" could get public
contracts for highway building and repair. Currently most of such contracts in Austria go to
the large Austrian company, STRABAG, that is owned by a neoliberal billionaire who opposes the
FPOe. At that time Strache was not yet in the government and had no way to decide about such
contracts.
At one point Strache seems to understand that the whole thing is a setup. But his right hand
man calms him down and vouches for the "Russian". The sting ends with Strache and his companion
leaving the place. The never again see the "Russian" and her co-plotter. Nothing they talked
about will ever come to fruition.
Three month later Strache and his party win more than 20% in the Austrian election and form
a coalition government with the conservative party OeVP led by Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. Even
while the FPOe controls several ministries, it does not achieve much politically. It lacks a
real program and the government's policies are mostly run by the conservatives.
Nearly two years after the evening on Ibiza, ten days before the European parliament
election in which Strache's party is predicted to achieve good results, a video of the evening
on Ibiza is handed to two German papers which are known to be have strong transatlanticist
leanings and have previously been used for other shady 'leaks'. The papers do not hesitate to
take part in the plot and publish extensive reports about the video.
After the reports appeared Strache immediately stepped down and the
conservatives ended the coalition with his party. Austria will now have new elections.
On Bloomberg Leonid Bershidsky opines
on the case:
Strache's discussion with the Russian oligarch's fake niece shows a propensity for dirty
dealing that has nothing to do with idealistic nationalism. Nationalist populists often
agitate against entrenched, corrupt elites and pledge to drain various swamps. In the videos,
however, Strache and Gudenus behave like true swamp creatures, savoring rumors of drug and
sex scandals in Austrian politics and discussing how to create an authoritarian media machine
like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's.
I do not believe that the people who voted for the FPOe (and similar parties in other
countries) will subscribe to that view. The politics of the main stream parties in Austria have
for decades been notoriously corrupt. Compared to them Strache and his party are astonishingly
clean. In the video he insists several times that everything must stay within the legal realm.
Whenever the "Russian" puts forward a likely illegal scheme, Starche emphatically rejects
it.
Bershidsky continues:
Strache, as one of the few nationalist populists in government in the European Union's
wealthier member states, was an important member of the movement Italian Interior Minister
Matteo Salvini has been trying to cobble together ahead of the European Parliament election
that will take place next week. On Saturday, he was supposed to attend a Salvini-led rally in
Milan with other like-minded politicians from across Europe. Instead, he was in Vienna
apologizing to his wife and to Kurz and protesting pitifully that he'd been the victim of a
"political assassination" -- a poisonous rain on the Italian right-winger's parade.
...
This leaves the European far right in disarray and plays into the hands of centrist and
leftist forces ahead of next week's election. Salvini's unifying effort has been thoroughly
undermined, ...
This is also a misreading of the case. The right-wing parties will use the case to boost
their legitimacy.
Strache was obviously set up by some intelligence services, probably a German one with a
British assist. The original aim was likely to blackmail him. But during the meeting on Ibiza
Strache promised and did nothing illegal. Looking for potential support for his party is not a
sin. Neither is discussing investments in Austria with a "daughter of a Russian oligarch." Some
boosting while drunk is hardly a reason to go to jail. When the incident provided too little
material to claim that Strache is corrupt, the video was held back until the right moment to
politically assassinate him with the largest potential damage to his party. That moment was
thought to be now.
But that Strache stepped down after the sudden media assault only makes him more convincing.
The right-wing all over Europe will see him as a martyr who was politically assassinated
because he worked for their cause. The issue will increase the right-wingers hate against the
'liberal' establishment. It will further motivate them: "They attack us because we are right
and winning." The new far-right block Natteo Salvini
will setup in the European Parliament will likely receive a record share of votes.
Establishment writers notoriously misinterpret the new right wing parties and their
followers. This stand-offish sentence in the Spiegel story about Strache's party
demonstrates the problem:
In the last election, the party drew significant support from the working class, in part
because of his ability to simplify even the most complicated of issues and play the common
man, even in his role as vice chancellor.
The implicit thesis, that the working class is too dumb to understand the "most complicated
of issues", is not only incredibly snobbish but utterly false. The working class understands
very well what the establishment parties have done to it and continue to do. The increasing
vote share of the far-right is a direct consequence of the behavior of the neoliberal center
and of the lack of real left alternatives.
Last week, before the Strache video appeared, Craig Murray put his finger on the
wound:
The massive economic shock following the banking collapse of 2007–8 is the direct cause
of the crisis of confidence which is affecting almost all the institutions of western
representative democracy. The banking collapse was not a natural event, like a tsunami. It
was a direct result of man-made systems and artifices which permitted wealth to be generated
and hoarded primarily through multiple financial transactions rather than by the actual
production and sale of concrete goods, and which then disproportionately funnelled wealth to
those engaged in the mechanics of the transactions.
...
The rejection of the political class manifests itself in different ways and has been diverted
down a number of entirely blind alleys giving unfulfilled promise of a fresh start –
Brexit, Trump, Macron. As the vote share of the established political parties – and
public engagement with established political institutions – falls everywhere, the
chattering classes deride the political symptoms of status quo rejection by the people as
"populism". It is not populism to make sophisticated arguments that undermine the received
political wisdom and take on the entire weight of established media opinion.
If one wants to take down the far right one has to do so with arguments and good politics
for the working class. Most people, especially working class people, have a strong sense for
justice. The political assassination of Christian Strache is unjust. What was done during the
2007-8 banking crisis was utterly corrupt and also unjust. Instead of going to jail the bankers
were rewarded with extreme amounts of money for their assault on the well being of the people.
The public was then told that it must starve through austerity to make up for the loss of
money.
While I consider myself to be a strong leftist who opposes the right wherever possible, I
believe to understand why people vote for Strache's FBOe and similar parties. When one talks to
these people issues of injustice and inequality always come up. The new 'populist' parties at
least claim to fight against the injustice done to the common men. Unlike most of the
establishment parties they seem to be still mostly clean and not yet corrupted.
In the early 1990s Strache actually flirted with violent fascists but he rejected their way.
While he has far-right opinions, he and his like are no danger to our societies. If we can not
accept that Strache and his followers have some legitimate causes, we will soon find us
confronted with way more extreme people. The neoliberal establishment seems to do its best to
achieve that.
Posted by b on May 19, 2019 at 01:10 PM |
Permalink
b - thanks .. i agree "elaborate sting" and "the video was held back until the right
moment"... clearly this was a set up.. strache says he is going to pursue this legally..
"working class people, have a strong sense for justice. The political assassination of
Christian Strache is unjust." injustices are being done on a constant basis now and being
justified by the msm regularly.. i think this is part of the reason people are seeking
alternatives - whatever they might be... power to the people..screw the neoliberal agenda and
blackmail artists that are so rampant at present...
Funny thing is e.g.- a German comedian Jan Böhmerman knew before. Already in April he
said in a Video call live in Austian television duringthe TV-prize-giving of the trophy
"Romy" that he couldn´t attend personally to receive the price because right know he
was sitting together with some FPÖ-buddies in a Russian oligarch-villa on Ibiza,
sniffing cocain, drinking and negotiating the takeover of the "Krone-Zeitung" (the biggest
rag in Austira, smth like the "Bild" in Germany or "The sun" in Britain).
Your article here raises a number of important issues. More or less at random:
* If I understand your characterization of your political leanings, based on this and on
the perspectives MoA offers, I share many of your views. And whereas there may be a certain
Schadenfreude at seeing a right-wing, B-team operator reveal himself, I agree that the forces
behind the sting itself are of potentially far greater interest (and danger)..
* For every sting and smear such as this that we see, how many others take place sub rosa,
corrupting our political and social landscapes, leaving no evidence that might trigger
criticism or resistance?
* I'm not sure of how this plays out legally, but this seems not just to have been a
sting, but entrapment, in which (if these were law enforcement agents) we could protest that
the only illegal activity being proposed, was by those conducting the sting.
* If this was, as you suggest, authored by the BND, then this would be a clear instance of
election "meddling" -- though not of the sort that our shining democracies are now being
warned against. (At least President Putin will not be accused of conducting it, for once.
That oligarch's daughter could have come from anywhere, but of course Russia.) Russia gets
smeared is probably the larger aim, rather than this particularly Austrian politician.
The "Russian" female is notably very attractive with a slender build. There is a honey-trap
angle here as well. This would likely inspire the boasting (in order to impress her) on the
part of the wingnut politician.
I think the word is protofascist. b. you have got a blind spot seeing geopolitics everywhere. Truth is most of this is
simply a battle of billionaires. The key to understand the Ibiza video is the product placement. Everybody there drinks Red
Bull plus alcohol (I am not sure about the alcohol the loss of control of the politicians who
are present suggests cocaine).
The owner of Red Bull is an Austrian billionaire called Dietrich Mateschitz.
Mateschitz is a right wing crank building a media empire in Austria including an
"investigative platform" called addendum that is something like the Austrian version of
Breitbart.
For some reason "addendum" began to shoot against Rene Benzko, an Austrian real estate
billionaire, who intends to take over Kronenzeitung.
And guess what, Rene Benzko was mentioned in the video "as a friend", and a large part of
the conversation centered on taking over Kronenzeitung something Rene Benzko is involved
in.
Strache, Vice Chancellor of Austria, explained in the video for every Austrian to
understand, that his party's scheme is based on accepting illegal contributions via a ngo,
and lowering taxes in return.
According to what he says in the video he also intends to charge for water by selling the
right to the Latvian/Russien "niece of a Russian oligarch" or someone else prepared to pay to
his party's ngo.
Anybody who is not a billionaire voting for FPÖ after this must be braindead.
> with United Russia, the party of the Russian President Putin
Putin himself though stresses his non involvement in that party, he also tried to
bootstrap organizations that could supplant or even challenge U.R. at least in some
niches.
While U.R. probably is party of Russian ruling elites, it is hardly one-man-show of
LDPR/Zhirinovsky kind and whether Putin is "gray cardinal" of U.R. is very questionable.
It is said that children and drunk people always say the truth...
Why is it not to be taken into account what he said once drunk enough?
For to be a strong leftist, b, you spend a great effort in discharging this man, while
whitewashing the far-right saying they are no danger for our societies and assuring that they
are clean, when that is a thing you do not know since they have not had yet the possibility
to rule.
They are neither cleaner nor inocuous for our societies. For starters they have chosen as
scapegoat the migrants when who is to blame for the wave of migration is the US, NATO and
their imperial ambitions, so as to throw poor against poor and that way the elites could
continue quietly looting us, while we fight each other. You will never heard anything agsint
banks ans elites from anybody in the far-right.
FYI, it is not Matteo Salvini who is forming a coalition of the far-right to conflude to
European elections, but it is Bannon from his HQ in a Cisterciense monastery in Italy who is
commanding this operation. Salvini is really a piece, having supported Guiado and the
Venezuelan coup intend, and said what he would do with the Yellow Vests , "I don't go to the
Yellow Vests with Molotov cocktails, if anything, I put them in prison" ...
Then it is AfD, who goes also in the block, whose members have claimed the Germans should
be proud of the performance of the German Army during both WW....
Then Vox, financed by MEK and Israeli lobby and promoted by Bannon and the WH, who only wear
clear neoliberal economic policies in their, for the rest, confusing program.
The far-right is the Troy Horse of transnational corporations and capital and already
discredited neoliberal stablishment which comes now disguised under the softening label of
"populists". Beware, there seems to be a coordinated effort at several blogs in the ten
previous days of the European elections to whitewash the far-right.
"Glaubt er, man wäre bei Alkohol nachsichtiger? Offenbar schien er sich betrunken kaum
mehr im Griff zu haben - und dies ist wohlgemerkt seine Erklärung für die
Äußerungen im Video. Erst gegen Ende beginnt er eigenes Fehlverhalten
einzuräumen und bittet insbesondere seine Frau um Verzeihung, mit der er ein wenige
Monate altes Kind hat. Kenner Straches ahnten an dieser Stelle bereits, dass dieser sich
bereits für Dinge entschuldigt, die zu diesem Zeitpunkt der Öffentlichkeit noch gar
nicht bekannt sind."
Does he (Strache) really assume he would get more indulgence by blaming it on the
alcolhol? Obviously when being drunken he wasn´t in control of himself anymore - and
this is actually his explanation for his statements in the video. Somehow at the end he
finally begins admitting own misconduct and especially asks his wife for forgiveness, with
which he has a few months old child. Experts on Strache suspected from this moment on, that
he apologized for things which at this moment are not known to the public, yet"
So this very much hints something more. Right now there is a debate of cocain being
visible on the table but this accusation points more towards schnickle with a babe imho. The
babe to his right is not that ugly, admittely.
battle of billionaires.... Anybody who is not a billionaire voting for FPÖ after
this must be braindead.
Anyone who believes voting will change anything is braindead. Only supporting protest Movements (like Gillet Jeune) and free press/citizen journalism
(Wikileaks/Assange) will have any real effect.
Great piece - I dont see how Strache actually made anything wrong or atleast nothing not
normal to politicians that constantly seek out support by big, powerful people. Most likely
the deep state in Austria struck FPÖ just like FBI struck Trump.
As expected the hysteria of "russian" meddling have now publicized to weaken FPÖ in the
EU election.
Winners? NATO/US parties.
Not some very close relative like daughter or sister, which may be fearsome, as "russian
mafia" oligarch could be expected to "protect" her of ladykillers viciously. But also not some far relative who would be seen alien and have no financial support.
Just enough distance to be safe to hit on and try to share the oligarch's money. It was both honey&gold trap.
If voting would be such a waste, why would had taken so hard and long to achieve voting
for minorities and women?
Why the parties go to such efforts to campaign and disguise themselves as wolves with
sheepskin like the far-right?
Why would certain forces need to go to such editorial coordinated efforts through their
several blogs out there to give an impression of certain candidates which is opposite to what
they really are? Wikilieaks/Assange are part of this efforts, btw
Seems indeed to be a honeypot aspect to the entrapment, and it's quite possible Strache
stepped down at once to avoid that part to come to light, so that the public revelations
would be limited to the economic shenanigans and influence-peddling level.
Also, this goes to show that the bulk of our Western politicians, across all the political
spectrum, are a bunch of mediocre and quite corrupt fools. For him not to smell that this was
a setup from the very first minute, it must be that such proposals are common place all
across the board - which will only reinforce my suspicion that our societies, peoples and
mankind as a whole would only benefit if we fully wiped out our economic, financial and
political establishment and started from scratches.
Spanish Colonel ( ret.) Pedro Baños, who was postulated for head of the CNI by the
Socialist government of Pedro Sanchez, was object of slander campiagn as "pro-Russian" by the
Spanish cluster of Integrity Initiative, only for declarations on the prejudice of sanctions
for Spain, and nobody made such noise....
Blackmail, smear campaigns, various traps via honey or corruption, hookers and blow, gay sex,
paedofilia, or what-have-you, - all or in combination. Politicians are "all" compromised in
these ways. Buck the system or threaten the status quo - whereby it gets somebody's serious
attention and the shite hits the fan.
Enforcement and and penalties are selective. Selective enforcement. It's how "The Law" operates. Not defending the wingnut pig in the article. I appreciate Sasha's Trojan Horse allegory above.
wow...a bunch of elitist neoliberals with contempt for anyone lacking 10 zeroes on their
paychecks and zero useful policies use "russian collusion" to entrap and embarrass a
pseudo-right wing politician. who could ever imagine such a scenario? and why learn from the
masses you represent when james o'keefe gives you all the inspiration you need?
but at least they blocked the ascension of someone who would trade political favors for
money. that kind of nonsense simply won't do in western society.
Thanks for this explanation, b! I first saw this reported at Geroman's Twitter and used
machine translation of the article he linked, but it lacked the context which you provided.
This incident is subsumed within the larger conflict that's trying to keep EU from combining
with BRI/EAEU, which means its roots/culprits are NATO/Outlaw US Empire--it points to
desperation on their part.
Sorry, you don't see the Latvian/Russian woman. You see Gudenus' wife who is from
Serbia. Whatever the publishing papers got, it was a copy. More will come out.
The savages in this neoliberal order use the secret services to subvert democracy. Deception
and manipulation are the means used to corrupt the public domain. They would push the most
pliable and ruthless leaders into office. Catastrophe and violence and disinformation are
their most powerful weapons. But I still think that political processes and elections do
matter; and what counts is a struggle to improve and reform the system of government. Doing
our best to protect and maintain the integrity of electoral processes is something that
requires both protests and political campaigns.
So this very much hints something more. Right now there is a debate of cocain being
visible on the table but this accusation points more towards schnickle with a babe imho. The
babe to his right is not that ugly, admittely. Posted by: Bratislav Metulski | May 19, 2019 2:20:38 PM | 8
The very strong implication certainly seems to be that there may be further video of
Strache sleeping with the honey pot. He obviously knows what happened that night. If there
were video cameras hidden everywhere, that was obviously one of the intentions behind the
sting from the outset.
---
On the issue of "populism" and right-wing parties I confess I have a problem. I certainly
want to see the Establishment thrashed, and especially in next week's EU elections, and there
is no question that at the moment the right-wing parties have far more potential to upset the
establishment than the left. If "Populist" parties are able to radically upset the EU
Parliament, that should bring a much-needed hammer and axe to the anti-populist activities of
the EU, and hopefully lead to the breakup of the EU.
On the other hand, unlike B, I do have extremely strong worries about the rising power of
the far right and their connections to Nazis and neo-Nazis. I am concerned - even without the
involvement of Bannon, but far more so with - that the rise of "populism" is a calculated
policy of a Nazi segment of the Establishment that is designed specifically to usher in an
international Nazi movement across Europe and Latin America under the leadership of and
proxies of the - ever more and more Nazi behaving - US (which itself is in so many very real
ways descended from Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party and the Japanese war criminals including Bush's
family, tight connections with Nazi war criminals in the CIA, and historical leadership
figures in the CIA). The large scale and extremely high level infiltration of hardcore Nazis
in the German security services, Interior Ministry, Army, and CDU politics is a ticking
timebomb waiting for its moment. There seems to be similar high level Nazi infiltration in
many other countries.
We have to be careful what we wish for!
B, please do an article on the Nazi penetration of the German security services, Interior
Ministry, Army, CDU etc, and links to the NSU affair, shredding of millions of documents by
the Interior Ministry when demanded by the courts as evidence, links with the Board members
and advisory board members of German big business especially Siemens and Deutche Bank and
Bayer, etc.
Colonialism is a leech with two suckers, one of which sucks the metropolitan proletariat
and the other that of the colonies. If we want to kill this monster, we must cut off both
suckers at the same time. If only one is cut off, the other will continue to suck the blood
of the proletariat, the animal will continue to live, and the cut–off sucker will
grow again. The Russian Revolution has grasped this truth clearly. That is why it is not
satisfied with making fine platonic speeches and drafting "humanitarian" resolutions in
favor of oppressed peoples, but it teaches them to struggle; and helps them spiritually, as
proclaimed by Lenin in his theses on the colonial question. To the Baku Congress,
twenty–one Eastern nations sent delegates. Representatives of Western workers'
parties also participated in the work of this congress. For the first time, the proletariat
of the conquering Western States and that of the subject Eastern countries fraternally
joined hands and deliberated in common on the best means to defeat their common enemy,
imperialism .
Following this historic congress, despite internal and external difficulties,
revolutionary Russia has never hesitated to come to the help of peoples awakened by its
heroic and victorious revolution. One of its first important acts was the founding of the
University of the East.(...)
The sixty–two nationalities represented at the University form a "Commune." Its
chairman and functionaries are elected every three months by all the students.
A student delegate takes part in the economic and administrative management of the
University. All must regularly and in turn work in the kitchen, the library, the club, etc.
All "misdemeanors" and disputes are judged and settled by an elected tribunal in the
presence of all comrades. Once a week, the "Commune" holds a meeting to discuss the
international political and economic situation. From time to time, meetings and evening
parties are organized where the amateur artists introduce the art and culture of their
country.
The fact that the Communists not only treat the "inferior natives of the colonies"
like brothers, but that they get them to participate in the political life of the country,
is highly characteristic of the "barbarity" of the Bolsheviks. Treated in their native
country as "submissive subjects" or "protéges," having no other right but that to
pay taxes, the Eastern students, who are neither electors nor eligible for election in
their own country, from whom the right to express their political opinion is withdrawn, in
the Soviet Union take part in the election of the Soviets and have the right to send their
representatives to the Soviets. Let our brothers of the colonies who vainly seek a change
of nationality make a comparison between bourgeois democracy and proletarian
democracy.
These students have suffered themselves and have witnessed the sufferings of others.
All have lived under the yoke of "high civilization," all have been victims of exploitation
and oppression by foreign capitalists . Moreover, they passionately long to acquire
knowledge and to study. They are serious and full of enthusiasm. They are entirely
different from the frequenters of the boulevards of the Latin Quarter, the Eastern students
in Paris, Oxford, and Berlin. It can be said without exaggeration that under the roof of
this University is the future of the colonial peoples.
The colonial countries of the Near and Far East, stretching from Syria to Korea,
cover an extent of more than 15 million square kilometers and have more than 1,200 million
inhabitants. All these immense countries are now under the yoke of capitalism and
imperialism. Although their considerable numbers should be their strength, these submissive
peoples have never yet made any serious attempts to free themselves from this yoke. Not yet
having realized the value of international solidarity, they have not known how to unite for
the struggle. Relationships between their countries are not yet established as they are
among the peoples of Europe and America. They possess gigantic strength and do not yet
realize it. The University of the East, assembling all the young, active, and intelligent
leaders of the colonized countries, has fulfilled a great task, namely:
-It teaches to the future vanguard militants the principles of class struggle,
confused in their minds by race conflicts and patriarchal customs.
-It establishes between the proletarian vanguard of the colonies a close contact with the
Western proletariat, thus preparing the way for the close and effective cooperation which
will alone ensure the final victory of the international working class.
-It teaches the colonized people, hitherto separated from one another, to know one another
and to unite, by creating the bases of a future union of Eastern countries, one of the
wings of the proletarian revolution.
-It sets the proletariat of colonialist countries and example of what they can and must do
in favor of their oppressed brothers .
This is why it is needed to throw the workers from the West against the migrants from the
East and South, to avoid the invincible force they would constitute together.
This dirty work is made by the far-right in the name of corporate liberal elites.
They can play that they fight each other, but as soon as they get seats at the European
Parliament, you will find the previous allegedly opponents all together aligned in the same
Eurogroup. Time to time.
It is a wonder Strache's remark "Journalists are the biggest whores on the planet" and how he
says he can subvert an entire media outlet to his political agenda by even firing the few
remaining fringe elements. Yet here we can still talk about he was drunk, how his being set
up was unjust, and how the poor guy will have to miss his lovers' right cause in Italy. Those
vulgar masses are at it again! There can be no justification about the masses' support of
far-right causes and the clowns like him. If you think otherwise it is the likes of moonofalabama next in line to be "fired", or eliminated. Legitimize their causes and it is
Germany in 1920s all over again.
"Left/right", I agree, is nearly without semantic value. Nevertheless class interests
remain...how is it that this is so? Think about that, comrades.
And then consider wsws report about "At the annual meeting of the Bundeswehr reserve in
autumn 2016, Veith announced: "I dream that in 2026 there will be a provincial regiment in
each state with a charismatic commander, a troop flag and an organization of between 800 and
2,000 reservists to support the police and the Bundeswehr in emergency situations." " see>
"German government prepares troops for domestic missions" @ wsws.org
Considering the overall aspects, it's rational to expect all parties in Europe to make
plans, is it not? Of course the working class is not permitted to make such plans...is
it?
I don't think Strache is as harmless as you portray him, B. You fall for his defence strategy
if you attribute all his statements to the influence of alcohol. At that time, the man was
very confident that he would soon be at the levers of power, which then materialized. It
remains to be proven whether he did not put into practice anything of what he talked about at
that house in Ibiza. After all, he was talking about the by far most influential newspaper in
Austria.
Of course it is true that it is the neoliberal globalisers who have brought us to where we
stand today. But that doesn' make people like Strache and Salvini any less dangerous. If they
rise to total power, the result will be a naked dictatorship. Strache was beaten with his own
weapons, you don't have to be under any illusions.
I agree with you that this is not the big setback for the right the mainstream parties dream
of. But it won't help the fascists in spe in the future either.
Who could have ordered such an elaborate sting operation?
A first association might be the dirty, deceptive campaigning SPÖ used against
Sebastian Kurz (ÖVP) - the Silberstein affair -, but I think the methods that were
chosen are too different to make a common source likely, Strache was targeted in a much more
sophisticated way. The Silberstein affair may, however, be the reason why the tapes have
partially been published now rather than before the last Austrian elections - at that time,
dirty campaigning might have been discredited too much for the tape to have the desired
effect,
The sophisticated operation using actors and a villa prepared with hidden cameras and
microphones shows that this is hardly a normal case of dirty campaigning by political
opponents. Most likely, either it was an action by a secret service or someone with deep
pockets hired former secret agents.
If it was an action by secret services, the most plausible explanation seems to be that
Western secret services targeted Strache because FPÖ is one of the parties who is in
favor of restoring normal relations with Russia.
François Fillon comes to mind, a
French conservative candidate who also had a quite a friendly attitude towards Russia -
shortly before the elections, it was revealed (at least claimed) that Fillon had given his
wife ficticious employment, and Fillon lost popularity, which helped Macron enormously.
Probably, some of the things Strache said during this sting operation were inacceptable, and
Fillon may also not be innocent, but if there is a systematic selective targeting of European
politicians who want to normalize relations with Russia by secret services, that would be a
huge problem for democracy.
In the case of Strache and FPÖ, a different motive may also be plausible. There are
connections between FPÖ and neonazis, and there are, in my view, legitimate concerns
that Strache is too close to such far-right networks. I don't think it is good when
right-wing populists whose rise is mainly due to the unpopularity of the neoliberal elites
are equated with Nazis too quickly.
But in the case of FPÖ, this is less far-fetched
than in the case of other European right-wing parties - historically, Nazis played an
important role in FPÖ in post-war Austria, and it is one of the current right-wing
parties that probably has more connections to the extreme right (e.g. via Burschenschaften)
than others. I could imagine that someone might have ordered and financed the sting operation
out of antifascist principles. While I may recognize the motivation as ethical and even
partially agree with it, I don't think the right means were chosen, and such dirty methods
can backfire.
"While I consider myself to be a strong leftist who opposes the right wherever possible, I
believe to understand why people vote for Strache's FBOe and similar parties"
Quite. It seems to me that only the Right and the Left have a clue right now, because they
have an instinctive mistrust of what they are told in the media.
People like "b" and Craig Murray are to be thanked for explaining that to us middling
voters.
You miss the most glaring "injustice". That which shows that GDP in most western countries
had doubled in the last 30 odd years, that earnings for the top quartile have gone up by
factors of 3 or 4. But that median earnings in US are unchanged, and in say UK are only up
10% or so (unless one is seeking to buy one's own house or flat).
All the improvements in inequality from 1930s to 1980s have been reversed in full.
"Populists" (or better "anti-elitists") are driven mostly by sheer anger at how a small group
had taken all the Economic gains of the last 35 years.
I don't know what b. saw in the video what I saw was a discussion of an Orban like take
over of Austria by FPÖ.
In other news people are arguing the following
- who will profit most - ÖVP
- why was the video not published after it was produced in 2017 - because ÖVP wanted a
coalition with FPÖ
- why was it published now - ÖVP has been renting advertising space for weeks for an
election in September (renting before the video came out), Sebastian Kurz will be the saviour
who will get the disappointed FPÖ vote
add
- why the emphasis on Kronenzeitung,
who were the people producing the video
why Red Bull everywhere - Red Bull media empire billionaire Dietrich Mateschitz publicly
announced that he would back Sebastian Kurz in 2017
ÖVP/Kurz/Mateschitz have moved so far to the right that there is not much space for
FPÖ anyway. His problems will return when he needs another coalition.
While the right wing parties in Europe don't have a problem with Putin, it does seem that
much of the Western European establish has gone full McCarthyite hysterical where they see
any contact for any reason with a Russian is automatically criminal. Aside from being a setup
it relied the underlying false flag of presenting the woman as a Russian (and hence guility
of some crime against the Austrians).
In fact, a suggestion for a column--personal impressions on whether everyday Europeans are
falling for anti-Russian propaganda. Polls in the US indicate that Americans simply do not
care (they could believe it, but not effecting their daily lives).
1. The ER (United Russia) party was founded by Sergey Shoygu, Yuriy Luzhkov, and Mintimer
Shaymiev. Its chairman is Dmitriy Medvedev, not Vladimir Putin. Putin is not even a member of
ER. Putin is the leader of ONF (All-Russia People's Front), which is a nation-wide discussion
platform for politicians, professionals, and NGOs.
2. Russian billionaire Igor Makarov denies having a niece: "I was the only child in the
family." (
Forbes.ru , in Russian).
3. In 2016, Joseph Mifsud invited George Papadopoulos to Rome and introduced him to
"Putin's niece" with the intent of smearing Trump as "Russian puppet" and destroying his
election chances. In 2017, someone (who?) invited Heinz-Christian Strache to Ibiza and
introduced him to "Russian billionaire's niece" with the intent of smearing Strache as
"Russian puppet" and destroying his party's election chances. Notice a pattern?
4. This is a clear case of Germany interfering in Austrian elections. Austria should
deport 60 German diplomats, shut down German embassy in Vienna, and impose sanctions on
Germany. Also put a German girl interested in Austrian politics in jail for 18 months.
Thinking about it, after revealing e-mail of HRC, Podesta etc. were published, their core
supporters were enraged about the dirty trick and did not pay attention to the disclosed
content, while for the core opponents of HRC she was already sufficiently vilified so the net
change in voting intentions that can be attributed to that incident was modest.
Leaving aside the discussion of of various factors in that election, this public reaction
is typical. Actually, in both cases the core supporters may be energized by the suspicion
that this trick was performed by a foreign government. I do not think that there is a
particular hostility toward Germany in Felix Austria, but the to the right wing Merkel
government is like red cape for a bull. The women who unleashed a wave of refugees. On top of
that, traditionally major parties of Austria gained reputation of dirty patronage, so the
voters who care about that issue probably do not vote for them.
I do not expect Austrians to demand expulsions of German diplomats -- interference in our
democracy -- or other sanctions, but nevertheless it stinks. Making sting operations on
politicians has corrupt potential even if it is done by domestic law enforcement, but foreign
intelligence services really do not have any excuse.
Thinking about it, the stings against George Papadopoulos described in his book were
remarkably similar.
That said, Austrians have a reputation of good manners etc., they will not unload their
frustration on a girl. BTW, why there are suspicions of Germany being involved? Again, even
extremist Austrians probably would like to have some proof before doing anything. I guess,
America is indeed exceptional.
For all those of you whining about the corruption of Strache, this is how business and
politics is done in Austria. Strache was just talking about the FPÖ's fair share after
an election which they would win.
This all starts with Austrian's Presidential Election of 2016. The FPÖ won the
presidential election a couple of years ago in May 2016. After the bell, postal votes
overturned it! – postal votes more than 90% in favour of the establishment candidate
Van der Bellen. Some constituencies full of Van der Bellen votes turned out to have 148% turn
out. There was a court case by the FPÖ about procedure and hinting at ballot
falsification. The case was judged by a (non-corrupt but under serious pressure) judge to
have enough merit that the elections had to
be annulled and the election rerun six months later . Austria went without a
president at all for six months!
For six months the mainstream Austrian media campaigned non-stop against the FPÖ and
Norbert Hofer. Huge efforts were made for voter turnout (it included huge bussing of
potential anti-FPÖ constituencies and bribing pensioners to vote against the FPÖ
via parties and cakes). With all of that, Van der Bellen scraped in on 4 December 2016, by
348,231 votes. Despite the non-stop anti-FPÖ propaganda and banging on drums, votes for
Hofer's fell by less than 100,000 (95,993 votes to be exact). It's just that with six months
to prepare the establishment had found enough "dead souls" to win the second round.
In the parliamentary elections of 15 October 2017, the FPÖ were set to win a strong
majority in parliament. To defeat the FPÖ and Strache, the conservatives
(Völkspartei) were forced to elect a male model non-university graduate 30 year old sex
symbol with no work experience outside of politics as party leader. Of course Sebastian Kurz
was mainly a figurehead for establishment figures in the venerable Völkspartei. Kurz
does have a mind of his own though (I had the opportunity to interact with him personally at
a local political discussion group in 2015) and it's hard to know exactly how much of his
policy is dictated to him and how much is off his own bat.
Going back to Austrian corruption, there are enormous sums at stake. There is a long
entrenched system of corruption in the establishment parties, the Völkspartei and the
SPÖ. Strabag does win most of the government contracts. Favour is regularly granted on
quid pro basis. The media landscape is very partisan and mostly for sale. Kurz's spiritual
predecessor as a powerful head of the Völkspartei if not direct predecessor Wolfgang
Schüssel was forced to retire from politics in 2011 due to never-ending corruption
scandals. Schüssel's longstanding finance minister Karl-Heinz Grasser was caught carrying
bags of cash to Lichtenstein and is still under investigation. If his mother-in-law were
not the richest woman in Austria (Swarovski Crystal) and devoted to her daughter (Grasser's
wife), he would long ago have been in jail.
Politically, Grasser knows where a lot of the bodies are buried from the Schlüssel
political machine so either he has to be kept out of jail or he may take others down with
him. In elite Austrian circles turning informant would be considered unsportsmanlike so
there's an uneasy truce still fought to this day in the courts where Grasser is kept out of
jail via procedural methods (detect a pattern) and Grasser doesn't rat out the others.
Strache's sin is not planning to use the advantages which accrue to the governing Austrian
party but getting caught out talking about it. Strache is something of a lout, not terribly
loyal (he was the Brutus who threw Jörg Haider under the bus in 2005 in a palace
putsch). He's a smoker in power who used his power to overturn some very positive
anti-smoking laws. But he's less corrupt than any of his equivalents in the Völkspartei
and is only a nose ahead of the his equivalents in the SPÖ. His politics and policies of
Austria for Austrians are pretty simple. Hence people vote for these policies.
Here's a sample of the SPÖ's wares in the 2010 Vienna elections:
Zu viel Fremdes tut niemandem gut. (Too many foreigners [or more literally: Too much
foreign] does nobody well.)
Wir bewahren unsere Heimatstadt. Die SPÖ macht sie uns fremd. (We maintain our
homeland-city. The SPÖ makes it foreign.)
Wir glauben an unsere Jugend. Die SPÖ an Zuwanderung. (We believe in our youth.
The SPÖ in immigration.)
Wir schützen freie Frauen. Die SPÖ den Kopftuchzwang (We protect free women.
The SPÖ protects the compulsory veil.)
Mehr Mut für unser Wiener Blut (More courage for our Viennese blood.)
Uns geht's um die Wiener (To us, it's about the Viennese)
The FPÖ has historically been weakest in Vienna but in 2010 they took 27% of the vote
in this SPÖ stronghold, their first step in what has been a steady march to power.
Anyone who does not directly have his or her family's nose in the EU trough at this point
knows that the policies espoused by transatlantic puppets like Angela Merkel and Emmanuel
Macron push our countries and our continent towards self-destruction. Life in Europe,
post-1968 and pre-2013, has been pretty damn good. There's absolutely no good reason for us
to rip up our traditions or turn into a continent of immigrants and mobile job seekers. We
instinctively abhor what is happening to our nations. By nature Strache is inclined this way
himself (he's no great thinker) and has the good sense to ride the wave.
For all those of you whining about the corruption of Strache, this is how business and
politics is done in Austria. Strache was just talking about the FPÖ's fair share after
an election which they would win.
So why did he step down?
Here's a sample of the SPÖ's wares in the 2010 Vienna elections:
...
"This stand-offish sentence in the Spiegel story about Strache's party demonstrates the
problem:"
In the last election, the party drew significant support from the working class, in
part because of his ability to simplify even the most complicated of issues and play the
common man, even in his role as vice chancellor.
"The implicit thesis, that the working class is too dumb to understand the "most
complicated of issues", is not only incredibly snobbish but utterly false..."
I can't agree that Spiegel's attitude to Strache's party is condescending toward the
working class. Right-wing parties tend to spout a lot of aggressively authoritarian spin tank
bullshit to encourage voters to tune out when a R-w politician is telling them what to think.
If Strache is adept at separating fact from fiction and superfluous verbiage, then people
would appreciate his candor.
In a Democracy, and in theory at least, politicians are supposed to represent and defend the
views of the people who voted for them, not vested intere$t$. Or so we've been led to
believe...
I'll always remember Spiegel as the folks whose photo-journalists torpedoed Crooked
Hillary's feeble-minded Cheonan (NK-SK) bullshit. That story vanished overnight. It's not
even referred to in NK smear campaigns. Dead & buried.
In a Democracy, and in theory at least, politicians are supposed to represent and
defend the views of the people who voted for them, not vested intere$t$. Or so we've been led
to believe...
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
That's it.
The German constitution is absolutely clear that members of parliament represent all of
the people (ie different views and interests) and are bound by their own judgement and
conscience only.
As we are discussing Austria, lets see what the Austrian constitution says.
Austria has "linguistic and cultural diversity" and the protection of its grown native
peoples in its constitution, this means Slovenian, Croatian, Czech, Slovakian, Roma and
Hungarian.
So the Austrian constitution has a concept of a multinational state where different peoples
grow and are protected even if the Viennese "Stammtisch" does not like them.
There is no "democratic theory" that suggests representatives should follow the uninformed
and prejudiced views of their electorate against their better judgement.
Strache seems to have specialized in "fake news" - ie mostly invented stuff claiming
Muslims, immigrants or whoever were treated in a better way than native Austrians or
threatened native Austrians.
It is a very convenient technique when you plan to cut social services, you have someone to
blame.
To those who fill that politics of Strache are obnoxious and that justifies entrapment,
remembers that methods of that type are not improvised, and that means that there is an
apparatus that does it. We noted similarities with provocations against George Papadopoulos.
In the latter case the target was cautious, after all, we had to be well aware of such
methods. But anyone who is despised by NATO establishment are similar group can be on the
receiving end, think about Assange.
Neoliberal corruption in full display. As we see forms of nepotism evolve with time...
Notable quotes:
"... Two years of investigations by journalist Peter Schweizer has revealed that Joe Biden may now have a serious China problem. And just like his Ukraine scandal , it involves actions which helped his son Hunter, who was making hand over fist in both countries. ..."
"... Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash and now Secret Empires discovered that in 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew together to China on Air Force Two - and two weeks later, Hunter's firm inked a private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China , which expanded to $1.5 billion, according to an article by Schweizer's in the New York Post . ..."
"... Hunter Biden and his partners created several LLCs involved in multibillion-dollar private equity deals with Chinese government-owned entities. ..."
"... Perhaps most damning in terms of timing and optics, just twelve days after Hunter and Joe Biden flew on Air Force Two to Beijing, Hunter's company signed a "historic deal with the Bank of China ," described by Schweizer as "the state-owned financial behemoth often used as a tool of the Chinese government." To accommodate the deal, the Bank of China created a unique type of investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). According to BHR, Rosemont Seneca Partners is a founding partner ..."
"... It was an unprecedented arrangement: the government of one of America's fiercest competitors going into business with the son of one of America's most powerful decisionmakers . ..."
"... It doesn't stop there. While Hunter Biden had "no experience in China, and little in private equity," the Chinese government for some reason thought it would be a great idea to give his firm business opportunities instead of established global banks such as Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs. ..."
"... The following August, Rosemont Realty, another sister company of Rosemont Seneca, announced that Gemini Investments was buying a 75 percent stake in the company. The terms of the deal included a $3 billion commitment from the Chinese, who were eager to purchase new US properties. Shortly after the sale, Rosemont Realty was rechristened Gemini Rosemont. ..."
"... "We see great opportunities to continue acquiring high-quality real estate in the US market," said one company executive, who added: "The possibilities for this venture are tremendous." ..."
"... Then, in 2015, BHR partnered with a subsidiary of Chinese state-owned military aviation contractor Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) in order to purchase American precision-parts maker Henniges - a transaction which required approval from the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the same rubber-stamp committee that approved the Uranium One deal. ..."
"... The vice president was bringing with him highly welcomed terms of a United States Agency for International Development program to assist the Ukrainian natural-gas industry and promises of more US financial assistance and loans. Soon the United States and the International Monetary Fund would be pumping more than $1 billion into the Ukrainian economy. ..."
"... The next day, there was a public announcement that Archer had been asked to join the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural-gas company. Three weeks after that, on May 13, it was announced that Hunter Biden would join, too. Neither Biden nor Archer had any background or experience in the energy sector. - New York Post ..."
"... Then Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees to Ukraine unless President Petro Poroshenko fired his head prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin, who was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... Biden bragged about the threat last year, telling an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations: "I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko. ..."
"... As we head into the 2020 elections, it will be interesting to see how Joe Biden dances around his son's lucrative - and very potentially daddy-assisted deals around the world. ..."
Two years of investigations by journalist Peter Schweizer has revealed that Joe Biden may now have a serious China problem.
And just like his
Ukraine scandal
, it involves actions which helped his son Hunter, who was making hand over fist in both countries.
Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash and now
Secret Empires discovered
that in 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew together to China on Air Force Two - and two weeks later, Hunter's
firm inked a private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China , which expanded to $1.5
billion, according to an article by Schweizer's in the
New York Post .
" If it sounds shocking that a vice president would shape US-China policy as his son -- who has scant experience in private
equity -- clinched a coveted billion-dollar deal with an arm of the Chinese government, that's because it is " -
Peter Schweizer
Perhaps this is why Joe Biden - now on the 2020 campaign trail - said last week that China wasn't a threat.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took a shot at Biden's comment during a speech at the Claremont Institute's 40th anniversary gala,
saying "Look how both parties now are on guard against the threat that China presents to America -- maybe except Joe Biden."
Back to Hunter...
Schweizer connects the dots, writing that "without the aid of subpoena power, here's what we know :"
Hunter Biden and his partners created several LLCs involved in multibillion-dollar private equity deals with Chinese government-owned
entities.
The primary operation was Rosemont Seneca Partners - an investment firm founded in 2009 and controlled by Hunter Biden, John
Kerry's stepson Chris Heinz, and Heniz's longtime associate Devon Archer. The trio began making deals "through a series of overlapping
entities" under Rosemont.
In less than a year, Hunter Biden and Archer met with top Chinese officials in China , and partnered with the Thornton Group
- a Massachusetts-based consultancy headed by James Bulger - son of famed mob hitman James "Whitey" Bulger.
According to the Thornton Group's Chinese-language website, Chinese executives "extended their warm welcome" to the "Thornton
Group, with its US partner Rosemont Seneca chairman Hunter Biden (second son of the now Vice President Joe Biden."
Officially, the China meets were to "explore the possibility of commercial cooperation and opportunity," however details of
the meeting were not published to the English-language version of the website.
"The timing of this meeting was also notable. It occurred just hours before Hunter Biden's father, the vice president, met
with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Washington as part of the Nuclear Security Summit ," according to Schweizer.
Perhaps most damning in terms of timing and optics, just twelve days after Hunter and Joe Biden flew on Air Force Two
to Beijing, Hunter's company signed a "historic deal with the Bank of China ," described by Schweizer as "the state-owned financial
behemoth often used as a tool of the Chinese government." To accommodate the deal, the Bank of China created a unique type of
investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). According to BHR, Rosemont Seneca Partners is a founding partner .
It was an unprecedented arrangement: the government of one of America's fiercest competitors going into business with the
son of one of America's most powerful decisionmakers .
Chris Heinz claims neither he nor Rosemont Seneca Partners, the firm he had part ownership of, had any role in the deal with
Bohai Harvest. Nonetheless, Biden, Archer and the Rosemont name became increasingly involved with China.
Archer became the vice chairman of Bohai Harvest, helping oversee some of the fund's investments. -
New York Post
National Security implications
As Schweizer also notes, BHR became an "anchor investor" in the IPO of China General Nuclear Power Corp (CGN) in December 2014.
The state-owned energy company is involved with the construction of nuclear reactors.
In April 2016, CGN was charged by the US Justice Department with stealing nuclear secrets from the United States , which prosecutors
warned could cause "significant damage to our national security." CNG was interested in sensitive, American-made nuclear components
that resembled those used on US nuclear submarines, according to experts.
More China dealings
It doesn't stop there. While Hunter Biden had "no experience in China, and little in private equity," the Chinese government
for some reason thought it would be a great idea to give his firm business opportunities instead of established global banks such
as Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs.
Also in December 2014, a Chinese state-backed conglomerate called Gemini Investments Limited was negotiating and sealing deals
with Hunter Biden's Rosemont on several fronts. That month, it made a $34 million investment into a fund managed by Rosemont.
The following August, Rosemont Realty, another sister company of Rosemont Seneca, announced that Gemini Investments was
buying a 75 percent stake in the company. The terms of the deal included a $3 billion commitment from the Chinese, who were eager
to purchase new US properties. Shortly after the sale, Rosemont Realty was rechristened Gemini Rosemont.
"Rosemont, with its comprehensive real-estate platform and superior performance history, was precisely the investment opportunity
Gemini Investments was looking for in order to invest in the US real estate market," said Li Ming, chairman of Sino-Ocean Land Holdings
Limited and Gemini Investments. "We look forward to a strong and successful partnership."
That partnership planned to use Chinese money to scoop up US properties.
"We see great opportunities to continue acquiring high-quality real estate in the US market," said one company executive,
who added: "The possibilities for this venture are tremendous."
Then, in 2015, BHR partnered with a subsidiary of Chinese state-owned military aviation contractor Aviation Industry Corporation
of China (AVIC) in order to purchase American precision-parts maker Henniges - a transaction which required approval from the Committee
of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the same rubber-stamp committee that approved the Uranium One deal.
Tying it back to Ukraine
While we have previously reported on the Bidens' adventures in Ukraine, Schweizer connects the dots rather well here ...
Consider the facts. On April 16, 2014, White House records show that Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's business partner in the Rosemont
Seneca deals, made a private visit to the White House for a meeting with Vice President Biden. Five days later, on April 21, Joe
Biden landed in Kiev for a series of high-level meetings with Ukrainian officials . The vice president was bringing with him
highly welcomed terms of a United States Agency for International Development program to assist the Ukrainian natural-gas industry
and promises of more US financial assistance and loans. Soon the United States and the International Monetary Fund would be pumping
more than $1 billion into the Ukrainian economy.
The next day, there was a public announcement that Archer had been asked to join the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural-gas
company. Three weeks after that, on May 13, it was announced that Hunter Biden would join, too. Neither Biden nor Archer had any
background or experience in the energy sector. -
New York Post
Hunter was paid as much as $50,000 per month while Burisma was under investigation by officials in both Ukraine and elsewhere.
Then Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees to Ukraine unless President Petro Poroshenko fired
his head prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin, who was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into natural gas firm Burisma
Holdings.
Biden bragged about the threat last year, telling an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations: "I said, ' You're not getting
the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours.
If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko.
" Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."
Joe Biden says that he had no idea Hunter was on the board of Burisma (for two years after he joined), and that the two never
spoke about the Burisma investigation. The former VP claims that Shokin's removal was required due to his mishandling of several
cases in Ukraine.
As we head into the 2020 elections, it will be interesting to see how Joe Biden dances around his son's lucrative - and very
potentially daddy-assisted deals around the world.
Biden is another scumbag Democrat Lawyer who's the original 'pay for play' politician...A 40+ year history in Political Office
with Zero accomplishments except enriching himself and his family...A complete fraud and hypocrite liar.....Lawyers should have
never been allowed to run for Office at any level.....Look at all the corruption that has been and is being exposed at the different
bureaucracies...Virtually all the corruption has been willfully committed by Lawyers....Pathetic....
Interesting.... I put: "The Steele Dossier has so many British agents involved it sounds like a British failed coup to overthrow
an elected President because he stands in " the way of "profiting goals of " international goals" of global monopoly run by unelected
councils and retired instigators as facilitators of discord.
But came out:The Steele Dossier has so many British agents involved it sounds like a British failed coup to overthrow an elected
President because he stands in the profiting goals of " international goals" of global monopoly run by unelected councils and
retired instigators as facilitators of discord.
To make it sound as if it is Trump profiting.... By no means is that true... Its the " long term" Washington officals that
have been profiting. Not a possible 8 year President.
My phone also wont let me thumbs up people i would like to but only a few and also replying is " verboten".
These algorhythms and blocks and censorship is an abuse of constitutional rights which is bad enough, but even worse is that
these rights got monopolized by various corporations who bought stock in facebook/ googles options that was stolen from Leader
technologies source code ( which Mark zukerberg couldnt write on a good day... He is a front guy and again we have British privy
council involed with Clegg head of facebook now voice for Mark... Because Mark is a cut out).
This whole social media internet thing has been hijacked and weaponized by Washingtons same people as Dossier scandel... James
Chandeler attorney and backstaber of Leader technology.
See leader technology vs facebook..... But i digress.
Michael T. McKibben's career spans two phases: international Christian music ministry, and technology innovation. In 2006,
he was awarded U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 for what is now called "social networking."
Biden & Kerry aren't the only ones with a China problem. "Secret Empires" also listed Mitch McConnell having a huge China problem
through his wife's shipping company. I bet he doesn't run for re-election. Winning.
they all own one another - that's the essence of the problem in politics. and why they have tried so hard to get that outsider,
trump, out of the country club.
China funded Bill Clinton's election campaigns through James Riady, an Indonesian Chinese man involved in hard drug smuggling
and arms trafficking. The money was laundered through Little Rock banks and corporations. (See Victor Thorn's Hillary and Bill
, all three volumes.)
"Come on man! This is a joke! He's my son and he's a great buddy. I mean yeah he was drummed out of the Naval Reserve because
of his cocaine habit, but come on man, you know, everybody does it! Just ask my good friend Barack, he's a clean, good looking
darkie whose done his share of blow. And yeah Hunter fucked his dead brother's widow, but come on man! Have you seen her ****
and ***. I might have made a move on her myself, but hey man I'm married."
Joe Biden, From the endless Fear and Mongering Presidential campaign of 2020.
IRS/SEC/FBI are not investigatory agencies. They are barrier agencies. They protect the anointed, letting them do as they wish,
and stomp on anyone else who tries to get in on the gravy train.
Sociopaths are the reason all governments, regardless of the particular 'ism', eventually fail...
Looking at human history, fascism is the most common form of government for humans. At least it is the most honest - that the
sociopaths are ******* everyone else.... These days we try to hide it by lofty idealism that is incompatible with a predator/prey
real world.....
Representative democracy, socialism and communism all fail and all fail for the same reason - sociopaths...
We should be honest with ourselves that there is a small, but statistically significant percentage of the human population
that are sociopaths (and more are being born every generation). We can call them predators and we are the prey...any concentration
of power attracts sociopaths regardless of the fancy label we put on the political system. Within a short time the system is inundated
with sociopaths who invariably game the system to death for their own individual benefit....
Don't like the reality in which you find yourself? Stop voting for sociopaths, stop giving them power...
What political party or system even acknowledge the sociopath problem? That's right, none...so don't expect anything to change
after the reset...the pleubs will chose a new sociopath for their leader, who will **** them, and things will go on as they always
have...
Only way to combat this is to decentralize power as much as possible...this doesn't solve the sociopath problem, but it does
spread them out and keeps them from ganging up together to **** over the peasants...but I won't hold my breath....
Is this a good time to take a look at 1) Front Men 2) Front Companies 3) Shell Companies 4) Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV/SPE)
5) Offshore Accounts, Offshore Donations, Offshore Campaign or PAC or Party Contributions, Paradise Papers, Panama Papers 6) USA
as Tax Haven for foreign accounts 7) USA as an Empire 8) The Rise Of The Fourth Reich notes in book by Jim Marrs
In this case he looks like Bill Clinton impersonalization ;-) That's probably how Adelson controls Bolton ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Larry Flint had offered a Million dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions. ..."
@FB Yeah brother,
that POS was called out during his confirmation hearings during baby Bush's presidency. Larry Flint had offered a Million
dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He
was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions.
Someone said they saw him proposition a teenage girl outside one of the swinger clubs he frequented.
"... Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers. ..."
"... Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him to act. This was the beginning of downward slope. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer. ..."
"... The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have been there anyway. ..."
"... No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful way ..."
"... " ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people." ..."
"... All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests. ..."
"... A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated the 98% poor, to stay rich. When there were insurrections federal troops restored order. Also FDR put down strikes with troops. ..."
"... The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter. ..."
"... "The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result " ..."
"... But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world. ..."
"... I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and facts don't matter! ..."
"... Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about intimidating them. ..."
"... The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was, and that means as bad as Hell itself. ..."
"... Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the 60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally flawed. I would say more so. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. ..."
"... That pre-9/11 "cooperation" nearly destroyed Russia. Nobody in Russia (except, perhaps, for Pussy Riot) wants a return to the Yeltsin era. ..."
"... The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it. ..."
"... [The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank. ..."
"... Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran. ..."
"... Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington. ..."
"... Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who dictates what they can and can't say. ..."
"... Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt, compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into something much worse. ..."
"... Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six month actions – they go on and on.) ..."
"... Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are we attacking with drones? Where is congress? ..."
"... Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies. ..."
Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call
the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a
brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers.
Again Mike Whitney does not get it. Though in the first part of the article I thought he
would. He was almost getting there. The objective was to push new administration into the
corner from which it could not improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he
wanted to during the campaign.
Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion
with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of
paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which
the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe
or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him
to act. This was the beginning of downward slope.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by
all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the
zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer.
The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine
with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have
been there anyway.
No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The
Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they
have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful
way
The one thing I am not positive about. If the elite really believe that Russia is a
threat, then Americans have done psych ops on themselves.
The US was only interested in Ukraine because it was there. Next in line on a map. The
rather shocking disinterest in investing money -- on both sides -- is inexplicable if it was
really important. Most of it would be a waste -- but still. The US stupidly spent $5 billion
on something -- getting duped by politicians and got theoretical regime change, but it was
hell to pry even $1 billion for real economic aid.
" ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people."
All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were
the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests.
I am reading Howard Zinn, A Peoples History of the USA, 1492 to the Present.
A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated
the 98% poor, to stay rich.
When there were insurrections federal troops restored order.
Also FDR put down strikes with troops.
You should be aware that Zinn's book is not, IMO, an honest attempt at writing history. It
is conscious propaganda intended to make Americans believe exactly what you are taking from
it.
The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America
and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and
Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter.
Until that fact changes Americans will continue to fight and die for Israel.
"The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and
unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident
Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story
after another would achieve the desired result "
But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out
neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions
fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world.
I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's
not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of
brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and
facts don't matter!
Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about
intimidating them.
Whitney is another author who declares the "Russians did it" narrative a psyop. He then
devotes entire columns to the psyop, "naww Russia didn't do it". There could be plenty to write about – recent laws that do undercut liberty, but no,
the Washington Post needs fake opposition to its fake news so you have guys like Whitney in
the less-mainstream fake news media.
So Brennan wanted revenge? Well that's simple enough to understand, without being too
stupid. But Whitney's whopper of a lie is what you're supposed to unquestionably believe. The
US has "rival political parties". Did you miss it?
The US is doing nothing more than acting as the British Empire 2.0. WASP culture was born of a Judaizing heresy: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. That meant that the
WASP Elites of every are pro-Jewish, especially in order to wage war, physical and/or
cultural, against the vast majority of white Christians they rule.
By the early 19th century, The Brit Empire's Elites also had a strong, and growing, dose
of pro-Arabic/pro-Islamic philoSemitism. Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and
most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which
means being pro-Wahhabi and permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite
Mohammedans.
So, by the time of Victoria's high reign, the Brit WASP Elites were a strange brew of
hardcoree pro-Jewish and hardcore pro-Arabic/islamic. The US foreign policy of today is an
attempt to put those two together and force it on everyone and make it work.
The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the
Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless
lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was,
and that means as bad as Hell itself.
Fair enough. I didn't know that about the foreword. If accurate, that's a reasonable
approach for a book.
Here's the problem.
Back when O. Cromwell was the dictator of England, he retained an artist to paint him. The
custom of the time was for artists to "clean up" their subjects, in a primitive form of
photoshopping.
OC being a religious fanatic, he informed the artist he wished to be portrayed as God had
made him, "warts and all." (Ollie had a bunch of unattractive facial warts.) Or the artist
wouldn't be paid.
Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the
60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major
role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally
flawed. I would say more so.
All I am asking is that American (and other) history be written "warts and all." The
triumphalist version is true, largely, and so is the Zinn version. Gone With the Wind
and Roots both portray certain aspects of the pre-war south fairly accurately..
America has been, and is, both evil and good. As is/was true of every human institution
and government in history. Personally, I believe America, net/net, has been one of the
greatest forces for human good ever. But nobody will realize that if only the negative side
of American history is taught.
"There must be something really dirty in Russigate that hasn't yet come out to generate
this level of panic."
You continue to claim what you cannot prove.
But then you are a Jews First Zionist.
Russia-Gate Jumps the Shark
Russia-gate has jumped the shark with laughable new claims about a tiny number of
"Russia-linked" social media ads, but the US mainstream media is determined to keep a
straight face
Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually
coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which means being pro-Wahhabi and
permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite Mohammedans.
Thanks for the laugh. During the 19th century, the Sauds were toothless, dirt-poor hicks
from the deep desert of zero importance on the world stage.
The Brits were not Saudi proponents, in fact promoting the Husseins of Hejaz, the guys
Lawrence of Arabia worked with. The Husseins, the Sharifs of Mecca and rulers of Hejaz, were
the hereditary enemies of the Sauds of Nejd.
After WWI, the Brits installed Husseins as rulers of both Transjordan and Iraq, which with
the Hejaz meant the Sauds were pretty much surrounded. The Sauds conquered the Hejaz in 1924,
despite lukewarm British support for the Hejaz.
Nobody in the world cared much about the Saudis one way or another until massive oil
fields were discovered, by Americans not Brits, starting in 1938. There was no reason they
should. Prior to that Saudi prominence in world affairs was about equal to that of Chad
today, and for much the same reason. Chad (and Saudi Arabia) had nothing anybody else
wanted.
'Putin stopped talking about the "Lisbon to Vladivostok" free trade area long ago" --
Michael Kenney
Putin was simply trying to sell Russia's application for EU membership with the
catch-phrase "Lisbon to Vladivostok". He continued that until the issue was triply mooted (1)
by implosion of EU growth and boosterism, (2) by NATO's aggressive stance, in effect taken by
NATO in Ukraine events and in the Baltics, and, (3) Russia's alliance with China.
It is surely still true that Russians think of themselves, categorically, as Europeans.
OTOH, we can easily imagine that Russians in Vladivostok look at things differently than do
Russians in St. Petersburg. Then again, Vladivostok only goes back about a century and a
half.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration.
I generally agree with your comment, but that part strikes me as a bit of an exaggeration.
While relations with Russia certainly haven't improved, how have they really worsened? The
second round of sanctions that Trump reluctantly approved have yet to be implemented by
Europe, which was the goal. And apart from that, what of substance has changed?
It's not surprising that 57 percent of the American people believe in Russian meddling.
Didn't two-thirds of the same crowd believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, too? The American
public is being brainwashed 24 hours a day all year long.
The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst
has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton
gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it.
This disinformation campaign might be the prelude to an upcoming war.
Right now, the US is run by jerks and idiots. Watch the video.
Only dumb people does not know that TRUMP IS NETANYAHU'S PUPPET.
The fifth column zionist jews are running the albino stooge and foreign policy in the
Middle East to expand Israel's interest against American interest that is TREASON. One of
these FIFTH COLUMNISTS is Jared Kushner. He should be arrested.
[The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held
views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist
line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign
policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also
long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank.
Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of
state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not
appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on
Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with
Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete
withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran.
Bolton spoke with Trump by phone on Thursday about the paragraph in the deal that vowed it
would be "terminated" if there was any renegotiation, according to Politico. He was calling
Trump from Las Vegas, where he'd been meeting with casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the third
major figure behind Trump's shift towards Israeli issues. Adelson is a Likud supporter who
has long been a close friend of Netanyahu's and has used his Israeli tabloid newspaper Israel
Hayomto support Netanyahu's campaigns. He was Trump's main campaign contributor in 2016,
donating $100 million. Adelson's real interest has been in supporting Israel's interests in
Washington -- especially with regard to Iran.]
Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It
means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources
and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital
the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US
debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will
steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in
Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple
Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington
must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate
their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain
its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to
success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington.
American dominance is very much tied to the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency,
and the rest of the world no longer want to fund this bankrupt, warlike state –
particularly the Chinese.
First, it confirms that the US did not want to see the jihadist extremists
defeated by Russia. These mainly-Sunni militias served as Washington's proxy-army
conducting an ambitious regime change operation which coincided with US strategic
ambitions.
The CIA run US/Israeli/ISIS alliance.
Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news
gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who
dictates what they can and can't say.
They are given the political line and they broadcast it.
The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda coupled with
the extraordinary advances in surveillance technology, create the perfect conditions for
the full implementation of an American police state. But what is more concerning, is
that the primary levers of state power are no longer controlled by elected officials but by
factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people. That can only lead to trouble.
At some point Americans are going to get a "War on Domestic Terror" cheered along by the
media. More or less the arrest and incarceration of any opposition following the Soviet
Bolshevik model.
On the plus side, everyone now knows that the Anglo-US media from the NY Times to the
Economist, from WaPo to the Gruniard, and from the BBC to CNN, the CBC and Weinstein's
Hollywood are a worthless bunch of depraved lying bastards.
Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt,
compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most
people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of
mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into
something much worse.
The thing is, no matter how thick the mental cages are, and how carefully they are
maintained by the daily massive injections of "certified" truth (via MSM), along with
neutralizing or compromising of "troublemakers", the presence of multiple alternative sources
in the age of Internet makes people to slip out of these cages one by one, and as the last
events show – with acceleration.
It means that there's a fast approaching tipping point after which it'd be impossible for
those in power both to keep a nice "civilized" face and to control the "cage-free"
population. So, no matter how the next war will be called, it will be the war against the
free Internet and free people. That's probably why N. Korean leader has no fear to start
one.
All government secrecy is a curse on mankind. Trump is releasing the JFK murder files to the public. Kudos! Let us hope he will follow up with a full 9/11 investigation.
The objective was to push new administration into the corner from which it could not
improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he wanted to during the campaign.
Good point. That was probably one of the objectives (and from the point of view of the
deep-state, perhaps the most important objective) of the "Russia hacked our democracy"
narrative, in addition to the general deligitimization of the Trump administration.
And, keep in mind, Washington's Sunni proxies were not a division of the Pentagon; they
were entirely a CIA confection: CIA recruited, CIA-armed, CIA-funded and
CIA-trained.
Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign
nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's
that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six
month actions – they go on and on.)
Are committees of six congressman and six senators, who meet in secret, just avoiding the
grave constitutional questions of war? We the People cannot even interrogate these
politicians. (These politicians make big money in the secrecy swamp when they leave
office.)
Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are
we attacking with drones? Where is congress?
Spying is one thing – covert action is another – covert is wrong – it
goes against world order. Every year after 9/11 they say things are worse – give them
more money more power and they will make things safe. That is BS!
9/11 has opened the flood gates to the US government attacking at will, the various
peoples of this Earth. That is NOT our prerogative.
We are being exceptionally arrogant.
Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies.
"... Haspel is not the "underling" . Trump is the underling. Sure, being that he is also an oligarch makes Trump's role in the show complicated, but Presidents are installed in order to serve the oligarchy, and the CIA are top level strategists/enforcers for the oligarchy. ..."
"... In the real organization chart for the empire the CIA is above the President. This has been the case in the US since Kennedy. ..."
"... Trump will not fire Haspel. He can't. He's just an actor playing a role in a show, and Haspel is one of the producers/writers of that show. If she doesn't put firing in the script then Trump cannot say those lines. I doubt he really wants to anyway. ..."
"If Trump were not in on the schemes he would just fire his underlings!"
This sentiment indicates a failure to understand the power dynamics at play here. Haspel
is not the "underling" . Trump is the underling. Sure, being that he is also an
oligarch makes Trump's role in the show complicated, but Presidents are installed in order to
serve the oligarchy, and the CIA are top level strategists/enforcers for the oligarchy.
In the real organization chart for the empire the CIA is above the President.
This has been the case in the US since Kennedy.
Trump cannot fire Haspel or Pompeo. They can fire him, though, and with a sniper's bullet
if they want.
Unfortunately for the oligarchy, that would cause additional complications at a time when
they have lots of tricky and inexplicably unstable (for them) operations ongoing, which is
why they are just steering Trump around instead of replacing him. And Trump is willfully
cooperating, even if they are not filling him in on the plans.
Trump will not fire Haspel. He can't. He's just an actor playing a role in a show, and
Haspel is one of the producers/writers of that show. If she doesn't put firing in the script
then Trump cannot say those lines. I doubt he really wants to anyway.
Money quote: "The Russian collusion investigation was based solely on the dodgy Steele Dossier that was discredited here from
the get-go. This was a product of British Intelligence Community. The intent was to keep and then to get Donald Trump out of the White
House. It failed but they did succeed in turning him into a neo-lib-con fellow traveler. There are clear parallels between the end stages
of the Soviet Union and the American Empire. My take since the Iraq Invasion is that they are insane. The ruling elite is detached from
reality, incompetent and arrogant. Sooner or later someone with their facilities still intact will lead a middle-class revolt against
the global plutocracy to restore democracy and reverse the rising inequality. We were lucky that the fall of the Soviet Union did not
lead to a nuclear war. The next time a nuclear armed Empire crashes we may not be so fortunate."
Notable quotes:
"... Among interesting dates, it appears that Stefan Halper was already trying to reach out to Lokhova in January-February 2016 – a lot earlier than his approaches to Papadopoulo s and Page. This was done through Professor Christopher Andrew, co-convenor with Halper and the former MI6 had Sir Richard Dearlove of the ‘Cambridge Intelligence Seminar.’ ..."
"... Meanwhile, Lokhova has set up a blog on which she has posted a some interesting relevant material, with perhaps more to come. It is very well worth a look.(See https://www.russiagate.co.uk .) ..."
"... Of particular interest, to my mind, is the full text of her – unpublished – May 2017 interview with the ‘New York Times.’ This points us back to is the fact – of which Lokhova shows no signs of awareness – that the idea that the Western powers and the Russians might have a common interest in fighting jihadist terrorism has been absolute anathema to many key figures on both sides of the Atlantic, with Dearlove certainly among them. ..."
"... ‘AN APOLOGY: Yesterday, I compared @nytimes journalists, who smeared @GenFlynn and accused me of being a Russian spy, to cockroaches. In good conscience, I must apologize to the cockroaches for the distress caused to them for being compared to @nytimes #Russiagate hoaxers. Sorry!’ ..."
"... The centerpiece of this is a proposal submitted to the FCO in August last year by what seems to be essentially the same consortium whose existence as a government contractor has now been made public. The ‘Institute for Statecraft’ has vanished, and one consortium member, ‘Aktis Strategy’, has gone into liquidation. But other key members are the same. ..."
"... A central underlying premise is that if anyone has any doubts as to whether the ‘White Helmets’ are a benevolent humanitarian organisation, or the Russians were responsible for the poisoning of the Skripals or the shooting down of MH17, the only possible explanation is that their minds have been poisoned by disinformation. ..."
"... In fact, what is at issue an ambitious project to co-ordinate and strengthen a very large number of organisations in different countries which are committed to a relentlessly Russophobic line on everything. (The possibility that it might not be very bright to push Russia into the arms of China, the obviously rising power, does not seem to have occurred to these people – perhaps they need less ons from Sir Halford Mackinder, or indeed Niccolò Machiavelli, on ‘statecraft.’) ..."
"... The clear close integration of other cyber people from the ‘Atlantic Council’ into Orwellian ‘information operations’ sponsored by the British Government simply puts these facts into sharp relief. ..."
"... There has to be a strong possible ‘prima facie’ case that anyone in authority prepared to accept the ‘digital forensics’ from ‘CrowdStrike’ is complicit in the conspiracy against the constitution, and/or the conspiracy to cover-up that conspiracy. This certainly goes for Comey, and I think it also goes for Mueller." ..."
"... I'd recommend for reading Alexei Yurchak's "Everything Was Forever, Until It was No More: The Last Soviet Generation." Its about a class of apparatchiks and bureaucrats and hangers on who spoke this arcane, abstract dogmatic language that anyone normal had long since given up trying to understand. It had long ceased to have any relevance or attachment to the lives lived by ordinary, increasingly suffering people, who started talking to each other in practical and direct language. ..."
"... The Russian collusion investigation was based solely on the dodgy Steele Dossier that was discredited here from the get-go. This was a product of British Intelligence Community. The intent was to keep and then to get Donald Trump out of the White House. It failed but they did succeed in turning him into a neo-lib-con fellow traveler. ..."
"... There are clear parallels between the end stages of the Soviet Union and the American Empire. My take since the Iraq Invasion is that they are insane. The ruling elite is detached from reality, incompetent and arrogant. Sooner or later someone with their facilities still intact will lead a middle-class revolt against the global plutocracy to restore democracy and reverse the rising inequality. We were lucky that the fall of the Soviet Union did not lead to a nuclear war. The next time a nuclear armed Empire crashes we may not be so fortunate. ..."
"Dan, Thanks for the reference, which I will follow up. Unfortunately, although Bongino has produced a lot of extremely valuable
material, a lot of it is buried in the 'postcasts', searching through which is harder than with printed materials. It would greatly
help if there were transcripts, but of course those cost money.
I am still trying to fit the exploding mass of information which has been coming out into a coherent timeline. Part of the
problem is that there is so much appearing in so many different places. In addition to trying to think through the implications
of the information in this post and the subsequent exchanges of comments, I have been trying to make sense of evidence coming
out about the British end of the conspiracy.
An important development here has been rather well covered by Chuck Ross, in a recent ‘Daily Caller’ piece headlined ‘Cambridge
Academic Reflects On Interactions With 'Spygate’ Figure’ and one on ‘Fox’ by Catherine Herridge and Cyd Upson, entitled ‘Russian
academic linked to Flynn denies being spy, says her past contact was “used” to smear him.’ However, the evidence involved has ramifications
which they cannot be expected to understand, as yet at least.
At issue is the attempt to use the – apparently casual – encounter between Lieutenant-General Flynn and Svetlana Lokhova at a
dinner in Cambridge (U.K.) in February 2016 to smear him by, among other things, portraying her as some kind of ‘Mata Hari’ figure.
Among interesting dates, it appears that Stefan Halper was already trying to reach out to Lokhova in January-February 2016
– a lot earlier than his approaches to Papadopoulo s and Page. This was done through Professor Christopher Andrew, co-convenor with
Halper and the former MI6 had Sir Richard Dearlove of the ‘Cambridge Intelligence Seminar.’
This suggests that this was not simply a case Halper acting on his own. It also I think brings us back to the central importance
of Flynn’s visit to Moscow in December 2015.
Meanwhile, Lokhova has set up a blog on which she has posted a some interesting relevant material, with perhaps more to come.
It is very well worth a look.(See https://www.russiagate.co.uk
.)
Of particular interest, to my mind, is the full text of her – unpublished – May 2017 interview with the ‘New York Times.’ This
points us back to is the fact – of which Lokhova shows no signs of awareness – that the idea that the Western powers and the Russians
might have a common interest in fighting jihadist terrorism has been absolute anathema to many key figures on both sides of the Atlantic,
with Dearlove certainly among them.
Some of Lokhova’s comments on ‘twitter’ are extremely entertaining. An example, with which I have much sympathy:
‘AN APOLOGY: Yesterday, I compared @nytimes journalists, who smeared @GenFlynn and accused me of being a Russian spy, to
cockroaches. In good conscience, I must apologize to the cockroaches for the distress caused to them for being compared to @nytimes
#Russiagate hoaxers. Sorry!’
Meanwhile, another interesting recent ‘tweet’ comes from Eliot Higgins, of ‘Bellingcat’ fame. He is known to some skeptics as
‘the couch potato’ – perhaps he should be rechristened ‘king cockroach.’ It reads:
‘Looking forward to gettin g things rolling with the Open Information Partnership, with @bellingcat, @MDI_UK, @DFRLab, and @This_Is_Zinc
https://www.openinformation...’
There is an interesting ‘backstory’ to this. The announcement of an FCO-supported ‘Open Information Partnership of European Non-Governmental
Organisations, charities, academics, think-tanks and journalists’, supposedly to counter ‘disinformation’ from Russia, came in a
written answer from the Minister of State, Sir Alan Duncan, on 3 April.
In turn this followed the latest in a series of releases of material either leaked or hacked from the organisations calling themselves
‘Institute for Statecraft’ and ‘Integrity Initiative’ by the group calling themselves ‘Anonymous’ on 25 March.
The centerpiece of this is a proposal submitted to the FCO in August last year by what seems to be essentially the same consortium
whose existence as a government contractor has now been made public. The ‘Institute for Statecraft’ has vanished, and one consortium
member, ‘Aktis Strategy’, has gone into liquidation. But other key members are the same.
A central underlying premise is that if anyone has any doubts as to whether the ‘White Helmets’ are a benevolent humanitarian
organisation, or the Russians were responsible for the poisoning of the Skripals or the shooting down of MH17, the only possible
explanation is that their minds have been poisoned by disinformation.
An interesting paragraph reads as follows:
‘An expanded research component could generate better understanding of the drivers (psychological, sociopolitical, cultural
and environmental) of those who are susceptible to disinformation. This will allow us to map vulnerable audiences, and build scenario
planning models to test the efficiency of different activities to build resilience of those populations over time.’
They have not yet got to the point of recommending psychiatic treatment for ‘dissidents’, but these are still early days. The
‘Sovietisation’ of Western life proceeds apace.
In fact, what is at issue an ambitious project to co-ordinate and strengthen a very large number of organisations in different
countries which are committed to a relentlessly Russophobic line on everything. (The possibility that it might not be very bright
to push Russia into the arms of China, the obviously rising power, does not seem to have occurred to these people – perhaps they
need less ons from Sir Halford Mackinder, or indeed Niccolò Machiavelli, on ‘statecraft.’)
Study of the proposal hacked/leaked by ‘Anonymous’ bring out both the ‘boondoggle’ element – there is a lot of state funding available
for people happy to play these games – and also the strong transatlantic links.
A particularly significant presence, here, is the ‘DFRLab’. This is the ‘Digital Forensic Research Lab’ at the ‘Atlantic Council’,
where Eliot Higgins is a ‘nonresident senior fellow.’ The same organisation has a ‘Cyber Statecraft Initiative’ where Dmitri Alperovitch
is a ‘nonresident senior fellow.’
It cannot be repeated often enough that it is difficult to see any conceivable excuse for the FBI to fail to secure access to
the DNC servers. One would normally moreover expect that, on an issue of this sensitivity, they would have the ‘digital forensics’
done by their own people.
There can be no conceivable excuse for relying on a contractor selected by the organisation which is claiming that there has been
a hack, when an alternative possibility is a leak: and the implications of the alternative possibility could be devastating for that
organisation.
To rely on a contractor linked to the notoriously Russophobic ‘Atlantic Council’ is even more preposterous.
The clear close integration of other cyber people from the ‘Atlantic Council’ into Orwellian ‘information operations’ sponsored
by the British Government simply puts these facts into sharp relief.
There has to be a strong possible ‘prima facie’ case that anyone in authority prepared to accept the ‘digital forensics’ from
‘CrowdStrike’ is complicit in the conspiracy against the constitution, and/or the conspiracy to cover-up that conspiracy. This certainly
goes for Comey, and I think it also goes for Mueller."
OT but related, just watched a former naval Intelligence officer, now working for the Hoover Institute interviewed on FOX about
the Rooshins in Venezuela. Said, the 100 Russians are there to protect Maduro because he cannot trust his own army. Maduro's days
are numbered because he is toxically unpopular.
Got me thinking, our Intelligence services are good at psy-ops and keeping our gullible MSM in line but God help us if we ever
actually needed real Intelligence about a country. I remember about a month ago how all of these 'Think Tank Guys' were predicting
how the only people loyal to Maduro were a few of his crony Generals, that the rank and file military hated him and there were
going to be mass defections.
It didn't happen and we are all just supposed to forget that.
[not a socialist, don't have any love for Maduro, I just know that I will never learn anything of about Venezuela from these think
tank dudes, we are just getting groomed]
Venezuela isn't about "socialism," or even Maduro--it's about the oil. They have the largest proven reserves in the world, though
much of it is non-conventional and would need a ton of investment to exploit. But it's their oil, not ours, and we have no right
to meddle in their internal affairs.
Venezuela is neither about socialism nor oil in my opinion. It is everything to do with the neocons. And Trump buying into their
hegemonic dreams. Notice the resurrection of Elliott Abrams of Iran-Contra fame as the man spearheading this in a triumvirate
with Bolton & Pompeo. IMO, a perfect foil for Putin & Xi to embroil the US in another regime change quagmire that further weakens
the US.
"There can be no conceivable excuse for relying on a contractor selected by the organisation which is claiming that there has
been a hack, when an alternative possibility is a leak: and the implications of the alternative possibility could be devastating
for that organisation.
To rely on a contractor linked to the notoriously Russophobic 'Atlantic Council' is even more preposterous."
True; and true. It is also true that the Clinton e-mail investigation was faux, a limp caricature of what an investigation
would look like when it is designed to uncover the truth. Allowing a subject's law firm to review the subject's e-mails from when
she was in government for relevancy is beyond preposterous. An investigation conducted in the normal way by apolitical Agents
in a field office would not walk away from a trove of evidence empty handed.
The inter-relatedness and overlapping of DoJ, CIA, and FBI personnel assigned to the Clinton e-mail case, the Russophobic nightmare
of a 'case' targeting Carter Page, and by extension, the Trump presidential campaign, and yes, the Mueller political op, all reek
of political bias and ineptitude followed by more political bias; and then culmination in a scorched earth investigation more
characteristic of something the STASI might have undertaken than American justice.
Early morning raids, gag orders, solitary confinements, show indictments that will never see adjudication in a court room - truly
unbelievable.
In your opinion was this surveillance, criminal & counter-intelligence investigation as well as information operations against
Trump centrally orchestrated or was it more reactive & decentralized?
There are so many facets. Fusion GPS & Nellie Ohr with her previous CIA connection. Her husband Bruce at the DOJ stovepiping
the dossier to the FBI. Brennan and his EC. Clapper and his intelligence assessment. Halper, Mifsud, Steele along with Hannigan
and the MI6 + GCHQ connection. Downer and the Aussies. FISA warrants on Page & Papadopolous. The whole Strzok & Page texting.
Comey, Lynch & the Hillary exoneration. McCabe. Then all the Russians. And the media leaks to generate hysteria.
I'd recommend for reading Alexei Yurchak's "Everything Was Forever, Until It was No More: The Last Soviet Generation." Its
about a class of apparatchiks and bureaucrats and hangers on who spoke this arcane, abstract dogmatic language that anyone normal
had long since given up trying to understand. It had long ceased to have any relevance or attachment to the lives lived by ordinary,
increasingly suffering people, who started talking to each other in practical and direct language.
And yet the chatterati
continued to chatter and invent ludicrously unreal worlds and analyses of the actual world they lived in until... bang... it was
no more.
I'd skip the first few chapters which are full of impenetrable marxist jargon.
The Russian collusion investigation was based solely on the dodgy Steele Dossier that was discredited here from the get-go.
This was a product of British Intelligence Community. The intent was to keep and then to get Donald Trump out of the White House.
It failed but they did succeed in turning him into a neo-lib-con fellow traveler.
There are clear parallels between the end stages of the Soviet Union and the American Empire. My take since the Iraq Invasion
is that they are insane. The ruling elite is detached from reality, incompetent and arrogant. Sooner or later someone with their
facilities still intact will lead a middle-class revolt against the global plutocracy to restore democracy and reverse the rising
inequality. We were lucky that the fall of the Soviet Union did not lead to a nuclear war. The next time a nuclear armed Empire
crashes we may not be so fortunate.
"... This entire article fleshes out one central truth – capitalism as practiced by the US Government inevitably involves war by any and all means, seeking total domination of every human being on the planet, foriegn or native to the US Hegemon. It seeks total rule of the rich and powerful over everyone else. ..."
"Russia is an inalienable and organic part of Greater Europe and European civilization. Our citizens think of themselves as
European. That's why Russia proposes moving towards the creation of a common economic space from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean,
a community referred to by Russian experts as 'the Union of Europe' which will strengthen Russia's potential in its economic pivot
toward the 'New Asia.'" Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, February 2012
The allegations of 'Russian meddling' only make sense if they're put into a broader geopolitical context. Once we realize that
Washington is implementing an aggressive "containment" strategy to militarily encircle Russia and China in order to spread its tentacles
across Central Asian, then we begin to understand that Russia is not the perpetrator of the hostilities and propaganda, but the victim.
The Russia hacking allegations are part of a larger asymmetrical-information war that has been joined by the entire Washington political
establishment. The objective is to methodically weaken an emerging rival while reinforcing US global hegemony.
Try to imagine for a minute, that the hacking claims were not part of a sinister plan by Vladimir Putin "to sow discord and division"
in the United States, but were conjured up to create an external threat that would justify an aggressive response from Washington.
That's what Russiagate is really all about.
US policymakers and their allies in the military and Intelligence agencies, know that relations with Russia are bound to get increasingly
confrontational, mainly because Washington is determined to pursue its ambitious "pivot" to Asia plan. This new regional strategy
focuses on "strengthening bilateral security alliances, expanding trade and investment, and forging a broad-based military presence."
In short, the US is determined to maintain its global supremacy by establishing military outposts across Eurasia, continuing to tighten
the noose around Russia and China, and reinforcing its position as the dominant player in the most populous and prosperous region
in the world. The plan was first presented in its skeletal form by the architect of Washington's plan to rule the world, Zbigniew
Brzezinski. Here's how Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor summed it up in his 1997 magnum opus, The Grand Chessboard:
American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives:
"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia (p.30) .. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically
axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions.
. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its
enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's
known energy resources." ("The Grand Chessboard:American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives", Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic
Books, page 31, 1997)
14 years after those words were written, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took up the banner of imperial expansion and
demanded a dramatic shift in US foreign policy that would focus primarily on increasing America's military footprint in Asia. It
was Clinton who first coined the term "pivot" in a speech she delivered in 2010 titled "America's Pacific Century". Here's an excerpt
from the speech:
"As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot
point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be
smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership,
secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will
therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment -- diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise -- in the Asia-Pacific
region
Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge
technology ..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia The region already generates more than
half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama's goal of doubling exports by 2015,
we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia and our investment opportunities in Asia's dynamic markets."
("America's Pacific Century", Secretary of State Hillary Clinton", Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)
The pivot strategy is not some trifling rehash of the 19th century "Great Game" promoted by think-tank fantasists and conspiracy
theorists. It is Washington's premier foreign policy doctrine, a 'rebalancing' theory that focuses on increasing US military and
diplomatic presence across the Asian landmass. Naturally, NATO's ominous troop movements on Russia's western flank and Washington's
provocative naval operations in the South China Sea have sent up red flags in Moscow and Beijing. Former Chinese President Hu Jintao
summed it up like this:
"The United States has strengthened its military deployments in the Asia-Pacific region, strengthened the US-Japan military
alliance, strengthened strategic cooperation with India, improved relations with Vietnam, inveigled Pakistan, established a pro-American
government in Afghanistan, increased arms sales to Taiwan, and so on. They have extended outposts and placed pressure points on
us from the east, south, and west."
Russian President Vladimir Putin has been equally critical of Washington's erratic behavior. NATO's eastward expansion has convinced
Putin that the US will continue to be a disruptive force on the continent for the foreseeable future. Both leaders worry that Washington's
relentless provocations will lead to an unexpected clash that will end in war.
Even so, the political class has fully embraced the pivot strategy as a last-gasp attempt to roll back the clock to the post war
era when the world's industrial centers were in ruins and America was the only game in town. Now the center of gravity has shifted
from west to east, leaving Washington with just two options: Allow the emerging giants in Asia to connect their high-speed rail and
gas pipelines to Europe creating the world's biggest free trade zone, or try to overturn the applecart by bullying allies and threatening
rivals, by implementing sanctions that slow growth and send currencies plunging, and by arming jihadist proxies to fuel ethnic hatred
and foment political unrest. Clearly, the choice has already been made. Uncle Sam has decided to fight til the bitter end.
Washington has many ways of dealing with its enemies, but none of these strategies have dampened the growth of its competitors
in the east. China is poised to overtake the US as the world's biggest economy sometime in the next 2 decades while Russia's intervention
in Syria has rolled back Washington's plan to topple Bashar al Assad and consolidate its grip on the resource-rich Middle East. That
plan has now collapsed forcing US policymakers to scrap the War on Terror altogether and switch to a "great power competition" which
acknowledges that the US can no longer unilaterally impose its will wherever it goes. Challenges to America's dominance are emerging
everywhere particularly in the region where the US hopes to reign supreme, Asia.
This is why the entire national security state now stands foursquare behind the improbable pivot plan. It's a desperate "Hail
Mary" attempt to preserve the decaying unipolar world order.
What does that mean in practical terms?
It means that the White House (the National Security Strategy) the Pentagon (National Defense Strategy) and the Intelligence Community
(The Worldwide Threat Assessment) have all drawn up their own respective analyses of the biggest threats the US currently faces.
Naturally, Russia is at the very top of those lists. Russia has derailed Washington's proxy war in Syria, frustrated US attempts
to establish itself across Central Asia, and strengthened ties with the EU hoping to "create a harmonious community of economies
from Lisbon to Vladivostok." (Putin)
Keep in mind, the US does not feel threatened by the possibility of a Russian attack, but by Russia's ability to thwart Washington's
grandiose imperial ambitions in Asia.
As we noted, the National Security Strategy (NSS) is a statutorily mandated document produced by the White House that explains
how the President intends to implement his national security vision. Not surprisingly, the document's main focus is Russia and China.
Here's an excerpt:
"China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They
are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress
their societies and expand their influence." (Neither Russia nor China are attempting to erode American security and prosperity."
They are merely growing their economies and expanding their markets. If US corporations reinvested their capital into factories,
employee training and R and D instead of stock buybacks and executive compensation, then they would be better able to complete globally.)
Here's more: "Through modernized forms of subversive tactics, Russia interferes in the domestic political affairs of countries
around the world." (This is a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black.')
"Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries
target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data." (The western media behemoth is the biggest disinformation
bullhorn the world has ever seen. RT and Sputnik don't hold a candle to the ginormous MSM 'Wurlitzer' that controls the cable news
stations, the newspapers and most of the print media. The Mueller Report proves beyond a doubt that the politically-motivated nonsense
one reads in the media is neither reliably sourced nor trustworthy.)
The Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community is even more explicit in its attacks on Russia. Check it out:
"Threats to US national security will expand and diversify in the coming year, driven in part by China and Russia as they respectively
compete more intensely with the United States and its traditional allies and partners . We assess that Moscow will continue pursuing
a range of objectives to expand its reach, including undermining the US-led liberal international order, dividing Western political
and security institutions, demonstrating Russia's ability to shape global issues, and bolstering Putin's domestic legitimacy.
We assess that Moscow has heightened confidence, based on its success in helping restore the Asad regime's territorial control
in Syria, ·Russia seeks to boost its military presence and political influence in the Mediterranean and Red Seas mediate conflicts,
including engaging in the Middle East Peace Process and Afghanistan reconciliation .
Russia will continue pressing Central Asia's leaders to support Russian-led economic and security initiatives and reduce engagement
with Washington. Russia and China are likely to intensify efforts to build influence in Europe at the expense of US interests
" ("The Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community",
USG )
Notice how the Intelligence Community summary does not suggest that Russia poses an imminent military threat to the US, only that
Russia has restored order in Syria, strengthened ties with China, emerged as an "honest broker" among countries in the Middle East,
and used the free market system to improve relations with its trading partners and grow its economy. The IC appears to find fault
with Russia because it is using the system the US created to better advantage than the US. This is entirely understandable given
Putin's determination to draw Europe and Asia closer together through a region-wide economic integration plan. Here's Putin:
"We must consider more extensive cooperation in the energy sphere, up to and including the formation of a common European energy
complex. The Nord Stream gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea and the South Stream pipeline under the Black Sea are important steps
in that direction. These projects have the support of many governments and involve major European energy companies. Once the pipelines
start operating at full capacity, Europe will have a reliable and flexible gas-supply system that does not depend on the political
whims of any nation. This will strengthen the continent's energy security not only in form but in substance. This is particularly
relevant in the light of the decision of some European states to reduce or renounce nuclear energy."
The gas pipelines and high-speed rail are the arteries that will bind the continents together and strengthen the new EU-Asia superstate.
This is Washington's greatest nightmare, a massive, thriving free trade zone beyond its reach and not subject to its rules. In 2012,
Hillary Clinton acknowledged this new threat and promised to do everything in her power to destroy it. Check out this excerpt:
"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described efforts to promote greater economic integration in Eurasia as "a move to
re-Sovietize the region." . "We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it,"
she said at an international conference in Dublin on December 6, 2012, Radio Free Europe."
"Slow down or prevent it"?
Why? Because EU-Asia growth and prosperity will put pressure on US debt markets, US corporate interests, US (ballooning) national
debt, and the US Dollar? Is that why Hillary is so committed to sabotaging Putin's economic integration plan?
Indeed, it is. Washington wants to block progress and prosperity in the east in order to extend the lifespan of a doddering and
thoroughly-bankrupt state that is presently $22 trillion in the red but continues to write checks on an overdrawn account.
But Russia shouldn't be blamed for Washington's profligate behavior, that's not Putin's fault. Moscow is merely using the free
market system more effectively that the US.
Now consider the Pentagon's 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) which reiterates many of the same themes as the other two documents.
"Today, we are emerging from a period of strategic atrophy, aware that our competitive military advantage has been eroding. We
are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order -- creating a
security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory. Inter-state strategic competition,
not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security."
(Naturally, the "security environment" is going to be more challenging when 'regime change' is the cornerstone of one's foreign
policy. Of course, the NDS glosses over that sad fact. Here's more:)
"Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions
of its neighbors ..(Baloney. Russia has been a force for stability in Syria and Ukraine. If Obama had his way, Syria would have wound
up like Iraq, a hellish wastelands occupied by foreign mercenaries. Is that how the Pentagon measures success?) Here's more:
"China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model
"China and Russia are now undermining the international order from within the system .
Get the picture? China and Russia, China and Russia, China and Russia. Bad, bad, bad.
Why? Because they are successfully implementing their own development model which is NOT programed to favor US financial institutions
and corporations. That's the whole thing in a nutshell. The only reason Russia and China are a threat to the "rules-based system",
is because Washington insists on being the only one who makes the rules. That's why foreign leaders are no longer falling in line,
because it's not a fair system.
These assessments represent the prevailing opinion of senior-level policymakers across the spectrum. (The White House, the Pentagon
and the Intelligence Community) The USG is unanimous in its judgement that a harsher more combative approach is needed to deal with
Russia and China. Foreign policy elites want to put the nation on the path to more confrontation, more conflict and more war. At
the same time, none of these three documents suggest that Russia has any intention of launching an attack on the United States. The
greatest concern is the effect that emerging competitors will have on Washington's provocative plan for military and economic expansion,
the threat that Russia and China pose to America's tenuous grip on global power. It is that fear that drives US foreign policy.
And this is broader context into which we must fit the Russia investigation. The reason the Russia hacking furor has been allowed
to flourish and spread despite the obvious lack of any supporting evidence, is because the vilifying of Russia segues perfectly with
the geopolitical interests of elites in the government. The USG now works collaboratively with the media to influence public attitudes
on issues that are important to the powerful foreign policy establishment. The ostensible goal of these psychological operations
(PSYOP) is to selectively use information on "audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately
the behavior of organizations, groups, and individuals."
The USG now sees the minds of ordinary Americans as a legitimate target for their influence campaigns. They regard attitudes and
perceptions as "the cognitive domain of the
The emerging Euro-Asian power block is very heterogeneous. Russia, China, and the smaller affiliated players like Central Asia,
Iran, Syria, Turkey don't agree on almost anything. They have different cultures, religions, economies, demographic profiles,
even writing systems. The most rational strategy to prevent the Euro-Asian block from consolidating would be to get them to fight
each other. Alternatively, find the weakest link and attack it in an area where its reluctant allies don't share its interests.
Exactly the opposite has happened in the last 5-10 years: US has seemingly worked overtime to get China-Russia alliance of
the ground. They used to distrust each other, today, after Ukraine, South China See, etc they have become close allies. Same with
Iran and Syria: instead of letting them stew in their own internal problems – mostly religious and having a nepotistic elite –
US has managed to turn the fight into an external geo-political struggle, literally invited Russia to join in, and ended up losing.
Bush turned Iraq from a fanatically anti-Iran bastion to a reliable ally of Iran and started an un-winnable land war in Afghanistan
(incredible!). Obama turned Libya, the richest and most stable African country that threatened no-one and kept African migrants
far away, into a chaotic hellhole where slave trade flourishes and millions of Sub-Saharan Africans can use it to move on to Europe.
Then Obama tried to coup-de-etat Erdogan in Turkey, and – even worse – failed miserably. This gang can't shoot straight
– whatever they put in their position papers is meaningless drivel because they are too stupid to think. They have no patience
to wait for the right time to move, no ability to manage on the ground allies, and an aversion to casualties that makes winning
a war impossible. Today Trump threatens Germany over its energy security (pipelines), further antagonises Turkey and Erdogan,
watches helplessly as EU becomes the next UN (lame and irrelevant), and bets everything on a few small allies like Saudi Arabia
and Izrael that are of almost no use in Euro-Asia.
A guy who says about the Russia-gate collusion fiasco that ' maybe I had bad information ' is no master of the universe.
And he run the joint under Obama. Complaining about Russia saying bad stuff about you – or ' information warfare ' – is
a pathetic sign of weakness. Maybe the testosterone levels have dropped more than we have been told.
the russophobia is just drama to keep the MIC spending at $700+ billion per year
there is no way to justify that level of spending and pretend they don't have $25 billion one time to actually help solve the
real problem for the U.S.
"The USG now sees the minds of ordinary Americans as a legitimate target for their influence campaigns. They regard attitudes
and perceptions as "the cognitive domain of the battlespace" which they must exploit in order to build public support for their
vastly unpopular wars and interventions. "
Here is a short guide on how to detect subversion of the mind by the media and their handlers by a former military intelligence
officer.
If one recognizes that Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy & Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997)" in replacing
"Lebensraum" with "control over Eurasia", "Tausendjähriges Reich" with "American Primacy" and providing our 'elite' with an "realist"
and "amoral" excuse to act completely and consistently immoral one has to recognize too that this "Grand Chessboard" is an amalgamation
of 'Mein Kampf' and 'Il Principe".
Reluctant to use that Hitler comparison one ought to read the Introduction of the "Grand Chessboard" in which Brzezinki himself
proudly refers to both Hitler and Stalin sharing his ideas about control over Eurasia as a prerequisite for that "American Primacy".
Recognizing this however one can't escape the conclusion that this "Grand Chessboard" with its consistent 'amoral realist imperatives'
is serving up inherently immoral 'imperatives' as inescapable options dressed up in academic language and with absolutely abhorrent
arrogance.
Stating that Brennan's Russophobia is somehow a degeneration of Brzezinki's "Grand Chessboard" is completely overlooking how
difficult it would be to outdo Brzezinki's own total moral degeneration.
One has to recognize that by now the only bipartisan aspect of US policy can be found in sharing these despicable and immoral
'imperatives' to maintain that "American Primacy" at all cost (of course to the rest of the world).
"The allegations of 'Russian meddling' only make sense if they're put into a broader geopolitical context. Once we realize that
Washington is implementing an aggressive "containment" strategy to militarily encircle Russia and China in order to spread its
tentacles across Central Asian, then we begin to understand that Russia is not the perpetrator of the hostilities and propaganda,
but the victim. The Russia hacking allegations are part of a larger asymmetrical-information war that has been joined by the entire
Washington political establishment. The objective is to methodically weaken an emerging rival while reinforcing US global hegemony."
TRUE!
I would suggest that the initials 'US' in the final sentence be changed to: Anglo-Zionist Empire.
"Now the center of gravity has shifted from west to east, leaving Washington with just two options: Allow the emerging giants
in Asia to connect their high-speed rail and gas pipelines to Europe creating the world's biggest free trade zone, or try to overturn
the applecart by bullying allies and threatening rivals, by implementing sanctions that slow growth and send currencies plunging,
and by arming jihadist proxies to fuel ethnic hatred and foment political unrest. Clearly, the choice has already been made. Uncle
Sam has decided to fight til the bitter end."
Just like the Brit Empire – of which the Yank Empire is merely Part 2, the part where it becomes obvious that it is the Anglo-Zionist
Empire, which, like a band of screeching Pharisees standing on the walls of Jerusalem hurling curses at the Romans they inform
that Jehovah will soon wipe out all Romans to save His Chosen Race, would choose utter destruction for all over any common sense
backing down to prevent mass slaughter.
Nothing harmed US more than Brzezinski's ideology. US did build up far east with their investments, while neglecting their own
backyard. US should have build up rather North and South America and make it the envy of the world. Neglecting particularly South
America now created Desperate south American people, who have no jobs and no future and these people are now invading US.
A guy who says about the Russia-gate collusion fiasco that 'maybe I had bad information' is no master of the universe. And
he run the joint under Obama. Complaining about Russia saying bad stuff about you – or 'information warfare' – is a pathetic
sign of weakness. Maybe the testosterone levels have dropped more than we have been told.
Testosterone plus steady, unrelenting decline and corruption of American "elites" most of who have no background in any fields
related to actual effective governance especially in national security (military) and diplomatic fields. Zbig's book is also nothing
more than doctrine-mongering based on complete lack of understanding of Russian history.
Reluctant to use that Hitler comparison one ought to read the Introduction of the "Grand Chessboard" in which Brzezinki
himself proudly refers to both Hitler and Stalin sharing his ideas about control over Eurasia as a prerequisite for that "American
Primacy".
Zbig was a political "scientist" (which is not a science) by education, fact aggravated by his Russophobia, and thus inability
to grasp fundamentals of military power and warfare–a defining characteristic of American "elites". He, obviously, missed on the
military-technological development of 1970s through 1990s, to arrive to the inevitable conclusion that classic "geopolitics" doesn't
apply anymore. Today we all can observe how it doesn't apply and is made obsolete.
(Jan.1998) US history – "How Jimmy Carter I Started the Mujahideen" – Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor 1977-1981
"Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services
began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security
adviser to President Carter.
Zbigniew Brzezinski Taliban Pakistan Afghanistan pep talk 1979
In 1979 Carters National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski went into Pakistans border regions with Afghanistan to give
a little pep talk to some prospective majehadeen (Holy Warriors). In a 1997 interview for CNN's Cold War Series, Brzezinski hinted
about the Carter Administration's proactive Afghanistan policy before the Soviet invasion in 1979, that he had conceived.
@DESERT FOX Why was it that the Brit Empire kept acting throughout the later 18th, the 19th and early 20th centuries to harm
Russia, even when it technically was allied with Russia? Why the Crimean War, for example?
Why, for example, was Brit secret service all over the assassination of Rasputin and tied in multiple ways to most non-Marxist
revolutionary groups?
This entire article fleshes out one central truth – capitalism as practiced by the US Government inevitably involves war by
any and all means, seeking total domination of every human being on the planet, foriegn or native to the US Hegemon. It seeks
total rule of the rich and powerful over everyone else.
@anon Like the Ukranians, the 'Balts' virtually always are controlled by somebody else. When Russia does not control the Baltic
states, they are controlled by either Poles or Germans. Russians know what that means: the Baltic states are then used as weapons
to attack Russia.
The region is much calmer when Russia controls the Baltic states, and that is before taking into consideration how the Polish-Lithuanian
Empire turned its Jews lose to terrorize all Orthodox Christians and how Germanic states later used Lutheranism as a force in
the Baltics to ignite war with Russia and, under the queer Frederick the Great also used Jewish bankers to finance wars against
Russia.
Wealthy politicians and businessmen suspected of corruption in their native lands are fleeing to a safe haven where their wealth
and influence shields them from arrest.
They have entered this country on a variety of visas, including one designed to encourage investment. Some have applied for asylum,
which is intended to protect people fleeing oppression and political persecution.
The increasingly popular destination for people avoiding criminal charges is no pariah nation.
It's the United States.
An investigation by ProPublica, in conjunction with the Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism at Columbia University, has
found that officials fleeing prosecution in Colombia, China, South Korea, Bolivia and Panama have found refuge for themselves and
their wealth in this country, taking advantage of lax enforcement of U.S. laws and gaps in immigration and financial regulations.
Many have concealed their assets and real-estate purchases by creating trusts and limited liability companies in the names of lawyers
and relatives.
American authorities are supposed to vet visa applicants to make sure they are not under active investigation on criminal charges.
But the ProPublica examination shows that this requirement has been routinely ignored.
One of the most prominent cases involves a former president of Panama, who was allowed to enter the United States just days after
his country's Supreme Court opened an investigation into charges that he had helped embezzle $45 million from a government school
lunch program.
Ricardo Martinelli, a billionaire supermarket magnate, had been on the State Department's radar since he was elected in 2009.
That year, the U.S. ambassador to Panama began
sending diplomatic cables warning
about the president's "dark side," including his links to corruption and his request for U.S. support for wiretapping his opponents.
Soon after Martinelli left office in 2014, Panamanian prosecutors conducted a widely publicized investigation of corruption in
the school lunch program, and in mid-January 2015, forwarded their findings to the country's Supreme Court.
On Jan. 28, 2015,
just hours before
the Supreme Court announced a formal probe into the charges, Martinelli boarded a private plane, flew to Guatemala City for a
meeting and then entered the United States on a visitor visa. Within weeks, he was living comfortably in the Atlantis, a luxury condominium
on Miami's swanky Brickell Avenue. He is still here.
The State Department declined to comment on Martinelli's case, saying visa records are confidential and it is the U.S. Customs
and Border Protection that decides who is allowed to enter the country. CBP said privacy regulations prevent the agency from commenting
on Martinelli.
Efforts to reach Martinelli, including a registered letter sent to his Miami address, were unsuccessful.
In September this year, Panama asked to extradite Martinelli, but the former president is fighting that request, arguing there
are no legal grounds to bring him back to his home country where the investigation has broadened to include insider trading, corruption
and abuse of authority. Last December, Panama's high court issued a warrant for his arrest on charges that he used public funds to
spy on over 150 political opponents. If found guilty, he could face up to 21 years in jail.
Rogelio Cruz, who is defending Martinelli in Panama's Supreme Court, said that the former president "will return to Panama once
adequate conditions exist with respect to due process, where there are independent judges -- which there aren't."
The United States has explicit policies that bar issuing visas to foreign officials facing criminal charges in their homelands.
In 2004, President George W. Bush issued a proclamation
designed to keep the United States from becoming a haven for corrupt officials. Proclamation 7750, which has the force and effect
of law, directed the State Department to ban officials who have accepted bribes or misappropriated public funds when their actions
have "serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States."
Under the rules implementing Bush's order, consular officers do not need a conviction or even formal charges to justify denying
a visa. They can stamp "denied" based on information from unofficial, or informal sources, including newspaper articles, according
to diplomats and State Department officials interviewed for this report.
The State Department declined to provide the number of times Proclamation 7750 has been invoked, but insisted that it has been
used "robustly."
But numerous other foreign government officials, including former presidents and cabinet ministers, have slipped through the cracks,
according to court documents, diplomatic cables and interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys in the United States and abroad.
The charges involved a wide range of misconduct, from stealing public funds to accepting bribes.
Six months before Martinelli entered the United States, a former Colombian agriculture minister and onetime presidential candidate,
Andres Felipe Arias, fled to Miami three weeks before he was convicted of funneling $12.5 million to wealthy political supporters
from a subsidy program that was intended to reduce inequality in rural areas and protect farmers from the effects of globalization.
The U.S. embassy in Bogota had been following Arias' trial closely and
reporting on the scandal in cables to Washington.
The trial
featured documents and witnesses saying that under Arias' watch, the agriculture ministry had doled out millions in subsidies
to affluent families, some of whom, according to media reports, had donated to Arias' political allies or his presidential campaign.
Subsidies went to relatives of congressmen, companies owned by the richest man in Colombia, and a former beauty queen. One powerful
family and its associates received over $2.5 million, according to records released by prosecutors. Another family, which included
relatives of a former senator, received $1.3 million. Both families had supported Arias' chief political ally, former Colombian President
Alvaro Uribe, with campaign contributions.
The law that
established the program did not ban wealthy landowners from getting grants, but some elite families had received multiple subsidies
for the same farm. They gamed the system by submitting multiple proposals in the names of different family members and by subdividing
their land so they could apply for grants for each parcel, court records indicate.
Yet, in November 2013, while the trial was going on, the U.S. embassy in Bogota renewed Arias' visitor visa. The State Department
refused to discuss the case, saying that visa records are confidential. But a
recent filing in federal court
showed that the U.S. embassy had flagged Arias' application, and asked him to provide documents to support his request to leave the
country while charges were pending. Arias submitted documents from the Colombian court, including a judicial order that allowed him
to travel. In the end, the embassy issued a visa because he had not yet been convicted.
Andres Felipe Arias, a former Colombian agriculture minister, who fled to the United States before he could be convicted
of funneling money from a subsidy program (GDA via AP Images)
On the night of June 13, 2014, three weeks before the judges convicted him of embezzlement by appropriation, a Colombian law that
penalizes the unauthorized use of public funds to benefit private entities, Arias packed his bags and boarded a plane. The following
month, the U.S. embassy in Bogota revoked the visa. But Arias hired an immigration attorney and applied for asylum.
"If you looked up 'politically motivated charges' in the dictionary, there would be a picture of Andres Arias next to it," said
David Oscar Markus, Arias' lead attorney. "The case [against him] is absurd and not even one that is recognized in the United States."
Over the next two years, Arias built a new life in South Florida with his wife and two children, opening a small consulting company
and renting a house in Weston.
On August 24, he was
arrested by U.S.
authorities in response to an extradition request from Colombia. He spent several months in a detention facility until his release
on bail in mid-November. Arias argues that the United States cannot extradite him because it has no active extradition treaty with
Colombia, but the U.S. Attorney's Office disagrees. A plea for asylum does not shield defendants from extradition if they are charged
in Colombia with a crime covered by the treaty between the two countries.
The agency that administers the program, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, has adopted regulations designed to prevent
fraud, including requiring foreign investors to submit evidence, such as tax returns and bank statements, to prove they obtained
their money legally.
But these safeguards did not stop the daughter-in-law and grandsons of former South Korean dictator Chun Doo-hwan from using Chun's
ill-gotten gains to get U.S. permanent residency.
In 1996, a Korean court convicted Chun of receiving more than $200 million in bribes while in office in the 1980s, from companies
such as Samsung and Hyundai. He was ordered to return the bribes, but refused.
Part of Chun's fortune was funneled into the United States through his son, who purchased a $2.2 million house in Newport Beach,
California, according to South Korean prosecutors and real-estate records.
Millions of dollars from Chun's bribery proceeds were hidden in bearer bonds, which are notoriously difficult to trace. Unlike
regular bonds, which belong to registered owners, there is no record kept about the ownership or transfer of bearer bonds. The bonds
can be cashed out by whoever has them.
Former South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan addresses the press at the White House in 1985. Chun's relatives later gained
permanent residency in the United States by using money Chun obtained through bribes. (Bettmann via Getty Images)
In 2008, Chun's daughter-in-law, a South Korean actress named Park Sang-ah, applied for an immigrant investor visa. Park listed
her husband's bearer bonds as the source of her funds without mentioning that the money had been initially provided to him by Chun.
Eight months later, Park and her children received their conditional U.S. permanent residency cards in the mail.
In 2013, at the request of South Korean prosecutors, the U.S. Justice Department launched an investigation into the Chun family's
wealth in the United States and subsequently
seized $1.2 million of the family's U.S. assets in the United States. The money was returned to South Korea. Despite that, Chun's
family members have retained their residency status.
Chun's relatives obtained their permanent residency by investing in an EB-5 project managed by the Philadelphia Industrial Development
Corporation, a nonprofit company. The PIDC pooled Chun's $500,000 with money from 200 other foreign investors to finance an expansion
of the Pennsylvania Convention Center in downtown Philadelphia.
The same project in Philadelphia also helped to secure permanent residency for Qiao Jianjun, a Chinese government official accused
of embezzling more than $40 million from a state-owned grain storehouse, according to reports in the People's Daily, the Chinese
Communist Party's newspaper. Qiao had divorced his wife, Shilan Zhao, in China in 2001, a fact he did not disclose to U.S. immigration
authorities. When Zhao applied for an EB-5 visa, Qiao qualified for U.S. permanent residency as an applicant's spouse.
The Justice Department launched an investigation only when it was tipped off by Chinese authorities. In January 2014,
a federal grand jury indicted Zhao and her ex-husband, Qiao, for immigration fraud, money laundering and internationally transporting
stolen funds. Zhao was arrested and released on bail. Federal authorities are pursuing Qiao, whose whereabouts remain unknown.
A trial has been set for February 2017. U.S. government attorneys have filed asset forfeiture cases to recover real estate linked
to Qiao and Zhao in Flushing, New York, and Monterey Park, California.
In April 2015, Qiao appeared on the Chinese
government's list of 100 "most wanted" officials who fled abroad after being accused of crimes such as bribery and corruption.
He and 39 other government officials and state-owned enterprise leaders on the list allegedly fled to the United States.
The list, called "Operation Skynet," is part of Chinese President Xi Jinping's anti-corruption campaign, which has vowed to take
down what Chinese officials describe as corrupt "tigers" and "flies" within the country's ruling Communist Party.
Fengxian Hu was another fugitive on China's list. A former army singer and radio broadcaster, Hu headed the state-owned broadcasting
company that had a joint venture with Pepsi to distribute soft drinks in Sichuan province. In 2002, The Washington Post and The Wall
Street Journal
reported that Pepsi had accused Hu of looting the joint venture and using company funds to buy fancy cars and go on European
tours.
The same year, in a widely publicized move, Pepsi filed a case with international arbitrators in Stockholm, asking that the joint
venture be dissolved. Despite this, Hu was given a visa that allowed him to fly regularly to Las Vegas, where he was a VIP client
at the MGM casino.
In January 2010, Chinese authorities investigated Hu for corruption. But the month before, Hu had entered the United States on
a B1 visitor visa, joining his wife, a U.S. citizen living in New York.
Hu tried to obtain a green card through his wife, but the petition was rejected by U.S. immigration authorities. He applied for
asylum instead.
Meanwhile, he had gotten into trouble in the United States for losing millions in a Las Vegas casino and failing to pay a $12
million gambling debt. In 2012, he was indicted in a Nevada court on two counts of theft and one count of intentionally passing a
check without sufficient funds.
Hu pled not guilty to the charges; his lawyers claimed that his checks bounced because his bank account had been closed by Chinese
authorities. The charges against him in the U.S. were considered an aggravated felony, which is a common basis for deportation. Hu,
however, had a pending asylum case and so could not be deported.
In August 2015, a New York immigration judge denied the asylum claim. But Hu's lawyers argued that he would be tortured if he
returned to China and invoked the United Nations Convention
Against Torture , which says that an alien may not be sent to a country where he is likely to be tortured. In the end, the immigration
court suspended Hu's removal order, allowing him to remain in the United States and work here indefinitely. He will not, however,
be given permanent residency or be allowed to travel outside the country.
The absence of an extradition treaty -- coupled with a high standard of living -- makes the United States a favored destination
for Chinese officials and businessmen fleeing corruption charges.
In April 2015, Jeh Johnson, the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security , made a 48-hour trip to Beijing. The visit
was intended to pave the way for Chinese President Xi Jinping's U.S. visit in September 2015, according to a memorandum Johnson wrote,
which was obtained through a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
In the memo, Johnson said the Chinese government is seeking 132 people it said have fled to the United States to avoid prosecution.
This represents a greater number of fugitives than Chinese authorities have publicly acknowledged.
"I'm told that in prior discussions, the Chinese have been frustrated by the lack of any information from us about the 132 fugitives,"
Johnson wrote.
The Chinese request for assistance posed a dilemma for the United States. American officials are concerned about a lack of fairness
in China's criminal justice system. Human rights groups say that China continues to use torture to extract false confessions from
suspected criminals. Torture has also been documented to be part of shuanggui -- a secretive discipline process reserved for
members of the Chinese Communist Party.
Some analysts see the crackdown on corrupt officials as part of a purge aimed at the current regime's political rivals and ideological
enemies. U.S. officials say this makes returning corrupt officials to China a delicate issue for the United States.
In 2003, headlines around the world reported
widespread
street protests in Bolivia that led to security forces killing 58 people, most of them members of indigenous groups. Not long
afterward, as protesters massed up on the streets of La Paz demanding his resignation, Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada
resigned and fled his country along with his defense minister, Jose Carlos Sanchez Berzain.
The two men flew to the United States, where they continue to reside. In 2006, Berzain applied for political asylum, which he
was granted in 2007. On
his application, when the form asked, "Have you or your family members ever been accused, charged, arrested, detained, interrogated,
convicted and sentenced, or imprisoned in any country other than the United States?" Berzain checked the box "no," even though by
then he and de Lozada had been formally accused of
genocide by Bolivia's attorney
general. The indictment was approved
by Bolivia's Supreme Court in 2007. Berzain also stated on his application that the State Department had arranged for his travel
to the United States.
The de Lozada administration was vocally pro-American. Before it was ousted, officials had announced they would facilitate gas
exports to the United States.
After their departure, Bolivia's attorney general
publicly stated
that the administration had embezzled millions from government coffers, but did not formally file charges. He said de Lozada
had taken some $22 million from the country's reserve funds before fleeing.
De Lozada and members of his administration have dismissed the allegations as part of a politically motivated smear campaign,
but there is evidence to suggest irregularities may have occurred in the handling of the reserve funds. The former president signed
a decree shortly before leaving office authorizing the interior and finance ministers to withdraw money from Bolivia's reserve funds
without going through the normal approval process. De Lozada's former interior minister
pleaded guilty in 2004 to embezzlement after $270,000 in cash was found in an associate's home.
De Lozada, a mining mogul before he became president, moved to Chevy Chase, Maryland, an upscale suburb of Washington, D.C. He
now lives in a two-story brick house bought for $1.4 million by Macalester Limited, a limited liability company that was formed in
the British Virgin Islands and lists a post office box in the Bahamas as its principal address.
De Lozada's immigration status is unclear. He said in a sworn deposition in 2015 that he was not a U.S. citizen. His son-in-law,
who spoke to ProPublica on his behalf, would not say whether de Lozada had applied for asylum.
Berzain, meanwhile, settled in South Florida. Records show that he and his brother-in-law personally own or are listed as officers
or members of business entities that together control around $9 million worth of Miami real estate.
Some of the purchases were made in the names of entities that appear to list different variations of Berzain's name in business
records.
In addition, in the purchase of two properties, Berzain's name was added to business records only after the deal had gone through.
Berzain's brother-in-law incorporated a company called Warren USA Corp in October 2010, for example, and the company purchased a
$1.4 million residential property the following month. Three weeks after Warren USA Corp became the owner of an elegant Spanish-style
villa in Key Biscayne, Berzain was added as the company's secretary.
The following year, in May 2011, Berzain's brother-in-law created Galen KB Corp and registered as the company's president. A month
later, Galen KB Corp purchased a $250,000 condo. In August, Berzain replaced his brother-in-law as the company's president, according
to business records. Berzain is no longer listed as a company officer in either company.
During an interview in January, Berzain told ProPublica "I don't have any companies." When asked about several of the companies
associated with his name or address in public records, the former defense minister said he had a consulting firm that helped clients
set up companies and that he was sometimes added to the board of directors. Efforts to reach Berzain's brother-in-law, a wealthy
businessman and the owner of a bus company in Bolivia, were unsuccessful. Berzain's brother-in-law has not been accused of any wrongdoing.
The practice of purchasing real estate in the name of a business entity like a limited liability company, or LLC, is a common
and legal practice in high-end real-estate markets, and one that enables celebrities and other wealthy individuals to protect their
privacy.
But the practice also allows foreign officials to hide ill-gotten gains. U.S. regulations allow individuals to form business entities
like LLCs without disclosing the beneficial owner. The LLCs can be registered in the names of lawyers, accountants or other associates
-- or even anonymously in some states -- and used to purchase real estate, making it nearly impossible to determine the actual owner
of a property.
Government investigators and lawmakers have pointed out persistent gaps in U.S. policy that have enabled corrupt officials to
evade justice and hide their assets in this country. But little has changed.
Last year, a U.S. Government Accountability Office investigation
said it can be "difficult" for immigration officials to identify the true source of an immigrant investor's funds. Immigration
officials told the government auditors that EB-5 applicants with ties to corruption, the drug trade, human trafficking and other
criminal activities have a strong incentive to omit key details about their financial histories or lie on their applications.
"It's very easy to get lost in the noise if you're a bad person," said Seto Bagdoyan, the accountability office's director of
forensic audits, who co-authored the GAO report.
Immigration officials, he added, have an "almost nonexistent" ability to thoroughly evaluate investors' backgrounds and trace
their assets.
Despite such weaknesses, Congress has continually
extended the EB-5
program with minor changes. The program is backed by
real-estate lobbyists who argue that it is a crucial source of financing for luxury condos and hotels. The program is
expected to thrive in a
Trump presidency because the president-elect is a developer and his son-in-law Jared Kushner received $50 million in EB-5 funds to
build a Trump-branded tower in New Jersey.
In 2010, a Senate report described how powerful foreign officials and their relatives moved millions of dollars in suspect funds
into the United States. The report said investors bypassed anti-money laundering regulations with help from U.S. lawyers, real-estate
agents, and banking institutions. Last year, ABC News
reported that lobbyists for real estate and other business groups spent $30 million in 2015 in an effort to protect the EB-5
program.
Senate investigators proposed legislation that would require companies to disclose their beneficial owners and make it easier
for authorities to restrict entry, deny visas and deport corrupt foreign officials.
A few of the proposals have been adopted, but they have not made much difference. Banks have stepped up their efforts to identify
corrupt officials and monitor their accounts. Professional groups such as the American Bar Association have issued non-binding guidelines
for their members on compliance with anti-money-laundering controls. The U.S. government has also worked with the
Financial Action Task Force , an international body set up
to fight money laundering, to bring its anti-corruption controls in accordance with the body's guidelines.
In May, the Treasury Department enacted a new rule that will take full effect in 2018 and will require financial institutions
to identify the beneficial owners of shell companies. Some advocates see the rule as a step backward. The new rule allows shell companies
to designate the manager of the account as the beneficial owner, concealing the identity of the person ultimately exercising control.
The State Department declined to say what progress, if any, it has made on the Senate subcommittee's recommendation to more aggressively
deny visas through Proclamation 7750. "The Department takes seriously congressional recommendations and devotes resources to addressing
corruption worldwide," a State Department official wrote in response to questions.
In 2010, then-Attorney General Eric Holder launched the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative. The small unit, which has grown
to include 16 attorneys, aims to recover assets in the United States that are tied to foreign corruption and return the money to
the looted countries.
Over the past six years, the unit has filed around two dozen civil asset forfeiture cases in an attempt to seize money, real estate
and other assets tied to government officials from 16 countries. Assets have ranged from a lone diamond-encrusted glove worn by Michael
Jackson that was purchased by Equatorial Guinea's Vice President, Teodoro Obiang, to a $1 billion fund tied to Malaysian Prime Minister
Najib Razak.
Yet most of the money the Department of Justice has pursued remains in limbo. The case involving Chun, the former president of
South Korea, is one of only two instances in which corrupt gains have been returned to the home country through the Justice Department's
efforts. The other arose when Justice Department officials
returned $1.5 million to Taiwan from property bought with bribes paid to the family of Chun Shui Bian, the former president of
Taiwan.
The agency faces myriad challenges when attempting to seize and return assets acquired by corrupt foreign officials, including
a lack of witnesses, said Kendall Day, head of the Department of Justice's Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section. These officials
often shield their transactions through shell companies, offshore companies or a network of associates.
"The mission of the Kleptocracy Initiative is really to target what we call grand foreign corruption that impacts the U.S. financial
system," Day said, citing the Chun case as an example.
The 2012 Magnitsky Act gives the government power to deny visas and freeze the assets of Russian nationals accused of corruption
or human rights violations. The Global Magnitsky Act would extend the same sanctions to the rest of the world, but it has yet to
be passed by Congress. Unlike Proclamation 7750, the Magnitsky laws require the government to publish a list of foreign government
officials who are barred from the United States.
In addition, the Treasury Department imposed regulations this year that aim to crack down on the use of shell companies to purchase
real estate in places like Miami and Manhattan. Title insurance companies are now required to identify the real owners of companies
purchasing high-end real estate without a mortgage. These regulations, however, are temporary.
"... Trump's "opposition" in the Democratic Party is no less hostile to democratic rights. They have focused their anti-Trump campaign on bogus allegations that he is a Russian agent, while portraying the emergence of social divisions within the United States as the consequence of Russian "meddling," not the crisis of capitalism, and pushing for across-the-board internet censorship. ..."
"The finance aristocracy, in its mode of acquisition as well as in its pleasures, is nothing
but the rebirth of the lumpenproletariat on the heights of bourgeois society ." -- Karl
Marx, The Class Struggles in France
What Marx described, in his analysis of the corruption of the bourgeoisie in France
leading up to the 1848 revolution, applies with even greater force to the United States of
2019, where the bourgeoisie faces its own rendezvous with social upheaval and explosive class
battles.
That is how a Marxist understands the spectacle of Wednesday's hearing before the House
Oversight Committee, in which Michael Cohen, the former attorney and "fixer" for Donald Trump
for more than a decade, testified for six hours about how he and his boss worked to defraud
business partners and tax collectors, intimidate critics and suppress opposition to Trump's
acitvities in real estate, casino gambling, reality television and, eventually, electoral
politics.
What Cohen described was a seedier version of an operation that most Americans would
recognize from viewing films like The Godfather: Trump as the capo di tutti capi, the
unquestioned authority who must be consulted on every decision ; the children, Donald Jr.,
Ivanka and Eric, each now playing significant roles in the ongoing family criminal enterprise;
Allen Weisselberg, CFO of the Trump Organization, the consigliere in charge of finance,
mentioned by Cohen more than 20 times in the course of six hours of testimony as the man who
facilitated Trump's schemes to evade taxes, deceive banks or stiff business partners.
Cohen himself was an enforcer. By his own account, he threatened people on Trump's behalf at
least 500 times in a ten-year period, including business associates, politicians, journalists
and anyone seeking to file complaints or gain reimbursement after being defrauded by one or
another Trump venture. The now-disbarred lawyer admitted to tape recording clients -- including
Trump among many others -- more than 100 times during this period.
The incidents recounted by Cohen range from the farcical (Trump browbeating colleges and
even his military prep school not to release his grades or test scores), to the shabby (Trump
having his own "charitable" foundation buy a portrait of himself for $60,000), to the brazenly
criminal (deliberately inflating the value of properties when applying for bank loans while
deflating the value of the same properties as much as twenty-fold in order to evade
taxation).
One of the most remarkable revelations was Cohen's flat assertion that Trump himself did
not enter the presidential race with the expectation that he could win either the Republican
nomination or the presidency. Instead, the billionaire reality television "star" regularly told
his closest aides, the campaign would be the "greatest infomercial in political history," good
for promoting his brand and opening up business opportunities in previously closed
markets.
These unflattering details filled the pages of the daily newspapers Thursday and occupied
many hours on the cable television news. But in all that vast volume of reporting and
commentary, one would look in vain for any serious assessment of what it means, in terms of the
historical development and future trajectory of American society, that a family like the Trumps
now occupies the highest rung in the US political system.
The World Socialist Web Site rejects efforts by the Democrats and the corporate media
to dismiss Trump as an aberration, an accidental figure whose unexpected elevation to the
presidency in 2016 will be "corrected" through impeachment, forced resignation or electoral
defeat in 2020. We insist that the Trump administration is a manifestation of a protracted
crisis and breakdown of American democracy, whose course can be traced back at least two
decades to the failed impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998-99, followed by the stolen
presidential election of 2000.
The US political system, always dominated by the interests of the capitalist ruling class
that controls both of the major parties, the Democrats as much as the Republicans, is breaking
down under the burden of mounting social tensions, driven above all by skyrocketing economic
inequality. It is impossible to sustain the pretense that elections at two-year and four-year
intervals provide genuine popular influence over the functioning of a government so completely
subordinated to the financial aristocracy.
The figures are familiar but require restating: over the past three decades, virtually all
the increase in wealth in American society has gone to a tiny layer at the top. Three
mega-billionaires -- Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates -- now control more wealth than
half the American population. This process of social polarization is global: according to the
most recent Oxfam report, 26 billionaires control more wealth than the poorer half of the human
race.
These billionaires did not accumulate their riches by devising new technologies or making
new scientific discoveries that increased the wealth and happiness of humanity as a whole. On
the contrary, their enrichment has come at the expense of society. Bezos has become the world's
richest man through the emergence of Amazon as the greatest sweatshop enterprise in history,
where every possible second of labor power is extracted from a brutally exploited
workforce.
The class of billionaires as a whole, having precipitated the global financial collapse of
2008 through reckless speculation and swindling in the sale of derivatives and other obscure
financial "products," was bailed out, first by the Republican Bush, then by the Democrat Obama,
to the tune of trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, the jobs, living standards and social
conditions for the great mass of working people sharply declined.
As for Donald Trump, the real estate swindler, casino con man and reality television mogul
is a living demonstration of the truth of Balzac's aphorism: "Behind every great fortune is a
great crime."
Trump toyed with running for president on the ultra-right Reform Party ticket in 2000 after
a long stint as a registered Democrat and donor to both capitalist parties. When he decided to
run for president as a Republican in 2016, however, he had shifted drastically to the right.
His candidacy marked the emergence of a distinctly fascistic movement, as he spewed
anti-immigrant prejudice and racism more generally, while making a right-wing populist appeal
to working people, particularly in de-industrialized areas in the Midwest and Appalachia, on
the basis of economic nationalism.
As World Socialist Web Site editorial board Chairman David North explained even
before the 2016 elections:
The Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States did not emerge from an
American version of a Munich beer hall. Donald Trump is a billionaire, who made his money in
Manhattan real estate swindles, the semi-criminal operations of casino gambling, and the
bizarre world of "reality television," which entertains and stupefies its audience by
manufacturing absurd, disgusting and essentially fictional "real life" situations. The
candidacy of Donald Trump could be described as the transfer of the techniques of reality
television to politics.
The main development in the two years since Trump entered the White House is the emergence
of the American working class into major struggles, beginning with the wave of teachers'
strikes in 2018, initiated by the rank and file in defiance of the bureaucratic unions. The
reaction in the American ruling elite is a panic-stricken turn to authoritarian methods of
rule.
The billionaire in the White House is now engaged in a systematic assault on the foundations
of American democracy. He has declared a national emergency in order to bypass Congress, which
holds the constitutional "power of the purse," and divert funds from the military and other
federal departments to build a wall along the US-Mexico border.
Whether or not he is immediately successful in this effort, it is clear that Trump is
moving towards the establishment of an authoritarian regime, with or without the sanction of
the ballot box. As Cohen observed in his closing statement -- in remarks generally downplayed
by the media and ignored by the Democrats -- he is worried that if Trump loses the 2020
election, "there will never be a peaceful transition of power."
Trump's "opposition" in the Democratic Party is no less hostile to democratic rights. They
have focused their anti-Trump campaign on bogus allegations that he is a Russian agent, while
portraying the emergence of social divisions within the United States as the consequence of
Russian "meddling," not the crisis of capitalism, and pushing for across-the-board internet
censorship.
The defense of democratic rights and genuine resistance to Trump's drive toward
authoritarian rule must come through the development of an independent political movement of
the working class, directed against both big business parties, the Democrats as much as the
Republicans, and against the profit system which they both defend.
This article from 2017 looks like it was written yesterday. Trump betrayal of his elctorate on multiple levels, essentially on all
key poin of his election program mkes him "Republican Obama".
What is interesting about Trump foreign policy is his version of neoliberal "gangster capitalism" on foreign arena:
might is right principle applied like universal opener. Previous administrations tried to put a lipstick on the pig. Trump
does not even bother.
In terms of foreign policy, and even during the transition before Trump's inauguration, there were other, more disturbing signs
of where Trump would be heading soon. When Fidel Castro died on November 25, 2016,
Trump seemed jubilant as if he had somehow been vindicated, and took the opportunity to slander Castro as a "brutal dictator" who
"oppressed his own people" and turned Cuba into a "totalitarian island".
Notable quotes:
"... However, when he delivered his inaugural address on January 20, 2017, Trump appeared to reaffirm his campaign themes of anti-interventionism. In particular he seemed to turn the government's back on a long-standing policy of cultural imperialism , stating: "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone". In addition he said his government would "seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world," and he understood the importance of national sovereignty when he added, "it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first". ..."
"... Yet when it came to Russia, Trump could have instantly removed sanctions that were imposed by Obama in his last weeks in office -- an irresponsible and dangerous act by Obama, where foreign policy was used as a partisan tool in the service of shoring up a crummy conspiracy theory about "Russian hacking" in order to deny the Democrats any culpability in their much deserved defeat. ..."
"... The entire conflict with Russia that has developed in recent years, on the US side, was totally unnecessary, illogical, and quite preventable. ..."
"... Just two weeks after violating his promise to end the US role as the world's policeman and his vow to extricate the US from wars for regime change, Trump sold out again. "I love WikiLeaks -- " -- this is what Trump exclaimed in a speech on October 10, 2016. Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks is thus truly astounding. ..."
"... AP: If I could fit a couple of more topics. Jeff Sessions, your attorney general, is taking a tougher line suddenly on Julian Assange, saying that arresting him is a priority. You were supportive of what WikiLeaks was doing during the campaign with the release of the Clinton emails. Do you think that arresting Assange is a priority for the United States? ..."
"... AP: But that didn't mean that you supported what Assange is doing? ..."
"... AP: Can I just ask you, though -- do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to arrest Julian Assange? ..."
"... While there is no denying the extensive data about the severe impacts of NAFTA on select states and industries in the US, witnessed by the closure of tens of thousands of factories and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, there is little support for the claim that Canada and Mexico, as wholes, have instead fared well and that the US as a whole has been the loser thanks to them. ..."
"... Since NAFTA was implemented, migration from Mexico to the US skyrocketed dramatically. US agricultural industries sent millions of Mexican farmers into food poverty, and ultimately drove them away from agriculture ..."
"... As for per capita GDP, so treasured by economists, NAFTA had no positive impact on Mexico -- in fact, per capita GDP is nearly a flat line for the entire period since 1994. Finally, Trump does not mention that in terms of the number of actual protectionist measures that have been implemented, the US leads the world . ..."
"... To put Trump's position on NAFTA in bold relief, it is not that he is decidedly against free trade. In fact, he often claims he supports free trade, as long as it is "fair". However, his notion of fairness is very lopsided -- a trade agreement is fair only when the US reaps the greater share of benefits. ..."
"... As argued in the previous section, if Trump is to be the newfound champion of this imperialism -- empire's prodigal son -- then what an abysmally poor choice he is ..."
"... On the one hand, he helped to unleash US anti-interventionism (usually called "isolationism" not to call it anti-imperialism, which would then admit to imperialism which is still denied by most of the dominant elites). On the other hand, in trying to now contain such popular sentiment, he loses credibility -- after having lost credibility with the groups his campaign displaced. ..."
"... As for Trump's domestic opposition, what should be most pertinent are issues of conflict of interest and nepotism . Here members of Trump's base are more on target yet again, when they reject the presence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner in the White House ("we didn't elect Ivanka or Jared"), than are those distracted by identity politics. ..."
"... As Trump leverages the presidency to upgrade the Trump family to the transnational capitalist class, and reinforces the power of US imperialism which that class has purchased, conflict of interest and nepotism will be the main political signposts of the transformation of the Trump presidency, but they could also be the targets for a refined strategy of opposition. ..."
Trump could have kept quiet, and lost nothing. Instead what he was attacking -- and the irony was missed on his fervently right
wing supporters -- was someone who was a leader in the anti-globalist movement, from long before it was ever called that. Fidel Castro
was a radical pioneer of independence, self-reliance, and self-determination.
Castro turned Cuba from an American-owned sugar plantation and brothel, a lurid backwater in the Caribbean, into a serious international
actor opposed to globalizing capitalism. There was no sign of any acknowledgment of this by Trump, who instead chose to parrot the
same people who would vilify him using similar terms (evil, authoritarian, etc.). Of course, Trump respects only corporate executives
and billionaires, not what he would see as some rag-tag Third World revolutionary. Here Trump's supporters generally failed, using
Castro's death as an opportunity for tribal partisanship, another opportunity to attack "weak liberals" like Obama who made minor
overtures to Cuba (too little, too late).
Their distrust of "the establishment" was nowhere to be found this time: their ignorance of Cuba and their resort to stock clichés
and slogans had all been furnished to them by the same establishment they otherwise claimed to oppose.
Just to be clear, the above is not meant to indicate any reversal on Trump's part regarding Cuba. He has been consistently anti-communist,
and fairly consistent in his denunciations of Fidel Castro. What is significant is that -- far from overcoming the left-right divide
-- Trump shores up the barriers, even at the cost of denouncing others who have a proven track record of fighting against neoliberal
globalization and US interventionism. In these regards, Trump has no track record. Even among his rivals in the Republican primaries,
senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul had more of an anti-interventionist track record.
However, when he delivered his inaugural address
on January 20, 2017, Trump appeared to reaffirm his campaign themes of anti-interventionism. In particular he seemed to turn the
government's back on a long-standing policy of
cultural imperialism
, stating: "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone". In addition he said his government would "seek friendship and goodwill
with the nations of the world," and he understood the importance of national sovereignty when he added, "it is the right of all nations
to put their own interests first".
Russia
Yet when it came to Russia, Trump could have instantly removed sanctions that were imposed by Obama in his last weeks in office
-- an irresponsible and dangerous act by Obama, where foreign policy was used as a partisan tool in the service of shoring up a crummy
conspiracy theory about "Russian hacking" in order to deny the Democrats any culpability in their much deserved defeat.
Instead, Trump continued the sanctions, as if out of meek deference to Obama's policy, one founded on lies and antagonism
toward Trump himself. Rather than repair the foul attempt to sabotage the US-Russian relationship in preparation for his presidency,
Trump simply abided and thus became an accomplice. To be clear,
Trump has done precisely nothing
to dampen the near mass hysteria that has been manufactured in the US about alleged -- indeed imaginary -- "Russian intervention".
His comments, both during the electoral campaign and even early into his presidency, about wanting good relations with Russia,
have been replaced by Trump's admissions that US relations with Russia are at a low point (Putin agreed: "I would say the level of
trust [between Russia and the US] is at a workable level, especially in the military dimension, but it hasn't improved. On the contrary,
it has degraded " and his spokesman called
the relations " deplorable ".)
Rather than use the power of his office to calm fears, to build better ties with Russia, and to make meeting with Vladimir Putin
a top priority, Trump has again done nothing , except escalating tensions. The entire conflict with Russia that has
developed in recent years, on the US side, was totally unnecessary, illogical, and quite preventable. Russia had actively facilitated
the US' war in Afghanistan for over a decade, and was a consistent collaborator on numerous levels. It is up to thinking American
officials to honestly explain what motivated them to tilt relations with Russia, because it is certainly not Russia's doing. The
only explanation that makes any sense is that the US leadership grew concerned that Russia was no longer teetering on the edge of
total socio-economic breakdown, as it was under the neoliberal Boris Yeltsin, but has instead resurfaced as a major actor in international
affairs, and one that champions anti-neoliberal objectives of enhanced state sovereignty and self-determination.
WikiLeaks
Just two weeks after violating his promise to end the US role as the world's policeman and his vow to extricate the US from
wars for regime change, Trump sold out again.
"I love WikiLeaks --
" -- this is what Trump exclaimed in a speech on October 10, 2016. Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks is thus truly astounding.
After finding so much use for WikiLeaks' publication of the Podesta emails, which became incorporated into his campaign speeches,
and which fuelled the writing and speaking of journalists and bloggers sympathetic to Trump -- he was now effectively declaring WikiLeaks
to be both an enemy and a likely target of US government action, in even more blunt terms than we heard during the past eight years
under Obama. This is not mere continuity with the past, but a dramatic escalation. Rather than praise Julian Assange for his work,
call for an end to the illegal impediments to his seeking asylum, swear off any US calls for extraditing and prosecuting Assange,
and perhaps meeting with him in person, Trump has done all of the opposite. Instead we learn that Trump's administration may
file arrest charges against Assange
. Mike Pompeo ,
chosen by Trump to head the CIA, who had himself
cited WikiLeaks as a reliable source of proof about how the Democratic National Committee had rigged its campaign, now declared
WikiLeaks to be a "
non-state hostile intelligence service ," along with vicious personal slander against Assange.
Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks was one that he defended in terms that were not just a deceptive rewriting of history, but one
that was also fearful -- "I don't support or unsupport" WikiLeaks, was what Trump was now saying in his dash for the nearest exit.
The backtracking is so obvious in this
interview
Trump gave to the AP , that his shoes must have left skid marks on the floor:
AP: If I could fit a couple of more topics. Jeff Sessions, your attorney general, is taking a tougher line suddenly on
Julian Assange, saying that arresting him is a priority. You were supportive of what WikiLeaks was doing during the campaign with
the release of the Clinton emails. Do you think that arresting Assange is a priority for the United States?
TRUMP: When Wikileaks came out never heard of Wikileaks, never heard of it. When Wikileaks came out, all I was just saying
is, "Well, look at all this information here, this is pretty good stuff." You know, they tried to hack the Republican, the RNC,
but we had good defenses. They didn't have defenses, which is pretty bad management. But we had good defenses, they tried to hack
both of them. They weren't able to get through to Republicans. No, I found it very interesting when I read this stuff and I said,
"Wow." It was just a figure of speech. I said, "Well, look at this. It's good reading."
AP: But that didn't mean that you supported what Assange is doing?
TRUMP: No, I don't support or unsupport. It was just information .
AP: Can I just ask you, though -- do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to
arrest Julian Assange?
TRUMP: I am not involved in that decision, but if Jeff Sessions wants to do it, it's OK with me. I didn't know about that decision,
but if they want to do it, it's OK with me.
First, Trump invents the fictitious claim that WikiLeaks was responsible for hacking the DNC, and that WikiLeaks also tried to
hack the Republicans. Second, he pretends to be an innocent bystander, a spectator, in his own administration -- whatever others
decide, is "OK" with him, not that he knows about their decisions, but it's all up to others. He has no power, all of a sudden.
Again, what Trump is displaying in this episode is his ultimate attachment to his class, with all of its anxieties and its contempt
for rebellious, marginal upstarts. Trump shuns any sort of "loyalty" to WikiLeaks (not that they ever had a working relationship)
or any form of gratitude, because then that would imply a debt and therefore a transfer of value -- whereas Trump's core ethics are
those of expedience and greed (he admits that much).
This move has come with a cost , with members of Trump's support base openly denouncing the betrayal. 6
NAFTA
On NAFTA , Trump claims he has not changed his position -- yet, from openly denouncing the free trade agreement and promising
to terminate it, he now vows only to seek modifications and amendments, which means supporting NAFTA. He appeared to be
awfully quick to obey the diplomatic pressure of Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, and Mexico's President, Enrique Peña
Nieto. Trump's entire position on NAFTA now comes into question.
While there is no denying the extensive data about the severe impacts of NAFTA on select states and industries in the US,
witnessed by the closure of tens of thousands of factories and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, there is little support
for the claim that Canada and Mexico, as wholes, have instead fared well and that the US as a whole has been the loser thanks to
them.
This really deserves to be treated at length, separately from this article. However, for now, let's keep in mind that when
Trump complains about Canadian softwood lumber and dairy exports to the US, his argument about NAFTA is without merit. Neither commodity
is part of the NAFTA agreement.
Moreover, where dairy is concerned, the problem is US overproduction.
Wisconsin alone has more
dairy cows than all of Canada . There is a net surplus , in the US' favour, with respect to US dairy exports to Canada.
Overall,
the US has a net surplus in the trade in
goods and services with Canada. Regarding Mexico, the irony of Trump's denunciations of imaginary Mexican victories is that he
weakens his own criticisms of immigration.
Since NAFTA was implemented,
migration from Mexico to
the US skyrocketed dramatically. US agricultural industries sent millions of Mexican farmers into food poverty, and ultimately
drove them away from agriculture.
As for per capita GDP, so treasured by economists, NAFTA had no positive impact on Mexico -- in fact,
per capita GDP is nearly a flat
line for the entire period since 1994. Finally, Trump does not mention that in terms of the number of actual protectionist measures
that have been implemented, the
US leads the world .
To put Trump's position on NAFTA in bold relief, it is not that he is decidedly against free trade. In fact, he often claims
he supports free trade, as long as it is "fair". However, his notion of fairness is very lopsided -- a trade agreement is fair only
when the US reaps the greater share of benefits.
His arguments with respect to Canada are akin to those of a looter or raider. He wants to block lumber imports from Canada, at
the same time as he wants to break the Canadian dairy market wide open to absorb US excess production. That approach is at the core
of what defined the US as a "new empire" in the 1800s. In addition, while Trump was quick to tear up the TPP, he has said nothing
about TISA and TTIP.
Mexico
Trump's argument with Mexico is also disturbing for what it implies. It would seem that any
evidence of production
in Mexico causes Trump concern. Mexico should not only keep its people -- however many are displaced by US imports -- but it should
also be as dependent as possible on the US for everything except oil. Since Trump has consistently declared his antagonism to OPEC,
ideally Mexico's oil would be sold for a few dollars per barrel.
China
Trump's turn on China almost provoked laughter from his many domestic critics. Absurdly, what figures prominently in most renditions
of the story of Trump's change on China (including his own), is a big piece of chocolate cake. The missile strike on Syria was, according
to Wilbur Ross, the "
after-dinner entertainment ". Here, Trump's loud condemnations of China on trade issues were suddenly quelled -- and it is not
because chocolate has magical properties. Instead it seems Trump has been willing to settle on
selling out citizens' interests , and
particularly those who voted for him, in return for China's assistance on North Korea. Let's be clear: countering and dominating
North Korea is an established favourite among neoconservatives. Trump's priority here is fully "neocon," and the submergence of trade
issues in favour of militaristic preferences is the one case where neoconservatives might be distinguished from the otherwise identical
neoliberals.
North Korea
Where North Korea is concerned, Trump chose to manufacture a "
crisis ". North Korea has actually done nothing
to warrant a sudden outbreak of panic over it being supposedly aggressive and threatening. North Korea is no more aggressive than
any person defending their survival can be called belligerent. The constant series of US military exercises in South Korea, or near
North Korean waters, is instead a deliberate provocation to a state whose existence the US nearly extinguished. Even last year the
US Air Force publicly boasted of having
"nearly destroyed" North Korea -- language one would have expected from the Luftwaffe in WWII. The US continues to maintain roughly
60,000 troops on the border between North and South Korea, and continues to refuse to formally declare an end to the Korean War and
sign a peace treaty
. Trump then announced he was sending an "armada" to the Korean peninsula, and boasted of how "very powerful" it was. This was in
addition to the US deploying the THAAD missile system in South Korea. Several of his messages in Twitter were written using highly
provocative and threatening language. When asked if he would start a war, Trump glibly replied: "
I don't know. I mean, we'll see ". On another occasion Trump stated, "There is a chance that we could end up having a
major, major conflict with North
Korea. Absolutely". When the world's leading military superpower declares its intention to destroy you, then there is nothing you
can do in your defense which anyone could justly label as "over the top". Otherwise, once again Trump posed as a parental figure,
the world's chief babysitter -- picture Trump, surrounded by children taking part in the "Easter egg roll" at the White House, being
asked about North Korea and responding "they gotta behave". Trump would presume to teach manners to North Korea, using the only tools
of instruction that seem to be the first and last resort of US foreign policy (and the "defense" industry): bombs.
Syria
Attacking Syria , on purportedly humanitarian grounds, is for many (including vocal supporters) one of the most glaring contradictions
of Trump's campaign statements about not embroiling the US in failed wars of regime change and world policing. During the campaign,
he was in favour of Russia's collaboration with Syria in the fight against ISIS. For years he had condemned Obama for involving the
US in Syria, and consistently opposed military intervention there. All that was consigned to the archive of positions Trump declared
to now be worthless. That there had been a change in Trump's position is not a matter of dispute --
Trump made the point himself :
"I like to think of myself as a very flexible person. I don't have to have one specific way, and if the world changes, I go
the same way, I don't change. Well, I do change and I am flexible, and I'm proud of that flexibility. And I will tell you, that
attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me -- big impact. That was a horrible, horrible thing. And I've been watching
it and seeing it, and it doesn't get any worse than that. And I have that flexibility, and it's very, very possible -- and I will
tell you, it's already happened that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much. And if you look back over the last
few weeks, there were other attacks using gas. You're now talking about a whole different level".
Bending to the will of the prevailing Cold War and neo-McCarthyist atmosphere in the US, rife with anti-Russian conspiracy theories,
Trump found an easy opportunity to score points with the hostile media, ever so mindful as he is about approval ratings, polls, and
media coverage. Some explain Trump's reversals as arising from his
pursuit
of
public adulation -- and while the media play the key role in purveying celebrity status, they are also a stiff bastion of imperialist
culture. Given his many years as a the host of a popular TV show, and as the owner of the Miss Universe Pageant, there is some logical
merit to the argument. But I think even more is at work, as explained in paragraphs above.
According to Eric Trump it was at the urging of Ivanka that Donald Trump decided to strike a humanitarian-militarist pose. He
would play the part of the Victorian parent, only he would use missiles to teach unruly children lessons about violence. Using language
typically used against him by the mainstream media, Trump now felt entitled to pontificate that Assad is "evil," an "
animal ," who would
have
to go . When did he supposedly come to this realization? Did Assad become evil at the same time Trump was inaugurated? Why would
Trump have kept so silent about "evil" on the campaign trail? Trump of course is wrong: it's not that the world changed and he changed
with it; rather, he invented a new fiction to suit his masked intentions. Trump's supposed opponents and critics, like the Soros-funded
organizer of the women's march Linda Sarsour, showed her
approval of even more drastic
action by endorsing messages by what sounded like a stern school mistress who thought that 59 cruise missiles were just a mere "slap
on the wrist". Virtually every neocon who is publicly active applauded Trump, as did most senior Democrats. The loudest
opposition
, however, came from Trump's
own base , with a number of articles
featuring criticism from Trump's
supporters , and one conservative publication calling him outright a "
weakling
and a political ingrate ".
Members of the Trump administration have played various word games with the public on intervention in Syria. From unnamed officials
saying the missile strike was a "one off," to named officials
promising more if there
were any other suspected chemical attacks (or use of barrel bombs -- and this while the US dropped the biggest non-nuclear bomb in
existence on Afghanistan); some said that
regime change was not the goal,
and then others made it clear that was the ultimate
goal ; and then Trump saying, "Our policy is the same, it hasn't changed.
We're not going into Syria " -- even
though
Trump himself greatly increased the number of US troops he deployed to Syria , illegally, in an escalation of the least
protested invasion in recent history. Now we should know enough not to count this as mere ambiguity, but as deliberate obfuscation
that offers momentary (thinly veiled) cover for a
renewal of neocon policy .
We can draw an outline of Trump's liberal imperialism when it comes to Syria, which is likely to be applied elsewhere. First,
Trump's interventionist policy regarding Syria is one that continues to treat that country as if it were terra nullius ,
a mere playground for superpower politics. Second, Trump is clearly continuing with the
neoconservative agenda and its hit list of
states to be terminated by US military action, as famously confirmed by Gen. Wesley Clark. Even Trump's strategy for justifying the
attack on Syria echoed the two prior Bush presidential administrations -- selling war with the infamous "incubator babies" myth and
the myth of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs). In many ways, Trump's presidency is thus shaping up to be either the seventh term
of the George H.W. Bush regime, or the fifth straight term of the George W. Bush regime. Third, Trump is taking ownership of an extremely
dangerous conflict, with costs that could surpass anything witnessed by the war on Iraq (which also continues). Fourth, by highlighting
the importance of photographs in allegedly changing his mind, Trump has placed a high market value on propaganda featuring dead babies.
His actions in Syria will now create an effective demand for the pornographic trade in pictures of atrocities. These are matters
of great importance to the transnational capitalist class, which demands full global penetrability, diminished state power (unless
in the service of this class' goals), a uniformity of expectations and conformity in behaviour, and an emphasis on individual civil
liberties which are the basis for defending private property and consumerism.
Venezuela
It is very disturbing to see how Venezuela is being framed as ripe for US intervention, in ways that distinctly echo the lead
up to the US war on Libya. Just as disturbing is that Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, has a clear conflict of interest
regarding Venezuela, from his recent role as CEO of
Exxon
and its conflict with the government of Venezuela over its nationalization of oil. Tillerson is, by any definition, a clear-cut
member of the transnational capitalist class. The Twitter account of the
State
Department has a battery of messages sternly lecturing Venezuela about the treatment of protesters, while also pontificating
on the Venezuelan Constitution as if the US State Department had become a global supreme court. What is impressive is the seamless
continuity in the nature of the messages on Venezuela from that account, as if no change of government happened between Obama's time
and Trump's. Nikki Haley, Trump's neocon ambassador to the UN, issued
a statement that read like it had been written by her predecessors, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, a statement which in itself
is an unacceptable intervention in Venezuelan internal affairs. For Trump's part, from just days
before the election, to a couple of weeks
after his inauguration, he has sent explicit
messages of support for anti-government
forces in Venezuela. In February, Trump
imposed sanctions on Venezuela's
Vice President. After Syria and North Korea, Venezuela is seeming the likely focus of US interventionism under Trump.
NATO
Rounding out the picture, at least for now (this was just the first hundred days of Trump's presidency), was Trump's outstanding
reversal on NATO -- in fact, once again he stated the reversal himself, and without explanation either: "
I said it was obsolete. It's no longer obsolete ". This came just days after the US missile strike against Syria, and just as
Ivanka Trump was about to represent
his government at a meeting of globalist women, the
W20 . NATO has served as
the transnational military alliance at the service of the transnational capitalist class, and particularly the military and political
members of the TCC. 7
Saving Neoliberalism?
Has Trump saved neoliberal capitalism from its ongoing demise? Has he sustained popular faith in liberal political ideals? Are
we still in the dying days of liberalism
? If there had been a centrally coordinated plan to plant an operative among the ranks of populist conservatives and independents,
to channel their support for nationalism into support for the persona of the plant, and to then have that plant steer a course straight
back to shoring up neoliberal globalism -- then we might have had a wonderful story of a masterful conspiracy, the biggest heist
in the history of elections anywhere. A truly "rigged system" could be expected to behave that way. Was Trump designated to take
the fall in a rigged game, only his huge ego got in the way when he realized he could realistically win the election and he decided
to really tilt hard against his partner, Hillary Clinton? It could be the basis for a novel, or a Hollywood political comedy. I have
no way of knowing if it could be true.
Framed within the terms of what we do know, there was relief by the ousted group of political elites and the liberal globalist
media at the sight of Trump's reversals, and a sense that
their vision had been vindicated.
However, if they are hoping that the likes of Trump will serve as a reliable flag bearer, then theirs is a misguided wishful thinking.
If someone so demonized and ridiculed, tarnished as an evil thug and racist fascist, the subject of mass demonstrations in the US
and abroad, is the latest champion of (neo)liberalism, then we are certainly witnessing its dying days.
Is Trump Beneficial for Anti-Imperialism?
Once one is informed enough and thus prepared to understand that anti-imperialism is not the exclusive preserve of the left (a
left which anyway has mostly shunned it over the last two decades), that it
did not originate with the
left , and that it has a long and distinguished history
in the US itself , then we can move
toward some interesting realizations. The facts, borne out by surveys and my own online immersion among pro-Trump social media users,
is that one of the
significantreasons
why Trump won is due to the growth in popularity of basic anti-imperialist principles (even if not recognized under that name): for
example, no more world policing, no transnational militarization, no more interventions abroad, no more regime change, no war, and
no globalism. Nationalists in Europe, as in Russia, have also pushed forward a basic anti-imperialist vision. Whereas in Latin America
anti-imperialism is largely still leftist, in Europe and North America the left-right divide has become blurred, but the crucial
thing is that at least now we can speak of anti-imperialism gaining strength in these three major continents. Resistance against
globalization has been the primary objective, along with strengthening national sovereignty, protecting local cultural identity,
and opposing free trade and transnational capital. Unfortunately, some anti-imperialist writers (on the left in fact) have tended
to restrict their field of vision to military matters primarily, while almost completely neglecting the economic and cultural, and
especially domestic dimensions of imperialism. (I am grossly generalizing of course, but I think it is largely accurate.) Where structures
such as NAFTA are concerned, many of these same leftist anti-imperialists, few as they are, have had virtually nothing to say. It
could be that they have yet to fully recognize that the transnational capitalist class has, gradually over the last seven decades,
essentially purchased the power of US imperialism. Therefore the TCC's imperialism includes NAFTA, just as it includes open borders,
neoliberal identity politics, and drone strikes. They are all different parts of the same whole.
As argued in the previous section, if Trump is to be the newfound champion of this imperialism -- empire's prodigal son --
then what an abysmally poor choice he is. 8
On the one hand, he helped to unleash US anti-interventionism (usually called "isolationism" not to call it anti-imperialism,
which would then admit to imperialism which is still denied by most of the dominant elites). On the other hand, in trying to now
contain such popular sentiment, he loses credibility -- after having lost credibility with the groups his campaign displaced.
In addition to that, given that his candidacy aggravated internal divisions in the US, which have not subsided with his assumption
of office, these domestic social and cultural conflicts cause a serious deficit of legitimacy, a loss of political capital. A declining
economy will also deprive him of capital in the strict sense. Moreover, given the kind of persona the media have crafted, the daily
caricaturing of Trump will significantly spur anti-Americanism around the world. If suddenly even Canadian academics are talking
about boycotting the US, then the worm has truly turned. Trump can only rely on "hard power" (military violence), because "soft power"
is almost out of the question now that Trump has been constructed as a barbarian. Incompetent and/or undermined governance will also
render Trump a deficient upholder of the status quo. The fact that nationalist movements around the world are not centrally coordinated,
and their fortunes are not pinned to those of Trump, establishes a well-defined limit to his influence. Trump's antagonism toward
various countries -- as wholes -- has already helped to stir up a deep sediment of anti-Americanism. If Americanism is at the heart
of Trump's nationalist globalism, then it is doing all the things that are needed to induce a major heart attack.
As for Trump's domestic opposition, what should be most pertinent are issues of conflict of interest and nepotism
. Here members of Trump's base are more on target yet again, when they reject the presence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner
in the White House ("we didn't elect Ivanka or Jared"), than are those distracted by identity politics.
As Trump leverages the presidency to upgrade the Trump family to the transnational capitalist class, and reinforces the power
of US imperialism which that class has purchased, conflict of interest and nepotism will be the main political signposts of the transformation
of the Trump presidency, but they could also be the targets for a refined strategy of opposition.
Free market is possible only under strict government regulation. Without government regulation free market quickly
deteriorates into the law of jungles. Such a paradox ;-)
And if financial oligarchy gets to power as they got via coup d'état in the USA in late 7th, it is only a matter of time before
the society collapses. They are very destructive to the society at large. Probably more so then organized crime. But wait. They
actually can be viewed as special type of organized prime as is "The best way to rob the bank is to own it".
Notable quotes:
"... Idiots on here are always going on about how we don't got capitalism, if we only had capitalism, we don't got free markets, if only we had free markets, then everything would be hunky-dory. Without any proof, of course, because there never was and never will be a "free" "market." The US has plenty capitalism. And everything sucks. And they want more. Confused, stupid, disingenuous liars. ..."
"... Free markets are crookedness factories. As a PhD from Chicago Business School told me, "Free markets?! What free markets?! There is no free market! It's all crooked!" ..."
Idiots on here are always going on about how we don't got capitalism, if we only had
capitalism, we don't got free markets, if only we had free markets, then everything would be
hunky-dory. Without any proof, of course, because there never was and never will be a "free"
"market." The US has plenty capitalism. And everything sucks. And they want more. Confused,
stupid, disingenuous liars.
Look, what you call "capitalism" and "free markets" just means scams to make rich people
richer. You read some simple-minded description of some pie-in-the-sky theory of some perfect
world where rational actors make the best possible decisions in their own interest without
any outside interference, and you actually think you are reading a description of something
real.
I'll tell you what's real. Crookedness. Free markets are crookedness factories. As a
PhD from Chicago Business School told me, "Free markets?! What free markets?! There is no
free market! It's all crooked!"
"... The pro-Hillary warmongering media, the ones that pushed for war in Iraq and elsewhere, through big lies and false evidence, are the vanguard of this ugly machine that supports the most terrible Trump administration bills, yet, this machine can't stop accusing him for 'colluding' with Russia that 'interfered' in the 2016 US election. Of course, no evidence presented for such an accusation and no one really can explain what that 'interference' means. ..."
"... They're accusing the President of the United States of being a Russian agent, this has never happened in American history. However much you may loathe Trump, this is a whole new realm of defamation. For a number of years, there's been a steady degradation of American political culture and discourse, generally. There was a time when I hoped or thought that it would be the Democratic Party that would push against that degradation ..."
"... Now, however, though I'm kind of only nominally, a Democrat, it's the Democratic Party that's degrading our political culture and our discourse. So, this is MSNBC, which purports to be not only the network of the Democratic Party, but the network of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, is now actually because this guy was a semi-anchor was asking the question to an American senator, " Do you think that Representative Nunes, because he wants the memo released, has been compromised by the Kremlin? " ..."
"... And by the way, if people will say, " Well, it's a weak capitulation of McCarthyism, " I say no, it's much more than that because McCarthy was obsessed with Communist. That was a much narrower concept than being obsessed with anybody who might be under Russian influence of any kind. The so-called affinity for Russia. Well, I have a profound affinity for Russian culture and for Russian history. I study it all the time. This is something new. And so, when you accuse a Republican or any Congressman of being a Kremlin agent, this has become a commonplace. We are degraded. ..."
"... We are building up our military presence there, so the Russians are counter-building up, though within their territory. That means the chances of hot war are now much greater than they were before. ..."
"... Every time Trump has tried with Putin to reach a cooperative arrangement, for example, on fighting terrorism in Syria, which is a necessary purpose, literally, the New York Times and the others call him treasonous. Whereas, in the old days, the old Cold War, we had a robust discussion. There is none here. We have no alert system that's warning the American people and its representatives how dangerous this is. And as we mentioned before, it's not only Nunes, it's a lot of people who are being called Kremlin agents because they want to digress from the basic narrative. ..."
"... Meanwhile, people in Moscow who formed their political establishment, who surround Putin and the Kremlin, I mean, the big brains who are formed policy tankers, and who have always tended to be kind of pro-American, and very moderate, have simply come to the conclusion that war is coming. ..."
"... The Democrats couldn't had downgrade their party further. This disgusting spectacle would make FDR totally ashamed of what this party has become. Not only they are voting for every pro-plutocracy GOP bill under Trump administration, but they have become champions in bringing back a much worse and unpredictable Cold War that is dangerously escalating tension with Russia. ..."
How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war with Russiaglobinfo freexchange
Corporate Democrats can't stop pushing for war through the Russiagate fiasco.
The party has been completely taken over by the neocon/neoliberal establishment and has nothing to do with the Left. The pro-Hillary
warmongering media, the ones that pushed for war in Iraq and elsewhere, through big lies and false evidence, are the vanguard of
this ugly machine that supports the most terrible Trump administration bills, yet, this machine can't stop accusing him for 'colluding'
with Russia that 'interfered' in the 2016 US election. Of course, no evidence presented for such an accusation and no one really
can explain what that 'interference' means.
But things are probably much worse, because this completely absurd persistence on Russiagate fiasco that feeds an evident anti-Russian
hysteria, destroys all the influence of the Kremlin moderates who struggle to keep open channels between Russia and the United States.
Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies, history, and politics at NY University and Princeton University, explained
to Aaron Maté and the RealNews
the terrible consequences:
They're accusing the President of the United States of being a Russian agent, this has never happened in American history. However
much you may loathe Trump, this is a whole new realm of defamation. For a number of years, there's been a steady degradation of American
political culture and discourse, generally. There was a time when I hoped or thought that it would be the Democratic Party that would
push against that degradation.
Now, however, though I'm kind of only nominally, a Democrat, it's the Democratic Party that's degrading our political culture
and our discourse. So, this is MSNBC, which purports to be not only the network of the Democratic Party, but the network of the progressive
wing of the Democratic Party, is now actually because this guy was a semi-anchor was asking the question to an American senator,
" Do you think that Representative Nunes, because he wants the memo released, has been compromised by the Kremlin? "
I think all of us need to focus on what's happened in this country when in the very mainstream, at the highest, most influential
levels of the political establishment, this kind of discourse is no longer considered an exception. It is the norm. We hear it daily
from MSNBC and CNN, from the New York Times and the Washington Post, that people who doubt the narrative of what's loosely called
Russiagate are somehow acting on behalf of or under the spell of the Kremlin, that we aren't Americans any longer. And by the way,
if people will say, " Well, it's a weak capitulation of McCarthyism, " I say no, it's much more than that because McCarthy
was obsessed with Communist. That was a much narrower concept than being obsessed with anybody who might be under Russian influence
of any kind. The so-called affinity for Russia. Well, I have a profound affinity for Russian culture and for Russian history. I study
it all the time. This is something new. And so, when you accuse a Republican or any Congressman of being a Kremlin agent, this has
become a commonplace. We are degraded.
The new Cold War is unfolding not far away from Russia, like the last in Berlin, but on Russia's borders in the Baltic and in
Ukraine. We are building up our military presence there, so the Russians are counter-building up, though within their territory.
That means the chances of hot war are now much greater than they were before. Meanwhile, not only do we not have a discussion of
these real dangers in the United States but anyone who wants to incite a discussion, including the President of the United States,
is called treasonous. Every time Trump has tried with Putin to reach a cooperative arrangement, for example, on fighting terrorism
in Syria, which is a necessary purpose, literally, the New York Times and the others call him treasonous. Whereas, in the old days,
the old Cold War, we had a robust discussion. There is none here. We have no alert system that's warning the American people and
its representatives how dangerous this is. And as we mentioned before, it's not only Nunes, it's a lot of people who are being called
Kremlin agents because they want to digress from the basic narrative.
Meanwhile, people in Moscow who formed their political establishment, who surround Putin and the Kremlin, I mean, the big brains
who are formed policy tankers, and who have always tended to be kind of pro-American, and very moderate, have simply come to the
conclusion that war is coming. They can't think of a single thing to tell the Kremlin to offset hawkish views in the Kremlin. Every
day, there's something new. And these were the people in Moscow who are daytime peacekeeping interlockers. They have been
destroyed by Russiagate. Their influence as Russia is zilch. And the McCarthyites in Russia, they have various terms, now
called the pro-American lobby in Russia 'fifth columnists'. This is the damage that's been done. There's never been anything like
this in my lifetime.
The Democrats couldn't had downgrade their party further. This disgusting spectacle would make FDR totally ashamed of what this party
has become. Not only they are voting for every pro-plutocracy GOP bill under Trump administration, but they have become champions
in bringing back a much worse and unpredictable Cold War that is dangerously escalating tension with Russia.
And, unfortunately,
even the most progressives of the Democrats are adopting the Russiagate bogus, like Bernie Sanders, because they know that if they
don't obey to the narratives, the DNC establishment will crush them politically in no time.
"... My predecessor Benedict XVI likewise proposed "eliminating the structural causes of the dysfunctions of the world economy and correcting models of growth which have proved incapable of ensuring respect for the environment". [10] He observed that the world cannot be analyzed by isolating only one of its aspects, since "the book of nature is one and indivisible", and includes the environment, life, sexuality, the family, social relations, and so forth. It follows that "the deterioration of nature is closely connected to the culture which shapes human coexistence" ..."
"... Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet, for "inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage", we are called to acknowledge "our contribution, smaller or greater, to the disfigurement and destruction of creation". [14] He has repeatedly stated this firmly and persuasively, challenging us to acknowledge our sins against creation: "For human beings to destroy the biological diversity of God's creation; for human beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes in its climate, by stripping the earth of its natural forests or destroying its wetlands; for human beings to contaminate the earth's waters, its land, its air, and its life – these are sins". [15] For "to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God". [16] ..."
"... He asks us to replace consumption with sacrifice, greed with generosity, wastefulness with a spirit of sharing, an asceticism which "entails learning to give, and not simply to give up. It is a way of loving, of moving gradually away from what I want to what God's world needs. It is liberation from fear, greed and compulsion". ..."
"... It is possible that we do not grasp the gravity of the challenges now before us. "The risk is growing day by day that man will not use his power as he should"; in effect, "power is never considered in terms of the responsibility of choice which is inherent in freedom" since its "only norms are taken from alleged necessity, from either utility or security". [85] But human beings are not completely autonomous. Our freedom fades when it is handed over to the blind forces of the unconscious, of immediate needs, of self-interest, and of violence. In this sense, we stand naked and exposed in the face of our ever-increasing power, lacking the wherewithal to control it. We have certain superficial mechanisms, but we cannot claim to have a sound ethics, a culture and spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and teaching clear-minded self-restraint. ..."
"... Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational. This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth's goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit. It is the false notion that "an infinite quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible to renew them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily absorbed". ..."
"... We have to accept that technological products are not neutral, for they create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping social possibilities along the lines dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups. Decisions which may seem purely instrumental are in reality decisions about the kind of society we want to build. ..."
"... Technology tends to absorb everything into its ironclad logic, and those who are surrounded with technology "know full well that it moves forward in the final analysis neither for profit nor for the well-being of the human race", that "in the most radical sense of the term power is its motive – a lordship over all". [87] As a result, "man seizes hold of the naked elements of both nature and human nature". [88] Our capacity to make decisions, a more genuine freedom and the space for each one's alternative creativity are diminished. ..."
"... At the same time, we have "a sort of 'superdevelopment' of a wasteful and consumerist kind which forms an unacceptable contrast with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation", [90] while we are all too slow in developing economic institutions and social initiatives which can give the poor regular access to basic resources. We fail to see the deepest roots of our present failures, which have to do with the direction, goals, meaning and social implications of technological and economic growth. ..."
"... The specialization which belongs to technology makes it difficult to see the larger picture. The fragmentation of knowledge proves helpful for concrete applications, and yet it often leads to a loss of appreciation for the whole, for the relationships between things, and for the broader horizon, which then becomes irrelevant. ..."
"... It becomes difficult to pause and recover depth in life. If architecture reflects the spirit of an age, our megastructures and drab apartment blocks express the spirit of globalized technology, where a constant flood of new products coexists with a tedious monotony. Let us refuse to resign ourselves to this, and continue to wonder about the purpose and meaning of everything. Otherwise we would simply legitimate the present situation and need new forms of escapism to help us endure the emptiness. ..."
"... All of this shows the urgent need for us to move forward in a bold cultural revolution. Science and technology are not neutral; from the beginning to the end of a process, various intentions and possibilities are in play and can take on distinct shapes. Nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age, but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way, to appropriate the positive and sustainable progress which has been made, but also to recover the values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained delusions of grandeur. ..."
"... Modern anthropocentrism has paradoxically ended up prizing technical thought over reality, since "the technological mind sees nature as an insensate order, as a cold body of facts, as a mere 'given', as an object of utility, as raw material to be hammered into useful shape; it views the cosmos similarly as a mere 'space' into which objects can be thrown with complete indifference" ..."
"... Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble ..."
"... This situation has led to a constant schizophrenia, wherein a technocracy which sees no intrinsic value in lesser beings coexists with the other extreme, which sees no special value in human beings. But one cannot prescind from humanity ..."
"... Nor must the critique of a misguided anthropocentrism underestimate the importance of interpersonal relations. If the present ecological crisis is one small sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity, we cannot presume to heal our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships. ..."
"... The culture of relativism is the same disorder which drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others as mere objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts. The same kind of thinking leads to the sexual exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests. ..."
"... We are convinced that "man is the source, the focus and the aim of all economic and social life". [100] Nonetheless, once our human capacity for contemplation and reverence is impaired, it becomes easy for the meaning of work to be misunderstood. [101] We need to remember that men and women have "the capacity to improve their lot, to further their moral growth and to develop their spiritual endowments". [102] Work should be the setting for this rich personal growth, where many aspects of life enter into play: creativity, planning for the future, developing our talents, living out our values, relating to others ..."
"... it is essential that "we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone", [103] no matter the limited interests of business and dubious economic reasoning. ..."
"... We were created with a vocation to work. The goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replace human work, for this would be detrimental to humanity. Work is a necessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal fulfilment. Helping the poor financially must always be a provisional solution in the face of pressing needs. The broader objective should always be to allow them a dignified life through work. ..."
"... The loss of jobs also has a negative impact on the economy "through the progressive erosion of social capital: the network of relationships of trust, dependability, and respect for rules, all of which are indispensable for any form of civil coexistence". [104] In other words, "human costs always include economic costs, and economic dysfunctions always involve human costs". [105] To stop investing in people, in order to gain greater short-term financial gain, is bad business for society. ..."
"... In order to continue providing employment, it is imperative to promote an economy which favours productive diversity and business creativity. For example, there is a great variety of small-scale food production systems which feed the greater part of the world's peoples, using a modest amount of land and producing less waste, be it in small agricultural parcels, in orchards and gardens, hunting and wild harvesting or local fishing. Economies of scale, especially in the agricultural sector, end up forcing smallholders to sell their land or to abandon their traditional crops. ..."
"... To ensure economic freedom from which all can effectively benefit, restraints occasionally have to be imposed on those possessing greater resources and financial power. To claim economic freedom while real conditions bar many people from actual access to it, and while possibilities for employment continue to shrink, is to practise a doublespeak which brings politics into disrepute. Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving our world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the areas in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good. ..."
6. My predecessor Benedict XVI likewise proposed
"eliminating the structural causes of the dysfunctions of the world economy and correcting models of growth which have proved incapable
of ensuring respect for the environment".[10]
He observed that the world cannot be analyzed by isolating only one of its aspects, since "the book of nature is one and indivisible",
and includes the environment, life, sexuality, the family, social relations, and so forth. It follows that "the deterioration of
nature is closely connected to the culture which shapes human coexistence".[11]
Pope Benedict asked us to recognize that the natural environment has been gravely damaged by our irresponsible behaviour. The social
environment has also suffered damage. Both are ultimately due to the same evil: the notion that there are no indisputable truths
to guide our lives, and hence human freedom is limitless. We have forgotten that "man is not only a freedom which he creates for
himself. Man does not create himself. He is spirit and will, but also nature".[12]
With paternal concern, Benedict urged us to realize that creation is harmed "where we ourselves have the final word, where everything
is simply our property and we use it for ourselves alone. The misuse of creation begins when we no longer recognize any higher instance
than ourselves, when we see nothing else but ourselves".[13]
United by the same concern
7. These statements of the Popes echo the reflections of numerous scientists, philosophers, theologians and civic groups, all
of which have enriched the Church's thinking on these questions. Outside the Catholic Church, other Churches and Christian communities
– and other religions as well – have expressed deep concern and offered valuable reflections on issues which all of us find disturbing.
To give just one striking example, I would mention the statements made by the beloved Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, with whom
we share the hope of full ecclesial communion.
8. Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet,
for "inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage", we are called to acknowledge "our contribution, smaller or greater, to
the disfigurement and destruction of creation".[14]
He has repeatedly stated this firmly and persuasively, challenging us to acknowledge our sins against creation: "For human beings
to destroy the biological diversity of God's creation; for human beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes
in its climate, by stripping the earth of its natural forests or destroying its wetlands; for human beings to contaminate the earth's
waters, its land, its air, and its life – these are sins".[15]
For "to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God".[16]
9. At the same time, Bartholomew has drawn attention to the ethical and spiritual roots of environmental problems, which require
that we look for solutions not only in technology but in a change of humanity; otherwise we would be dealing merely with symptoms.
He asks us to replace consumption with sacrifice, greed with generosity, wastefulness with a spirit of sharing, an asceticism
which "entails learning to give, and not simply to give up. It is a way of loving, of moving gradually away from what I want to what
God's world needs. It is liberation from fear, greed and compulsion".[17]
As Christians, we are also called "to accept the world as a sacrament of communion, as a way of sharing with God and our neighbours
on a global scale. It is our humble conviction that the divine and the human meet in the slightest detail in the seamless garment
of God's creation, in the last speck of dust of our planet".[18]
... ... ...
I. TECHNOLOGY: CREATIVITY AND POWER
... ... ...
105. There is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means "an increase of 'progress' itself", an advance in "security,
usefulness, welfare and vigour; an assimilation of new values into the stream of culture",[83]
as if reality, goodness and truth automatically flow from technological and economic power as such. The fact is that "contemporary
man has not been trained to use power well",[84]
because our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience.
Each age tends to have only a meagre awareness of its own limitations. It is possible that we do not grasp the gravity of the
challenges now before us. "The risk is growing day by day that man will not use his power as he should"; in effect, "power is never
considered in terms of the responsibility of choice which is inherent in freedom" since its "only norms are taken from alleged necessity,
from either utility or security".[85]
But human beings are not completely autonomous. Our freedom fades when it is handed over to the blind forces of the unconscious,
of immediate needs, of self-interest, and of violence. In this sense, we stand naked and exposed in the face of our ever-increasing
power, lacking the wherewithal to control it. We have certain superficial mechanisms, but we cannot claim to have a sound ethics,
a culture and spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and teaching clear-minded self-restraint.
II. THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM
106. The basic problem goes even deeper: it is the way that humanity has taken up technology and its development according
to an undifferentiated and one-dimensional paradigm. This paradigm exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational
procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over an external object. This subject makes every effort to establish the
scientific and experimental method, which in itself is already a technique of possession, mastery and transformation. It is as if
the subject were to find itself in the presence of something formless, completely open to manipulation. Men and women have constantly
intervened in nature, but for a long time this meant being in tune with and respecting the possibilities offered by the things themselves.
It was a matter of receiving what nature itself allowed, as if from its own hand. Now, by contrast, we are the ones to lay our hands
on things, attempting to extract everything possible from them while frequently ignoring or forgetting the reality in front of us.
Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational. This
has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts
in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth's goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed
dry beyond every limit. It is the false notion that "an infinite quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible
to renew them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily absorbed".[86]
107. It can be said that many problems of today's world stem from the tendency, at times unconscious, to make the method and aims
of science and technology an epistemological paradigm which shapes the lives of individuals and the workings of society. The effects
of imposing this model on reality as a whole, human and social, are seen in the deterioration of the environment, but this is just
one sign of a reductionism which affects every aspect of human and social life. We have to accept that technological products
are not neutral, for they create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping social possibilities along the lines
dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups. Decisions which may seem purely instrumental are in reality decisions about
the kind of society we want to build.
108. The idea of promoting a different cultural paradigm and employing technology as a mere instrument is nowadays inconceivable.
The technological paradigm has become so dominant that it would be difficult to do without its resources and even more difficult
to utilize them without being dominated by their internal logic. It has become countercultural to choose a lifestyle whose goals
are even partly independent of technology, of its costs and its power to globalize and make us all the same. Technology tends
to absorb everything into its ironclad logic, and those who are surrounded with technology "know full well that it moves forward
in the final analysis neither for profit nor for the well-being of the human race", that "in the most radical sense of the term power
is its motive – a lordship over all".[87]
As a result, "man seizes hold of the naked elements of both nature and human nature".[88]
Our capacity to make decisions, a more genuine freedom and the space for each one's alternative creativity are diminished.
109. The technocratic paradigm also tends to dominate economic and political life. The economy accepts every advance in technology
with a view to profit, without concern for its potentially negative impact on human beings. Finance overwhelms the real economy.
The lessons of the global financial crisis have not been assimilated, and we are learning all too slowly the lessons of environmental
deterioration. Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems, and argue, in popular
and non-technical terms, that the problems of global hunger and poverty will be resolved simply by market growth. They are less concerned
with certain economic theories which today scarcely anybody dares defend, than with their actual operation in the functioning of
the economy. They may not affirm such theories with words, but nonetheless support them with their deeds by showing no interest in
more balanced levels of production, a better distribution of wealth, concern for the environment and the rights of future generations.
Their behaviour shows that for them maximizing profits is enough. Yet by itself the market cannot guarantee integral human development
and social inclusion.[89]At the same time, we have "a sort of 'superdevelopment' of a wasteful and consumerist kind which forms an unacceptable contrast
with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation",[90]
while we are all too slow in developing economic institutions and social initiatives which can give the poor regular access to basic
resources. We fail to see the deepest roots of our present failures, which have to do with the direction, goals, meaning and social
implications of technological and economic growth.
110. The specialization which belongs to technology makes it difficult to see the larger picture. The fragmentation of knowledge
proves helpful for concrete applications, and yet it often leads to a loss of appreciation for the whole, for the relationships between
things, and for the broader horizon, which then becomes irrelevant. This very fact makes it hard to find adequate ways of solving
the more complex problems of today's world, particularly those regarding the environment and the poor; these problems cannot be dealt
with from a single perspective or from a single set of interests. A science which would offer solutions to the great issues would
necessarily have to take into account the data generated by other fields of knowledge, including philosophy and social ethics; but
this is a difficult habit to acquire today. Nor are there genuine ethical horizons to which one can appeal. Life gradually becomes
a surrender to situations conditioned by technology, itself viewed as the principal key to the meaning of existence. In the concrete
situation confronting us, there are a number of symptoms which point to what is wrong, such as environmental degradation, anxiety,
a loss of the purpose of life and of community living. Once more we see that "realities are more important than ideas".[91]
111. Ecological culture cannot be reduced to a series of urgent and partial responses to the immediate problems of pollution,
environmental decay and the depletion of natural resources. There needs to be a distinctive way of looking at things, a way of thinking,
policies, an educational programme, a lifestyle and a spirituality which together generate resistance to the assault of the technocratic
paradigm. Otherwise, even the best ecological initiatives can find themselves caught up in the same globalized logic. To seek only
a technical remedy to each environmental problem which comes up is to separate what is in reality interconnected and to mask the
true and deepest problems of the global system.
112. Yet we can once more broaden our vision. We have the freedom needed to limit and direct technology; we can put it at the
service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral. Liberation from the dominant
technocratic paradigm does in fact happen sometimes, for example, when cooperatives of small producers adopt less polluting means
of production, and opt for a non-consumerist model of life, recreation and community. Or when technology is directed primarily to
resolving people's concrete problems, truly helping them live with more dignity and less suffering. Or indeed when the desire to
create and contemplate beauty manages to overcome reductionism through a kind of salvation which occurs in beauty and in those who
behold it. An authentic humanity, calling for a new synthesis, seems to dwell in the midst of our technological culture, almost unnoticed,
like a mist seeping gently beneath a closed door. Will the promise last, in spite of everything, with all that is authentic rising
up in stubborn resistance?
113. There is also the fact that people no longer seem to believe in a happy future; they no longer have blind trust in a better
tomorrow based on the present state of the world and our technical abilities. There is a growing awareness that scientific and technological
progress cannot be equated with the progress of humanity and history, a growing sense that the way to a better future lies elsewhere.
This is not to reject the possibilities which technology continues to offer us. But humanity has changed profoundly, and the accumulation
of constant novelties exalts a superficiality which pulls us in one direction. It becomes difficult to pause and recover depth
in life. If architecture reflects the spirit of an age, our megastructures and drab apartment blocks express the spirit of globalized
technology, where a constant flood of new products coexists with a tedious monotony. Let us refuse to resign ourselves to this, and
continue to wonder about the purpose and meaning of everything. Otherwise we would simply legitimate the present situation and need
new forms of escapism to help us endure the emptiness.
114. All of this shows the urgent need for us to move forward in a bold cultural revolution. Science and technology are not
neutral; from the beginning to the end of a process, various intentions and possibilities are in play and can take on distinct shapes.
Nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age, but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way, to appropriate
the positive and sustainable progress which has been made, but also to recover the values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained
delusions of grandeur.
III. THE CRISIS AND EFFECTS OF MODERN ANTHROPOCENTRISM
115. Modern anthropocentrism has paradoxically ended up prizing technical thought over reality, since "the technological mind
sees nature as an insensate order, as a cold body of facts, as a mere 'given', as an object of utility, as raw material to be hammered
into useful shape; it views the cosmos similarly as a mere 'space' into which objects can be thrown with complete indifference".[92]
The intrinsic dignity of the world is thus compromised. When human beings fail to find their true place in this world, they misunderstand
themselves and end up acting against themselves: "Not only has God given the earth to man, who must use it with respect for the original
good purpose for which it was given, but, man too is God's gift to man. He must therefore respect the natural and moral structure
with which he has been endowed".[93]
116. Modernity has been marked by an excessive anthropocentrism which today, under another guise, continues to stand in the way
of shared understanding and of any effort to strengthen social bonds. The time has come to pay renewed attention to reality and the
limits it imposes; this in turn is the condition for a more sound and fruitful development of individuals and society. An inadequate
presentation of Christian anthropology gave rise to a wrong understanding of the relationship between human beings and the world.
Often, what was handed on was a Promethean vision of mastery over the world, which gave the impression that the protection of nature
was something that only the faint-hearted cared about. Instead, our "dominion" over the universe should be understood more properly
in the sense of responsible stewardship.[94]
117. Neglecting to monitor the harm done to nature and the environmental impact of our decisions is only the most striking sign
of a disregard for the message contained in the structures of nature itself. When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth
of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes difficult to hear the cry
of nature itself; everything is connected. Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute
dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble, for "instead of carrying out his role as a cooperator with God
in the work of creation, man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature".[95]
118. This situation has led to a constant schizophrenia, wherein a technocracy which sees no intrinsic value in lesser beings
coexists with the other extreme, which sees no special value in human beings. But one cannot prescind from humanity. There can
be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself. There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology.
When the human person is considered as simply one being among others, the product of chance or physical determinism, then "our overall
sense of responsibility wanes".[96]
A misguided anthropocentrism need not necessarily yield to "biocentrism", for that would entail adding yet another imbalance, failing
to solve present problems and adding new ones. Human beings cannot be expected to feel responsibility for the world unless, at the
same time, their unique capacities of knowledge, will, freedom and responsibility are recognized and valued.
119. Nor must the critique of a misguided anthropocentrism underestimate the importance of interpersonal relations. If the
present ecological crisis is one small sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity, we cannot presume to heal
our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships. Christian thought sees
human beings as possessing a particular dignity above other creatures; it thus inculcates esteem for each person and respect for
others. Our openness to others, each of whom is a "thou" capable of knowing, loving and entering into dialogue, remains the source
of our nobility as human persons. A correct relationship with the created world demands that we not weaken this social dimension
of openness to others, much less the transcendent dimension of our openness to the "Thou" of God. Our relationship with the environment
can never be isolated from our relationship with others and with God. Otherwise, it would be nothing more than romantic individualism
dressed up in ecological garb, locking us into a stifling immanence.
120. Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion.
How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be,
if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? "If personal and social sensitivity
towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away".[97]
121. We need to develop a new synthesis capable of overcoming the false arguments of recent centuries. Christianity, in fidelity
to its own identity and the rich deposit of truth which it has received from Jesus Christ, continues to reflect on these issues in
fruitful dialogue with changing historical situations. In doing so, it reveals its eternal newness.[98]
Practical relativism
122. A misguided anthropocentrism leads to a misguided lifestyle. In the Apostolic Exhortation
Evangelii Gaudium, I noted that the practical relativism typical of our age is "even more dangerous than doctrinal relativism".[99]
When human beings place themselves at the centre, they give absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative.
Hence we should not be surprised to find, in conjunction with the omnipresent technocratic paradigm and the cult of unlimited human
power, the rise of a relativism which sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one's own immediate interests. There is a logic
in all this whereby different attitudes can feed on one another, leading to environmental degradation and social decay.
123. The culture of relativism is the same disorder which drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others
as mere objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts. The same kind of thinking leads to the sexual
exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests. It is also the mindset of those who
say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as
collateral damage. In the absence of objective truths or sound principles other than the satisfaction of our own desires and immediate
needs, what limits can be placed on human trafficking, organized crime, the drug trade, commerce in blood diamonds and the fur of
endangered species? Is it not the same relativistic logic which justifies buying the organs of the poor for resale or use in experimentation,
or eliminating children because they are not what their parents wanted? This same "use and throw away" logic generates so much waste,
because of the disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary. We should not think that political efforts or the
force of law will be sufficient to prevent actions which affect the environment because, when the culture itself is corrupt and objective
truth and universally valid principles are no longer upheld, then laws can only be seen as arbitrary impositions or obstacles to
be avoided.
The need to protect employment
124. Any approach to an integral ecology, which by definition does not exclude human beings, needs to take account of the value
of labour, as Saint John Paul II wisely noted in his Encyclical
Laborem Exercens. According to the biblical account of creation, God placed man and woman in the garden he had created (cf.
Gen 2:15) not only to preserve it ("keep") but also to make it fruitful ("till"). Labourers and craftsmen thus "maintain the
fabric of the world" (Sir 38:34). Developing the created world in a prudent way is the best way of caring for it, as this
means that we ourselves become the instrument used by God to bring out the potential which he himself inscribed in things: "The Lord
created medicines out of the earth, and a sensible man will not despise them" (Sir 38:4).
125. If we reflect on the proper relationship between human beings and the world around us, we see the need for a correct understanding
of work; if we talk about the relationship between human beings and things, the question arises as to the meaning and purpose of
all human activity. This has to do not only with manual or agricultural labour but with any activity involving a modification of
existing reality, from producing a social report to the design of a technological development. Underlying every form of work is a
concept of the relationship which we can and must have with what is other than ourselves. Together with the awe-filled contemplation
of creation which we find in Saint Francis of Assisi, the Christian spiritual tradition has also developed a rich and balanced understanding
of the meaning of work, as, for example, in the life of Blessed Charles de Foucauld and his followers.
126. We can also look to the great tradition of monasticism. Originally, it was a kind of flight from the world, an escape from
the decadence of the cities. The monks sought the desert, convinced that it was the best place for encountering the presence of God.
Later, Saint Benedict of Norcia proposed that his monks live in community, combining prayer and spiritual reading with manual labour
(ora et labora). Seeing manual labour as spiritually meaningful proved revolutionary. Personal growth and sanctification came
to be sought in the interplay of recollection and work. This way of experiencing work makes us more protective and respectful of
the environment; it imbues our relationship to the world with a healthy sobriety.
127. We are convinced that "man is the source, the focus and the aim of all economic and social life".[100]
Nonetheless, once our human capacity for contemplation and reverence is impaired, it becomes easy for the meaning of work to be misunderstood.[101]
We need to remember that men and women have "the capacity to improve their lot, to further their moral growth and to develop their
spiritual endowments".[102]
Work should be the setting for this rich personal growth, where many aspects of life enter into play: creativity, planning for the
future, developing our talents, living out our values, relating to others, giving glory to God. It follows that, in the reality
of today's global society, it is essential that "we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone",[103]
no matter the limited interests of business and dubious economic reasoning.
128. We were created with a vocation to work. The goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replace human
work, for this would be detrimental to humanity. Work is a necessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth,
human development and personal fulfilment. Helping the poor financially must always be a provisional solution in the face of pressing
needs. The broader objective should always be to allow them a dignified life through work. Yet the orientation of the economy
has favoured a kind of technological progress in which the costs of production are reduced by laying off workers and replacing them
with machines. This is yet another way in which we can end up working against ourselves. The loss of jobs also has a negative
impact on the economy "through the progressive erosion of social capital: the network of relationships of trust, dependability, and
respect for rules, all of which are indispensable for any form of civil coexistence".[104]
In other words, "human costs always include economic costs, and economic dysfunctions always involve human costs".[105]
To stop investing in people, in order to gain greater short-term financial gain, is bad business for society.
129. In order to continue providing employment, it is imperative to promote an economy which favours productive diversity
and business creativity. For example, there is a great variety of small-scale food production systems which feed the greater part
of the world's peoples, using a modest amount of land and producing less waste, be it in small agricultural parcels, in orchards
and gardens, hunting and wild harvesting or local fishing. Economies of scale, especially in the agricultural sector, end up forcing
smallholders to sell their land or to abandon their traditional crops. Their attempts to move to other, more diversified, means
of production prove fruitless because of the difficulty of linkage with regional and global markets, or because the infrastructure
for sales and transport is geared to larger businesses. Civil authorities have the right and duty to adopt clear and firm measures
in support of small producers and differentiated production. To ensure economic freedom from which all can effectively benefit,
restraints occasionally have to be imposed on those possessing greater resources and financial power. To claim economic freedom while
realconditions bar many people from actual access to it, and while possibilities for employment continue to shrink, is to
practise a doublespeak which brings politics into disrepute. Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving
our world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the areas in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs
as an essential part of its service to the common good.
New biological technologies
130. In the philosophical and theological vision of the human being and of creation which I have presented, it is clear that the
human person, endowed with reason and knowledge, is not an external factor to be excluded. While human intervention on plants and
animals is permissible when it pertains to the necessities of human life, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that
experimentation on animals is morally acceptable only "if it remains within reasonable limits [and] contributes to caring for or
saving human lives".[106]
The Catechism firmly states that human power has limits and that "it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer
or die needlessly".[107]
All such use and experimentation "requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation".[108]
"... Generally speaking, neoliberalism is a set of social, cultural, and political-economic forces that puts competition at the center of social life. According to neoliberalism, government's charge is not the care and security of citizens, but rather the promotion of market competition. In the neoliberal imagination, public social infrastructures (such as social security, unemployment benefits, public education) are believed to squash entrepreneurialism and individualism and breed dependency and bureaucracy. ..."
"... Gramsci's question is still pressing: How and why do ordinary working folks come to accept a system where wealth is produced by their collective labors and energies but appropriated individually by only a few at the top? The theory of hegemony suggests that the answer to this question is not simply a matter of direct exploitation and control by the capitalist class. Rather, hegemony posits that power is maintained through ongoing, ever-shifting cultural processes of winning the consent of the governed, that is, ordinary people like you and me. ..."
"... As Figure 1.1 shows, neoliberal hegemony works to erase this line between public and private and to create an entire society -- in fact, an entire world -- based on private, market competition. In this way, neoliberalism represents a radical reinvention of liberalism and thus of the horizons of hegemonic struggle. Crucially, within neoliberalism, the state's function does not go away; rather, it is deconstructed and reconstructed tow ard the new' end of expanding private markets. ..."
"... At this point, neoliberalism was still swimming upstream, as the postwar era ushered in a new' conjuncture that David Harvey calls embedded liberalism. ..."
"... Embedded liberalism was premised on a "class compromise" between the interests of workers and those of capitalists. In the name of peace, general prosperity, and global capitalism, a hegemonic consensus emerged "that the state should focus on full employment, economic growth, and the welfare of its citizens, and that state power should be freely deployed, alongside of or, if necessary, intervening in or even substituting for market processes to achieve these ends." 4 ..."
"... Neoliberalism developed largely as a coordinated political response to the hegemony of embedded liberalism. As Harvey explains, it was a project "to disembed capital from these constraints." 6 Indeed, the struggle for neoliberal hegemony waged a robust and successful class war on the "compromise" of embedded liberalism by developing, promoting, and implementing a new version of individual-liberty liberalism. ..."
"... As the system of embedded liberalism was taking root and establishing its dominance in national and international affairs, neoliberals were working on the ground: creating think tanks, forging political alliances, and infiltrating universities. During this second phase, neoliberalism emerged as a "thought collective": a "multilevel, multiphase, multi-sector approach to the building of political capacity to incubate, critique, and promulgate ideas." 7 ..."
"... The Neoliberal Thought Collective, as Philip Mirowski coined it, was a vertically integrated network of organizations and people focused on radically shifting the [concensus. ] ..."
Generally speaking, neoliberalism is a set of social, cultural, and political-economic forces that puts competition at the
center of social life. According to neoliberalism, government's charge is not the care and security of citizens, but rather the promotion
of market competition. In the neoliberal imagination, public social infrastructures (such as social security, unemployment benefits,
public education) are believed to squash entrepreneurialism and individualism and breed dependency and bureaucracy.
Competition, on the other hand, is heralded to ensure efficiency and incite creativity. Spurred by competition, individuals, organizations,
companies, and even the government itself, will seek to optimize and innovate, creating a truly free social world where the best
people and ideas come out on top. Put a little differently, neoliberalism aims to create a market-based society, where there are
only competing private enterprises.
Since the late 1970s, neoliberal ideas have increasingly guided the policies and practices of governments and other social institutions,
and as a result, we have come to live in competition with ourselves, others, and our social world.
...In a neoliberal society, the capitalist market is no longer imagined as a distinct arena where goods are valued and exchanged;
rather, the market is, or ideally should be, the basis for all human activities.
...We are necessarily interdependent beings, vulnerable and connected to one another, as our lives are supported and made possible
by a number of infrastructures (e.g., schools, roads and bridges, communication) that bring us into relation with one another.
We need each other. We need social cooperation and a commitment to a common, collective good if we are all going to make it in
this world.
Neoliberalism and its diffusion of competition throughout society make the infrastructures that undergird our lives profoundly
unstable, while simultaneously diminishing our senses of interdependence and social connection. As we will see, living in competition
paradoxically undercuts what enables our lives -- that is, our social connections and infrastructures -- while telling us to assume
more and more responsibility through self-enclosed individualism, thereby squashing our capacities for coming together, trusting
and caring for each other, and organizing for social change.
... ... ...
In a culture composed ot anxious, sell-enclosed individuals, where market competition defines all of social life, we need now,
more than ever, to see the social constructedness of our identities, worlds, and everyday lives. For neoliberalism's culture of living
in competition is so entrenched that only a cultural studies perspective can produce the forms of knowledge we need to imagine and
build new worlds. Indeed, a cultural studies perspective understands that possibilities of resistance and transformation are everywhere.
As Grossberg puts it,
power is never able to totalize itself. There are always fissures and fault lines that may become the active sites of change.
Power never quite accomplishes everything it might like to everywhere, and there is always the possibility of changing the structures
and organization of power.7
See, here's the thing; there's a gigantic paradox at the heart of neoliberal culture. On one hand, as we will see, neoliberalism
presents itself as a totalizing situation where resistance and transformation seem impossible, as living in competition has come
to define all aspects of our lives. On the other hand, though, neoliberalism's power over our lives is incredibly tenuous; for, as
mentioned earlier, I am convinced that most of us are yearning for a vastly different world, one that is built upon and nurtures
our interdependencies and shared vulnerabilities, not self-enclosed individualism and living in competition.
... ... ...
1 should note that, within academia, neoliberalism is a controversial term. Scholars continue to debate its usefulness. On one
hand, for some, neoliberalism is a buzzword, a catchphrase; it is a term that is so often repeated and invoked that it has lost its
meaning. According to these critiques, neoliberalism is presented as a scary monster that is everywhere and nowhere all at once.
It has come to figure as shorthand for everything that is evil in our world, and as a result, it ends up teaching us very little
about what specifically is wrong, how exactly we got here, and what actually can be done to change course. Thus, many scholars advocate
not using the term at all. On the other hand, other scholars prefer not to use the term because they argue that it is misleading.
For them, neoliberalism is simply an advanced form of liberal capitalism. There's nothing really new or neo here, so why overstate
and confuse things with the prefix?
However, despite these critiques, I hang onto the term neoliberalism. My wager in doing so is that writing this book as a critical
study of neoliberal culture gives us a way to map our current conjuncture. It allows us to hold together the "specific ensemble of
social, cultural, and economic forces" at work in our world and, thus, to locate our lives in interrelation with those of others.
Indeed, I have found during my work with students over the years that studying neoliberalism enables us to see our interconnectedness
and the new ways of living that sensing our interconnectedness opens up. We all suffer when we're forced to live in competition as
self-enclosed individuals. Studying the neoliberal conjuncture allows us to clearly identify the roots of our suffering, and to tr
ace our connections with others who are also suffering, although often in variegated ways. In other words, when w'e map our conjuncture,
we can see how our different lives are lived on common ground, which is a crucial step to creating a world beyond competition.
At this point, you might have a sense of what neoliberalism is, but you're probably still fuzzy on the details. This chapter starts
to clear things up by charting the making of our neoliberal conjuncture. By tracing the history and development of neoliberalism,
we will leant how competition came to be the driving force in our everyday lives. Specifically, we will examine the rise of neoliberal
hegemony in four phases.
Table 1.1 Four Phases of Neoliberalism
Phase I 1920-1950 Theoretical innovation
Phase II 1950-1980 Organizing, institution building, and knowledge production
Phase III 1980-2000 Crisis management and policy implementation
Phase IV 2000 -- Present Crisis ordinariness and precarity
As we will see, neoliberalism is far from natur and necessary; rather, it represents a clear political project that was organized,
struggled for, and won.
A NEW HEGEMONY
We begin our investigation with a historical account of the rise of neoliberal hegemony. Hegemony is a concept developed by Italian
Marxist Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci was keen to account for the definitive role that culture played in legitimizing and sustaining capitalism
and its exploitation of the working classes. In our own context of extreme economic inequality, Gramsci's question is still pressing:
How and why do ordinary working folks come to accept a system where wealth is produced by their collective labors and energies but
appropriated individually by only a few at the top? The theory of hegemony suggests that the answer to this question is not simply
a matter of direct exploitation and control by the capitalist class. Rather, hegemony posits that power is maintained through ongoing,
ever-shifting cultural processes of winning the consent of the governed, that is, ordinary people like you and me.
In other words, if we want to really understand why and how phenomena like inequality and exploitation exist, we have to attend
to the particular, contingent, and often contradictory ways in which culture gets mobilized to forward the interests and power of
the ruling classes. According to Gramsci, there was not one ruling class, but rather a historical bloc, "a moving equilibrium" of
class interests and values. Hegemony names a cultural struggle for moral, social, economic, and political leadership; in this struggle,
a field -- or assemblage -- of practices, discourses, values, and beliefs come to be dominant. While this field is powerful and firmly
entrenched, it is also open to contestation. In other words, hegemonic power is always on the move; it has to keep winning our consent
to survive, and sometimes it fails to do so.
Through the lens of hegemony, we can think about the rise of neoliberalism as an ongoing political project -- and class struggle
-- to shift society's political equilibrium and create a new dominant field. Specifically, we are going to trace the shift from liberal
to neoliberal hegemony. This shift is represented in the two images below.
Previous versions of liberal hegemony imagined society to be divided into distinct public and private spheres. The public sphere
was the purview of the state, and its role was to ensure the formal rights and freedoms of citizens through the rule of law. The
private sphere included the economy and the domestic sphere of home and family.
For the most part, liberal hegemony was animated by a commitment to limited government, as the goal was to allow for as much freedom
in trade, associations, and civil society as possible, while preserving social order and individual rights. Politics took shape largely
around the line between public and private; more precisely, it was a struggle over where and how to draw the line. In other words,
within the field of liberal hegemony, politics was a question of how to define the uses and limits of the state and its public function
in a capitalist society. Of course, political parties often disagreed passionately about where and how to draw that line. As we'll
see below, many advocated for laissez-faire capitalism, while others argued for a greater public role in ensuring the health, happiness,
and rights of citizens. What's crucial though is that everyone agreed that there was a line to be drawn, and that there was a public
function for the state.
As Figure 1.1 shows, neoliberal hegemony works to erase this line between public and private and to create an entire society
-- in fact, an entire world -- based on private, market competition. In this way, neoliberalism represents a radical reinvention
of liberalism and thus of the horizons of hegemonic struggle. Crucially, within neoliberalism, the state's function does not go away;
rather, it is deconstructed and reconstructed tow ard the new' end of expanding private markets.
Consequently, contemporary politics take shape around questions of how best to promote competition. For the most part, politics
on both the left and right have been subsumed by neoliberal hegemony. For example, while neoliberalism made its debut in Western
politics with the right-wing administrations of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, leaders associated with the left have worked
to further neoliberal hegemony in stunning ways. As we will explore in more depth below and in die coming chapters, both U.S. presidents
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have governed to create a privatized, market society. In other words, there is both a left and a right
hegemonic horizon of neoliberalism. Thus, moving beyond neoliberalism will ultimately require a whole new field of politics.
It is important to see that the gradual shift from liberal to neoliberal hegemony was not inevitable or natural, nor was it easy.
Rather, what we now r call neoliberalism is the effect of a sustained hegemonic struggle over the course of the twentieth
and twentyfirst centuries to construct and maintain a new political equilibrium. Simply put, neoliberalism was, and continues to
be, struggled over, fought for, and w'on.
In Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliheral Politics, Daniel Stedman Jones charts the history of
the neoliberal project in three phases. The first phase saw the development of neoliberal ideas and philosophies in Europe during
the years between World War I and World War II, as a relatively small group of economists (including most notably those from Austria,
Germany, and France), wrestling with the rise of fascism, communism, and socialism, sought to envision a new liberal society that
would protect individual liberties and free markets. The second phase w as a period of institution building, knowledge production,
and organizing that enabled neoliberalism to cultivate a powerful base in culture and politics, especially in the U.S. and United
Kingdom. During this phase, neoliberalism developed into a "thought collective" and full-fledged political movement. In the third
phase, neoliberal ideas migrated from the margins to the center of political life as they came to shape global trade and development
suggested by the theory of hegemony, none of these phases were neat and clean; each was shot through with struggle and contingency.
1 am adding a fourth phase, which is the focus of this book. Here neoliberalism is not only a set of economic policies and political
discourses, but also a deeply entrenched sensibility of w ho we are and can become and of what is possible to do, both individually
and collectively. It is what Raymond Williams called "a structure of feeling." Thanks to a convergence of different social, economic,
and cultural forces, which we will explore throughout the following chapters, competition has become fully embedded in our lifeworlds:
it is our culture, our conjuncture, the air we breathe. More specifically, this fourth phase is characterized by widespread precarity,
where crisis becomes ordinary, a constant feature of everyday life. As we will learn in coming chapters, we are prompted to confront
the precarity neoliberalism brings to our lives with more neoliberalism, that is, with living in competition and self-enclosed individualism.
PHASE I: THEORETICAL INNOVATION
The Crisis of Liberalism and the Birth of the Social Welfare State
Neoliberalism emerged out of the crisis of liberalism that ultimately came to a head in the early twentieth century. It is crucial
to understand that liberal hegemony was never a coherent, unified phenomenon. Rather, it developed around a central political antagonism.
On one side were those who championed individual liberty (especially private property rights and free markets) above all else. They
argued against government intervention in private life, especially in the market. On the other side, social reformers believed that
government should be pursued for the common good and not just for individual liberties. In the decades leading up to the Great Depression,
it became clear that the individual-liberty side, which had long been dominant, was inadequate for managing huge transformations
in capitalism that were underway. These transformations included industrialization, urbanization, and internationalization, as well
as the rise of large-scale corporate firms that squeezed smaller market actors. Huge gaps formed between the political-economic elite,
the middle classes, and the poor. Simply put, liberalism was in crisis.
During this time of social, cultural, and economic upheaval, those espousing the common good gained political ground. Specifically,
the misery and devastation of the Great Depression solidified the gains for social reformers, opening a new era where a new, common-good
liberalism began to prevail. In the United States, President Franklin
Roosevelt's administration passed a comprehensive set of social policies designed to protect individuals from the unpredictable
and often brutal operations of capitalism. These included the following:
Reforming banking: The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 set up regulatory agencies to provide oversight to the stock markets
and financial sector, while enforcing the separation of commercial banking and speculative investment. Simply put, banks couldn't
gamble with your savings and future.
Strengthening labor: In 1935, the National Recovery Administration and the National Labor Relations Act were passed
to recognize labor unions and the rights of workers to organize. At the same time, the administration spurred employment through
the Public Works Administration, the Civil Works Administration, and the Works Progress Administration, while guaranteeing workers
a dignified retirement with the Social Security Act of 1935.
Promoting housing: A range of programs, policies, and agencies were established, including the Federal Housing Administration
and the U.S. Housing Authority, to encourage homeownership and provide housing to the poor and homeless. 1
Taken together, these policies marked the birth of the so-called social welfare state, albeit one that was limited in scope and
often highly exclusionary in practice. For example, a universal health care program was never realized. Many social groups, including
African-Americans, migrant farm workers, and women, were prohibited by law from receiving federal benefits such as social security
or unemployment. 3 Additionally, institutional racism plagued (as it still does) housing and banking institutions.
The Walter Lippmann Colloquium and the Birth of Neoliberalism
It is helpful to trace the emergence of our neoliberal conjuncture back to this moment where the common good was starting to win
the day via the establishment of a limited and exclusionary social welfare state. For, despite the fact that these social welfare
policies effectively "saved" capitalism from destroying itself, the individual-liberty side was deeply troubled. They feared that
a new and established the Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) in 1947 to continue the work of dreaming up a new individual-liberty liberalism.
At this point, neoliberalism was still swimming upstream, as the postwar era ushered in a new' conjuncture that David Harvey
calls embedded liberalism.
Embedded liberalism was premised on a "class compromise" between the interests of workers and those of capitalists. In the
name of peace, general prosperity, and global capitalism, a hegemonic consensus emerged "that the state should focus on full employment,
economic growth, and the welfare of its citizens, and that state power should be freely deployed, alongside of or, if necessary,
intervening in or even substituting for market processes to achieve these ends." 4
A central piece of the embedded liberal compromise was the Bretton Woods Accord, which attempted to stabilize the global economy
by re-fixing currency rates to the gold standard. The idea was that national economies shouldn't be threatened by currency speculation
in the financial markets. All this meant that an infrastructure emerged to protect citizens' economic and social security. To ensure
the common good, capitalism must be embedded within "a web of social and political constraints." 5
Neoliberalism developed largely as a coordinated political response to the hegemony of embedded liberalism. As Harvey explains,
it was a project "to disembed capital from these constraints." 6 Indeed, the struggle for neoliberal hegemony waged a
robust and successful class war on the "compromise" of embedded liberalism by developing, promoting, and implementing a new version
of individual-liberty liberalism.
The Neoliberal Thought Collective
As the system of embedded liberalism was taking root and establishing its dominance in national and international affairs,
neoliberals were working on the ground: creating think tanks, forging political alliances, and infiltrating universities. During
this second phase, neoliberalism emerged as a "thought collective": a "multilevel, multiphase, multi-sector approach to the building
of political capacity to incubate, critique, and promulgate ideas." 7
The Neoliberal Thought Collective, as Philip Mirowski coined it, was a vertically integrated network of organizations and
people focused on radically shifting the [concensus. ]
"... Mirowski identifies three basic aspects of neoliberalism that the Left has failed to understand: the movement's intellectual history, the way it has transformed everyday life, and what constitutes opposition to it. Until we come to terms with them, Mirowski suggests, right-wing movements such as the Tea Party (a prominent player in the book) will continue to reign triumphant. ..."
"... Joining a long line of thinkers, most famously Karl Polanyi, Mirowski insists that a key error of the Left has been its failure to see that markets are always embedded in other social institutions. Neoliberals, by contrast, grasp this point with both hands -- and therefore seek to reshape all of the institutions of society, including and especially the state, to promote markets. Neoliberal ascendancy has meant not the retreat of the state so much as its remaking. ..."
"... he also recognizes that the neoliberals themselves have been canny about keeping the real nature of their project hidden through a variety of means. Neoliberal institutions tend to have what he calls a "Russian doll" structure, with the most central ones well hidden from public eyes. Mirowski coins an ironic expression, "the Neoliberal Thought Collective," for the innermost entities that formulate the movement's doctrine. The venerable Mont Pelerin Society is an NTC institution. Its ideas are frequently disseminated through venues which, formally at least, are unconnected to the center, such as academic economics departments. Thus, neoclassical economists spread the gospel of the free market while the grand project of remaking the state falls to others. ..."
"... At the same time as neoliberal commonsense trickles down from above, Mirowski argues that it also wells up from below, reinforced by our daily patterns of life. Social networking sites like Facebook encourage people to view themselves as perpetual cultural entrepreneurs, striving to offer a newer and better version of themselves to the world. Sites like LinkedIn prod their users to present themselves as a fungible basket of skills, adjustable to the needs of any employer, without any essential characteristics beyond a requisite subservience. Classical liberalism always assumes the coherent individual self as its basic unit. Neoliberalism, by contrast, sees people as little more than variable bundles of human capital, with no permanent interests or even attributes that cannot be remade through the market. For Mirowski, the proliferation of these forms of everyday neoliberalism constitute a "major reason the neoliberals have emerged from the crisis triumphant." ..."
"... Finally, Mirowski argues that the Left has too often been sucked in by neoliberalism's loyal opposition. Figures like Joseph Stiglitz or Paul Krugman, while critical of austerity and supportive of the welfare state, accept the fundamental neoclassical economic precepts at the heart of neoliberal policy. Mirowski argues that we must ditch this tradition in its entirety. Even attempts to render its assumptions more realistic -- as in the case of behavioral economics, for example, which takes account of the ways real people diverge from the hyperrationality of homo economicus -- provide little succor for those seeking to overturn the neoliberals. ..."
"... Mirowski's insistence on the centrality of the state to the neoliberal project helps correct the unfortunate tendency of many leftists over the past decade to assent to neoliberal nostrums about the obsolescence of the state. Indeed, Mirowski goes further than many other critics who have challenged the supposed retreat of the state under neoliberalism. ..."
"... Loïc Wacquant, for instance, has described the "centaur state" of neoliberalism, in which a humanist liberalism reigns for the upper classes, while the lower classes face the punitive state apparatus in all its bestiality. ..."
"... Mirowski shows us that the world of the rich under neoliberalism in no way corresponds to the laissez-faire of classical liberalism. The state does not so much leave the rich alone as actively work to reshape the world in their interests, helping to create markets for the derivatives and securities that made (and then destroyed) so many of the fortunes of the recent past. The neoliberal state is an eminently interventionist one, and those mistaking it for the austere nightwatchman of libertarian utopianism have little hope of combating it. ..."
"... Mirowski's concern to disabuse his readers of the notion that the wing of neoliberal doctrine disseminated by neoclassical economists could ever be reformed produces some of the best sections of the book. His portrait of an economics profession in haggard disarray in the aftermath of the crisis is both comic and tragic, as the amusement value of the buffoonery on display diminishes quickly when one realizes the prestige still accorded to these figures. Reading his comprehensive examination of the discipline's response to the crisis, one is reminded of Freud's famous broken kettle. The professional economists' account of their role in the crisis went something like (a) there was no bubble and (b) bubbles are impossible to predict but (c) we knew it was a bubble all along. ..."
"... Though Krugman and Stiglitz have attacked concepts like the efficient markets hypothesis (which holds that prices in a competitive financial market reflect all relevant economic information), Mirowski argues that their attempt to do so while retaining the basic theoretical architecture of neoclassicism has rendered them doubly ineffective. ..."
"... First, their adoption of the battery of assumptions that accompany most neoclassical theorizing -- about representative agents, treating information like any other commodity, and so on -- make it nearly impossible to conclusively rebut arguments like the efficient markets hypothesis. ..."
To understand how a body of thought became an era of capitalism requires more than intellectual
history.
"What is going to come after neoliberalism?" It was the question on many radicals' lips, present
writer included, after the financial crisis hit in 2008. Though few were so sanguine about our prospects
as to repeat the suicidal optimism of previous radical movements ("After Hitler, Our Turn!"), the
feeling of the day was that the era of unfettered marketization was coming to a close. A new period
of what was loosely referred to as Keynesianism would be the inevitable result of a crisis caused
by markets run amok.
Five years later, little has changed. What comes after neoliberalism? More neoliberalism, apparently.
The prospects for a revived Left capable of confronting it appear grim.
Enter Philip Mirowski's Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived
the Financial Meltdown . Mirowski maintains that the true nature of neoliberalism has gone
unrecognized by its would-be critics, allowing the doctrine to flourish even in conditions, such
as a massive financial crisis, that would seem to be inimical to its survival. Leftists keep busy
tilting at the windmill of deregulation as the giants of neoliberalism go on pillaging unmolested.
Mirowski identifies three basic aspects of neoliberalism that the Left has failed to understand:
the movement's intellectual history, the way it has transformed everyday life, and what constitutes
opposition to it. Until we come to terms with them, Mirowski suggests, right-wing movements such
as the Tea Party (a prominent player in the book) will continue to reign triumphant.
The book begins with the war of ideas -- a conflict in which, Mirowski argues, the Left has been
far too generous in taking neoliberals at their word, or at least their best-publicized word. We
have, in effect, been suckered by kindly old Milton Friedman telling us how much better off we'd
all be if the government simply left us "free to choose." But neoliberals have at times been forthright
about their appreciation for the uses of state power. Markets, after all, do not simply create themselves.
Joining a long line of thinkers, most famously Karl Polanyi, Mirowski insists that a key error
of the Left has been its failure to see that markets are always embedded in other social institutions.
Neoliberals, by contrast, grasp this point with both hands -- and therefore seek to reshape all of
the institutions of society, including and especially the state, to promote markets. Neoliberal ascendancy
has meant not the retreat of the state so much as its remaking.
If Mirowski is often acidic about the Left's failure to understand this point, he also recognizes
that the neoliberals themselves have been canny about keeping the real nature of their project hidden
through a variety of means. Neoliberal institutions tend to have what he calls a "Russian doll" structure,
with the most central ones well hidden from public eyes. Mirowski coins an ironic expression, "the
Neoliberal Thought Collective," for the innermost entities that formulate the movement's doctrine.
The venerable Mont Pelerin Society is an NTC institution. Its ideas are frequently disseminated through
venues which, formally at least, are unconnected to the center, such as academic economics departments.
Thus, neoclassical economists spread the gospel of the free market while the grand project of remaking
the state falls to others.
At the same time as neoliberal commonsense trickles down from above, Mirowski argues that
it also wells up from below, reinforced by our daily patterns of life. Social networking sites like
Facebook encourage people to view themselves as perpetual cultural entrepreneurs, striving to offer
a newer and better version of themselves to the world. Sites like LinkedIn prod their users to present
themselves as a fungible basket of skills, adjustable to the needs of any employer, without any essential
characteristics beyond a requisite subservience. Classical liberalism always assumes the coherent
individual self as its basic unit. Neoliberalism, by contrast, sees people as little more than variable
bundles of human capital, with no permanent interests or even attributes that cannot be remade through
the market. For Mirowski, the proliferation of these forms of everyday neoliberalism constitute a
"major reason the neoliberals have emerged from the crisis triumphant."
Finally, Mirowski argues that the Left has too often been sucked in by neoliberalism's loyal
opposition. Figures like Joseph Stiglitz or Paul Krugman, while critical of austerity and supportive
of the welfare state, accept the fundamental neoclassical economic precepts at the heart of neoliberal
policy. Mirowski argues that we must ditch this tradition in its entirety. Even attempts to render
its assumptions more realistic -- as in the case of behavioral economics, for example, which takes
account of the ways real people diverge from the hyperrationality of homo economicus -- provide
little succor for those seeking to overturn the neoliberals.
For Mirowski, these three failures of the Left go a long way toward explaining how neoliberals
have largely escaped blame for a crisis they created. The Left persistently goes after phantoms like
deregulation or smaller government, which neoliberals easily parry by pointing out that the regulatory
apparatus has never been bigger. At the same time, we ignore the deep roots of neoliberal ideology
in everyday life, deceiving ourselves as to the scale of the task in front of us.
Whatever criticisms of Mirowski's analysis are in order, much of it is compelling, particularly
in regard to the intellectual history of the NTC. Mirowski's insistence on the centrality of
the state to the neoliberal project helps correct the unfortunate tendency of many leftists over
the past decade to assent to neoliberal nostrums about the obsolescence of the state. Indeed, Mirowski
goes further than many other critics who have challenged the supposed retreat of the state under
neoliberalism.
Loïc Wacquant, for instance, has described the "centaur state" of neoliberalism, in which
a humanist liberalism reigns for the upper classes, while the lower classes face the punitive state
apparatus in all its bestiality. But Mirowski shows us that the world of the rich under
neoliberalism in no way corresponds to the laissez-faire of classical liberalism. The state does
not so much leave the rich alone as actively work to reshape the world in their interests, helping
to create markets for the derivatives and securities that made (and then destroyed) so many of the
fortunes of the recent past. The neoliberal state is an eminently interventionist one, and those
mistaking it for the austere nightwatchman of libertarian utopianism have little hope of combating
it.
It's here that we begin to see the strategic genius of neoliberal infrastructure, with its teams
of college economics professors teaching the wondrous efficacy of supply and demand on the one hand,
and the think tanks and policy shops engaged in the relentless pursuit of state power on the other.
The Left too often sees inconsistency where in fact there is a division of labor.
Mirowski's concern to disabuse his readers of the notion that the wing of neoliberal doctrine
disseminated by neoclassical economists could ever be reformed produces some of the best sections
of the book. His portrait of an economics profession in haggard disarray in the aftermath of the
crisis is both comic and tragic, as the amusement value of the buffoonery on display diminishes quickly
when one realizes the prestige still accorded to these figures. Reading his comprehensive examination
of the discipline's response to the crisis, one is reminded of Freud's famous broken kettle. The
professional economists' account of their role in the crisis went something like (a) there was no
bubble and (b) bubbles are impossible to predict but (c) we knew it was a bubble all along.
Incoherence notwithstanding, however, little in the discipline has changed in the wake of the
crisis. Mirowski thinks that this is at least in part a result of the impotence of the loyal opposition
-- those economists such as Joseph Stiglitz or Paul Krugman who attempt to oppose the more viciously
neoliberal articulations of economic theory from within the camp of neoclassical economics. Though
Krugman and Stiglitz have attacked concepts like the efficient markets hypothesis (which holds that
prices in a competitive financial market reflect all relevant economic information), Mirowski argues
that their attempt to do so while retaining the basic theoretical architecture of neoclassicism has
rendered them doubly ineffective.
First, their adoption of the battery of assumptions that accompany most neoclassical theorizing
-- about representative agents, treating information like any other commodity, and so on -- make
it nearly impossible to conclusively rebut arguments like the efficient markets hypothesis.
Instead, they end up tinkering with it, introducing a nuance here or a qualification there. This
tinkering causes their arguments to be more or less ignored in neoclassical pedagogy, as economists
more favorably inclined toward hard neoliberal arguments can easily ignore such revisions and hold
that the basic thrust of the theory is still correct. Stiglitz's and Krugman's arguments, while receiving
circulation through the popular press, utterly fail to transform the discipline.
Mirowski also heaps scorn on the suggestion, sometimes made in leftist circles, that the problem
at the heart of neoclassical economics is its assumption of a hyperrational homo economicus
, relentlessly comparing equilibrium states and maximizing utility. Though such a revision may
be appealing to a certain radical romanticism, Mirowski shows that a good deal of work going on under
the label of behavioral economics has performed just this revision, and has come up with results
that don't differ substantively from those of the mainstream. The main problem with neoclassicism
isn't its theory of the human agent but rather its the theory of the market -- which is precisely
what behavioral economics isn't interested in contesting.
In all, Mirowski's indictment of the state of economic theory and its imbrication with the neoliberal
project is devastating. Unfortunately, he proves much less successful in explaining why
things have turned out as they have. The book ascribes tremendous power to the Neoliberal Thought
Collective, which somehow manages to do everything from controlling the economics profession to reshaping
the state to forging a new sense of the human self. The reader is left wondering how the NTC came
to acquire such power. This leads to the book's central flaw: a lack of any theory of the structure
of modern capitalism. Indeed, the NTC seems to operate in something of a vacuum, without ever confronting
other institutions or groups, such as the state or popular movements, with interests and agendas
of their own.
To be fair, Mirowski does offer an explanation for the failure of popular movements to challenge
neoliberalism, largely through his account of "everyday" neoliberalism. At its strongest, the book
identifies important strategic failures, such as Occupy's embrace of "a mimicry of media technologies
as opposed to concerted political mobilization." However, Mirowski extends the argument well beyond
a specific failure of the Occupy movement to propose a general thesis that developments like Facebook
and reality TV have transmitted neoliberal ideology to people who have never read Friedman and Hayek.
In claiming that this embodied or embedded ideology plays an important role in the failure of the
Left, he places far more explanatory weight on the concept of everyday neoliberalism than it is capable
of bearing.
At the simplest level, it's just not clear that everyday neoliberalism constitutes the kind of
block to political action that Mirowski thinks it does. No doubt, many people reading this article
right now simultaneously have another browser tab open to monster.com or LinkedIn, where they are
striving to present themselves as a fungible basket of skills to any employer that will have them.
In this economy, everyone has to hustle, and that means using all available means. That many of these
same readers have probably also done things like organize against foreclosures should give pause
to any blurring of the distinction between using various media technologies and embracing the ideology
Mirowski sees embodied in them.
Indeed, the ubiquity of participation in such technologies by people who support, oppose, or are
apathetic about neoliberalism points to a larger phenomenon on which Mirowski is silent: the labor
market. Put bluntly, it is difficult to imagine anyone engaging in the painfully strained self-advertisement
facilitated by LinkedIn in a labor market with, say, 2-percent unemployment. In such a market, in
which employers were competing for comparatively scarce workers, there would be very little need
for those workers to go through the self-abasing ritual of converting themselves into fungible baskets
of skills. In our current situation, by contrast, where secure and remunerative employment is comparatively
scarce, it is no surprise that people turn to whatever technologies are available to attempt to sell
themselves. As Joan Robinson put it, the only thing worse than being exploited by capitalism is not
being exploited by it.
In evaluating the role of everyday neoliberalism, it is also helpful to move, for the moment,
beyond the perspective of the United States, where the NTC has clearly had great success, and adopt
that of countries where resistance is significantly more developed, such as Venezuela or South Africa.
Especially in the former, popular movements have been notably successful in combating neoliberal
efforts to take over the state and reshape the economy, and have instead pushed the country in the
opposite direction. Is it really plausible that a main reason for this difference is that everyday
neoliberalism is more intense in the United States? I doubt it. For one thing, the strength of Venezuela's
radical movements, in comparison with the US, clearly antedates the developments (social media,
Here Comes Honey Boo Boo , and so on) that Mirowski discusses.
Moreover, it is just as plausible that the entrepreneurial culture he describes is even more extensive
in the slums of the global South, where neoliberal devastation has forced many poor households to
rely on at least one family member engaging in semi-legal arbitrage in goods salvaged from garbage
or made at home. Surely such activities provide a firmer foundation for commercial subjectivity than
having a 401(k). That resistance has grown in such circumstances suggests that looking to malignant
subjectivities to explain popular passivity is an analytic dead-end.
If everyday neoliberalism doesn't explain the comparative weakness of the US left, what does?
This is, of course, the key question, and I can do no more than gesture at an answer here. But I
would suggest that the specific histories of the institutions of the American left, from the Communist
Party to Students for a Democratic Society to labor unions, and the histories of the situations they
confronted, provide us with a more solid foundation for understanding our current weakness than the
hegemony of neoliberal culture does. Moreover, with a theory of capitalism that emphasizes the way
the structure of the system makes it both necessary and very difficult for most people to organize
to advance their interests, it becomes very easy to explain the persistence of a low level of popular
mobilization against neoliberalism in the context of a weakened left.
If Mirowski's account doesn't give us a good basis for explaining why popular resistance has been
so lacking in the US, it nonetheless suggests why he is so concerned with explaining the supposed
dominance of neoliberal ideology among the general population. From the beginning, he raises the
specter of right-wing resurgence, whether in the form of Scott Walker surviving the recall campaign
in Wisconsin, the Tea Party mania of 2010, or the success of right-wing parties in Europe. However,
much of this seems overstated, especially from a contemporary perspective. The Tea Party has, for
all intents and purposes, disappeared from the front lines of American politics, and the Republican
Party, while capable of enacting all kinds of sadistic policies on the state level, has remained
in a state of disarray on the national level since the 2006 congressional elections.
More fundamentally, the argument that the voting public embraces neoliberalism doesn't square
well with recent research by political scientists like Larry Bartels and Martin Gilens emphasizing
the profound disconnect between the policy preferences of the poor and what transpires in Washington.
What appears to be happening is less the general populace's incorporation into neoliberalism than
their exclusion from any institutions that would allow them to change it. Importantly, this alternative
explanation does not rely on the Left conceit that rebellion lurks perpetually just below the placid
social surface, ready to explode into radical insurgency at any moment. It simply contends that the
political passivity of neoliberalism's victims reflects a real diminution of their political options.
Mirowski's failure to address these larger institutional and structural dynamics vitiates much
of the explanatory power of his book. On a purely descriptive level, the sections on the intellectual
history of neoliberalism and the non-crisis of neoclassical economics illuminate many of the hidden
corners of neoliberal ideology. However, if Mirowski is right to suggest that we need to understand
neoliberalism better to be successful in fighting it -- and he surely is -- then much more is needed
to explain neoliberal success and Left failure.
To understand how a body of thought became an era of capitalism requires more than intellectual
history. It demands an account of how capitalism actually works in the period in question, and how
the ideas of a small group of intellectuals came to be the policy preferences of the rich. Mirowski
has given us an excellent foundation for understanding the doctrine, but it will remain for others
to explain its actual development.
"... The book was The Constitution of Liberty by Frederick Hayek . Its publication, in 1960, marked the transition from an honest, if extreme, philosophy to an outright racket. The philosophy was called neoliberalism . It saw competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. The market would discover a natural hierarchy of winners and losers, creating a more efficient system than could ever be devised through planning or by design. Anything that impeded this process, such as significant tax, regulation, trade union activity or state provision, was counter-productive. Unrestricted entrepreneurs would create the wealth that would trickle down to everyone. ..."
"... But by the time Hayek came to write The Constitution of Liberty, the network of lobbyists and thinkers he had founded was being lavishly funded by multimillionaires who saw the doctrine as a means of defending themselves against democracy. Not every aspect of the neoliberal programme advanced their interests. Hayek, it seems, set out to close the gap. ..."
"... He begins the book by advancing the narrowest possible conception of liberty: an absence of coercion. He rejects such notions as political freedom, universal rights, human equality and the distribution of wealth, all of which, by restricting the behaviour of the wealthy and powerful, intrude on the absolute freedom from coercion he demands. ..."
"... The general thrust is about the gradual hollowing out of the middle class (or more affluent working class, depending on the analytical terms being used), about insecurity, stress, casualisation, rising wage inequality. ..."
"... So Hayek, I feel, is like many theoreticians, in that he seems to want a pure world that will function according to a simple and universal law. The world never was, and never will be that simple, and current economics simply continues to have a blindspot for externalities that overwhelm the logic of an unfettered so-called free market. ..."
"... J.K. Galbraith viewed the rightwing mind as predominantly concerned with figuring out a way to justify the shift of wealth from the immense majority to an elite at the top. I for one regret acutely that he did not (as far as I know) write a volume on his belief in progressive taxation. ..."
"... The system that Clinton developed was an inheritance from George H.W. Bush, Reagan (to a large degree), Carter, with another large assist from Nixon and the Powell Memo. ..."
"... What's changed is the distribution of the gains in GDP growth -- that is in no small part a direct consequence of changes in policy since the 1970s. It isn't some "market place magic". We have made major changes to tax laws since that time. We have weakened collective bargaining, which obviously has a negative impact on wages. We have shifted the economy towards financial services, which has the tendency of increasing inequality. ..."
"... Wages aren't stagnating because people are working less. Wages have stagnated because of dumb policy choices that have tended to incentives looting by those at the top of the income distribution from workers in the lower parts of the economy. ..."
"... "Neoliberalism" is entirely compatible with "growth of the state". Reagan greatly enlarged the state. He privatized several functions and it actually had the effect of increasing spending. ..."
"... When it comes to social safety net programs, e.g. in health care and education -- those programs almost always tend to be more expensive and more complicated when privatized. If the goal was to actually save taxpayer money, in the U.S. at least, it would have made a lot more sense to have a universal Medicare system, rather than a massive patch-work like the ACA and our hybrid market. ..."
"... As for the rest, it's the usual practice of gathering every positive metric available and somehow attributing it to neoliberalism, no matter how tenuous the threads, and as always with zero rigour. Supposedly capitalism alone doubled life expectancy, supports billions of extra lives, invented the railways, and provides the drugs and equipment that keep us alive. As though public education, vaccines, antibiotics, and massive availability of energy has nothing to do with those things. ..."
"... I think the damage was done when the liberal left co-opted neo-liberalism. What happened under Bill Clinton was the development of crony capitalism where for example the US banks were told to lower their credit standards to lend to people who couldn't really afford to service the loans. ..."
The events that led to Donald Trump's election started in England in 1975. At a meeting a few months after Margaret Thatcher became
leader of the Conservative party, one of her colleagues, or so the story goes, was explaining what he saw as the core beliefs of
conservatism. She snapped open her handbag, pulled out a dog-eared book, and
slammed it on the table . "This is what we believe," she said. A political revolution that would sweep the world had begun.
The book was The Constitution
of Liberty by Frederick Hayek . Its publication, in 1960, marked the transition from an honest, if extreme, philosophy to an
outright racket.
The philosophy
was called neoliberalism . It saw competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. The market would discover a
natural hierarchy of winners and losers, creating a more efficient system than could ever be devised through planning or by design.
Anything that impeded this process, such as significant tax, regulation, trade union activity or state provision, was counter-productive.
Unrestricted entrepreneurs would create the wealth that would trickle down to everyone.
This, at any rate, is how it was originally conceived. But by the time Hayek came to write The Constitution of Liberty, the
network of lobbyists and thinkers he had founded was being lavishly funded by multimillionaires who saw the doctrine as a means of
defending themselves against democracy. Not every aspect of the neoliberal programme advanced their interests. Hayek, it seems, set
out to close the gap.
He begins the book by advancing the narrowest possible conception of liberty: an absence of coercion. He rejects such notions
as political freedom, universal rights, human equality and the distribution of wealth, all of which, by restricting the behaviour
of the wealthy and powerful, intrude on the absolute freedom from coercion he demands.
Democracy, by contrast, "is not an ultimate or absolute value". In fact, liberty depends on preventing the majority from exercising
choice over the direction that politics and society might take.
He justifies this position by creating a heroic narrative of extreme wealth. He conflates the economic elite, spending their money
in new ways, with philosophical and scientific pioneers. Just as the political philosopher should be free to think the unthinkable,
so the very rich should be free to do the undoable, without constraint by public interest or public opinion.
The ultra rich are "scouts", "experimenting with new styles of living", who blaze the trails that the rest of society will follow.
The progress of society depends on the liberty of these "independents" to gain as much money as they want and spend it how they wish.
All that is good and useful, therefore, arises from inequality. There should be no connection between merit and reward, no distinction
made between earned and unearned income, and no limit to the rents they can charge.
Inherited wealth is more socially useful than earned wealth: "the idle rich", who don't have to work for their money, can devote
themselves to influencing "fields of thought and opinion, of tastes and beliefs". Even when they seem to be spending money on nothing
but "aimless display", they are in fact acting as society's vanguard.
Hayek softened his opposition to monopolies and hardened his opposition to trade unions. He lambasted progressive taxation and
attempts by the state to raise the general welfare of citizens. He insisted that there is "an overwhelming case against a free health
service for all" and dismissed the conservation of natural resources. It should come as no surprise to those who follow such matters
that he was awarded
the Nobel prize for economics .
By the time Thatcher slammed his book on the table, a lively network of thinktanks, lobbyists and academics promoting Hayek's
doctrines had been established on both sides of the Atlantic,
abundantly financed by some of the world's richest people and
businesses , including DuPont, General Electric, the Coors brewing company, Charles Koch, Richard Mellon Scaife, Lawrence Fertig,
the William Volker Fund and the Earhart Foundation. Using psychology and linguistics to brilliant effect, the thinkers these people
sponsored found the words and arguments required to turn Hayek's anthem to the elite into a plausible political programme.
Thatcherism and Reaganism were not ideologies in their own right: they were just two faces of neoliberalism. Their massive tax
cuts for the rich, crushing of trade unions, reduction in public housing, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition
in public services were all proposed by Hayek and his disciples. But the real triumph of this network was not its capture of the
right, but its colonisation of parties that once stood for everything Hayek detested.
Bill Clinton and Tony Blair did not possess a narrative of their own. Rather than develop a new political story, they thought
it was sufficient to
triangulate
. In other words, they extracted a few elements of what their parties had once believed, mixed them with elements of what their
opponents believed, and developed from this unlikely combination a "third way".
It was inevitable that the blazing, insurrectionary confidence of neoliberalism would exert a stronger gravitational pull than
the dying star of social democracy. Hayek's triumph could be witnessed everywhere from Blair's expansion of the private finance initiative
to Clinton's
repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act , which had regulated the financial sector. For all his grace and touch, Barack Obama, who didn't
possess a narrative either (except "hope"), was slowly reeled in by those who owned the means of persuasion.
As I warned
in April, the result is first disempowerment then disenfranchisement. If the dominant ideology stops governments from changing
social outcomes, they can no longer respond to the needs of the electorate. Politics becomes irrelevant to people's lives; debate
is reduced to the jabber of a remote elite. The disenfranchised turn instead to a virulent anti-politics in which facts and arguments
are replaced by slogans, symbols and sensation. The man who sank Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency was not Donald Trump. It
was her husband.
The paradoxical result is that the backlash against neoliberalism's crushing of political choice has elevated just the kind of
man that Hayek worshipped. Trump, who has no coherent politics, is not a classic neoliberal. But he is the perfect representation
of Hayek's "independent"; the beneficiary of inherited wealth, unconstrained by common morality, whose gross predilections strike
a new path that others may follow. The neoliberal thinktankers are now swarming round this hollow man, this empty vessel waiting
to be filled by those who know what they want. The likely result is the demolition of our remaining decencies,
beginning with the agreement to limit global warming .
Those who tell the stories run the world. Politics has failed through a lack of competing narratives. The key task now is to tell
a new story of what it is to be a human in the 21st century. It must be as appealing to some who have voted for Trump and Ukip as
it is to the supporters of Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn.
A few of us have been working on this, and can discern what may be the beginning of a story. It's too early to say much yet, but
at its core is the recognition that – as modern psychology and neuroscience make abundantly clear – human beings, by comparison with
any other animals, are both
remarkably social and
remarkably
unselfish . The atomisation and self-interested behaviour neoliberalism promotes run counter to much of what comprises human
nature.
Hayek told us who we are, and he was wrong. Our first step is to reclaim our humanity.
justamug -> Skytree 16 Nov 2016 18:17
Thanks for the chuckle. On a more serious note - defining neoliberalism is not that easy since it is not a laid out philosophy
like liberalism, or socialism, or communism or facism. Since 2008 the use of the word neoliberalism has increased in frequency
and has come to mean different things to different people.
A common theme appears to be the negative effects of the market on the human condition.
Having read David Harvey's book, and Phillip Mirowski's book (both had a go at defining neoliberalism and tracing its history)
it is clear that neoliberalism is not really coherent set of ideas.
ianfraser3 16 Nov 2016 17:54
EF Schumacher quoted "seek first the kingdom of God" in his epilogue of "Small Is Beautiful: a study of economics as if people
mattered". This was written in the early 1970s before the neoliberal project bit in the USA and the UK. The book is laced with
warnings about the effects of the imposition of neoliberalism on society, people and the planet. The predictions have largely
come true. New politics and economics needed, by leaders who place at the heart of their approach the premise, and fact, that
humans are "by comparison with any other animals, are both remarkably social and remarkably unselfish". It is about reclaiming
our humanity from a project that treats people as just another commodity.
Filipio -> YouDidntBuildThat 16 Nov 2016 17:42
Whoa there, slow down.
Your last post was questioning the reality of neoliberalism as a general policy direction that had become hegemonic across
many governments (and most in the west) over recent decades. Now you seem to be agreeing that the notion does have salience, but
that neoliberalism delivered positive rather than negative consequences.
Well, its an ill wind that blows nobody any good, huh?
Doubtless there were some positive outcomes for particular groups. But recall that the context for this thread is not whether,
on balance, more people benefited from neoliberal policies than were harmed -- an argument that would be most powerful only in
very utilitarian style frameworks of thought (most good for the many, or most harm for only the few). The thread is about the
significance of the impacts of neoliberalism in the rise of Trump. And in specific relation to privatisation (just one dimension
of neoliberalism) one key impact was downsizing (or 'rightsizing'; restructuring). There is a plethora of material, including
sociological and psychological, on the harm caused by shrinking and restructured work-forces as a consequence of privatisation.
Books have been written, even in the business management sector, about how poorly such 'change' was handled and the multiple deleterious
outcomes experienced by employees.
And we're still only talking about one dimension of neoliberalism! Havn't even touched on deregulation yet (notably, labour
market and financial sector).
The general thrust is about the gradual hollowing out of the middle class (or more affluent working class, depending on
the analytical terms being used), about insecurity, stress, casualisation, rising wage inequality.
You want evidence? I'm not doing your research for you. The internet can be a great resource, or merely an echo chamber. The
problem with so many of the alt-right (and this applies on the extreme left as well) is that they only look to confirm their views,
not read widely. Open your eyes, and use your search engine of choice. There is plenty out there. Be open to having your preconceptions
challenged.
RichardErskine -> LECKJ3000 16 Nov 2016 15:38
LECKJ3000 - I am not an economist, but surely the theoretical idealised mechanisms of the market are never realised in practice.
US subsidizing their farmers, in EU too, etc. And for problems that are not only externalities but transnational ones, the idea
that some Hayek mechanism will protect thr ozone layer or limit carbon emissions, without some regulation or tax.
Lord Stern called global warming the greatest market failure in history, but no market, however sophisticated, can deal with
it without some price put on the effluent of product (the excessive CO2 we put into the atmosphere).
As with Montreal and subsequent agreements, there is a way to maintain a level playing field; to promote different substances
for use as refrigerants; and to address the hole in ozone layer; without abandoning the market altogether. Simple is good, because
it avoids over-engineering the interventions (and the unintended consequences you mention).
The same could/ should be true of global warming, but we have left it so late we cannot wait for the (inevitable) fall of fossil
fuels and supremacy of renewables. We need a price on carbon, which is a graduated and fast rising tax essentially on its production
and/or consumption, which has already started to happen ( http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/SDN/background-note_carbon-tax.pdf
), albeit not deep / fast / extensive enough, or international in character, but that will come, if not before the impacts really
bite then soon after.
So Hayek, I feel, is like many theoreticians, in that he seems to want a pure world that will function according to a simple
and universal law. The world never was, and never will be that simple, and current economics simply continues to have a blindspot
for externalities that overwhelm the logic of an unfettered so-called free market.
LionelKent -> greven 16 Nov 2016 14:59
And persistent. J.K. Galbraith viewed the rightwing mind as predominantly concerned with figuring out a way to justify the
shift of wealth from the immense majority to an elite at the top. I for one regret acutely that he did not (as far as I know)
write a volume on his belief in progressive taxation.
RandomLibertarian -> JVRTRL 16 Nov 2016 09:19
Not bad points.
When it comes to social safety net programs, e.g. in health care and education -- those programs almost always tend to be more
expensive and more complicated when privatized. If the goal was to actually save taxpayer money, in the U.S. at least, it would
have made a lot more sense to have a universal Medicare system, rather than a massive patch-work like the ACA and our hybrid market.
Do not forget that the USG, in WW2, took the deliberate step of allowing employers to provide health insurance as a tax-free
benefit - which it still is, being free even from SS and Medicare taxes. In the post-war boom years this resulted in the development
of a system with private rooms, almost on-demand access to specialists, and competitive pay for all involved (while the NHS, by
contrast, increasingly drew on immigrant populations for nurses and below). Next, the large sums of money in the system and a
generous court system empowered a vast malpractice industry. So to call our system in any way a consequence of a free market is
a misnomer.
Entirely state controlled health care systems tend to be even more cost-effective.
Read Megan McArdle's work in this area. The US has had similar cost growth since the 1970s to the rest of the world. The problem
was that it started from a higher base.
Part of the issue is that privatization tends to create feedback mechanism that increase the size of spending in programs.
Even Eisenhower's noted "military industrial complex" is an illustration of what happens when privatization really takes hold.
When government becomes involved in business, business gets involved in government!
Todd Smekens 16 Nov 2016 08:40
Albert Einstein said, "capitalism is evil" in his famous dictum called, "Why Socialism" in 1949. He also called communism,
"evil", so don't jump to conclusions, comrades. ;)
His reasoning was it distorts a human beings longing for the social aspect. I believe George references this in his statement
about people being "unselfish". This is noted by both science and philosophy.
Einstein noted that historically, the conqueror would establish the new order, and since 1949, Western Imperialism has continued
on with the predatory phase of acquiring and implementing democracy/capitalism. This needs to end. As we've learned rapidly, capitalism
isn't sustainable. We are literally overheating the earth which sustains us. Very unwise.
Einstein wrote, "Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to
protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate
abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures,
to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting,
strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual
can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society."
Personally, I'm glad George and others are working on a new economic and social construct for us "human beings". It's time
we leave the predatory phase of "us versus them", and construct a new society which works for the good of our now, global society.
zavaell -> LECKJ3000 16 Nov 2016 06:28
The problem is that both you and Monbiot fail to mention that your "the spontaneous order of the market" does not recognize
externalities and climate change is outside Hayek's thinking - he never wrote about sustainability or the limits on resources,
let alone the consequences of burning fossil fuels. There is no beauty in what he wrote - it was a cold, mechanical model that
assumed certain human behaviour but not others. Look at today's money-makers - they are nearly all climate change deniers and
we have to have government to reign them in.
aLERNO 16 Nov 2016 04:52
Good, short and concise article. But the FIRST NEOLIBERAL MILESTONE WAS THE 1973 COUP D'ETAT IN CHILE, which not surprisingly
also deposed the first democratically-elected socialist government.
accipiter15 16 Nov 2016 02:34
A great article and explanation of the influence of Hayek on Thatcher. Unfortunately this country is still suffering the consequences
of her tenure and Osborne was also a proponent of her policies and look where we are as a consequence. The referendum gave the
people the opportunity to vent their anger and if we had PR I suspect we would have a greater turn-out and nearly always have
some sort of coalition where nothing gets done that is too hurtful to the population. As for Trump, again his election is an expression
of anger and desperation. However, the American voting system is as unfair as our own - again this has probably been the cause
of the low turn-out. Why should people vote when they do not get fair representation - it is a waste of time and not democratic.
I doubt that Trump is Keynsian I suspect he doesn't have an economic theory at all. I just hope that the current economic thinking
prevailing currently in this country, which is still overshadowed by Thatcher and the free market, with no controls over the city
casino soon collapses and we can start from a fairer and more inclusive base!
JVRTRL -> Keypointist 16 Nov 2016 02:15
The system that Clinton developed was an inheritance from George H.W. Bush, Reagan (to a large degree), Carter, with another
large assist from Nixon and the Powell Memo.
Bill Clinton didn't do it by himself. The GOP did it with him hand-in-hand, with the only resistance coming from a minority
within the Democratic party.
Trump's victory was due to many factors. A large part of it was Hillary Clinton's campaign and the candidate. Part of it was
the effectiveness of the GOP massive resistance strategy during the Obama years, wherein they pursued a course of obstruction
in an effort to slow the rate of the economic recovery (e.g. as evidence of the bad faith, they are resurrecting a $1 trillion
infrastructure bill that Obama originally proposed in 2012, and now that they have full control, all the talk about "deficits"
goes out the window).
Obama and the Democratic party also bear responsibility for not recognizing the full scope of the financial collapse in 2008-2009,
passing a stimulus package that was about $1 trillion short of spending needed to accelerate the recovery by the 2010 mid-terms,
combined with a weak financial regulation law (which the GOP is going to destroy), an overly complicated health care law -- classic
technocratic, neoliberal incremental policy -- and the failure of the Obama administration to hold Wall Street accountable for
criminal misconduct relating to the financial crisis. Obama's decision to push unpopular trade agreements didn't help either.
As part of the post-mortem, the decision to continuing pushing the TPP may have cost Clinton in the rust belt states that went
for Trump. The agreement was unpopular, and her shift on the policy didn't come across as credible. People noticed as well that
Obama was trying to pass the measure through the lame-duck session of Congress post-election. With Trump's election, the TPP is
done too.
JVRTRL daltonknox67 16 Nov 2016 02:00
There is no iron law that says a country has to run large trade deficits. The existence of large trade deficits is usually
a result of policy choices.
Growth also hasn't gone into the tank. What's changed is the distribution of the gains in GDP growth -- that is in no small
part a direct consequence of changes in policy since the 1970s. It isn't some "market place magic". We have made major changes
to tax laws since that time. We have weakened collective bargaining, which obviously has a negative impact on wages. We have shifted
the economy towards financial services, which has the tendency of increasing inequality.
The idea too that people will be "poorer" than in the 1920s and 1930s is just plain ignorant. It has no basis in any of the
data. Wages in the bottom quartile have actually decreased slightly since the 1970s in real terms, but those wages in the 1970s
were still exponentially higher than wages in the 1920s in real terms.
Wages aren't stagnating because people are working less. Wages have stagnated because of dumb policy choices that have tended
to incentives looting by those at the top of the income distribution from workers in the lower parts of the economy. The 2008
bailouts were a clear illustration of this reality. People in industries rigged rules to benefit themselves. They misallocated
resources. Then they went to representatives and taxpayers and asked for a large no-strings attached handout that was effectively
worth trillions of dollars (e.g. hundreds of billions through TARP, trillions more through other programs). As these players become
wealthier, they have an easier time buying politicians to rig rules further to their advantage.
JVRTRL -> RandomLibertarian 16 Nov 2016 01:44
"The tyranny of the 51 per cent is the oldest and most solid argument against a pure democracy."
"Tyranny of the majority" is always a little bizarre, given that the dynamics of majority rule are unlike the governmental
structures of an actual tyranny. Even in the context of the U.S. we had minority rule due to voting restrictions for well over
a century that was effectively a tyranny for anyone who was denied the ability to participation in the elections process. Pure
majorities can go out of control, especially in a country with massive wealth disparities and with weak civic institutions.
On the other hand, this is part of the reason to construct a system of checks and balances. It's also part of the argument
for representative democracy.
"Neoliberalism" is entirely compatible with "growth of the state". Reagan greatly enlarged the state. He privatized several
functions and it actually had the effect of increasing spending.
When it comes to social safety net programs, e.g. in health care and education -- those programs almost always tend to be more
expensive and more complicated when privatized. If the goal was to actually save taxpayer money, in the U.S. at least, it would
have made a lot more sense to have a universal Medicare system, rather than a massive patch-work like the ACA and our hybrid market.
Entirely state controlled health care systems tend to be even more cost-effective. Part of the issue is that privatization
tends to create feedback mechanism that increase the size of spending in programs. Even Eisenhower's noted "military industrial
complex" is an illustration of what happens when privatization really takes hold.
daltonknox67 15 Nov 2016 21:46
After WWII most of the industrialised world had been bombed or fought over with destruction of infrastructure and manufacturing.
The US alone was undamaged. It enjoyed a manufacturing boom that lasted until the 70's when competition from Germany and Japan,
and later Taiwan, Korea and China finally brought it to an end.
As a result Americans born after 1950 will be poorer than the generation born in the 20's and 30's.
This is not a conspiracy or government malfunction. It is a quirk of history. Get over it and try working.
Arma Geddon 15 Nov 2016 21:11
Another nasty neoliberal policy of Reagan and Thatcher, was to close all the mental hospitals, and to sweeten the pill to sell
to the voters, they called it Care in the Community, except by the time those hospitals closed and the people who had to relay
on those institutions, they found out and are still finding out that there is very little care in the community left any more,
thanks to Thatcher's disintegration of the ethos community spirit.
In their neoliberal mantra of thinking, you are on your own now, tough, move on, because you are hopeless and non productive,
hence you are a burden to taxpayers.
Its been that way of thinking for over thirty years, and now the latest group targeted, are the sick and disabled, victims
of the neoliberal made banking crash and its neoliberal inspired austerity, imposed of those least able to fight back or defend
themselves i.e. vulnerable people again!
AlfredHerring GimmeHendrix 15 Nov 2016 20:23
It was in reference to Maggie slapping a copy of Hayek's Constitution of Liberty on the table and saying this is what we believe.
As soon as you introduce the concept of belief you're talking about religion hence completeness while Hayek was writing about
economics which demands consistency. i.e. St. Maggie was just as bad as any Stalinist: economics and religion must be kept separate
or you get a bunch of dead peasants for no reason other than your own vanity.
Ok, religion based on a sky god who made us all is problematic but at least there's always the possibility of supplication
and miracles. Base a religion on economic theory and you're just making sausage of your neighbors kids.
TanTan -> crystaltips2 15 Nov 2016 20:10
If you claim that the only benefit of private enterprise is its taxability, as you did, then why not cut out the middle man
and argue for full state-directed capitalism?
Because it is plainly obvious that private enterprise is not directed toward the public good (and by definition). As we have
both agreed, it needs to have the right regulations and framework to give it some direction in that regard. What "the radical
left" are pointing out is that the idea of private enterprise is now completely out of control, to the point where voters are
disenfranchised because private enterprise has more say over what the government does than the people. Which is clearly a problem.
As for the rest, it's the usual practice of gathering every positive metric available and somehow attributing it to neoliberalism,
no matter how tenuous the threads, and as always with zero rigour. Supposedly capitalism alone doubled life expectancy, supports
billions of extra lives, invented the railways, and provides the drugs and equipment that keep us alive. As though public education,
vaccines, antibiotics, and massive availability of energy has nothing to do with those things.
As for this computer being the invention of capitalism, who knows, but I suppose if one were to believe that everything was
invented and created by capitalism and monetary motives then one might believe that. Energy allotments referred to the limit of
our usage of readily available fossil fuels which you remain blissfully unaware of.
Children have already been educated to agree with you, in no small part due to a fear of the communist regimes at the time,
but at the expense of critical thinking. Questioning the system even when it has plainly been undermined to its core is quickly
labelled "radical" regardless of the normalcy of the query. I don't know what you could possibly think left-wing motives could
be, but your own motives are plain to see when you immediately lump people who care about the planet in with communist idealogues.
If rampant capitalism was going to solve our problems I'm all for it, but it will take a miracle to reverse the damage it has
already done, and only a fool would trust it any further.
YouDidntBuildThat -> Filipio 15 Nov 2016 20:06
Filipo
You argue that a great many government functions have been privatized. I agree. Yet strangely you present zero evidence of
any downsides of that happening. Most of the academic research shows a net benefit, not just on budgets but on employee and customer
satisfaction. See for example.
And despite these privitazation cost savings and alleged neoliberal "austerity" government keeps taking a larger share of our
money, like a malignant cancer. No worries....We're from the government, and we're here to help.
Keypointist 15 Nov 2016 20:04
I think the damage was done when the liberal left co-opted neo-liberalism. What happened under Bill Clinton was the development
of crony capitalism where for example the US banks were told to lower their credit standards to lend to people who couldn't really
afford to service the loans.
It was this that created too big to fail and the financial crisis of 2008. Conservative neo-liberals believe passionately in
competition and hate monopolies. The liberal left removed was was productive about neo-liberalism and replaced it with a kind
of soft state capitalism where big business was protected by the state and the tax payer was called on to bail out these businesses.
THIS more than anything else led to Trump's victory.
"... The word ["neoliberalism"] has become a rhetorical weapon, but it properly names the reigning ideology of our era – one that venerates the logic of the market and strips away the things that make us human. ..."
"... Last summer, researchers at the International Monetary Fund settled a long and bitter debate over "neoliberalism": they admitted it exists. Three senior economists at the IMF, an organisation not known for its incaution, published a paper questioning the benefits of neoliberalism ..."
"... The paper gently called out a "neoliberal agenda" for pushing deregulation on economies around the world, for forcing open national markets to trade and capital, and for demanding that governments shrink themselves via austerity or privatisation. The authors cited statistical evidence for the spread of neoliberal policies since 1980, and their correlation with anaemic growth, boom-and-bust cycles and inequality. ..."
"... In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, it was a way of assigning responsibility for the debacle, not to a political party per se, but to an establishment that had conceded its authority to the market. For the Democrats in the US and Labour in the UK, this concession was depicted as a grotesque betrayal of principle. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, it was said, had abandoned the left's traditional commitments, especially to workers, in favour of a global financial elite and the self-serving policies that enriched them; and in doing so, had enabled a sickening rise in inequality. ..."
"... Peer through the lens of neoliberalism and you see more clearly how the political thinkers most admired by Thatcher and Reagan helped shape the ideal of society as a kind of universal market ..."
"... Of course the goal was to weaken the welfare state and any commitment to full employment, and – always – to cut taxes and deregulate. But "neoliberalism" indicates something more than a standard rightwing wish list. It was a way of reordering social reality, and of rethinking our status as individuals. ..."
"... In short, "neoliberalism" is not simply a name for pro-market policies, or for the compromises with finance capitalism made by failing social democratic parties. It is a name for a premise that, quietly, has come to regulate all we practise and believe: that competition is the only legitimate organising principle for human activity. ..."
"... No sooner had neoliberalism been certified as real, and no sooner had it made clear the universal hypocrisy of the market, than the populists and authoritarians came to power ..."
"... Against the forces of global integration, national identity is being reasserted, and in the crudest possible terms. What could the militant parochialism of Brexit Britain and Trumpist America have to do with neoliberal rationality? ..."
"... It isn't only that the free market produces a tiny cadre of winners and an enormous army of losers – and the losers, looking for revenge, have turned to Brexit and Trump. There was, from the beginning, an inevitable relationship between the utopian ideal of the free market and the dystopian present in which we find ourselves; ..."
"... That Hayek is considered the grandfather of neoliberalism – a style of thought that reduces everything to economics – is a little ironic given that he was such a mediocre economist. ..."
"... This last is what makes neoliberalism "neo". It is a crucial modification of the older belief in a free market and a minimal state, known as "classical liberalism". In classical liberalism, merchants simply asked the state to "leave us alone" – to laissez-nous faire. Neoliberalism recognised that the state must be active in the organisation of a market economy. The conditions allowing for a free market must be won politically, and the state must be re-engineered to support the free market on an ongoing basis. ..."
"... Hayek had only his idea to console him; an idea so grand it would one day dissolve the ground beneath the feet of Keynes and every other intellectual. Left to its own devices, the price system functions as a kind of mind. And not just any mind, but an omniscient one: the market computes what individuals cannot grasp. Reaching out to him as an intellectual comrade-in-arms, the American journalist Walter Lippmann wrote to Hayek, saying: "No human mind has ever understood the whole scheme of a society At best a mind can understand its own version of the scheme, something much thinner, which bears to reality some such relation as a silhouette to a man." ..."
"... The only social end is the maintenance of the market itself. In its omniscience, the market constitutes the only legitimate form of knowledge, next to which all other modes of reflection are partial, in both senses of the word: they comprehend only a fragment of a whole and they plead on behalf of a special interest. Individually, our values are personal ones, or mere opinions; collectively, the market converts them into prices, or objective facts. ..."
"... According to the logic of Hayek's Big Idea, these expressions of human subjectivity are meaningless without ratification by the market ..."
"... ociety reconceived as a giant market leads to a public life lost to bickering over mere opinions; until the public turns, finally, in frustration to a strongman as a last resort for solving its otherwise intractable problems. ..."
"... What began as a new form of intellectual authority, rooted in a devoutly apolitical worldview, nudged easily into an ultra-reactionary politics ..."
The word ["neoliberalism"] has become a rhetorical weapon, but it properly names the reigning ideology of
our era – one that venerates the logic of the market and strips away the things that make us human.
Last summer, researchers at the International Monetary Fund settled a long and bitter debate over
"neoliberalism": they admitted it exists. Three senior economists at the IMF, an organisation not
known for its incaution, published
a paper questioning
the benefits of neoliberalism. In so doing, they helped put to rest the idea that the word is
nothing more than a political slur, or a term without any analytic power. The paper gently called
out a "neoliberal agenda" for pushing deregulation on economies around the world, for forcing open
national markets to trade and capital, and for demanding that governments shrink themselves via austerity
or privatisation. The authors cited statistical evidence for the spread of neoliberal policies since
1980, and their correlation with anaemic growth, boom-and-bust cycles and inequality.
Neoliberalism is an old term, dating back to the 1930s, but it has been revived as a way of describing
our current politics – or more precisely,
the range of thought allowed by our politics . In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis,
it was a way of assigning responsibility for the debacle, not to a political party per se, but to
an establishment that had conceded its authority to the market. For the Democrats in the US and Labour
in the UK, this concession was depicted as a grotesque betrayal of principle. Bill Clinton and Tony
Blair, it was said, had abandoned the left's traditional commitments, especially to workers, in favour
of a global financial elite and the self-serving policies that enriched them; and in doing so, had
enabled a sickening rise in inequality.
Neoliberalism: the idea that swallowed the world – podcast
Over the past few years, as debates have turned uglier, the word has become a rhetorical weapon,
a way for anyone left of centre to incriminate those even an inch to their right. (No wonder centrists
say it's a meaningless insult: they're the ones most meaningfully insulted by it.) But "neoliberalism"
is more than a gratifyingly righteous jibe. It is also, in its way, a pair of eyeglasses.
Peer through the lens of neoliberalism and you see more clearly how the political thinkers most
admired by Thatcher and Reagan helped shape the ideal of society as a kind of universal market
(and
not, for example, a polis, a civil sphere or a kind of family) and of human beings as profit-and-loss
calculators (and not bearers of grace, or of inalienable rights and duties). Of course the goal
was to weaken the welfare state and any commitment to full employment, and – always – to cut taxes
and deregulate. But "neoliberalism" indicates something more than a standard rightwing wish list.
It was a way of reordering social reality, and of rethinking our status as individuals.
Still peering through the lens, you see how, no less than the welfare state, the free market
is a human invention. You see how pervasively we are now urged to think of ourselves as proprietors
of our own talents and initiative, how glibly we are told to compete and adapt. You see the extent
to which a language formerly confined to chalkboard simplifications describing commodity markets
(competition, perfect information, rational behaviour) has been applied to all of society, until
it has invaded the grit of our personal lives, and how the attitude of the salesman has become enmeshed
in all modes of self-expression.
In short, "neoliberalism" is not simply a name for pro-market policies, or for the compromises
with finance capitalism made by failing social democratic parties. It is a name for a premise that,
quietly, has come to regulate all we practise and believe: that competition is the only legitimate
organising principle for human activity.
No sooner had neoliberalism been certified as real, and no sooner had it made clear the universal
hypocrisy of the market, than the populists and authoritarians came to power. In the US, Hillary
Clinton, the neoliberal arch-villain, lost – and to a man who knew just enough
to pretend he hated free trade . So are the eyeglasses now useless? Can they do anything to help
us understand what is broken about British and American politics? Against the forces of global
integration, national identity is being reasserted, and in the crudest possible terms. What could
the militant parochialism of Brexit Britain and Trumpist America have to do with neoliberal rationality?
What possible connection is there between the president – a freewheeling boob – and the bloodless
paragon of efficiency known as the free market?
It isn't only that the free market produces a tiny cadre of winners and an enormous army of
losers – and the losers, looking for revenge, have turned to Brexit and Trump. There was, from the
beginning, an inevitable relationship between the utopian ideal of the free market and the dystopian
present in which we find ourselves; between the market as unique discloser of value and guardian
of liberty, and our current descent into post-truth and illiberalism.
Moving the stale debate about neoliberalism forward begins, I think, with taking seriously the
measure of its cumulative effect on all of us, regardless of affiliation. And this requires returning
to its origins, which have nothing to do with Bill or Hillary Clinton. There once was a group of
people who did call themselves neoliberals, and did so proudly, and their ambition was a total revolution
in thought. The most prominent among them, Friedrich Hayek, did not think he was staking out a position
on the political spectrum, or making excuses for the fatuous rich, or tinkering along the edges of
microeconomics.
He thought he was solving the problem of modernity: the problem of objective knowledge. For Hayek,
the market didn't just facilitate trade in goods and services; it revealed truth. How did his ambition
collapse into its opposite – the mind-bending possibility that, thanks to our thoughtless veneration
of the free market, truth might be driven from public life altogether?
When the idea occurred to Friedrich Hayek in 1936, he knew, with the conviction of a "sudden illumination",
that he had struck upon something new. "How can the combination of fragments of knowledge existing
in different minds," he wrote, "bring about results which, if they were to be brought about deliberately,
would require a knowledge on the part of the directing mind which no single person can possess?"
This was not a technical point about interest rates or deflationary slumps. This was not a reactionary
polemic against collectivism or the welfare state. This was a way of birthing a new world. To his
mounting excitement, Hayek understood that the market could be thought of as a kind of mind.
Adam Smith's "invisible hand" had already given us the modern conception of the market: as an
autonomous sphere of human activity and therefore, potentially, a valid object of scientific knowledge.
But Smith was, until the end of his life, an 18th-century moralist. He thought the market could be
justified only in light of individual virtue, and he was anxious that a society governed by nothing
but transactional self-interest was no society at all. Neoliberalism is Adam Smith without the anxiety.
That Hayek is considered the grandfather of neoliberalism – a style of thought that reduces
everything to economics – is a little ironic given that he was such a mediocre economist. He
was just a young, obscure Viennese technocrat when he was recruited to the London School of
Economics to compete
with, or possibly even dim, the rising star of John Maynard Keynes at Cambridge.
The plan backfired, and Hayek lost out to Keynes in a rout. Keynes's General Theory of Employment,
Interest and Money, published in 1936, was greeted as a masterpiece. It dominated the public discussion,
especially among young English economists in training, for whom the brilliant, dashing, socially
connected Keynes was a beau idéal . By the end of the second world war, many prominent free-marketers
had come around to Keynes's way of thinking, conceding that government might play a role in managing
a modern economy. The initial excitement over Hayek had dissipated. His peculiar notion that doing
nothing could cure an economic depression had been discredited in theory and practice. He later admitted
that he wished his work criticising Keynes would simply be forgotten.
... Hayek built into neoliberalism the assumption that the market provides all necessary protection
against the one real political danger: totalitarianism. To prevent this, the state need only keep
the market free.
This last is what makes neoliberalism "neo". It is a crucial modification of the older belief
in a free market and a minimal state, known as "classical liberalism". In classical liberalism, merchants
simply asked the state to "leave us alone" – to laissez-nous faire. Neoliberalism recognised that
the state must be active in the organisation of a market economy. The conditions allowing for a free
market must be won politically, and the state must be re-engineered to support the free market on
an ongoing basis.
That isn't all: every aspect of democratic politics, from the choices of voters to the decisions
of politicians, must be submitted to a purely economic analysis. The lawmaker is obliged to leave
well enough alone – to not distort the natural actions of the marketplace – and so, ideally, the
state provides a fixed, neutral, universal legal framework within which market forces operate spontaneously.
The conscious direction of government is never preferable to the "automatic mechanism of adjustment"
– ie the price system, which is not only efficient but maximises liberty, or the opportunity for
men and women to make free choices about their own lives.
As Keynes jetted between London and Washington, creating the postwar order, Hayek sat pouting
in Cambridge. He had been sent there during the wartime evacuations; and he complained that he was
surrounded by "foreigners" and "no lack of orientals of all kinds" and "Europeans of practically
all nationalities, but very few of real intelligence".
Stuck in England, without influence or respect, Hayek had only his idea to console him; an
idea so grand it would one day dissolve the ground beneath the feet of Keynes and every other intellectual.
Left to its own devices, the price system functions as a kind of mind. And not just any mind, but
an omniscient one: the market computes what individuals cannot grasp. Reaching out to him as an intellectual
comrade-in-arms, the American journalist Walter Lippmann wrote to Hayek, saying: "No human mind has
ever understood the whole scheme of a society At best a mind can understand its own version of
the scheme, something much thinner, which bears to reality some such relation as a silhouette to
a man."
It is a grand epistemological claim – that the market is a way of knowing, one that radically
exceeds the capacity of any individual mind. Such a market is less a human contrivance, to be manipulated
like any other, than a force to be studied and placated. Economics ceases to be a technique – as
Keynes believed it to be – for achieving desirable social ends, such as growth or stable money.
The only social end is the maintenance of the market itself. In its omniscience, the market constitutes
the only legitimate form of knowledge, next to which all other modes of reflection are partial, in
both senses of the word: they comprehend only a fragment of a whole and they plead on behalf of a
special interest. Individually, our values are personal ones, or mere opinions; collectively, the
market converts them into prices, or objective facts.
... ... ...
The more Hayek's idea expands, the more reactionary it gets, the more it hides behind its pretence
of scientific neutrality – and the more it allows economics to link up with the major intellectual
trend of the west since the 17th century. The rise of modern science generated a problem: if the
world is universally obedient to natural laws, what does it mean to be human? Is a human being simply
an object in the world, like any other? There appears to be no way to assimilate the subjective,
interior human experience into nature as science conceives it – as something objective whose rules
we discover by observation.
... ... ...
More than anyone, even Hayek himself, it was the great postwar Chicago economist Milton Friedman
who helped convert governments and politicians to the power of Hayek's Big Idea. But first he broke
with two centuries of precedent and declared that economics is "in principle independent of any particular
ethical position or normative judgments" and is "an 'objective' science, in precisely the same sense
as any of the physical sciences". Values of the old, mental, normative kind were defective, they
were "differences about which men can ultimately only fight". There is the market, in other words,
and there is relativism.
Markets may be human facsimiles of natural systems, and like the universe itself, they may be
authorless and valueless. But the application of Hayek's Big Idea to every aspect of our lives negates
what is most distinctive about us. That is, it assigns what is most human about human beings – our
minds and our volition – to algorithms and markets, leaving us to mimic, zombie-like, the shrunken
idealisations of economic models. Supersizing Hayek's idea and radically upgrading the price system
into a kind of social omniscience means radically downgrading the importance of our individual capacity
to reason – our ability to provide and evaluate justifications for our actions and beliefs.
As a result, the public sphere – the space where we offer up reasons, and contest the reasons
of others – ceases to be a space for deliberation, and becomes a market in clicks, likes and retweets.
The internet is personal preference magnified by algorithm; a pseudo-public space that echoes the
voice already inside our head. Rather than a space of debate in which we make our way, as a society,
toward consensus, now there is a mutual-affirmation apparatus banally referred to as a "marketplace
of ideas". What looks like something public and lucid is only an extension of our own pre-existing
opinions, prejudices and beliefs, while the authority of institutions and experts has been displaced
by the aggregative logic of big data. When we access the world through a search engine, its results
are ranked, as the founder of Google puts it, "recursively" – by an infinity of individual users
functioning as a market, continuously and in real time.
... ... ...
According to the logic of Hayek's Big Idea, these expressions of human subjectivity are meaningless
without ratification by the market – as Friedman said, they are nothing but relativism, each
as good as any other. When the only objective truth is determined by the market, all other values
have the status of mere opinions; everything else is relativist hot air. But Friedman's "relativism"
is a charge that can be thrown at any claim based on human reason. It is a nonsense insult, as all
humanistic pursuits are "relative" in a way the sciences are not. They are relative to the (private)
condition of having a mind, and the (public) need to reason and understand even when we can't expect
scientific proof. When our debates are no longer resolved by deliberation over reasons, then the
whimsies of power will determine the outcome.
This is where the triumph of neoliberalism meets the political nightmare we are living through
now. "You had one job," the old joke goes, and Hayek's grand project, as originally conceived in
30s and 40s, was explicitly designed to prevent a backslide into political chaos and fascism. But
the Big Idea was always this abomination waiting to happen. It was, from the beginning, pregnant
with the thing it was said to protect against. Society reconceived as a giant market leads to
a public life lost to bickering over mere opinions; until the public turns, finally, in frustration
to a strongman as a last resort for solving its otherwise intractable problems.
... ... ...
What began as a new form of intellectual authority, rooted in a devoutly apolitical worldview,
nudged easily into an ultra-reactionary politics. What can't be quantified must not be real,
says the economist, and how do you measure the benefits of the core faiths of the enlightenment –
namely, critical reasoning, personal autonomy and democratic self-government? When we abandoned,
for its embarrassing residue of subjectivity, reason as a form of truth, and made science the sole
arbiter of both the real and the true, we created a void that pseudo-science was happy to fill.
"... By Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates' Union of Belgium ..."
"... Every totalitarianism starts as distortion of language, as in the novel by George Orwell. Neoliberalism has its Newspeak and strategies of communication that enable it to deform reality. In this spirit, every budgetary cut is represented as an instance of modernization of the sectors concerned. If some of the most deprived are no longer reimbursed for medical expenses and so stop visiting the dentist, this is modernization of social security in action! ..."
By Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates' Union of Belgium
The time for rhetorical reservations is over. Things have to be called by their name to make it
possible for a co-ordinated democratic reaction to be initiated, above all in the public services.
Liberalism was a doctrine derived from the philosophy of Enlightenment, at once political and
economic, which aimed at imposing on the state the necessary distance for ensuring respect for liberties
and the coming of democratic emancipation. It was the motor for the arrival, and the continuing progress,
of Western democracies.
Neoliberalism is a form of economism in our day that strikes at every moment at every sector of
our community. It is a form of extremism.
Fascism may be defined as the subordination of every part of the State to a totalitarian and nihilistic
ideology.
I argue that neoliberalism is a species of fascism because the economy has brought under subjection
not only the government of democratic countries but also every aspect of our thought.
The state is now at the disposal of the economy and of finance, which treat it as a subordinate
and lord over it to an extent that puts the common good in jeopardy.
The austerity that is demanded by the financial milieu has become a supreme value, replacing politics.
Saving money precludes pursuing any other public objective. It is reaching the point where claims
are being made that the principle of budgetary orthodoxy should be included in state constitutions.
A mockery is being made of the notion of public service.
The nihilism that results from this makes possible the dismissal of universalism and the most
evident humanistic values: solidarity, fraternity, integration and respect for all and for differences.
There is no place any more even for classical economic theory: work was formerly an element in
demand, and to that extent there was respect for workers; international finance has made of it a
mere adjustment variable.
Every totalitarianism starts as distortion of language, as in the novel by George Orwell. Neoliberalism
has its Newspeak and strategies of communication that enable it to deform reality. In this spirit,
every budgetary cut is represented as an instance of modernization of the sectors concerned. If some
of the most deprived are no longer reimbursed for medical expenses and so stop visiting the dentist,
this is modernization of social security in action!
Abstraction predominates in public discussion so as to occlude the implications for human beings.
Thus, in relation to migrants, it is imperative that the need for hosting them does not lead to
public appeals that our finances could not accommodate. Is it In the same way that other individuals
qualify for assistance out of considerations of national solidarity?
The cult of evaluation
Social Darwinism predominates, assigning the most stringent performance requirements to everyone
and everything: to be weak is to fail. The foundations of our culture are overturned: every humanist
premise is disqualified or demonetized because neoliberalism has the monopoly of rationality and
realism. Margaret Thatcher said it in 1985: "There is no alternative." Everything else is utopianism,
unreason and regression. The virtue of debate and conflicting perspectives are discredited because
history is ruled by necessity.
This subculture harbours an existential threat of its own: shortcomings of performance condemn
one to disappearance while at the same time everyone is charged with inefficiency and obliged to
justify everything. Trust is broken. Evaluation reigns, and with it the bureaucracy which imposes
definition and research of a plethora of targets, and indicators with which one must comply. Creativity
and the critical spirit are stifled by management. And everyone is beating his breast about the wastage
and inertia of which he is guilty.
The neglect of justice
The neoliberal ideology generates a normativity that competes with the laws of parliament. The
democratic power of law is compromised. Given that they represent a concrete embodiment of liberty
and emancipation, and given the potential to prevent abuse that they impose, laws and procedures
have begun to look like obstacles.
The power of the judiciary, which has the ability to oppose the will of the ruling circles, must
also be checkmated. The Belgian judicial system is in any case underfunded. In 2015 it came last
in a European ranking that included all states located between the Atlantic and the Urals. In two
years the government has managed to take away the independence given to it under the Constitution
so that it can play the counterbalancing role citizens expect of it. The aim of this undertaking
is clearly that there should no longer be justice in Belgium.
A caste above the Many
But the dominant class doesn't prescribe for itself the same medicine it wants to see ordinary
citizens taking: well-ordered austerity begins with others. The economist Thomas Piketty has perfectly
described this in his study of inequality and capitalism in the twenty-first century (French edition,
Seuil, 2013).
In spite of the crisis of 2008 and the hand-wringing that followed, nothing was done to police
the financial community and submit them to the requirements of the common good. Who paid? Ordinary
people, you and me.
And while the Belgian State consented to 7 billion-euro ten-year tax breaks for multinationals,
ordinary litigants have seen surcharges imposed on access to justice (increased court fees, 21% taxation
on legal fees). From now on, to obtain redress the victims of injustice are going to have to be rich.
All this in a state where the number of public representatives breaks all international records.
In this particular area, no evaluation and no costs studies are reporting profit. One example: thirty
years after the introduction of the federal system, the provincial institutions survive. Nobody can
say what purpose they serve. Streamlining and the managerial ideology have conveniently stopped at
the gates of the political world.
Terrorism, this other nihilism that exposes our weakness in affirming our values, is likely to
aggravate the process by soon making it possible for all violations of our liberties, all violations
of our rights, to circumvent the powerless qualified judges, further reducing social protection for
the poor, who will be sacrificed to "the security ideal".
Salvation in commitment
These developments certainly threaten the foundations of our democracy, but do they condemn us
to discouragement and despair?
Certainly not. 500 years ago, at the height of the defeats that brought down most Italian states
with the imposition of foreign occupation for more than three centuries, Niccolo Machiavelli urged
virtuous men to defy fate and stand up against the adversity of the times, to prefer action and daring
to caution. The more tragic the situation, the more it necessitates action and the refusal to "give
up" (The Prince, Chapters XXV and XXVI).
This is a teaching that is clearly required today. The determination of citizens attached to the
radical of democratic values is an invaluable resource which has not yet revealed, at least in Belgium,
its driving potential and power to change what is presented as inevitable. Through social networking
and the power of the written word, everyone can now become involved, particularly when it comes to
public services, universities, the student world, the judiciary and the Bar, in bringing the common
good and social justice into the heart of public debate and the administration of the state and the
community.
Neoliberalism is a species of fascism. It must be fought and humanism fully restored.
"... So we have two problems now. One like the author points out, there is no coherent alternative from the left ..."
"... since is so diffuse a target it becomes a boogey man rather than actual target to be loathed. ..."
"... one area where neo-liberalism is dominant is that of 'welfare reform', a key component of the ideology, In this sphere the lack of interest and action by the left, civil society, etc, has been shameful, I can recall here in the UK that at one weekend during the New Labour reign at a Labour Party Conference 60,000 people protested anti-war issues while only about 80 were there for the Monday event against N/L's nascent Welfare Reform Bill which created the policy architecthure for all the coming changes.. ..."
"... New Labour was a con trick. JC's version will, imho, reverse a lot of the damage done - that's if the Blairites will stop throwing their toys out the pram. ..."
"... neoliberalism is so wide spread that those that are actual neo-liberals don't even know they are. neoliberalism is core of The Conservatives and New Labour ..."
"... In the 20th century more people were killed by their own governments than in war. But to the left the real threat to people comes not from a concentration of power wielded by governments but of concentrations of wealth in private hands. ..."
"... This is pretty much the only reason why I still read the Guardian. Monbiot and the quick crossword. ..."
"... Monbiot is the best journalist the Guardian has, he can actually make a logical fact based argument unlike the majority of Guardian journalist. ..."
"... 'The Invisible Hand' is not an ideology or dogma. It's just a metaphor to describe those with problems grasping abstract concepts: when there are a large number of buyers and suppliers for a good, the 'market finds a price' which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the participants, their suppliers, customers etc.. ..."
"... You clearly haven't read Wealth of Nations. The only mention of an invisible hand is actually a warning against what we now call neoliberalism. Smith said that the wealthy wouldn't seek to enrich themselves to the detriment of their home communities, because of an innate home bias. Thus, as if by an invisible hand, England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality. ..."
"... Your understanding of the 'invisible hand' is a falsehood perpetuated by neoliberal think tanks like the Adam Smith institute (no endorsement or connection to the author, despite using his name). ..."
"... I read, cannot remember where, that with neo liberalism the implementation is all that matters, you do not need to see the results. I suppose because the followers believe when implemented it will work perfectly. I think it's supporters think it is magic and must work because they believe it does. ..."
"... Yes, a high priest of neo-liberalism, Lord Freud, was given only 13 weeks to investigate and reform key elements of the the UK's welfare system, it hasn't worked and Freud is now invisible. ..."
"... Failed neoliberalism and not restricting markets that do not benefit the majority are the cause and we stand on the brink of falling further should the Brexiter's have their way. If there's one thing the EU excels at it's legislating against the excesses of business and extremism. ..."
Part of the problem is that Neoliberalism isn't as clearly defined as communism. This also
means that anything bad that happens in society today can be hung on to neoliberalism whether
warranted or not. Zika causes microcephaly? another consequence of neoliberalism to be sure!
So we have two problems now. One like the author points out, there is no coherent alternative
from the left (interestingly the Canadian NDP party tried and your much beloved Naomi Klein
was part of a group who sabotaged the effort and produced a neo-stalinist proposal instead that
went nowhere) and second, since is so diffuse a target it becomes a boogey man rather than
actual target to be loathed.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty.
Are they though? Even ignoring trade subsidies, it's a bit difficult to compete in e.g. politics,
the media, the law and many other areas unless you have money behind you. It's more a self-perpetuating
protectionist oligarchy. And therefore as much neoliberalism as North Korea is communism.
Another incisive article by George, one area where neo-liberalism is dominant is that of 'welfare
reform', a key component of the ideology, In this sphere the lack of interest and action by the
left, civil society, etc, has been shameful, I can recall here in the UK that at one weekend during
the New Labour reign at a Labour Party Conference 60,000 people protested anti-war issues while
only about 80 were there for the Monday event against N/L's nascent Welfare Reform Bill which
created the policy architecthure for all the coming changes..
Now there are suicides, misery for milllions, etc, it was left to a few disability groups,
a few allies, Unite Community, UkUncut, etc to challenge the behemoth. The Left has a hierarchy
of oppression which often means it operates in a bubble aloof from wider concerns.
People have been set up for decades to respond offensively to some words like unions, unemployed,
sole parents, Greenies (environmentalists), female leaders, you name it, anyone they don't like.
There is white trash, bogans, bludgers like trained pets they repeat the mantra as soon as anyone
opposes them and people go against their best interests.
New Labour was a con trick. JC's version will, imho, reverse a lot of the damage done - that's
if the Blairites will stop throwing their toys out the pram.
neoliberalism is so wide spread that those that are actual neo-liberals don't even know they
are. neoliberalism is core of The Conservatives and New Labour , Lid Dem even Green Party
could be classed as neo-liberals, so the alternative is the communist party who are actually against
staying in the EU or the idiots on the the right like UKIP and so on.
We need common sense party instead of the terrible state of politics we have all over the Globe.
The rise in the far-left and the far-right the non-platform anti free speech left with their phobia
labels or the neanderthals of the far-right like rise of Golden Dawn and the anti-Muslim rhetoric
by Trump.
Greens are neo-liberals? Mate, we're left of labour even now. We believe economic growth is fundamentally
incompatible with a sustainable future, for example
(academic research beyond the faulty national statistics supports this), and the only way to tackle
this is a wholesale redistrbutive system. The poor would be hit hardest by radical cuts in consumption
and carbon limits. Enough to impoverish millions in this country alone. So we need to be redistributive
in a far more radical way than even corbyns labour would be.
Agreed, it feels like there's a HUGE gap in politics that simply isn't being filled at the moment.
The false starts for real 'multi-party' politics that were the Lib Dem gains, Green Party and
UKIP have all turned out to be more of the same, damp squibs or total mess.
People are sick of politics, they're sick of bizarre single-issue parties and they're sick
of even the language of politics. Such opportunity and yet nothing is appearing.
Depends on which Greens. The German Greens, for instance, after some initial party, are now just
another corporate-friendly party that will compromise with anyone and anything.
Good article apart from the schoolboy error of characterizing the USSR as Communist. No advanced
Communist State has yet existed. For clarification of the theory, try reading Etienne Balibar's
On the Dictatorship of the Proletariat
Yes, Lenin's attempt at implementing the abstract theories of Marx (he believed he found a way
to short circuit the stages of socioevolution by skipping the Capitalist phase by jumping from
Feudalism.to Socialism - the goal of the USSR.
The people were the eggs in the theoretical omlet that was made.
The fact that so many were brutally murdered in the pursuit of and ends propagandized as 'liberation'
can never be a allowed to be forgotten.
The next time will not be different, nor the time after that or the one after that.
Well said.
But I think we are too far in it and cant see any opposition for this.
Big corpos will try to keep status quo or even push harder their own agenda. They have easy job
as they only have to buy (already done this) few politicians.
We haven't failed to come up with an alternative- we've been shouting it at you. Its name is socialism.
Thankfully we have Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn et al to represent our cause yet still it falls
on deaf ears with the press and the political establishment.
In the 20th century more people were killed by their own governments than in war. But to the
left the real threat to people comes not from a concentration of power wielded by governments
but of concentrations of wealth in private hands.
The problem is that concentration of wealth leads to the buying of government power.
It's not simple government bad, wealth good or indifferent. It's the wealthy using said wealth
to buy government power to further enrich the wealthy.
Government is just a tool, who drives it matters.
In addition to neoliberalism being adopted by the Democrats and Labour, another distinct ideology
has the traditional parties of the left tied in knots.
One YouTuber has called it 'Neoprogressivism' - the creed underpinning identity politics.
Above Monbiot describes how neoliberalism was in large part born as Hayek's alternative to
the early twentieth century nationalism/communism clash; worryingly it seems a century later our
politics is again hamstrung by two pernicious ideologies as the world blindly races towards another
disaster.
Whereas neoliberalism is now widely recognised and eviscerated, light is just starting to be
shone on 'Neoprogressivism'. I recommend the YouTube video of this title for an account of the
second 'rock' around which contemporary politics navigates.
'The Invisible Hand' is not an ideology or dogma. It's just a metaphor to describe those with
problems grasping abstract concepts: when there are a large number of buyers and suppliers for
a good, the 'market finds a price' which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the
participants, their suppliers, customers etc..
The Socialists, who have difficulty grasping this reality, want to 'fix' the price, which abnegates
the collective intelligence of the market participants, and causes severe problems.
Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.
'The Invisible Hand' is... a metaphor to describe those with problems grasping abstract
concepts: when there are a large number of buyers and suppliers for a good, the 'market finds
a price' which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the participants
You clearly haven't read Wealth of Nations. The only mention of an invisible hand is actually
a warning against what we now call neoliberalism. Smith said that the wealthy wouldn't seek to
enrich themselves to the detriment of their home communities, because of an innate home bias.
Thus, as if by an invisible hand, England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality.
Your understanding of the 'invisible hand' is a falsehood perpetuated by neoliberal think
tanks like the Adam Smith institute (no endorsement or connection to the author, despite using
his name).
'The Invisible Hand' is not dogma.
You definitely know a lot about dogma (and false dichotomies):
Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.
A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left,
the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to
design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century
All very well, but how? Did anyone hear the screams of rage when Sanders started threatening Hillary,
or when Corbyn trounced the Blairites? The dead hand of Bernays and Goebbels controls everything.
There is no alternative on offer by the left.
The socialist/trade union package is outmoded.
The failure to describe reality in a way that concurs with what ordinary people experience has
driven off much support and reduced credibility.
There is no credible model for investment and wealth creation.
The focus on social mobility upwards rather than on those who do not move has given UK leftism
a middle-class snobby air to it.
Those entering leftist politics have a very narrow range of life experience. The opposition to
rightist politics is cliched and outmoded.
There is a complete failure to challenge the emerging multi-polar plutocratic oligarchy which
runs the planet - the European left just seeks a comfy accommodation.
There is no attempt to develop a post-socialist, holistic worldview and ideology.
The trade union package, gave us meal breaks, holidays, sickness benefits, working hours restrictions,
as opposed to the right wing media agenda, that if you aint getting it nobody should, pour poison
on the unions, pour poison on the public sector, a fucking media led race to the bottom for workers,
and there were enough gullible (poor )mugs around to accept it. You can curse the middle class
socialists all you like, but without their support the labour movement would never have got off
the ground.
During the industrial revolution, profitability and productivity were off the scale because the
workforce were just commodities, Unionisation instigated the idea that without the workforce,
your entrepreneurs can't do anything on their own, Henry Ford wouldn't have become a millionaire
without the help of his workforce. 'Poorest performing structures' Guess what! some of us are
human beings not auto- matrons. I hope you dine well on sterling and dollars, cause they're not
the most important things in life.
What if the highest possible taxes, zero avoidance / evasion and high employment still equals
deficits and increasing national debt ?
The paragraph written above neatly describes the post WW2 years, where the UK was pretty much
in perpetual surplus. High employment does not equate to national debt/deficit. Quite the opposite,
the more people in gainful employment the better. Increasing unemployment, driving wages down
while simultaneously increasing the cost of living is a recipe for complete economic failure.
This whole economics gig is piss easy, when the general mass of people have cash to spare they
spend it, economy thrives. Hoard the cash into the hands of a minority and starve the masses of
cash, economy dies. It really is that simple.
Public deficits exist to match the private surplus created by the rich enriching themselves. To
get rid of the deficit therefore we need to get rid of the private wealth of the rich through
financial repression and taxation
I read, cannot remember where, that with neo liberalism the implementation is all that matters,
you do not need to see the results. I suppose because the followers believe when implemented it
will work perfectly. I think it's supporters think it is magic and must work because they believe
it does.
Yes, a high priest of neo-liberalism, Lord Freud, was given only 13 weeks to investigate and
reform key elements of the the UK's welfare system, it hasn't worked and Freud is now invisible.
Hopeful this is the start for change through identifying issues and avoiding pitfalls.
Failed neoliberalism and not restricting markets that do not benefit the majority are the
cause and we stand on the brink of falling further should the Brexiter's have their way. If there's
one thing the EU excels at it's legislating against the excesses of business and extremism.
I think Wendy Brown can he considered as a person who advanced Professor Wolin ideas to a new level -- Her her new book Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution (Zone Books, 2015)
is a brilliant contribution to the field.
Notable quotes:
"... I treat neoliberalism as a governing rationality through which everything is "economized" and in a very specific way: human beings become market actors and nothing but, every field of activity is seen as a market, and every entity (whether public or private, whether person, business, or state) is governed as a firm. Importantly, this is not simply a matter of extending commodification and monetization everywhere-that's the old Marxist depiction of capital's transformation of everyday life. Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as learning, dating, or exercising-in market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs them with market techniques and practices. Above all, it casts people as human capital who must constantly tend to their own present and future value. ..."
"... The most common criticisms of neoliberalism, regarded solely as economic policy rather than as the broader phenomenon of a governing rationality, are that it generates and legitimates extreme inequalities of wealth and life conditions; that it leads to increasingly precarious and disposable populations; that it produces an unprecedented intimacy between capital (especially finance capital) and states, and thus permits domination of political life by capital; that it generates crass and even unethical commercialization of things rightly protected from markets, for example, babies, human organs, or endangered species or wilderness; that it privatizes public goods and thus eliminates shared and egalitarian access to them; and that it subjects states, societies, and individuals to the volatility and havoc of unregulated financial markets. ..."
"... First, for neoliberals, humans are only and everywhere homo economicus . This was not so for classical economists, where we were market creatures in the economy, but not in civic, familial, political, religious, or ethical life. Second, neoliberal homo economicus today takes shape as value-enhancing human capital, not as a creature of exchange, production, or even interest. This is markedly different from the subject drawn by Smith, Bentham, Marx, Polanyi, or even Gary Becker. ..."
"... with the neoliberal revolution that homo politicus is finally vanquished as a fundamental feature of being human and of democracy. Democracy requires that citizens be modestly oriented toward self-rule, not simply value enhancement, and that we understand our freedom as resting in such self-rule, not simply in market conduct. When this dimension of being human is extinguished, it takes with it the necessary energies, practices, and culture of democracy, as well as its very intelligibility. ..."
"... For most Marxists, neoliberalism emerges in the 1970s in response to capitalism's falling rate of profit; the shift of global economic gravity to OPEC, Asia, and other sites outside the West; and the dilution of class power generated by unions, redistributive welfare states, large and lazy corporations, and the expectations generated by educated democracies. From this perspective, neoliberalism is simply capitalism on steroids: a state and IMF-backed consolidation of class power aimed at releasing capital from regulatory and national constraints, and defanging all forms of popular solidarities, especially labor. ..."
"... The grains of truth in this analysis don't get at the fundamental transformation of social, cultural, and individual life brought about by neoliberal reason. They don't get at the ways that public institutions and services have not merely been outsourced but thoroughly recast as private goods for individual investment or consumption. And they don't get at the wholesale remaking of workplaces, schools, social life, and individuals. For that story, one has to track the dissemination of neoliberal economization through neoliberalism as a governing form of reason, not just a power grab by capital. There are many vehicles of this dissemination-law, culture, and above all, the novel political-administrative form we have come to call governance. It is through governance practices that business models and metrics come to irrigate every crevice of society, circulating from investment banks to schools, from corporations to universities, from public agencies to the individual. It is through the replacement of democratic terms of law, participation, and justice with idioms of benchmarks, objectives, and buy-ins that governance dismantles democratic life while appearing only to instill it with "best practices." ..."
"... Progressives generally disparage Citizens United for having flooded the American electoral process with corporate money on the basis of tortured First Amendment reasoning that treats corporations as persons. However, a careful reading of the majority decision also reveals precisely the thoroughgoing economization of the terms and practices of democracy we have been talking about. In the majority opinion, electoral campaigns are cast as "political marketplaces," just as ideas are cast as freely circulating in a market where the only potential interference arises from restrictions on producers and consumers of ideas-who may speak and who may listen or judge. Thus, Justice Kennedy's insistence on the fundamental neoliberal principle that these marketplaces should be unregulated paves the way for overturning a century of campaign finance law aimed at modestly restricting the power of money in politics. Moreover, in the decision, political speech itself is rendered as a kind of capital right, functioning largely to advance the position of its bearer, whether that bearer is human capital, corporate capital, or finance capital. This understanding of political speech replaces the idea of democratic political speech as a vital (if potentially monopolizable and corruptible) medium for public deliberation and persuasion. ..."
"... My point was that democracy is really reduced to a whisper in the Euro-Atlantic nations today. Even Alan Greenspan says that elections don't much matter much because, "thanks to globalization . . . the world is governed by market forces," not elected representatives. ..."
Booked is a monthly series of Q&As with authors by Dissent contributing editor Timothy Shenk.
For this interview, he spoke with Wendy Brown about her new book Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's
Stealth Revolution (Zone Books, 2015).
Timothy Shenk: You note early in Undoing the Demos that while references
to "neoliberalism" have become routine, especially on the left, the word itself "is a loose and shifting
signifier." What is your definition of neoliberalism?
Wendy Brown: In this book,
I treat neoliberalism as a governing rationality through which everything is "economized" and
in a very specific way: human beings become market actors and nothing but, every field of activity
is seen as a market, and every entity (whether public or private, whether person, business, or state)
is governed as a firm. Importantly, this is not simply a matter of extending commodification and
monetization everywhere-that's the old Marxist depiction of capital's transformation of everyday
life. Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as learning, dating, or exercising-in
market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs them with market techniques and practices.
Above all, it casts people as human capital who must constantly tend to their own present and future
value.
Moreover, because neoliberalism came of age with (and abetted) financialization, the form of marketization
at stake does not always concern products or commodities, let alone their exchange. Today, market
actors-from individuals to firms, universities to states, restaurants to magazines-are more often
concerned with their speculatively determined value, their ratings and rankings that shape future
value, than with immediate profit. All are tasked with enhancing present and future value through
self-investments that in turn attract investors. Financialized market conduct entails increasing
or maintaining one's ratings, whether through blog hits, retweets, Yelp stars, college rankings,
or Moody's bond ratings.
Shenk: Discussions about neoliberalism often treat it as an economic doctrine,
which also means that they concentrate on its economic ramifications. You shift the focus to politics,
where, you argue, neoliberalism has "inaugurate[d] democracy's conceptual unmooring and substantive
disembowelment." Why does neoliberalism pose such a threat to democracy?
Brown:The most common criticisms of neoliberalism, regarded solely as economic
policy rather than as the broader phenomenon of a governing rationality, are that it generates and
legitimates extreme inequalities of wealth and life conditions; that it leads to increasingly precarious
and disposable populations; that it produces an unprecedented intimacy between capital (especially
finance capital) and states, and thus permits domination of political life by capital; that it generates
crass and even unethical commercialization of things rightly protected from markets, for example,
babies, human organs, or endangered species or wilderness; that it privatizes public goods and thus
eliminates shared and egalitarian access to them; and that it subjects states, societies, and individuals
to the volatility and havoc of unregulated financial markets.
Each of these is an important and objectionable effect of neoliberal economic policy. But neoliberalism
also does profound damage to democratic practices, cultures, institutions, and imaginaries. Here's
where thinking about neoliberalism as a governing rationality is important: this rationality switches
the meaning of democratic values from a political to an economic register. Liberty is disconnected
from either political participation or existential freedom, and is reduced to market freedom unimpeded
by regulation or any other form of government restriction. Equality as a matter of legal standing
and of participation in shared rule is replaced with the idea of an equal right to compete in a world
where there are always winners and losers.
The promise of democracy depends upon concrete institutions and practices, but also on an understanding
of democracy as the specifically political reach by the people to hold and direct powers that otherwise
dominate us. Once the economization of democracy's terms and elements is enacted in law, culture,
and society, popular sovereignty becomes flatly incoherent. In markets, the good is generated by
individual activity, not by shared political deliberation and rule. And, where there are only individual
capitals and marketplaces, the demos, the people, do not exist.
Shenk: It's easy to depict neoliberalism as a natural extension of liberalism,
but you insist that the relationship is much more complicated than that. You illustrate the broad
transformation by examining the intellectual history of homo economicus, a term whose meaning
you claim has shifted radically since the time of Adam Smith. How has "economic man" changed in the
last century?
Brown: You're right, the relationship is quite complicated, especially if one
accepts Foucault's notion that neoliberalism is a "reprogramming of liberalism" rather than only
a transformation of capitalism. Here are the simplest things we might say about the morphing of
homo economicus. Two hundred years ago, this creature pursued its interest through what Adam
Smith termed "truck, barter, and exchange." A generation later, Jeremy Bentham gives us the utility
maximizer, calculating everything according to maximizing pleasure, minimizing pain-cost/benefit.
Thirty years ago, at the dawn of the neoliberal era, we get human capital that entrepreneurializes
itself at every turn. Today, homo economicus has been significantly reshaped as financialized
human capital, seeking to enhance its value in every domain of life.
In contrast with classical economic liberalism, then, the contemporary figure of homo economicus
is distinctive in at least two ways. First, for neoliberals, humans are only and everywhere
homo economicus. This was not so for classical economists, where we were market creatures
in the economy, but not in civic, familial, political, religious, or ethical life. Second, neoliberal
homo economicus today takes shape as value-enhancing human capital, not as a creature of exchange,
production, or even interest. This is markedly different from the subject drawn by Smith, Bentham,
Marx, Polanyi, or even Gary Becker.
Shenk: You mentioned Foucault just now, and you devote two chapters to him in
the book, where you also call Birth of Biopolitics-the volume that emerged from lectures he
gave in the late 1970s on neoliberalism-a "remarkable" work of "extraordinary prescience." But he
also comes in for a hefty amount of criticism. What do you think Foucault got right, and what did
he miss?
Brown: What's amazing about Foucault's lectures is that he grasped neoliberalism
as Europe's present and future in the 1970s-before Reagan or Thatcher were elected, and before the
Washington Consensus. What's also extraordinary is his appreciation of neoliberalism as a form of
political reason and governing that reaches from the state to the soul, and not simply as economic
policy. Then there's simply the fact that Foucault is a fearless, deep, and profoundly original political-historical
thinker, who probes archives or a single utterance with equal brilliance and imagination. These features
make Foucault's lectures illuminating despite the fact that he is mostly discussing neoliberal ideas,
not neoliberalism as it has unfolded over the past three decades.
But there are some distinctive gaps in Foucault's account of what neoliberalism is and does resulting
from his allergies to Marxism at the point in his life when he's giving these lectures. For Foucault,
as I said, neoliberalism is fundamentally a "reprogramming of liberalism," not of capitalism, and
there is astonishingly little discussion of the latter. He is also largely indifferent to my own
central concern, democracy, which was true across his work. So one takes the useful insights and
then builds on them. It would be silly to be an "orthodox Foucauldian" on the subject of neoliberalism,
or for that matter, on any subject.
Shenk: What about the politics of Foucault's analysis? There's been a lot of
debate recently about whether he was so attuned to neoliberalism's rise because his own work was
compatible with neoliberalism. What's your position on this?
Brown: Well, on the one hand, Foucault's degree of sympathy with what he was
studying is not, for me, particularly important. The usefulness of certain historical accounts and
theoretical formulations turns on their capacities for illumination, not on the theorist's political
affinities. (No one who mines the history of political theory to think about our present can draw
only from theorists whose affinities line up with contemporary progressive values. None would survive
the test, and that's also a poor approach to learning from great minds.) Moreover, he didn't and
couldn't have anticipated the neoliberal formations we are grappling with today. On the other hand,
the idea that Foucault was deeply attracted to neoliberalism for its "emancipatory" dimensions strikes
me as incompatible with a careful reading of his lectures where, among other things, he considers
neoliberalism as a novel form of governing human beings that requires the individual, as human capital,
to become a "portfolio of enterprises" and that makes us into both "producers and consumers of freedom."
Foucault's signature theoretical move is to grasp human beings as produced by governing powers, not
"freed" by them.
Shenk:Homo economicus is a fairly common term; less common is the notion
you oppose it to, homo politicus. What's the genealogy of homo politicus, and how is
it related to its more famous counterpart?
Brown: To understand what neoliberalism is doing to democracy, we have to return
to the point that, until recently, human beings in the West have always been figured as more than
homo economicus. There have always been other dimensions of us imagined and cultivated in
political, cultural, religious, or familial life. One of these figurations, which we might call
homo politicus, featured prominently in ancient Athens, Roman republicanism, and even early
liberalism. But it has also appeared in modern democratic upheavals ranging from the French Revolution
to the civil rights movement. Homo politicus is inconstant in form and content, just as
homo economicus is, and certainly liberal democracy features an anemic version compared to, say,
Aristotle's account of humans as realizing our distinctively human capacities through sharing rule
in the polis. But it is only with the neoliberal revolution that homo politicus is finally
vanquished as a fundamental feature of being human and of democracy. Democracy requires that citizens
be modestly oriented toward self-rule, not simply value enhancement, and that we understand our freedom
as resting in such self-rule, not simply in market conduct. When this dimension of being human is
extinguished, it takes with it the necessary energies, practices, and culture of democracy, as well
as its very intelligibility.
Shenk: Some of the major interpreters of neoliberalism, especially those who
approach it from a Marxist perspective, depict it as a straightforward byproduct of 1970s economic
turmoil and backlash against welfare states led by a revanchist capitalist elite. It seems like you're
not satisfied with that interpretation. This is a big question, but do you have an alternative explanation
for how we got here?
Brown: That's too long and complicated a story to rehearse here but I can say
this. For most Marxists, neoliberalism emerges in the 1970s in response to capitalism's falling
rate of profit; the shift of global economic gravity to OPEC, Asia, and other sites outside the West;
and the dilution of class power generated by unions, redistributive welfare states, large and lazy
corporations, and the expectations generated by educated democracies. From this perspective, neoliberalism
is simply capitalism on steroids: a state and IMF-backed consolidation of class power aimed at releasing
capital from regulatory and national constraints, and defanging all forms of popular solidarities,
especially labor.
The grains of truth in this analysis don't get at the fundamental transformation of social,
cultural, and individual life brought about by neoliberal reason. They don't get at the ways that
public institutions and services have not merely been outsourced but thoroughly recast as private
goods for individual investment or consumption. And they don't get at the wholesale remaking of workplaces,
schools, social life, and individuals. For that story, one has to track the dissemination of neoliberal
economization through neoliberalism as a governing form of reason, not just a power grab by capital.
There are many vehicles of this dissemination-law, culture, and above all, the novel political-administrative
form we have come to call governance. It is through governance practices that business models and
metrics come to irrigate every crevice of society, circulating from investment banks to schools,
from corporations to universities, from public agencies to the individual. It is through the replacement
of democratic terms of law, participation, and justice with idioms of benchmarks, objectives, and
buy-ins that governance dismantles democratic life while appearing only to instill it with "best
practices."
Shenk:Undoing the Demos covers a sizable amount of ground in just over
200 pages, but, as your discussion of governance just now indicates, you also spend a lot of time
with specific instances of neoliberalism in action. My favorite of these more focused studies is
your extended analysis of Citizens United. What does that case tell us about neoliberalism
more generally?
Brown:Progressives generally disparage Citizens United for having
flooded the American electoral process with corporate money on the basis of tortured First Amendment
reasoning that treats corporations as persons. However, a careful reading of the majority decision
also reveals precisely the thoroughgoing economization of the terms and practices of democracy we
have been talking about. In the majority opinion, electoral campaigns are cast as "political marketplaces,"
just as ideas are cast as freely circulating in a market where the only potential interference arises
from restrictions on producers and consumers of ideas-who may speak and who may listen or judge.
Thus, Justice Kennedy's insistence on the fundamental neoliberal principle that these marketplaces
should be unregulated paves the way for overturning a century of campaign finance law aimed at modestly
restricting the power of money in politics. Moreover, in the decision, political speech itself is
rendered as a kind of capital right, functioning largely to advance the position of its bearer, whether
that bearer is human capital, corporate capital, or finance capital. This understanding of political
speech replaces the idea of democratic political speech as a vital (if potentially monopolizable
and corruptible) medium for public deliberation and persuasion.
Perhaps what is most significant about the Citizens United decision, then, is not that
corporations are rendered as persons, but that persons, let alone a people, do not appear as the
foundation of democracy, and a distinctly public sphere of debate and discussion do not appear as
democracy's vital venue. Instead, the decision presents speech as a capital right and political life
and elections as marketplaces.
Shenk: You're clear that democracy is an ideal that deserves defending, but you're
skeptical about actually existing democracy, which you describe as a system where "the common rage
of the common citizen has been glorified and exploited." And you worry that matters could get much
worse, with democracy as we know it giving way to "a polity in which the people are pawns of every
kind of modern power." Do you see a tension between your tributes to democratic ideals and your grim
assessment of its current state?
Brown: Democracy is always incomplete, always short of its promise, but the conditions
for cultivating it can be better or worse. My point was that democracy is really reduced to a
whisper in the Euro-Atlantic nations today. Even Alan Greenspan says that elections don't much matter
much because, "thanks to globalization . . . the world is governed by market forces," not elected
representatives. Voting has been declining for decades everywhere in the Western world; politicians
are generally mistrusted if not reviled (except for Varoufakis, of course!); and everything to do
with political life or government is widely considered either captured by capital, corrupt or burdensome
-- this hostility to the political itself is generated by neoliberal reason. Thus, today, the meaning
of democracy is pretty much reduced to personal liberty. Such liberty is not nothing, but could not
be further from the idea of rule by and for the people.
No discussion of corruption and how the power structure is utilized to promote the agenda of the
wealthiest people?
Robert Johnson on Oligarchy at Culture Project's IMPART 2012 Festival
Oligarchy now is audatioues. They don't really care if they are legitimate.
"Legitimate if you can, coerce if you have to, and accommodate if you must."
Robert Johnson serves as the Executive Director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
and a Senior Fellow and Director of the Global Finance Project for the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt
Institute in New York.
Previously, Johnson was a Managing Director at Soros Fund Management where he managed a global
currency, bond and equity portfolio specializing in emerging markets. Prior to working at Soros Fund
Management, he was a Managing Director of Bankers Trust Company managing a global currency fund.
Johnson served as Chief Economist of the US Senate Banking Committee under the leadership of Chairman
William Proxmire (D. Wisconsin) and of Chairman Pete Domenici (R. New Mexico).
Johnson received a Ph.D. and M.A. in Economics from Princeton University and a B.S. in both Electrical
Engineering and Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
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.
Outgoing US President Donald Trump has delivered his "parting gift" to the Moscow-led Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, with newly announced sanctions targeting a pipe-laying vessel and companies involved in the multinational project.
© Giuffre v. Maxwell, Southern District of New York
Short URL | Email Article | Comment | Contact | Print | A A
© Getty Images / David McNew / Staff 203 Follow RT on
Joe Biden recently suggested that stories circulating about his son Hunter were part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Whatever he has or hasn't been up to, blaming another nation is unwise and won't go down well with voters.
Lauren Witzke @LaurenWitzkeDE
US Senate candidate, DE BIG BREAKING NEWS: "Sources close to and with deep knowledge of the investigation, have informed me that Chris Coons' DAUGHTER in addition to seven other underage girls are also featured on [Hunter Biden's] laptop."
1:22 PM · Oct 24, 2020 5.2K 4.4K people are T
17
Robert Bridge
FILE PHOTO: Hunter Biden introduces his father Vice President Joe Biden during the World Food Program USA's 2016 McGovern-Dole Leadership Award Ceremony at the Organization of American States on April 12, 2016 in Washington, DC. © Getty Images / Kris Connor/WireImage 270 Follow RT on
Ghislaine Maxwell appears via video link during her arraignment hearing in Manhattan Federal Court in New York. © Reuters / Jane Rosenberg 111 16 Follow RT on
(@DrJillStein) January 5, 2020
